Search

Objectives Examine whether data from early access to medicines in the USA can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) health technology assessments (HTA) in oncology.Design Retrospective cohort study.Setting Oncology-based community and academic treatment centres in the USA.Participants Patients present in a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived deidentified database.Interventions Cancer drugs that underwent NICE technology appraisal (TA) between 2014 and 2019.Primary and secondary outcome measures The count and follow-up time of US patients, available in the EHR, who were exposed to cancer drugs of interest in the period between Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and dates relevant to the NICE appraisal process.Results In 59 of 60 TAs analysed, the cancer therapy was approved in the USA before the final appraisal by NICE. The median time from FDA approval to the publication of NICE recommendations was 18.5 months, at which time the US EHR-derived database had, on average, 269 patients (SD=356) exposed to the new therapy, with a median of 75.3 person-years (IQR: 13.1–173) in time-at-risk. A case study generated evidence on real-world overall survival and treatment duration.Conclusions Across different cancer therapies, there was substantial variability in US real-world data accumulated between FDA approval and NICE decision milestones. The applicability of these data to generate evidence for HTA decision-making should be assessed on a case-by-case basis depending on the intended HTA use case.

Objective To compare real-world effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AFib) for prevention of stroke.Study design and setting A comparative cohort study in UK general practice data from The Health Improvement Network database.Participants and interventions Before matching, 5655 patients ≥18 years with nonvalvular AFib who initiated at least one DOAC between 1 July 2014 and 31 December 2020 were included. DOACs of interest included apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban and dabigatran, with the primary comparison between apixaban and rivaroxaban. Initiators of DOACs were defined as new users with no record of prescription for any DOAC during 12 months before index date.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome was stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic). Secondary outcomes included the occurrence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), transient ischaemic attacks (TIA), major bleeding events and a composite angina/MI/stroke (AMS) endpoint.Results Compared with rivaroxaban, patients initiating apixaban showed similar rates of stroke (HR: 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.34), all-cause mortality (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.22), MI (HR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.68), TIA (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.72) and AMS (HR: 0.96; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.27). Apixaban initiators showed lower rates of major bleeding events (HR: 0.60; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.75).Conclusions Among patients with nonvalvular AFib, apixaban was as effective as rivaroxaban in reducing rate of stroke and safer in terms of major bleeding episodes. This head-to-head comparison supports conclusions drawn from indirect comparisons of DOAC trials against warfarin and demonstrates the potential for real-world evidence to fill evidence gaps and reduce uncertainty in both health technology assessment decision-making and clinical guideline development.