Search

Aim: Regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have increasingly published frameworks, guidelines, and recommendations for the use of real-world evidence (RWE) in healthcare decision-making. Variations in the scope and content of these documents, with updates running in parallel, may create challenges for their implementation especially during the market authorization and reimbursement phases of a medicine’s life cycle. This environmental scan aimed to comprehensively identify and summarize the guidance documents for RWE developed by most well-established regulatory and reimbursement agencies, as well as other organizations focused on healthcare decision-making, and present their similarities and differences. Methods: RWE guidance documents, including white papers from regulatory and HTA agencies, were reviewed in March 2024. Data on scope and recommendations from each body were extracted by two reviewers and similarities and differences were summarized across four topics: study planning, choosing fit-for-purpose data, study conduct, and reporting. Post-authorization or non-pharmacological guidance was excluded. Results: Forty-six documents were identified across multiple agencies; US FDA produced the most RWE-related guidance. All agencies addressed specific and often similar methodological issues related to study design, data fitness-for-purpose, reliability, and reproducibility, although inconsistency in terminologies on these topics was noted. Two HTA bodies (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and Canada’s Drug Agency) each centralized all related RWE guidance under a unified framework. RWE quality tools and checklists were not consistently named and some differences in preferences were noted. European Medicines Agency, NICE, Haute Autorit ´e de Sant´ e, and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care included specific recommendations on the use of analytical approaches to address RWE complexities and increase trust in its findings. Conclusion: Similarities in agencies’ expectations on RWE studies design, quality elements, and reporting will facilitate evidence generation strategy and activities for manufacturers facing multiple, including global, regulatory and reimbursement submissions and re-submissions. A strong preference by decision-making bodies for local real-world data generation may hinder opportunities for data sharing and outputs from international federated data networks. Closer collaboration between decision-making agencies towards a harmonized RWE roadmap, which can be centrally preserved in a living mode, will provide manufacturers and researchers clarity on minimum acceptance requirements and expectations, especially as novel methodologies for RWE generation are rapidly emerging.

Since late 2020, the Canadian Agency of Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) has been using a threshold of $50,000 (CAD) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for both oncology and non-oncology drugs. When used for oncology products, this threshold is hypothesized to have a higher impact on the time to access these drugs in Canada. We studied the impact of price reductions on time to engagement and negotiation with the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance for oncology drugs reviewed by CADTH between January 2020 and December 2022. Overall, 103 assessments reported data on price reductions recommended by CADTH to meet the cost–effectiveness threshold for reimbursement. Of these assessments, 57% (59/103) recommendations included a price reduction of greater than 70% off the list price. Eight percent (8/103) were not cost-effective even at a 100% price reduction. Of the 47 assessments that had a clear benefit, in 21 (45%) CADTH recommended a price reduction of at least 70%. The median time to price negotiation (not including time to engagement) for assessments that received at least 70% vs >70% price reduction was 2.6 vs 4.8 months. This study showed that there is a divergence between drug sponsor’s incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER) and CADTH revised ICER leading to a price reduction to meet the $50,000/QALY threshold. For the submissions with clear clinical benefit the median length of engagement (2.5 vs 3.3 months) and median length of negotiation (3.1 vs 3.6 months) were slightly shorter compared with the submissions where uncertainties were noted in the clinical benefit according to CADTH. This study shows that using a $50,000 per QALY threshold for oncology products potentially impacts timely access to life saving medications.

In this latest update we discuss the transportability of comparative effectiveness evidence across countries. We highlight results of a survey indicating that European HTA agencies are reluctant to accept real-world data from other countries, review recent benefit assessments indicating a potential softening of a requirement for the use of local real-world data in Germany, and outline a recent review presenting approaches that can correct for a lack of transportability.

Aim: Regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have increasingly published frameworks, guidelines, and recommendations for the use of real-world evidence (RWE) in healthcare decision-making. Variations in the scope and content of these documents, with updates running in parallel, may create challenges for their implementation especially during the market authorization and reimbursement phases of a medicine's life cycle. This environmental scan aimed to comprehensively identify and summarize the guidance documents for RWE developed by most well-established regulatory and reimbursement agencies, as well as other organizations focused on healthcare decision-making, and present their similarities and differences.  Methods: RWE guidance documents, including white papers from regulatory and HTA agencies, were reviewed in March 2024. Data on scope and recommendations from each body were extracted by two reviewers and similarities and differences were summarized across four topics: study planning, choosing fit-for-purpose data, study conduct, and reporting. Post-authorization or non-pharmacological guidance was excluded. Results: Forty-six documents were identified across multiple agencies; US FDA produced the most RWE-related guidance. All agencies addressed specific and often similar methodological issues related to study design, data fitness-for-purpose, reliability, and reproducibility, although inconsistency in terminologies on these topics was noted. Two HTA bodies (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and Canada's Drug Agency) each centralized all related RWE guidance under a unified framework. RWE quality tools and checklists were not consistently named and some differences in preferences were noted. European Medicines Agency, NICE, Haute Autorité de Santé, and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care included specific recommendations on the use of analytical approaches to address RWE complexities and increase trust in its findings. Conclusion: Similarities in agencies' expectations on RWE studies design, quality elements, and reporting will facilitate evidence generation strategy and activities for manufacturers facing multiple, including global, regulatory and reimbursement submissions and re-submissions. A strong preference by decision-making bodies for local real-world data generation may hinder opportunities for data sharing and outputs from international federated data networks. Closer collaboration between decision-making agencies towards a harmonized RWE roadmap, which can be centrally preserved in a living mode, will provide manufacturers and researchers clarity on minimum acceptance requirements and expectations, especially as novel methodologies for RWE generation are rapidly emerging.

Since late 2020, the Canadian Agency of Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) has been using a threshold of $50,000 (CAD) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for both oncology and non-oncology drugs. When used for oncology products, this threshold is hypothesized to have a higher impact on the time to access these drugs in Canada. We studied the impact of price reductions on time to engagement and negotiation with the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance for oncology drugs reviewed by CADTH between January 2020 and December 2022. Overall, 103 assessments reported data on price reductions recommended by CADTH to meet the cost-effectiveness threshold for reimbursement. Of these assessments, 57% (59/103) recommendations included a price reduction of greater than 70% off the list price. Eight percent (8/103) were not cost-effective even at a 100% price reduction. Of the 47 assessments that had a clear benefit, in 21 (45%) CADTH recommended a price reduction of at least 70%. The median time to price negotiation (not including time to engagement) for assessments that received at least 70% vs >70% price reduction was 2.6 vs 4.8 months. This study showed that there is a divergence between drug sponsor's incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and CADTH revised ICER leading to a price reduction to meet the $50,000/QALY threshold. For the submissions with clear clinical benefit the median length of engagement (2.5 vs 3.3 months) and median length of negotiation (3.1 vs 3.6 months) were slightly shorter compared with the submissions where uncertainties were noted in the clinical benefit according to CADTH. This study shows that using a $50,000 per QALY threshold for oncology products potentially impacts timely access to life saving medications.

In this latest update we discuss the transportability of comparative effectiveness evidence across countries. We highlight results of a survey indicating that European HTA agencies are reluctant to accept real-world data from other countries, review recent benefit assessments indicating a potential softening of a requirement for the use of local real-world data in Germany, and outline a recent review presenting approaches that can correct for a lack of transportability.

In this latest update we highlight a recent International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Practice Report on machine learning (ML) for health economics and outcomes research. We specifically discuss use cases of ML that offer opportunities in the generation of evidence using real-world data, including improvements in the identification of study cohorts, confounder identification and adjustment and estimating treatment effect heterogeneity. Barriers to the wider adoption of ML methods are also discussed.

In this latest update we highlight the publication of a draft real-world evidence framework by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and describe a press release from Germany's Institute for Quality and Efficiency in HealthCare outlining how real-world evidence submissions are not following their guidelines. We also discuss whether the lack of adherence to guidelines is due to ignorance of these guidelines on the part of manufacturers, the difficulty in achieving best practices or a failure of guidelines to comprehensively describe best practices.

Evidence generated from nonrandomized studies (NRS) is increasingly submitted to health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Unmeasured confounding is a primary concern with this type of evidence, as it may result in biased treatment effect estimates, which has led to much criticism of NRS by HTA agencies. Quantitative bias analyses are a group of methods that have been developed in the epidemiological literature to quantify the impact of unmeasured confounding and adjust effect estimates from NRS. Key considerations for application in HTA proposed in this article reflect the need to balance methodological complexity with ease of application and interpretation, and the need to ensure the methods fit within the existing frameworks used to assess nonrandomized evidence by HTA bodies.

Due to uncertainty regarding the potential impact of unmeasured confounding, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies often disregard evidence from nonrandomized studies when considering new technologies. Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) methods provide a means to quantify this uncertainty but have not been widely used in the HTA setting, particularly in the context of cost-effectiveness modelling (CEM). This study demonstrated the application of an aggregate and patient-level QBA approach to quantify and adjust for unmeasured confounding in a simulated nonrandomized comparison of survival outcomes. Application of the QBA output within a CEM through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and under different scenarios of knowledge of an unmeasured confounder demonstrates the potential value of QBA in HTA.

This month we focus on papers that provide insights into the potential for target trial emulation to be used in health technology assessment, the role of real-world evidence (RWE) in informing additional elements of value and the importance of RWE to European joint clinical assessments.

In this latest update we highlight recent publications from the US FDA and a Canadian Health Technology Assessment collaboration which provide insights into the future role of real-world evidence in market access in terms of health technology management.

In the latest update we focus on recent publications which have provided insights into the importance of focusing on the development and consideration of a body of real-world evidence, and an approach to evaluating the complex area of treatment sequencing.

In this month's round up, we discuss a number of recent publications and guidelines addressing the use of real-world evidence to evaluate the clinical benefit of health technology assessments and what the publications mean practically for manufacturers.

In this round up, we discuss a number of recent publications that have utilized real-world evidence to explore the value that innovative treatments have brought to patients.

In this round up, we cover how COVID-19 has been beneficial for improved access to real-world data, as well as how real-world data can be used to address health inequity, an area of increasing interest for health technology assessment.

Highlighting the latest developments in both real-world evidence as it relates to health technology assessment and acceptance of real-world evidence by health technology assessment agencies.

Drug development takes place in a global marketplace, albeit with the USA and EU markets currently dominating. In the USA, demands for comparative effectiveness research have gained traction against a backdrop of health delivery reform, while European stakeholders deliberate the role of relative effectiveness in health technology assessment, trying to reduce the duplication of effort by regulators and health technology assessment bodies. In both arenas, drug-makers are faced with mounting drug development costs, and uncertainty over the types of evidence acceptable for a growing list of stakeholders. This article reports and compares future scenarios for evidence expectations for drugs for the USA and EU in 2020. The similarities, differences, and joint implications of the scenarios are considered to create an view of future evidence generation for drugs developed for these markets.