Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 29
Filtrar
1.
Lancet ; 395(10228): 986-997, 2020 03 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32199486

RESUMO

Fewer than half of new drugs have data on their comparative benefits and harms against existing treatment options at the time of regulatory approval in Europe and the USA. Even when active-comparator trials exist, they might not produce meaningful data to inform decisions in clinical practice and health policy. The uncertainty associated with the paucity of well designed active-comparator trials has been compounded by legal and regulatory changes in Europe and the USA that have created a complex mix of expedited programmes aimed at facilitating faster access to new drugs. Comparative evidence generation is even sparser for medical devices. Some have argued that the current process for regulatory approval needs to generate more evidence that is useful for patients, clinicians, and payers in health-care systems. We propose a set of five key principles relevant to the European Medicines Agency, European medical device regulatory agencies, US Food and Drug Administration, as well as payers, that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device companies to generate comparative data on drugs and devices and assure timely availability of evidence that is useful for decision making. First, labelling should routinely inform patients and clinicians whether comparative data exist on new products. Second, regulators should be more selective in their use of programmes that facilitate drug and device approvals on the basis of incomplete benefit and harm data. Third, regulators should encourage the conduct of randomised trials with active comparators. Fourth, regulators should use prospectively designed network meta-analyses based on existing and future randomised trials. Last, payers should use their policy levers and negotiating power to incentivise the generation of comparative evidence on new and existing drugs and devices, for example, by explicitly considering proven added benefit in pricing and payment decisions.


Assuntos
Aprovação de Equipamentos/normas , Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Segurança de Equipamentos , Segurança , Biomarcadores Farmacológicos/análise , Tolerância a Medicamentos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug Administration
4.
CMAJ ; 189(5): E185-E186, 2017 02 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28246263
5.
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes ; 120: 3-8, 2017 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28284364

RESUMO

Journal publications are the major route to communicate methods and results of clinical trials. However, the shortcomings of this format are well known, including insufficient quality of the information provided as well as publication and outcome reporting bias. Attempts to improve the situation via peer review, reporting guidelines or study registration did not solve the problem. Currently, new ways of data presentation in electronic databases, increased access to previously confidential documents, and the potential use of anonymized individual patient data from clinical trials beyond the individual trial, have led to discussions about new publication formats for clinical trials. The current paper describes the components required for full information on a clinical trial and discusses a new format to provide this information.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Editoração , Alemanha , Humanos , Revisão por Pares , Viés de Publicação
6.
PLoS One ; 11(8): e0160712, 2016.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27508415

RESUMO

The validity of mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs), also called network meta-analysis, relies on whether it is reasonable to accept the underlying assumptions on similarity, homogeneity, and consistency. The aim of this paper is to propose a practicable approach to addressing the underlying assumptions of MTCs. Using data from clinical studies of antidepressants included in a health technology assessment (HTA), we present a stepwise approach to dealing with challenges related to checking the above assumptions and to judging the robustness of the results of an MTC. At each step, studies that were dissimilar or contributed to substantial heterogeneity or inconsistency were excluded from the primary analysis. In a comparison of the MTC estimates from the consistent network with the MTC estimates from the homogeneous network including inconsistencies, few were affected by notable changes; that is, a change in effect size (factor 2), direction of effect or statistical significance. Considering the small proportion of studies excluded from the network due to inconsistency, as well as the number of notable changes, the MTC results were deemed sufficiently robust. In the absence of standard methods, our approach to checking assumptions in MTCs may inform other researchers in need of practical options, particularly in HTA.


Assuntos
Antidepressivos/uso terapêutico , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/métodos , Antidepressivos/economia , Humanos , Modelos Estatísticos , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/economia , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/normas , Resultado do Tratamento
8.
Biom J ; 58(1): 43-58, 2016 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26134089

RESUMO

At the beginning of 2011, the early benefit assessment of new drugs was introduced in Germany with the Act on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (AMNOG). The Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) generally commissions the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) with this type of assessment, which examines whether a new drug shows an added benefit (a positive patient-relevant treatment effect) over the current standard therapy. IQWiG is required to assess the extent of added benefit on the basis of a dossier submitted by the pharmaceutical company responsible. In this context, IQWiG was faced with the task of developing a transparent and plausible approach for operationalizing how to determine the extent of added benefit. In the case of an added benefit, the law specifies three main extent categories (minor, considerable, major). To restrict value judgements to a minimum in the first stage of the assessment process, an explicit and abstract operationalization was needed. The present paper is limited to the situation of binary data (analysis of 2 × 2 tables), using the relative risk as an effect measure. For the treatment effect to be classified as a minor, considerable, or major added benefit, the methodological approach stipulates that the (two-sided) 95% confidence interval of the effect must exceed a specified distance to the zero effect. In summary, we assume that our approach provides a robust, transparent, and thus predictable foundation to determine minor, considerable, and major treatment effects on binary outcomes in the early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany. After a decision on the added benefit of a new drug by G-BA, the classification of added benefit is used to inform pricing negotiations between the umbrella organization of statutory health insurance and the pharmaceutical companies.


Assuntos
Biometria/métodos , Aprovação de Drogas , Tratamento Farmacológico , Indústria Farmacêutica/legislação & jurisprudência , Regulamentação Governamental , Humanos , Método de Monte Carlo , Medição de Risco
9.
Health Policy ; 119(5): 569-76, 2015 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25703539

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to identify the possible barriers and critical success factors for the implementation of European collaboration in the field of relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of drugs. METHODS: Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with representatives from eight European health technology assessment (HTA) organisations involved in assessment of drugs for coverage decision-making (AAZ, AIFA, AHTAPol, HAS, HVB, IQWIG, NICE and ZiN). RESULTS: Potential barriers identified mainly relate to methodology, resources and challenges with implementation in the respective national processes (e.g. legal restrictions). The most critical success factors for production of cross-border assessments were the continuous cooperation of competent partners, and the quality and timely availability of the assessment. CONCLUSION: Further adaptation of the process and methods is required for optimal collaboration. In the near future it can be expected that cross-border assessments will meet in particular the needs of smaller/middle-sized European countries and also European countries with less developed HTA systems as the potential efficiency/quality gains are the highest for these countries. Therefore, national implementation of cross-border assessments is especially likely in these countries in the coming years. Once more experience is gained with cross-border assessments, and successes become more evident, efficiency/quality gains may also be likely for some larger countries with well established processes.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Comparativa da Efetividade , Avaliação de Medicamentos , Cooperação Internacional , Estudos Transversais , Avaliação de Medicamentos/métodos , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Modelos Organizacionais , Preparações Farmacêuticas/normas , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Inquéritos e Questionários
10.
BMJ ; 350: h796, 2015 Feb 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25722024

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: When a new drug becomes available, patients and doctors require information on its benefits and harms. In 2011, Germany introduced the early benefit assessment of new drugs through the act on the reform of the market for medicinal products (AMNOG). At market entry, the pharmaceutical company responsible must submit a standardised dossier containing all available evidence of the drug's added benefit over an appropriate comparator treatment. The added benefit is mainly determined using patient relevant outcomes. The "dossier assessment" is generally performed by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) and then published online. It contains all relevant study information, including data from unpublished clinical study reports contained in the dossiers. The dossier assessment refers to the patient population for which the new drug is approved according to the summary of product characteristics. This patient population may comprise either the total populations investigated in the studies submitted to regulatory authorities in the drug approval process, or the specific subpopulations defined in the summary of product characteristics ("approved subpopulations"). OBJECTIVE: To determine the information gain from AMNOG documents compared with non-AMNOG documents for methods and results of studies available at market entry of new drugs. AMNOG documents comprise dossier assessments done by IQWiG and publicly available modules of company dossiers; non-AMNOG documents comprise conventional, publicly available sources-that is, European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports. The analysis focused on the approved patient populations. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. DATA SOURCES: All dossier assessments conducted by IQWiG between 1 January 2011 and 28 February 2013 in which the dossiers contained suitable studies allowing for a full early benefit assessment. We also considered all European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports referring to these studies and included in the dossiers. DATA ANALYSIS: We assessed reporting quality for each study and each available document for eight methods and 11 results items (three baseline characteristics and eight patient relevant outcomes), and dichotomised them as "completely reported" or "incompletely reported (including items not reported at all)." For each document type we calculated the proportion of items with complete reporting for methods and results, for each item and overall, and compared the findings.Results 15 out of 27 dossiers were eligible for inclusion and contained 22 studies. The 15 dossier assessments contained 28 individual assessments of 15 total study populations and 13 approved subpopulations. European public assessment reports were available for all drugs. Journal publications were available for 14 out of 15 drugs and 21 out of 22 studies. A registry report in ClinicalTrials.gov was available for all drugs and studies; however, only 11 contained results. In the analysis of total study populations, the AMNOG documents reached the highest grade of completeness, with about 90% of methods and results items completely reported. In non-AMNOG documents, the rate was 75% for methods and 52% for results items; journal publications achieved the best rates, followed by European public assessment reports and registry reports. The analysis of approved subpopulations showed poorer complete reporting of results items, particularly in non-AMNOG documents (non-AMNOG versus AMNOG: 11% v 71% for overall results items and 5% v 70% for patient relevant outcomes). The main limitation of our analysis is the small sample size. CONCLUSION: Conventional, publicly available sources provide insufficient information on new drugs, especially on patient relevant outcomes in approved subpopulations. This type of information is largely available in AMNOG documents, albeit only partly in English. The AMNOG approach could be used internationally to develop a comprehensive publication model for clinical studies and thus represents a key open access measure.


Assuntos
Serviços de Informação sobre Medicamentos/normas , Sistema de Registros , Relatório de Pesquisa/normas , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/normas , Tecnologia Biomédica , Aprovação de Drogas , Controle de Medicamentos e Entorpecentes , Alemanha , Humanos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Estudos Retrospectivos
11.
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes ; 108(8-9): 528-38, 2014.
Artigo em Alemão | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25523852

RESUMO

The Act on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (AMNOG) became effective in Germany on January 1, 2011. Since then, the assessment of the added benefit of new drugs versus a therapeutic standard on the basis of dossiers submitted by pharmaceutical companies has been required by law. The Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) generally commissions the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) with this task. The added benefit is primarily to be demonstrated on the basis of patient-relevant outcomes. The aim of this paper is to describe the feasibility of the early benefit assessment on the basis of patient-relevant outcomes by systematically characterising the outcomes available in company dossiers and comparing the companies' and IQWiG's evaluations regarding patient relevance and surrogate validity. Dossier assessments published between October 2011 and June 2012 were used for this purpose. The outcomes available and the respective evaluations were extracted and compared. 12 out of 22 submitted dossiers contained sufficient data to assess outcomes; all 12 assessable dossiers provided data on patient-relevant outcomes. Data on mortality and adverse events were available in all dossiers, except that one dossier did not contain adverse event data on the relevant subpopulation. In contrast, data on morbidity and health-related quality of life were available in 8 and 7 dossiers, respectively. Of a total of 214 outcomes extracted by IQWiG, 124 patient-relevant and 3 surrogate outcomes were included in IQWiG's assessment (companies: a total of 183 outcomes included, of which 172 were patient-relevant and 11 were surrogates). The first experiences with AMNOG have shown that in principle an early benefit assessment of drugs based on patient-relevant outcomes is feasible. The companies' and IQWiG's evaluations regarding patient relevance and surrogate validity of outcomes partly deviated from each other. By increasingly considering patient-relevant outcomes in approval studies, pharmaceutical companies can create the necessary data basis for the early benefit assessment.


Assuntos
Biomarcadores , Aprovação de Drogas/legislação & jurisprudência , Determinação de Ponto Final/normas , Reforma dos Serviços de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Avaliação de Resultados da Assistência ao Paciente , Sistemas de Notificação de Reações Adversas a Medicamentos/legislação & jurisprudência , Indústria Farmacêutica , Alemanha , Medição de Risco/legislação & jurisprudência
14.
PLoS One ; 9(4): e92067, 2014.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24743113

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial results registries may contain relevant unpublished information. Our main aim was to investigate the potential impact of the inclusion of reports from industry results registries on systematic reviews (SRs). METHODS: We identified a sample of 150 eligible SRs in PubMed via backward selection. Eligible SRs investigated randomized controlled trials of drugs and included at least 2 bibliographic databases (original search date: 11/2009). We checked whether results registries of manufacturers and/or industry associations had also been searched. If not, we searched these registries for additional trials not considered in the SRs, as well as for additional data on trials already considered. We reanalysed the primary outcome and harm outcomes reported in the SRs and determined whether results had changed. A "change" was defined as either a new relevant result or a change in the statistical significance of an existing result. We performed a search update in 8/2013 and identified a sample of 20 eligible SRs to determine whether mandatory results registration from 9/2008 onwards in the public trial and results registry ClinicalTrials.gov had led to its inclusion as a standard information source in SRs, and whether the inclusion rate of industry results registries had changed. RESULTS: 133 of the 150 SRs (89%) in the original analysis did not search industry results registries. For 23 (17%) of these SRs we found 25 additional trials and additional data on 31 trials already included in the SRs. This additional information was found for more than twice as many SRs of drugs approved from 2000 as approved beforehand. The inclusion of the additional trials and data yielded changes in existing results or the addition of new results for 6 of the 23 SRs. Of the 20 SRs retrieved in the search update, 8 considered ClinicalTrials.gov or a meta-registry linking to ClinicalTrials.gov, and 1 considered an industry results registry. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of industry and public results registries as an information source in SRs is still insufficient and may result in publication and outcome reporting bias. In addition to an essential search in ClinicalTrials.gov, authors of SRs should consider searching industry results registries.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Indústria Farmacêutica , Sistema de Registros , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , PubMed , Relatório de Pesquisa
15.
Health Policy ; 116(2-3): 147-53, 2014 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24472328

RESUMO

Rising drug costs in Germany led to the Act on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (AMNOG) in January 2011. For new drugs, pharmaceutical companies have to submit dossiers containing all available evidence to demonstrate an added benefit versus an appropriate comparator therapy. The Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), the main decision-making body of the statutory healthcare system, is responsible for the overall procedure of "early benefit assessment". The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) largely conducts the dossier assessments, which inform decisions by the G-BA on added benefit and support price negotiations. Of the 25 dossiers (excluding orphan drugs) assessed until 31 December 2012, 14 contained sufficient data from randomized active-controlled trials investigating patient-relevant outcomes or at least acceptable surrogates; 11 contained insufficient data. The most common indications were oncology (6) and viral infections (4). For the 14 drugs assessed, the extent of added benefit was rated as minor, considerable, and non-quantifiable in 3, 8, and 2 cases; the remaining drug showed no added benefit. Despite some shortcomings, for the first time it has been possible in Germany to implement a systematic procedure for assessing new drugs at market entry, thus providing support for price negotiations and informed decision-making for patients, clinicians and policy makers.


Assuntos
Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Aprovação de Drogas/legislação & jurisprudência , Aprovação de Drogas/estatística & dados numéricos , Custos de Medicamentos , Indústria Farmacêutica/legislação & jurisprudência , Alemanha , Humanos , Resultado do Tratamento
16.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care ; 30(5): 508-13, 2014 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25747560

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Clinical endpoints are defined as valid measures of clinical benefit or harm due to treatment, that describe the impact of treatment on how a patient feels, functions, and survives. The choice of endpoints and the manner in which they are reported have a major impact on the relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals. The aim of this article is to describe the guideline development process and the key findings that set a framework for appropriate use of endpoints in REAs in Europe. METHODS: A multi-health technology assessment (HTA)-agency collaborative process in EUnetHTA JA1 was used to scope, draft, and finalize methodological guidelines for REA in Europe. RESULTS: Patient-relevant clinical endpoints can be broadly categorized into: mortality, morbidity and health-related quality of life. A clinical endpoint is a main symptom or sign of a disease that is clinically relevant, valid, reproducible and responsive to change. Preference is for long-term or final endpoints whenever possible. Surrogate endpoints may be used when there is compelling evidence of a clear and consistent correlation of treatment effects on the surrogate and final outcome of interest. CONCLUSIONS: The relevance and hierarchy of the different types of clinical endpoints depend on the research question, disease, and the treatment investigated. Not only the primary endpoint, but also other relevant endpoints are assessed in comparison to adequate comparator(s). This simultaneous assessment of all relevant endpoints is a hallmark of REA.


Assuntos
Determinação de Ponto Final , Guias como Assunto , Cooperação Internacional , Preparações Farmacêuticas/normas , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/organização & administração , Pesquisa Comparativa da Efetividade , Bases de Dados Factuais , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Desenvolvimento de Programas
17.
PLoS Med ; 10(10): e1001526, 2013 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24115912

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Access to unpublished clinical study reports (CSRs) is currently being discussed as a means to allow unbiased evaluation of clinical research. The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) routinely requests CSRs from manufacturers for its drug assessments. Our objective was to determine the information gain from CSRs compared to publicly available sources (journal publications and registry reports) for patient-relevant outcomes included in IQWiG health technology assessments (HTAs) of drugs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a sample of 101 trials with full CSRs received for 16 HTAs of drugs completed by IQWiG between 15 January 2006 and 14 February 2011, and analyzed the CSRs and the publicly available sources of these trials. For each document type we assessed the completeness of information on all patient-relevant outcomes included in the HTAs (benefit outcomes, e.g., mortality, symptoms, and health-related quality of life; harm outcomes, e.g., adverse events). We dichotomized the outcomes as "completely reported" or "incompletely reported." For each document type, we calculated the proportion of outcomes with complete information per outcome category and overall. We analyzed 101 trials with CSRs; 86 had at least one publicly available source, 65 at least one journal publication, and 50 a registry report. The trials included 1,080 patient-relevant outcomes. The CSRs provided complete information on a considerably higher proportion of outcomes (86%) than the combined publicly available sources (39%). With the exception of health-related quality of life (57%), CSRs provided complete information on 78% to 100% of the various benefit outcomes (combined publicly available sources: 20% to 53%). CSRs also provided considerably more information on harms. The differences in completeness of information for patient-relevant outcomes between CSRs and journal publications or registry reports (or a combination of both) were statistically significant for all types of outcomes. The main limitation of our study is that our sample is not representative because only CSRs provided voluntarily by pharmaceutical companies upon request could be assessed. In addition, the sample covered only a limited number of therapeutic areas and was restricted to randomized controlled trials investigating drugs. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to CSRs, publicly available sources provide insufficient information on patient-relevant outcomes of clinical trials. CSRs should therefore be made publicly available. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.


Assuntos
Relatório de Pesquisa , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Humanos , Sistema de Registros
18.
Syst Rev ; 1: 50, 2012 Oct 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23110993

RESUMO

Systematic reviewers are increasingly trying to obtain regulatory clinical study reports (CSRs) to correct for publication bias. For instance, our organization, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, routinely asks drug manufacturers to provide full CSRs of studies considered in health technology assessments. However, since cooperation is voluntary, CSRs are available only for a subset of studies analysed. In the case of the inhaled insulin Exubera, the manufacturer refused to cooperate and in 2007 we asked the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to provide the relevant CSRs, but EMA denied access. Other researchers have reported similar experiences.In 2010 EMA introduced a new policy on access to regulatory documents, including CSRs, and has also undertaken further steps. The new policy has already borne fruit: in 2011, by providing additional sections of relevant CSRs, EMA made an important contribution to a review of oseltamivir (Tamiflu).Unfortunately, speedy implementation of the new policy may be endangered. We define a CSR following the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) E3 guideline. Although this guideline requires individual patient data listings, it does not necessarily require that these listings be made available in a computer-readable format, as proposed by some regulators from EMA and other agencies. However, access to raw data in a computer-readable format poses additional problems; merging this issue with that of access to CSRs could hamper the relatively simple implementation of the EMA policy. Moreover, EMA plans to release CSRs only on request; we suggest making these documents routinely available on the EMA website.Public access to regulatory data also carries potential risks. In our view, the issue of patient confidentiality has been largely resolved by current European legislation. The risk of other problems, such as conflicts of interest (CoIs) of independent researchers or quality issues can be reduced by transparency measures, such as the implementation of processes to evaluate CoIs and the publication of methods and protocols.In conclusion, regulatory data are an indispensable source for systematic reviews. Because of EMA's policy change, a milestone for data transparency in clinical research is within reach; let's hope it is not unnecessarily delayed.


Assuntos
Indústria Farmacêutica/normas , Preparações Farmacêuticas/normas , Vigilância de Produtos Comercializados , Relatório de Pesquisa/normas , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Confidencialidade , Conflito de Interesses , Aprovação de Drogas , Avaliação de Medicamentos , Europa (Continente) , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Política de Saúde , Humanos , Viés de Publicação , Controle de Qualidade
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA