框架:现实世界证据评估框架,以减轻有效性/有效性的证据不确定性——监管和卫生技术评估决策的评估。

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Gianmario Candore, Claire Martin, Mack J Mills, Annabel Suter, Anna Lloyd, Danitza Chavez-Montoya, Diego Civitelli, Birgit Wolf, Paul Bolot, Juergen Wasem, Montse Soriano Gabarró, Panos G Kanavos, Mark Sculpher
{"title":"框架:现实世界证据评估框架,以减轻有效性/有效性的证据不确定性——监管和卫生技术评估决策的评估。","authors":"Gianmario Candore, Claire Martin, Mack J Mills, Annabel Suter, Anna Lloyd, Danitza Chavez-Montoya, Diego Civitelli, Birgit Wolf, Paul Bolot, Juergen Wasem, Montse Soriano Gabarró, Panos G Kanavos, Mark Sculpher","doi":"10.1002/cpt.3713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Real-World Evidence (RWE) is increasingly used in submissions to regulatory agencies and health technology assessment bodies (HTAbs) to support the efficacy and effectiveness of new medicines and indications. However, there is limited information on the RWE characteristics that impact its role in approval and reimbursement decisions. To investigate these characteristics, we developed FRAME: a Framework for Real-world evidence Assessment to Mitigate Evidence uncertainties for efficacy/effectiveness. We compiled a list of medicinal product indications where RWE supported the efficacy of interventional trials or assessed effectiveness in observational settings. FRAME was applied to a prioritized subset of these submissions to authorities from North America, Europe, and Australia. For each product indication, we extracted information on characteristics describing the submission, clinical context, strength of evidence, and process factors from publicly available assessment reports. Of the 87 identified medicinal product indications, 15 were prioritized, covering 68 submissions and 76 RWE studies across 11 authorities in scope. Four main results emerged: (i) low granularity within assessment reports on the analyzed variables, limiting the learnings from analyzing them; (ii) variability in how RWE was assessed within and across regulatory agencies and HTAbs; (iii) a positive association between the proportion of positive comments from authorities on RWE studies and their impact on decision making. Particularly, a large effect size was consistently noted when RWE was considered primary evidence; and (iv) limited use of advanced RWE study designs. These findings support five recommendations to enhance shared learning on RWE, clarify its evidentiary value, and generate evidence to better support authorities' decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":153,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"FRAME: Framework for Real-World Evidence Assessment to Mitigate Evidence Uncertainties for Efficacy/Effectiveness - An Evaluation of Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Decision Making.\",\"authors\":\"Gianmario Candore, Claire Martin, Mack J Mills, Annabel Suter, Anna Lloyd, Danitza Chavez-Montoya, Diego Civitelli, Birgit Wolf, Paul Bolot, Juergen Wasem, Montse Soriano Gabarró, Panos G Kanavos, Mark Sculpher\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cpt.3713\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Real-World Evidence (RWE) is increasingly used in submissions to regulatory agencies and health technology assessment bodies (HTAbs) to support the efficacy and effectiveness of new medicines and indications. However, there is limited information on the RWE characteristics that impact its role in approval and reimbursement decisions. To investigate these characteristics, we developed FRAME: a Framework for Real-world evidence Assessment to Mitigate Evidence uncertainties for efficacy/effectiveness. We compiled a list of medicinal product indications where RWE supported the efficacy of interventional trials or assessed effectiveness in observational settings. FRAME was applied to a prioritized subset of these submissions to authorities from North America, Europe, and Australia. For each product indication, we extracted information on characteristics describing the submission, clinical context, strength of evidence, and process factors from publicly available assessment reports. Of the 87 identified medicinal product indications, 15 were prioritized, covering 68 submissions and 76 RWE studies across 11 authorities in scope. Four main results emerged: (i) low granularity within assessment reports on the analyzed variables, limiting the learnings from analyzing them; (ii) variability in how RWE was assessed within and across regulatory agencies and HTAbs; (iii) a positive association between the proportion of positive comments from authorities on RWE studies and their impact on decision making. Particularly, a large effect size was consistently noted when RWE was considered primary evidence; and (iv) limited use of advanced RWE study designs. These findings support five recommendations to enhance shared learning on RWE, clarify its evidentiary value, and generate evidence to better support authorities' decision making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":153,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3713\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3713","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

真实世界证据(RWE)越来越多地用于提交给监管机构和卫生技术评估机构(htab),以支持新药和适应症的功效和有效性。然而,关于RWE在审批和报销决策中影响其作用的特征的信息有限。为了研究这些特征,我们开发了FRAME:一个真实世界证据评估框架,以减轻疗效/有效性的证据不确定性。我们编制了一份药品适应症清单,其中RWE支持介入性试验的有效性或在观察性环境中评估的有效性。FRAME应用于这些提交给北美、欧洲和澳大利亚当局的优先子集。对于每个产品适应症,我们从公开的评估报告中提取了描述提交、临床背景、证据强度和过程因素的特征信息。在已确定的87个药品适应症中,有15个被列为优先事项,涵盖范围内11个监管机构的68份申报和76项RWE研究。出现了四个主要结果:(i)所分析变量的评估报告粒度低,限制了分析这些变量的学习;(ii)监管机构和htab内部和之间评估RWE的方式存在差异;(iii)当局对莱茵河畔研究的积极评论比例与其对决策的影响之间存在正相关关系。特别是,当RWE被认为是主要证据时,一个大的效应量一直被注意到;(iv)有限使用先进的RWE研究设计。这些发现支持了五项建议,以加强关于RWE的共享学习,阐明其证据价值,并产生证据以更好地支持当局的决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
FRAME: Framework for Real-World Evidence Assessment to Mitigate Evidence Uncertainties for Efficacy/Effectiveness - An Evaluation of Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Decision Making.

Real-World Evidence (RWE) is increasingly used in submissions to regulatory agencies and health technology assessment bodies (HTAbs) to support the efficacy and effectiveness of new medicines and indications. However, there is limited information on the RWE characteristics that impact its role in approval and reimbursement decisions. To investigate these characteristics, we developed FRAME: a Framework for Real-world evidence Assessment to Mitigate Evidence uncertainties for efficacy/effectiveness. We compiled a list of medicinal product indications where RWE supported the efficacy of interventional trials or assessed effectiveness in observational settings. FRAME was applied to a prioritized subset of these submissions to authorities from North America, Europe, and Australia. For each product indication, we extracted information on characteristics describing the submission, clinical context, strength of evidence, and process factors from publicly available assessment reports. Of the 87 identified medicinal product indications, 15 were prioritized, covering 68 submissions and 76 RWE studies across 11 authorities in scope. Four main results emerged: (i) low granularity within assessment reports on the analyzed variables, limiting the learnings from analyzing them; (ii) variability in how RWE was assessed within and across regulatory agencies and HTAbs; (iii) a positive association between the proportion of positive comments from authorities on RWE studies and their impact on decision making. Particularly, a large effect size was consistently noted when RWE was considered primary evidence; and (iv) limited use of advanced RWE study designs. These findings support five recommendations to enhance shared learning on RWE, clarify its evidentiary value, and generate evidence to better support authorities' decision making.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
7.50%
发文量
290
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (CPT) is the authoritative cross-disciplinary journal in experimental and clinical medicine devoted to publishing advances in the nature, action, efficacy, and evaluation of therapeutics. CPT welcomes original Articles in the emerging areas of translational, predictive and personalized medicine; new therapeutic modalities including gene and cell therapies; pharmacogenomics, proteomics and metabolomics; bioinformation and applied systems biology complementing areas of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, human investigation and clinical trials, pharmacovigilence, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacometrics, and population pharmacology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信