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.

Real-world evidence to support Payer/HTA decisions about highly innovative technologies in the EU-actions for stakeholders.

OBJECTIVES: There are divergent views on the potential of real-world data (RWD) to inform decisions made by regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, payers, clinicians, and patients. This RWE4Decisions initiative explored the particularly challenging setting of highly innovative technologies, which require Payers/HTAs to make decisions on a small evidence base with major uncertainties. The aim was to go beyond strategic intent to consider actions that each stakeholder could take to improve use of RWD in this setting. RESULTS: Case studies of recent Payer/HTA decisions about highly innovative technologies were considered in light of recent international initiatives about RWD. This showed a lack of clarity about the Payer/HTA questions that could be answered by RWD and how the quality of real-world evidence (RWE) could be assessed. All stakeholders worked together to create a vision whereby stakeholders agree what RWD can be collected for highly innovative technologies based on principles of collaboration and transparency. For each stakeholder group, recommended actions to support the generation, analysis, and interpretation of RWD to inform decision making were developed. For HTA bodies, this includes cross border HTA/regulatory collaboration to agree RWD requirements over the technology life cycle to inform initial recommendations and reassessment, data analytics methods development for HTA, and promotion of transparency in RWE studies. RECOMMENDATIONS: Stakeholders need to collaborate on demonstration projects to consider how RWE can be developed to inform healthcare decisions and contribute to a learning network that can develop systems to support a learning health system and improve patient outcomes through best use of RWD.

Impact of Statin Adherence on Cardiovascular Morbidity and All-Cause Mortality in the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Population-Based Cohort Study in Finland.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which adherence to statins is associated with the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) events and all-cause mortality in the primary prevention of CV diseases and whether different analytical approaches influence the observed associations. METHODS: This population-based cohort study used data from Finnish registers. The cohort included 97,575 new statin users aged 45 to 75 years in 2001 to 2004 with no CV diseases at baseline. Exposure was defined as adherence to statins (proportion of days covered [PDC]). The primary outcome was any CV event or death during a 3-year follow-up. Different analytical approaches, including multivariable-adjusted Cox regression, inverse probability weighting with time-varying adherence, and propensity score calibration, were used. RESULTS: During the first year of follow-up, 53% displayed good (PDC ≥80%), 26% had intermediate (PDC 40%-79%), and 21% exhibited poor (PDC <40%) adherence. After adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical covariates, a 25% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-0.79) was observed in the rate of any CV event or death among good versus poor adherers. Good adherers also had a lower incidence than poor adherers of acute coronary syndrome (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.49-0.65) and acute cerebrovascular disease events (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.60-0.76). The different analytical approaches achieved comparable results for all the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of CV events and mortality was higher in poor versus good adherers. Different analytical methods that took into account changes in adherence and confounding at baseline did not appreciably affect the results.

Topical anti-inflammatory agents for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the face or scalp.

BACKGROUND: Seborrhoeic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder affecting primarily the skin of the scalp, face, chest, and intertriginous areas, causing scaling and redness of the skin. Current treatment options include antifungal, anti-inflammatory, and keratolytic agents, as well as phototherapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of topical pharmacological interventions with established anti-inflammatory action for seborrhoeic dermatitis occurring in adolescents and adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to September 2013: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), and the GREAT database. We searched five trials databases and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs in adults or adolescents (> 16 years) with diagnosed seborrhoeic dermatitis of the scalp or face, comparing topical anti-inflammatory treatments (steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and lithium salts) with other treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of authors independently assessed eligibility for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses if feasible. MAIN RESULTS: We included 36 RCTs (2706 participants), of which 31 examined topical steroids; seven, calcineurin inhibitors; and three, lithium salts. The comparative interventions included placebo, azoles, calcipotriol, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory compound, and zinc, as well as different anti-inflammatory treatments compared against each other. Our outcomes of interest were total clearance of symptoms, erythema, scaling or pruritus scores, and adverse effects. The risk of bias in studies was most frequently classified as unclear, due to unclear reporting of methods.Steroid treatment resulted in total clearance more often than placebo in short-term trials (four weeks or less) (relative risk (RR) 3.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 11.56, three RCTs, 313 participants) and in one long-term trial (lasting 12 weeks). Steroids were also more effective in reducing erythema, scaling, and pruritus. Adverse effects were similar in both groups.There may be no difference between steroids and calcineurin inhibitors in total clearance in the short-term (RR 1.08, 95% 0.88 to 1.32, two RCTs, 60 participants, low-quality evidence). Steroids and calcineurin inhibitors were found comparable in all other assessed efficacy outcomes as well (five RCTs, 237 participants). Adverse events were less common in the steroid group compared with the calcineurin group in the short-term (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.89, two RCTs, 60 participants).There were comparable rates of total clearance in the steroid and azole groups (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.32, eight RCTs, 464 participants, moderate-quality evidence) as well as of adverse effects in the short-term, but less erythema or scaling with steroids.We found mild (class I and II) and strong (class III and IV) steroids comparable in the assessed outcomes, including adverse events. The only exception was total clearance in long-term use, which occurred more often with a mild steroid (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.98, one RCT, 117 participants, low-quality evidence).In one study, calcineurin inhibitor was more effective than placebo in reducing erythema and scaling, but there were similar rates in total clearance or adverse events for short-term treatment. In another study, calcineurin inhibitor was comparable with azole when erythema, scaling, or adverse effects were measured for longer-term treatment.Lithium was more effective than placebo with regard to total clearance (RR 8.59, 95% CI 2.08 to 35.52, one RCT, 129 participants) with a comparable safety profile. Compared with azole, lithium resulted in total clearance more often (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.90 in short-term treatment, one RCT, 288 participants, low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Topical steroids are an effective treatment for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the face and scalp in adolescents and adults, with no differences between mild and strong steroids in the short-term. There is some evidence of the benefit of topical calcineurin inhibitor or lithium salt treatment. Treatment with azoles seems as effective as steroids concerning short-term total clearance, but in other outcomes, strong steroids were more effective. Calcineurin inhibitor and azole treatment appeared comparable. Lithium salts were more effective than azoles in producing total clearance.Steroids are similarly effective to calcineurin inhibitors but with less adverse effects.Most of the included studies were small and short, lasting four weeks or less. Future trials should be appropriately blinded; include more than 200 to 300 participants; and compare steroids to calcineurin inhibitors or lithium salts, and calcineurin inhibitors to azoles or lithium salts. The follow-up time should be at least one year, and quality of life should be addressed. There is also a need for the development of well-validated outcome measures.

Piloting international production of rapid relative effectiveness assessments of pharmaceuticals.

BACKGROUND: This article describes the lessons learned from an international pilot assessment using the first version of the HTA Core Model® and Guidelines for rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals based on input from three different perspectives: the assessors, the users (health technology assessment organisations) and the marketing authorisation holder. METHODS: A pilot assessment was performed of pazopanib for the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma for which 54 individuals from 22 EUnetHTA member organisations from 16 European countries gave their contribution. The work was divided in eight domain teams. Subsequently, results of these domain teams were synthesised in one pilot report. Feedback on the outcomes of the pilot was gathered throughout the project and through structured surveys. RESULTS: The first version of the assessment was produced in six months and consisted of 55 question and answer pairs, 8 domain reports and a synthesis section that combined the results from the different domains. The organisation of the pilot required intense coordination. Main points of criticism on the assessment were the lengthiness of the document and overlap of information throughout the assessment. CONCLUSIONS: A reduction in the number of authoring organisations and individuals participating is necessary to avoid information overlap and increase efficiency in undertaking the assessment. Involving several organisations (e.g. five) in an in-depth review could still ensure the benefit of broad participation from various countries. The focus of a rapid REA should be on the first four domains of the Model.