Can we use existing guidance to support the development of robust real-world evidence for health technology assessment/payer decision-making?

Advances in the digitization of health systems and expedited regulatory approvals of innovative treatments have led to increased potential for the use of real-world data (RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE) to complement evidence from clinical trials. However, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and payers have concerns about the ability to generate RWE of sufficient quality to be pivotal evidence of relative treatment effectiveness. Consequently, there is a growing need for HTA bodies and payers to develop guidance for the industry and other stakeholders about the use of RWD/RWE to support access, reimbursement, and pricing. We therefore sought to (i) understand barriers to the use of RWD/RWE by HTA bodies and payers; (ii) review potential solutions in the form of published guidance; and (iii) review findings with selected HTA/payer bodies. Four themes considered key to shaping the generation of robust RWE for HTA bodies and payers were identified as: (i) data (availability, governance, and quality); (ii) methodology (design and analytics); (iii) trust (transparency and reproducibility); and (iv) policy and partnerships. A range of guidance documents were found from trusted sources that could address these themes. These were discussed with HTA experts. This commentary summarizes the potential guidance solutions available to help resolve issues faced by HTA decision-makers in the adoption of RWD/RWE. It shows that there is alignment among stakeholders about the areas that need improvement in the development of RWE and that the key priority to move forward is better collaboration to make data usable for multiple purposes.

Biomarker Testing Patterns and Treatment Outcomes in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and MET Exon 14 Skipping Mutations: A Descriptive Analysis From the US.

Background: MET exon 14 skipping mutation (METex14) is observed in ~3% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases and has been shown to be an independent poor prognostic factor associated with shorter overall disease-specific survival. Broad molecular testing can identify this biomarker in patients with advanced NSCLC (aNSCLC) and allow patients to be matched with the appropriate targeted therapy. This study examines biomarker testing patterns and clinical outcomes of chemotherapy and immuno-oncology (IO) monotherapy in aNSCLC patients with METex14. Methods: A descriptive retrospective study was conducted using the Flatiron Health-Foundation Medicine Inc. (FMI) clinico-genomic database. Patients with METex14 aNSCLC treated with systemic therapies were included in the biomarker testing analysis. The duration from specimen collection to reported results was assessed for PD-L1- and METex14-tested patients. Clinical outcomes were assessed in patients treated with chemotherapy or IO monotherapy. First-line (1L) and second-line (2L) real-world progression-free survival (rw-PFS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: Of 91 METex14 patients eligible for the biomarker testing analysis, 77% and 60% received PD-L1 and FMI next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing within 3 months post aNSCLC diagnosis. Of those assessed for both PD-L1 and METex14 (n=9), the median duration between specimen collection and reporting was 1 week shorter for PD-L1 than for FMI NGS. Median 1L rw-PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.6-7.1) and 2.4 months (95% CI, 1.4-3.2) in patients receiving 1L chemotherapy (n=59) and IO monotherapy (n=18), with 3-month 1L rw-PFS rates of 78% and 33%. Median 2L rw-PFS was 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.9-11.1) and 4.7 months (95% CI, 2.8-12.9) in patients receiving 2L chemotherapy (n=16) and IO monotherapy (n=23), with 3-month 2L rw-PFS rates of 54% and 67%. Conclusions: The median time from biopsy to test results appears 1 week shorter for PD-L1 than for FMI NGS. Chemotherapy and IO monotherapy were the most common regimens utilized but with limited PFS.