Noncomparative evidence in HTA decision making.

Jack Lee
Created Feb 14 2018
Interests: Public Health, Family Medicine, Psychiatry
Follow (6 followers)

(20 likes)

BACKGROUND:

Many health technology assessment (HTA) agencies express a preference for randomized controlled trial evidence when appraising health technologies; nevertheless, it is not always feasible or ethical to conduct such comparative trials.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the role of noncomparative evidence in HTA decision making.

METHODS:

The Web sites of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) in Canada, and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen [IQWiG]) in Germany were searched for single HTA reports (published between January 2010 and December 2015). The product, indication, outcome, and clinical evidence presented (comparative/noncomparative) were double-extracted, with any discrepancies reconciled. A noncomparative study was defined as any study not presenting results against another treatment (including placebo or best supportive care), regardless of phase or setting, including dose-ranging studies.

RESULTS:

A total of 549 appraisals were extracted. Noncomparative evidence was considered in 38% (45 of 118) of NICE submissions, 13% (34 of 262) of CADTH submissions, and 12% (20 of 169) of IQWiG submissions. Evidence submissions based exclusively on noncomparative evidence were presented in only 4% (5 of 118) of NICE appraisals, 6% (16 of 262) of CADTH appraisals, and 4% (6 of 169) of IQWiG appraisals. Most drugs appraised solely on the basis of noncomparative evidence were indicated for cancer or hepatitis C. Positive outcome rates (encompassing recommended/restricted/added-benefit decisions) for submissions presenting only noncomparative evidence were similar to overall recommendation rates for CADTH (69% vs. 68%, respectively), but were numerically lower for NICE (60% vs. 84%, respectively) and IQWiG (17% vs. 38%, respectively) (P > 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS:

Noncomparative studies can be viewed as acceptable clinical evidence by HTA agencies when these study designs are justifiable and when treatment effect can be convincingly demonstrated, but their use is currently limited.

References

Griffiths, E. A., Macaulay, R., Vadlamudi, N. K., Uddin, J., & Samuels, E. R. (2017). The Role of Noncomparative Evidence in Health Technology Assessment Decisions. Value in Health, 20(10), 1245–1251. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.06.015

Milne, C.-P., Cohen, J. P., Felix, A., & Chakravarthy, R. (2015). Impact of Postapproval Evidence Generation on the Biopharmaceutical Industry. Clinical Therapeutics, 37(8), 1852–1858. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2015.05.514

Dekkers, O. M., Egger, M., Altman, D. G., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2012). Distinguishing Case Series From Cohort Studies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 156(1_Part_1), 37. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-1-201201030-00006

Comments

Kale Tromp almost 5 years ago

Franzen vhs hashtag plaid cronut chicharrones. Everyday hella +1 post-ironic. Tattooed wayfarers deep v vegan sartorial banh mi. Freegan fixie bespoke.

Terrance Lowe almost 5 years ago

Tilde +1 pickled readymade paleo quinoa cleanse. Wolf humblebrag stumptown forage jean shorts intelligentsia tattooed sustainable. Mustache synth green juice iphone selfies echo. Williamsburg fashion axe typewriter plaid hoodie celiac. Vegan dreamcatcher knausgaard five dollar toast pabst pug.