Results of the survey of experts on the need to incorporate real-world evidence to the comprehensive drug assessment

Health technology assessments and real-world evidence: tell us what you want, what you really, really want.

Learning from the past to advance tomorrow's real-world evidence: what demonstration projects have to teach us.

IntroductionThe Health Technology Assessment Network of the Americas (RedETSA) working groups gather members aiming to develop projects and research jointly. The Real-World Evidence (RWE) Working Group seeks to identify methodologies and approaches allowing RWE integration into health technology assessment (HTA) in the region. This collaborative initiative is crucial to enhancing evidence-based decision-making processes in the Americas, shaping regional health policies.MethodsA survey was conducted among RedETSA members to identify RWE use in the context of HTA within the network. The survey included responses from 22 members, reflecting diverse perspectives from across the Americas. A search of official documents issued by various regulatory and HTA agencies was carried out to perform a detailed analysis of the RWE frameworks accessible online. Relevant documents published between 2013 and 2024 were selected, reviewing both the official portals of each agency and publicly accessible academic databases. Documents in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and French were searched.ResultsRWE documents from various HTA or regulatory agencies from different countries or regions were identified. The following domains were analyzed from each document: institution type, RWE definition, objective or purpose of RWE use, data quality and tools to assess RWE, data sources used, proposals for analytical methodologies, approved regulatory uses, and specific initiatives or tools. The RWE Working Group document was developed in Spanish. The document provides practical guidelines and checklists for implementing RWE, making it accessible for both specialists and general stakeholders within RedETSA.ConclusionsThe document was a helpful tool aimed at RedETSA members integrating RWE into HTA. Additional tools will include a procedure to meet regulatory and HTA expectations; and a decision tool to support a particular study design adoption. By leveraging these tools, decision-makers in the region can justify their choice of study design and align with regulatory requirements more effectively.

The Case for Real-world Evidence in the Future of Clinical Research on Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

PNS153 The Role of Real World Evidence in Health Technology Assessment over Time: A Research on the French Situation

Objective: This review aimed to assess the current use and acceptance of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) in health technology assessment (HTA) process. It additionally aimed to discern stakeholders' viewpoints concerning RWD and RWE in HTA and illuminate the obstacles, difficulties, prospects, and consequences associated with the incorporation of RWD and RWE into the realm of HTA. Methods: A comprehensive PRISMA-based systematic review was performed in July 2022 in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, IDEAS-RePEc, International HTA database, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination with ad hoc supplementary search in Google Scholar and international organization websites. The review included pre-determined inclusion criteria while the selection of eligible studies, the data extraction process and quality assessment were carried out using standardized and transparent methods. Results: Twenty-nine (n = 29) studies were included in the review out of 2,115 studies identified by the search strategy. In various global contexts, disparities in RWD utilization were evident, with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) serving as the primary evidence source. RWD and RWE played pivotal roles, surpassing relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and significantly influencing decision-making and cost-effectiveness analyses. Identified challenges impeding RWD integration into HTA encompassed limited local data access, complexities in non-randomized trial design, data quality, privacy, and fragmentation. Addressing these is imperative for optimal RWD utilization. Incorporating RWD/RWE in HTA yields multifaceted advantages, enhancing understanding of treatment efficacy, resource utilization, and cost analysis, particularly via patient registries. RWE complements assessments of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) and rare diseases. Local data utilization strengthens HTA, bridging gaps when RCT data is lacking. RWD aids medical device decision-making, cancer drug reassessment, and indirect treatment comparisons. Challenges include data availability, stakeholder acceptance, expertise, and privacy. However, standardization, training, collaboration, and guidance can surmount these barriers, fostering enhanced RWD utilization in HTA. Conclusion: This study highlights the intricate global landscape of RWD and RWE acceptance in HTA. Recognizing regional nuances, addressing methodological challenges, and promoting collaboration are pivotal, among others, for leveraging RWD and RWE effectively in healthcare decision-making.

Health technology assessment (HTA) decisions for pharmaceuticals are complex and evolving. New rare disease treatments are often approved more quickly through accelerated approval schemes, creating more uncertainties about clinical evidence and budget impact at the time of market entry. The use of real-world evidence (RWE), including early coverage with evidence development, has been suggested as a means to support HTA decisions for rare disease treatments. However, the collection and use of RWE poses substantial challenges. These challenges are compounded when considered in the context of treatments for rare diseases. In this paper, we describe the methodological challenges to developing and using prospective and retrospective RWE for HTA decisions, for rare diseases in particular. We focus attention on key elements of study design and analyses, including patient selection and recruitment, appropriate adjustment for confounding and other sources of bias, outcome selection, and data quality monitoring. We conclude by offering suggestions to help address some of the most vexing challenges. The role of RWE in coverage and pricing determination will grow. It is, therefore, necessary for researchers, manufacturers, HTA agencies, and payers to ensure that rigorous and appropriate scientific principles are followed when using RWE as part of decision-making.

Real-world evidence (RWE) can reinforce clinical trial evidence in health technology assessment (HTA). Review HTA bodies' (HTAbs) requirements for RWE, real uses, and acceptance across seven countries (Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) and outline recommendations that may improve acceptance of RWE in efficacy/effectiveness assessments and appraisals processes. RWE requirements were summarized based on HTAbs' guidelines. Acceptance by HTAbs was evaluated based on industry experience and case studies. As of June 2022, RWE methodological guidelines were in place in three of the seven countries. HTAbs typically requested analyses based on local data sources, but the preferred study design and data sources differed. HTAbs had individual submission, assessment, and appraisal processes; some allowed early meetings for the protocol and/or results validation, though few involved external experts or medical societies to provide input to assessment and appraisal. The extent of submission, assessment, and appraisal requirements did not necessarily reflect the degree of acceptance. All the countries reviewed face common challenges regarding the use of RWE. Our proposals address the need to facilitate collaboration and communication with industry and regulatory agencies and the need for specific guidelines describing RWE design and criteria of acceptance throughout the assessment and appraisal processes.

The Inflation Reduction Act: An Opportunity to Accelerate Confidence in Real-World Evidence in the United States

Introduction: Real-world evidence (RWE) in health technology assessment (HTA) holds significant potential for informing healthcare decision-making. A multistakeholder workshop was organised by the European Health Data and Evidence Network (EHDEN) and the GetReal Institute to explore the status, challenges, and opportunities in incorporating RWE into HTA, with a focus on learning from regulatory initiatives such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Data Analysis and Real World Interrogation Network (DARWIN EU®). Methods: The workshop gathered key stakeholders from regulatory agencies, HTA organizations, academia, and industry for three panel discussions on RWE and HTA integration. Insights and recommendations were collected through panel discussions and audience polls. The workshop outcomes were reviewed by authors to identify key themes, challenges, and recommendations. Results: The workshop discussions revealed several important findings relating to the use of RWE in HTA. Compared with regulatory processes, its adoption in HTA to date has been slow. Barriers include limited trust in RWE, data quality concerns, and uncertainty about best practices. Facilitators include multidisciplinary training, educational initiatives, and stakeholder collaboration, which could be facilitated by initiatives like EHDEN and the GetReal Institute. Demonstrating the impact of "driver projects" could promote RWE adoption in HTA. Conclusion: To enhance the integration of RWE in HTA, it is crucial to address known barriers through comprehensive training, stakeholder collaboration, and impactful exemplar research projects. By upskilling users and beneficiaries of RWE and those that generate it, promoting collaboration, and conducting "driver projects," can strengthen the HTA evidence base for more informed healthcare decisions.

Aim:Regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have increasingly published frameworks, guidelines, and recommendations for the use of real-world evidence (RWE) in healthcare decision-making. Variations in the scope and content of these documents, with updates running in parallel, may create challenges for their implementation especially during the market authorization and reimbursement phases of a medicine's life cycle. This environmental scan aimed to comprehensively identify and summarize the guidance documents for RWE developed by most well-established regulatory and reimbursement agencies, as well as other organizations focused on healthcare decision-making, and present their similarities and differences.Methods:RWE guidance documents, including white papers from regulatory and HTA agencies, were reviewed in March 2024. Data on scope and recommendations from each body were extracted by two reviewers and similarities and differences were summarized across four topics: study planning, choosing fit-for-purpose data, study conduct, and reporting. Post-authorization or non-pharmacological guidance was excluded.Results:Forty-six documents were identified across multiple agencies; US FDA produced the most RWE-related guidance. All agencies addressed specific and often similar methodological issues related to study design, data fitness-for-purpose, reliability, and reproducibility, although inconsistency in terminologies on these topics was noted. Two HTA bodies (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and Canada's Drug Agency) each centralized all related RWE guidance under a unified framework. RWE quality tools and checklists were not consistently named and some differences in preferences were noted. European Medicines Agency, NICE, Haute Autorité de Santé, and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care included specific recommendations on the use of analytical approaches to address RWE complexities and increase trust in its findings.Conclusion:Similarities in agencies' expectations on RWE studies design, quality elements, and reporting will facilitate evidence generation strategy and activities for manufacturers facing multiple, including global, regulatory and reimbursement submissions and re-submissions. A strong preference by decision-making bodies for local real-world data generation may hinder opportunities for data sharing and outputs from international federated data networks. Closer collaboration between decision-making agencies towards a harmonized RWE roadmap, which can be centrally preserved in a living mode, will provide manufacturers and researchers clarity on minimum acceptance requirements and expectations, especially as novel methodologies for RWE generation are rapidly emerging.

What's the Reality of Real-World Evidence in Health Technology Appraisal?

PHP252 - Prevalence and Incidence Estimations in German amnog Applications – The Role of Real-World Evidence (RWE)

ObjectiveIn 2020, RWE4Decisions, a multi-stakeholder initiative commissioned by the Belgian payer, published stakeholder actions to support the generation, analysis, and interpretation of real-world evidence (RWE) to inform the decision making of health technology assessment (HTA) bodies/payers for highly innovative medicines in the European Union (EU). Since 2020, changes in the decision-making environment and advancements in RWE have created an impetus to update stakeholder actions for the EU and Canada.MethodsRWE4Decisions’ experts led focus groups with individual stakeholder groups (HTA bodies/payers, pharmaceutical industry, clinicians, patients, registry holders, and data analytical experts). Each focus group crafted new actions for their stakeholder, then the actions were discussed and revised in a multi-stakeholder meeting, a public webinar, and a public consultation. Themes across actions and meetings were identified.ResultsDetailed new actions for each stakeholder group are presented. Key themes identified are the need to address interorganizational fragmentation regarding secondary data use and methodologies to build robust RWE. HTA bodies/payers need to develop a common vision about the potential use of RWE. The role of the whole clinical team as primary data collectors is critical. Opportunities for scientific advice across the life cycle of a medicine are essential, and the implementation of RWE guidance related to HTA is paramount. Progress requires specific, operational actions and a collective effort by a variety of stakeholders.ConclusionsCarrying out these actions will facilitate the development of methodological best practices for generating RWE to inform HTA of highly innovative medicines and build trust between stakeholders in the use of RWE.

Background: The role of real-world evidence (RWE) in the development of anticancer therapies has been gradually growing over time. Regulators, payers and health technology assessment agencies, spurred by the rise of the precision medicine model, are increasingly incorporating RWE into their decision-making regarding the authorization and reimbursement of novel antineoplastic treatments. However, it remains unclear how this trend is viewed by clinicians in the field. This study aimed to investigate the opinions of these stakeholders with respect to RWE and its suitability for informing regulatory, reimbursement-related and clinical decisions in oncology.Methods: An online survey was disseminated to clinicians belonging to the network of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer between May and July 2021.Results: In total, 557 clinicians across 30 different countries participated in the survey, representing 13 distinct cancer domains. Despite seeing the methodological challenges associated with its interpretation as difficult to overcome, the respondents mostly (75.0%) perceived RWE positively, and believed such evidence could be relatively strong, depending on the designs and data sources of the studies from which it is produced. Few (4.6%) saw a future expansion of its influence on decision-makers as a negative evolution. Furthermore, nearly all (94.0%) participants were open to the idea of sharing anonymized or pseudonymized electronic health data of their patients with external parties for research purposes. Nevertheless, most clinicians (77.0%) still considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be the gold standard for generating clinical evidence in oncology, and a plurality (49.2%) thought that RWE cannot fully address the knowledge gaps that remain after a new antitumor intervention has entered the market. Moreover, a majority of respondents (50.7%) expressed that they relied more heavily on RCT-derived evidence than on RWE for their own decision-making.Conclusion: While cancer clinicians have positive opinions about RWE and want to contribute to its generation, they also continue to hold RCTs in high regard as sources of actionable evidence.