Regulatory and health technology assessment advice on postlicensing and postlaunch evidence generation is a foundation for lifecycle data collection for medicines.

The understanding of the benefit risk profile, and relative effectiveness of a new medicinal product, are initially established in a circumscribed patient population through clinical trials. There may be uncertainties associated with the new medicinal product that cannot be, or do not need to be resolved before launch. Postlicensing or postlaunch evidence generation (PLEG) is a term for evidence generated after the licensure or launch of a medicinal product to address these remaining uncertainties. PLEG is thus part of the continuum of evidence development for a medicinal product, complementing earlier evidence, facilitating further elucidation of a product's benefit/risk profile, value proposition, and/or exploring broader aspects of disease management and provision of healthcare. PLEG plays a role in regulatory decision making, not only in the European Union but also in other jurisdictions including the USA and Japan. PLEG is also relevant for downstream decision-making by health technology assessment bodies and payers. PLEG comprises studies of different designs, based on data collected in observational or experimental settings. Experience to date in the European Union has indicated a need for improvements in PLEG. Improvements in design and research efficiency of PLEG could be addressed through more systematic pursuance of Scientific Advice on PLEG with single or multiple decision makers. To date, limited information has been available on the rationale, process or timing for seeking PLEG advice from regulators or health technology assessment bodies. This article sets out to address these issues and to encourage further uptake of PLEG advice.

Conditional Financing of Drugs in the Netherlands: Past, Present, and Future-Results From Stakeholder Interviews.

BACKGROUND: Conditional financing (CF) of hospital drugs was implemented in the Netherlands as a form of managed entry agreements between 2006 and 2012. CF was a 4-year process comprising 3 stages: initial health technology assessment of the drug (T = 0), conduct of outcomes research studies, and reassessment of the drug (T = 4). OBJECTIVES: To analyze stakeholder experiences in implementing CF in practice. METHODS: Public and private stakeholders were approached for participation in stakeholder interviews through standardized email invitations. An interview guide was developed to guide discussions that covered the following topics: perceived aims of CF, functioning of CF, impact of CF, and conclusions and future perspectives. Extensive summaries were generated for each interview and subsequently used for directed content analysis. RESULTS: Thirty stakeholders were interviewed. Differences emerged among the stakeholders on the perceived aims of CF. Conversely, there was some agreement among stakeholders on the shortcomings in the functioning of CF, the positive impact of CF on the Dutch healthcare setting, and improvement points for CF. CONCLUSIONS: Despite stakeholders' belief that CF either did not meet its aims or only partially did so, there was agreement on the need for new policy to address the same aims of CF in the future. Nevertheless, stakeholders diverged on whether CF should be improved on the basis of learnings identified and reintroduced into practice or replaced with new policy schemes.

Social media as a tool for assessing patient perspectives on quality of life in metastatic melanoma: a feasibility study.

PURPOSE: Development of innovative drugs for melanoma is occurring rapidly. Incremental gains in overall survival amongst innovative products may be difficult to measure in clinical trials, and their use may be associated with increased toxicity profiles. Therefore, HTA agencies increasingly require information on HRQoL for the assessment of such drugs. This study explored the feasibility of social media to assess patient perspectives on HRQoL in melanoma, and whether current cancer- and melanoma-specific HRQoL questionnaires represent these perspectives. METHODS: A survey was distributed on the social media channels of Melanoma Patient Network Europe to assess melanoma patients' perspectives regarding HRQoL. Two researchers independently conducted content analysis to identify key themes, which were subsequently compared to questions from one current cancer-specific and two melanoma-specific HRQoL questionnaires (i.e. EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-MEL38, FACT-M). RESULTS: In total, 72 patients and 17 carers completed the survey. Patients indicated that family, having a normal life, and enjoying life were the three most important aspects of HRQoL for them. Carers indicated that being capable, having manageable adverse events, and being pain-free were the three most important aspects of HRQoL for patients. Respondents seem to find some questions from HRQoL questionnaires relevant (e.g. 'Have you felt able to carry on with things as normal?') and others less relevant (e.g. 'Have you had swelling near your melanoma site?'). Additionally, wording may differ between patients and HRQoL questionnaires, whereby patients generally use a more positive tone. CONCLUSIONS: Social media may provide a valuable tool in assessing patient perspectives regarding HRQoL. However, differences seem to emerge between patient and carer perspectives. Additionally, patient perspectives did not seem to fully correlate to questions posed in cancer- (i.e. EORTC QLQ-C30) and melanoma-specific (i.e. EORTC QLQ-MEL38, FACT-M) HRQoL questionnaires examined.

What Is Real-World Data? A Review of Definitions Based on Literature and Stakeholder Interviews.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing recognition of the value of real-world data (RWD), consensus on the definition of RWD is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To review definitions publicly available for RWD to shed light on similarities and differences between them. METHODS: A literature review and stakeholder interviews were used to compile data from eight groups of stakeholders. Data from documents and interviews were subjected to coding analysis. Definitions identified were classified into four categories: 1) data collected in a non-randomized controlled trial setting, 2) data collected in a non-interventional/non-controlled setting, 3) data collected in a non-experimental setting, and 4) others (i.e., data that do not fit into the other three categories). The frequency of definitions identified per category was recorded. RESULTS: Fifty-three documents and 20 interviews were assessed. Thirty-eight definitions were identified: 20 out of 38 definitions (53%) were category 1 definitions, 9 (24%) were category 2 definitions, 5 (13%) were category 3 definitions, and 4 (11%) were category 4 definitions. Differences were identified between, and within, definition categories. For example, opinions differed on the aspects of intervention with which non-interventional/non-controlled settings should abide. No definitions were provided in two interviews or identified in 33 documents. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the definitions defined RWD as data collected in a non-randomized controlled trial setting. A considerable number of definitions, however, diverged from this concept. Moreover, a significant number of authors and stakeholders did not have an official, institutional definition for RWD. Persisting variability in stakeholder definitions of RWD may lead to disparities among different stakeholders when discussing RWD use in decision making.

Policies for Use of Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA): A Comparative Study of Six HTA Agencies.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials provide robust data on the efficacy of interventions rather than on effectiveness. Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies worldwide are thus exploring whether real-world data (RWD) may provide alternative sources of data on effectiveness of interventions. Presently, an overview of HTA agencies' policies for RWD use in relative effectiveness assessments (REA) is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To review policies of six European HTA agencies on RWD use in REA of drugs. A literature review and stakeholder interviews were conducted to collect information on RWD policies for six agencies: the Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (Sweden), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (United Kingdom), the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (Germany), the High Authority for Health (France), the Italian Medicines Agency (Italy), and the National Healthcare Institute (The Netherlands). The following contexts for RWD use in REA of drugs were reviewed: initial reimbursement discussions, pharmacoeconomic analyses, and conditional reimbursement schemes. We identified 13 policy documents and 9 academic publications, and conducted 6 interviews. RESULTS: Policies for RWD use in REA of drugs notably differed across contexts. Moreover, policies differed between HTA agencies. Such variations might discourage the use of RWD for HTA. CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate the use of RWD for HTA across Europe, more alignment of policies seems necessary. Recent articles and project proposals of the European network of HTA may provide a starting point to achieve this.

Good Practices for Real-World Data Studies of Treatment and/or Comparative Effectiveness: Recommendations from the Joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on Real-World Evidence in Health Care Decision Making.

PURPOSE: Real-world evidence (RWE) includes data from retrospective or prospective observational studies and observational registries and provides insights beyond those addressed by randomized controlled trials. RWE studies aim to improve health care decision making. METHODS: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) created a task force to make recommendations regarding good procedural practices that would enhance decision makers' confidence in evidence derived from RWD studies. Peer review by ISPOR/ISPE members and task force participants provided a consensus-building iterative process for the topics and framing of recommendations. RESULTS: The ISPOR/ISPE Task Force recommendations cover seven topics such as study registration, replicability, and stakeholder involvement in RWE studies. These recommendations, in concert with earlier recommendations about study methodology, provide a trustworthy foundation for the expanded use of RWE in health care decision making. CONCLUSION: The focus of these recommendations is good procedural practices for studies that test a specific hypothesis in a specific population. We recognize that some of the recommendations in this report may not be widely adopted without appropriate incentives from decision makers, journal editors, and other key stakeholders.

Good practices for real-world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on real-world evidence in health care decision making.

PURPOSE: Real-world evidence (RWE) includes data from retrospective or prospective observational studies and observational registries and provides insights beyond those addressed by randomized controlled trials. RWE studies aim to improve health care decision making. METHODS: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) created a task force to make recommendations regarding good procedural practices that would enhance decision makers' confidence in evidence derived from RWD studies. Peer review by ISPOR/ISPE members and task force participants provided a consensus-building iterative process for the topics and framing of recommendations. RESULTS: The ISPOR/ISPE Task Force recommendations cover seven topics such as study registration, replicability, and stakeholder involvement in RWE studies. These recommendations, in concert with earlier recommendations about study methodology, provide a trustworthy foundation for the expanded use of RWE in health care decision making. CONCLUSION: The focus of these recommendations is good procedural practices for studies that test a specific hypothesis in a specific population. We recognize that some of the recommendations in this report may not be widely adopted without appropriate incentives from decision makers, journal editors, and other key stakeholders.

Public preferences for the allocation of societal resources over different healthcare purposes.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing healthcare expenditures require governments to make difficult prioritization decisions. Considering public preferences can help raise citizens' support. Previous research has predominantly elicited preferences for the allocation of public resources towards specific treatments or patient groups and principles for resource allocation. This study contributes by examining public preferences for budget allocation over various healthcare purposes in the Netherlands. METHODS: We conducted a Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) choice experiment in which 1408 respondents were asked to allocate a hypothetical budget over eight healthcare purposes: general practice and other easily accessible healthcare, hospital care, elderly care, disability care, mental healthcare, preventive care by encouragement, preventive care by discouragement, and new and better medicines. A default expenditure was set for each healthcare purpose, based on current expenditures. Respondents could adjust these default expenditures using sliders and were presented with the implications of their adjustments on health and well-being outcomes, the economy, and the healthcare premium. As a constraint, the maximum increase in the mandatory healthcare premium for adult citizens was €600 per year. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and a Latent Class Cluster Analysis (LCCA). RESULTS: On average, respondents preferred to increase total expenditures on all healthcare purposes, but especially on elderly care, new and better medicines, and mental healthcare. Three preference clusters were identified. The largest cluster preferred modest increases in expenditures, the second a much higher increase of expenditures, and the smallest favouring a substantial reduction of the healthcare premium by decreasing the expenditure on all healthcare purposes. The analyses also demonstrated substantial preference heterogeneity between clusters for budget allocation over different healthcare purposes. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this choice experiment show that most citizens in the Netherlands support increasing healthcare expenditures. However, substantial heterogeneity was identified in preferences for healthcare purposes to prioritize. Considering these preferences may increase public support for prioritization decisions.

Real world insights for psoriasis: the association of severity of skin lesions with work productivity, medical consumption costs and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a prevalent, chronic skin disease with a potential impact on work productivity, medical consumption costs, and quality of life. The influence of the extent of skin lesions on these outcomes is not well known. OBJECTIVE: We determined associations of self-reported skin lesions with self-reported work productivity, medical consumption costs, and health-related quality of life in respondents with psoriasis. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we included respondents with self-reported psoriasis in the Netherlands in an online questionnaire. We assessed the self-reported percentage body surface area (BSA) of psoriasis lesions. We used validated instruments to assess work productivity (WPAI-PsO), medical consumption costs (iMCQ), and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and the DLQI). We used ordinal logistic regression to associate BSA categories >1% versus 0-1% with outcomes adjusted for multiple confounders. RESULTS: We included 501 respondents with a mean age of 43 ± 12 years; 64% were men. Median BSA was 2% (interquartile range 1-5%). A higher BSA was associated with higher overall work impairment due to psoriasis (common odds ratio [cOR] 2.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40-4.29; n = 205), higher medical consumption costs (cOR 2.06, 95% CI 1.45-2.94) and lower health-related quality of life. Associations were strongest with a BSA cutoff of 0% or 1% compared to 2% or higher categories. DISCUSSION: In our study, having few to no lesions in psoriasis was associated with lower overall work impairment due to psoriasis, lower medical consumption costs, and higher health-related quality of life.

Cancer treatments touch a wide range of values that count for patients and other stakeholders: What are the implications for decision-making?

BACKGROUND: Cancer rates and expenditures are increasing, resulting in debates on the exact value of this care. Perspectives on what exactly constitutes worthwhile values differ. This study aims to explore all values-elements regarding new oncological treatments for patients with cancer and all stakeholders involved and to assess their implications in different decision-making procedures. METHOD: Thirty-one individual in-depth interviews were conducted with different stakeholders to identify values within oncology. A focus group with seven experts was performed to explore its possible implications in decision-making procedures. RESULTS: The overarching themes of values identified were impact on daily life and future, costs for patients and loved ones, quality of life, impact on loved ones, societal impact and quality of treatments. The expert panel revealed that the extended exploration of values that matter to patients is deemed useful in patient-level decision-making, information provision, patient empowerment and support during and after treatment. For national reimbursement decisions, implications for the broad range of values seems less clear. CONCLUSION: Clinical values are not the only ones that matter to oncological patients and the stakeholders in the field. We found a much broader range of values. Proper recognition of values that count might add to patient-level decision-making, but implications for reimbursement decisions are less clear. The results could be useful to guide clinicians and policymakers when it comes to decision-making in oncology. Making more explicit which values counts for whom guarantees a more systematic approach to decision-making on all levels.

Are CAR-T therapies living up to their hype? A study using real-world data in two cohorts to determine how well they are actually working in practice compared with bone marrow transplants.

With the increasing use of new regulatory tools, like the Food and Drug Administration's breakthrough designation, there are increasing challenges for European health technology assessors (HTAs) to make an accurate assessment of the long-term value and performance of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies, particularly for orphan conditions, such as acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. The aim of this study was to demonstrate a novel methodology harnessing longitudinal real-world data, extracted from the electronic health records of a medical centre functioning as a clinical trial site, to develop an accurate analysis of the performance of CAR-T compared with the next-best treatment option, namely allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). The study population comprised 43 subjects in two cohorts: 29 who had undergone HCT treatment and 14 who had undergone CAR-T therapy. The 3-year relapse-free survival probability was 46% (95% CI: 08% to 79%) in the CAR-T cohort and 68% (95% CI: 46% to 83%) in the HCT cohort. To explain the lower RFS probability in the CAR-T cohort compared with the HCT cohort, the authors hypothesised that the CAR-T cohort had a far higher level of disease burden. This was validated by log-rank test analysis (p=0.0001) and confirmed in conversations with practitioners at the study site. The authors are aware that the small populations in this study will be seen as limiting the generalisability of the findings to some readers. However, in consultation with many European HTAs and regulators, there is broad agreement that this methodology warrants further investigation with a larger study.

TRUST4RD: tool for reducing uncertainties in the evidence generation for specialised treatments for rare diseases.

BACKGROUND: Many treatments developed for rare diseases will have an Orphan Medicinal Product (OMP) designation, indicating that they are likely to deliver benefit in an area of high unmet need. Their approval may be based on a small or uncontrolled trial, as randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of sufficient size are often difficult to conduct, or repeat, as a result of the rarity of the condition, sparsity of patients, or for ethical reasons. Furthermore, many products are given a conditional marketing authorisation, requiring additional evidence to be collected after product launch. This is even more challenging with the advent of advanced therapeutic medicinal products, which use novel scientific approaches like gene or somatic cell therapy. ISSUE: Given the high unmet need associated with these products, there is pressure for Health Technology Assessment (HTA)/reimbursement bodies to enable rapid access to effective treatments. However, there is often only limited evidence available for assessment. METHODS: TRUST4RD proposes an approach to identify uncertainties of most concern for decision-makers by developing an iterative and informed dialogue amongst stakeholders (including manufacturers, clinicians, patients, regulatory- and HTA agencies and payers), so that potential approaches to resolution can be discussed. As evidence is generated, uncertainties are reviewed and prioritised, and evidence-generation plans revised or clarified accordingly. The aim is to develop - both pre- and post HTA submission - a better understanding of evidence requirements versus evidence-generation trade-offs as an evidence base grows and the potential value of a product becomes clearer. CONCLUSION: TRUST4RD presents guidance on defining uncertainties and evidence gaps in the assessment of value and value for money of specialised treatments for rare diseases. It also provides guidance on the potential of Real World Evidence (RWE) to help address such uncertainties, including the typology of evidence uncertainties, the importance of different uncertainties and the data sources available to address them before and after HTA submission. In making use of the guidance, authorisation and reimbursement discussions on such treatments can be embedded in an evidence-rich context, thereby ensuring value to all parties, particularly to patients.

The implementation of HTA in medicine pricing and reimbursement policies in Indonesia: Insights from multiple stakeholders.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to improve the use of health technology assessment (HTA) for the selection of medicines listed in the e-Catalogue and the national formulary in Indonesia. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data. Purposive sampling was used to recruit the stakeholders consisting of policymakers, a pharmaceutical industry representative, healthcare providers, and patients. The data were analyzed using directed content analysis and following the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative studies (COREQ). RESULTS: The twenty-five participants interviewed agreed with the use of HTA for supporting the e-Catalogue and the national formulary and perceived the advantages of HTA implementation outweighed the disadvantages. Barriers mentioned were a lack of capability of local human resources, financial incentives, a clear framework and insufficient data. Strategies suggested to overcome the barriers were establishing (inter)national networks to build up capacity, setting up departments of HTA in several universities in Indonesia, and introducing a clear HTA framework. Facilitators mentioned were the ambition to achieve universal health coverage, the presence of legal frameworks to implement HTA in the e-Catalogue and the national formulary, and the demands for appropriate medicine policies. CONCLUSIONS: Several barriers are currently hampering broad implementation of HTA in medicine pricing and reimbursement policy in Indonesia. Solutions to these issues appear feasible and important facilitators exist.

Use of medicine pricing and reimbursement policies for universal health coverage in Indonesia.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to define the problems of the current use of the e-Catalogue and the national formulary (NF)-two elements of medicine pricing and reimbursement policies in Indonesia for achieving universal health coverage (UHC)-by examining the knowledge and attitudes of stakeholders. Specifically, to investigate (1) the perceived challenges involved in the further implementation of the e-Catalogue and the NF, (2) reasons of prescribing medicines not listed in the NF, and (3) possible improvements in the acceptance and use of the e-Catalogue and the NF. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders (policymakers, healthcare providers, a pharmaceutical industry representative, and experienced patients) to collect the qualitative data. The data was analysed using directed content analysis, following the guidelines of the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative studies (COREQ) in reporting the findings. RESULTS: Interestingly, 20 of 45 participants decided to withdraw from the interview due to their lack of knowledge of the e-Catalogue and the NF. All 25 stakeholders who fully participated in this research were in favor of the e-Catalogue and the NF. However, interviewees identified a range of challenges. A major challenge was the lack of harmonization between the lists of medicines in the e-Catalogue and the NF. Several system and personal reasons for prescribing medicines not listed in the NF were identified. Important reasons were a lack of incentives for physicians as well as a lack of transparent and evidence-based methods of selection for the medicines to be listed in the NF. CONCLUSIONS: The e-Catalogue and the NF have not been fully utilized for achieving UHC in Indonesia. Some possible improvements suggested were harmonization of medicines listed in the e-Catalogue and the NF, restructuring incentive programs for prescribing NF medicines, and increasing the transparency and evidence-based approach for selection of medicines listed in the e-Catalogue and the NF.

Alignment of European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessments: A Review of Licensed Products for Alzheimer's Disease.

Aims: To facilitate regulatory learning, we evaluated similarities and differences in evidence requirements between regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies of Alzheimer's disease (AD) approved products. Methods: The European marketing authorisation application dossiers and European public assessment reports (EPARs) of the licensed AD drugs were screened to identify the phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and outcomes used. We also screened the assessment reports of the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE, England) and the National Health Care Institute (ZiN, the Netherlands) to identify the studies and outcomes used in HTA assessments. Results: The application dossiers of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine contained 16 phase III RCTs in total. These trials were also included in HTA assessments except that NICE excluded studies that were not published (n = 2) or trials that included patients with other types of dementia (n = 3). In the regulatory assessments the focus was on cognitive and global outcomes, and to some extent on function. In the HTA assessments of clinical effectiveness other domains were also covered including: function, behaviour and mood, and, occasionally, quality of life. In the economic analyses of NICE the domains cognition, function, and quality of life were included. Conclusion: There was a large overlap in inclusion of trials in regulatory and HTA assessments, although the focus on specific outcomes slightly differed. Understanding the methods and perceptions of both authorities can stimulate regulatory and HTA cross-talk and further alignment, and therefore more rapid patient access to new treatments.

Addressing the dichotomy between individual and societal approaches to personalised medicine in oncology.

Academic, industry, regulatory leaders and patient advocates in cancer clinical research met in November 2018 at the Innovation and Biomarkers in Cancer Drug Development meeting in Brussels to address the existing dichotomy between increasing calls for personalised oncology approaches based on individual molecular profiles and the need to make resource and regulatory decisions at the societal level in differing health-care delivery systems around the globe. Novel clinical trial designs, the utility and limitations of real-world evidence (RWE) and emerging technologies for profiling patient tumours and tumour-derived DNA in plasma were discussed. While randomised clinical trials remain the gold standard approach to defining clinical utility of local and systemic therapeutic interventions, the broader adoption of comprehensive tumour profiling and novel trial designs coupled with RWE may allow patient and physician autonomy to be appropriately balanced with broader assessments of safety and overall societal benefit.

Use of Social Media in the Assessment of Relative Effectiveness: Explorative Review With Examples From Oncology.

BACKGROUND: An element of health technology assessment constitutes assessing the clinical effectiveness of drugs, generally called relative effectiveness assessment. Little real-world evidence is available directly after market access, therefore randomized controlled trials are used to obtain information for relative effectiveness assessment. However, there is growing interest in using real-world data for relative effectiveness assessment. Social media may provide a source of real-world data. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the extent to which social media-generated health data has provided insights for relative effectiveness assessment. METHODS: An explorative literature review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify examples in oncology where health data were collected using social media. Scientific and grey literature published between January 2010 and June 2016 was identified by four reviewers, who independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data. A descriptive qualitative analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 1032 articles identified, eight were included: four articles identified adverse events in response to cancer treatment, three articles disseminated quality of life surveys, and one study assessed the occurrence of disease-specific symptoms. Several strengths of social media-generated health data were highlighted in the articles, such as efficient collection of patient experiences and recruiting patients with rare diseases. Conversely, limitations included validation of authenticity and presence of information and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Social media may provide a potential source of real-world data for relative effectiveness assessment, particularly on aspects such as adverse events, symptom occurrence, quality of life, and adherence behavior. This potential has not yet been fully realized and the degree of usefulness for relative effectiveness assessment should be further explored.

Using Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Practice: A Comparative Study of Five HTA Agencies.

BACKGROUND: Reimbursement decisions are conventionally based on evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which often have high internal validity but low external validity. Real-world data (RWD) may provide complimentary evidence for relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and cost-effectiveness assessments (CEAs). This study examines whether RWD is incorporated in health technology assessment (HTA) of melanoma drugs by European HTA agencies, as well as differences in RWD use between agencies and across time. METHODS: HTA reports published between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2016 were retrieved from websites of agencies representing five jurisdictions: England [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)], Scotland [Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC)], France [Haute Autorité de santé (HAS)], Germany [Institute for Quality and Efficacy in Healthcare (IQWiG)] and The Netherlands [Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN)]. A standardized data extraction form was used to extract information on RWD inclusion for both REAs and CEAs. RESULTS: Overall, 52 reports were retrieved, all of which contained REAs; CEAs were present in 25 of the reports. RWD was included in 28 of the 52 REAs (54%), mainly to estimate melanoma prevalence, and in 22 of the 25 (88%) CEAs, mainly to extrapolate long-term effectiveness and/or identify drug-related costs. Differences emerged between agencies regarding RWD use in REAs; the ZIN and IQWiG cited RWD for evidence on prevalence, whereas the NICE, SMC and HAS additionally cited RWD use for drug effectiveness. No visible trend for RWD use in REAs and CEAs over time was observed. CONCLUSION: In general, RWD inclusion was higher in CEAs than REAs, and was mostly used to estimate melanoma prevalence in REAs or to predict long-term effectiveness in CEAs. Differences emerged between agencies' use of RWD; however, no visible trends for RWD use over time were observed.

Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Considerations for Disease-Modifying Drugs in Alzheimer's Disease.

Although there are a growing number of well-reported, late-stage clinical trial failures in Alzheimer's disease, the introduction of a disease-modifying therapy within the next 5 years may be anticipated. These treatments are likely to target Alzheimer's disease in the earlier disease stages, unlike drugs that are currently available that treat symptoms of moderate-to-severe dementia. Therefore, there is a need to establish a consensus on regulatory and health technology assessment requirements for Alzheimer's disease, as a new drug will need to undergo regulatory and health technology assessments before it becomes available to patients. This article reports the discussions and activities of the regulatory and health technology assessment expert advisory group of the 2-year ROADMAP (real-world outcomes across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum: a multimodal data access platform) project. The expert advisory group discussions identified a lack of consensus on validated outcomes in the earliest Alzheimer's disease stages, the need for filling gaps between outcomes used across clinical trials and real-world settings, and the role that real-world evidence might have in characterising the impact of a possible disease-modifying therapy on caregivers, resource use and long-term outcomes.