Real-world data from expanded access programmes in health technology assessments: a review of NICE technology appraisals.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
To quantify and characterise the usage of expanded access (EA) data in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisals (TAs). EA offers patients who are ineligible for clinical trials or registered treatment options, access to investigational therapies. Although EA programmes are increasingly used to collect real-world data, it is unknown if and how these date are used in NICE health technology assessments.Design
Cross-sectional study of NICE appraisals (2010-2020). We automatically downloaded and screened all available appraisal documentation on NICE website (over 8500 documents), searching for EA-related terms. Two reviewers independently labelled the EA usage by disease area, and whether it was used to inform safety, efficacy and/or resource use. We qualitatively describe the five appraisals with the most occurrences of EA-related terms.Primary outcome measure
Number of TAs that used EA data to inform safety, efficacy and/or resource use analyses.Results
In 54.2% (206/380 appraisals), at least one reference to EA was made. 21.1% (80/380) of the TAs used EA data to inform safety (n=43), efficacy (n=47) and/or resource use (n=52). The number of TAs that use EA data remained stable over time, and the extent of EA data utilisation varied by disease area (p=0.001).Conclusion
NICE uses EA data in over one in five appraisals. In synthesis with evidence from well-controlled trials, data collected from EA programmes may meaningfully inform cost-effectiveness modelling.
SUBMITTER: Polak TB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8739059 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:In England and Wales, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has provided guidance [technology appraisals (TAs) 130, 186, 195, 198 and 225] on the use of biologic drugs for the treatment of RA. This is based on an analysis of efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness, and has resulted in a complex management pathway that restricts freedom to prescribe biologics according to their licensed indications. Specifically, TNF antagonists are the only class of biologics that can be used first line in DMARD-inadequate responders, and only in patients with a persistent 28-joint DAS score of ≥5.1. Alternative biologic agents are denied to those with contraindications to anti-TNF drugs and are also not supported following intolerance to TNF antagonists. Rituximab is the only class of biologic permitted after TNF antagonist inefficacy, in the absence of a contraindication to its use, whereas abatacept and tocilizumab are licensed and may be a more efficacious choice at this stage in some patient groups. Furthermore, for patients who demonstrate sequential inadequate responses, treatment is restricted to one TNF antagonist, rituximab and tocilizumab, whereas abatacept is only a permitted choice when rituximab is contraindicated or has been withdrawn because of an adverse event. In this review, we discuss the treatment algorithm published by NICE, and suggest alternatives where perceived deficiencies exist.
| S-EPMC3276292 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomized phase III trials are ongoing to investigate the efficacy of nivolumab in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), but real-world data are still scarce. In this real-world study, we investigated the clinical outcomes of nivolumab treatment in pre-treated MPM patients.MethodsData from 107 nivolumab treated MPM patients within the Dutch expanded access program were retrospectively analyzed. Treatment was independent of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression on tumor samples. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between clinically important factors, baseline peripheral blood parameters and survival. The landmark method was used to compare the outcome of patients according to their radiological response.ResultsIn the full cohort, the median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 2.3 months (95% CI: 1.6-2.9) and the median overall survival (mOS) was 6.7 months (95% CI: 6.2-10.0). After 12 weeks, the disease control rate (DCR) was 37% and the objective response rate (ORR) was 10%. PD-L1 status was determined in 33 patients (30%) and PD-L1 positivity (≥1%) was associated with an improved ORR (36% vs. 9%, P value 0.05), but not with PFS or OS. Low albumin was associated with worse OS (P value 0.002). Median OS was significantly longer for patients who had partial response to treatment (P value 0.0002).ConclusionsIn this real-world analysis, ORR and mOS were lower compared to those obtained in phase II trials. However, exceptional survival rates were observed in patients who had a radiological response. Although we cannot determine whether prognostic or predictive, PD-L1 expression and albumin were associated with greater response rate and may represent useful biomarkers for nivolumab treatment in MPM.
| S-EPMC7481613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo identify, characterize and compare all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approvals that included real-world data on efficacy from expanded access (EA) programmes.MethodsCross-sectional study of FDA (1955-2018) and EMA (1995-2018) regulatory approval documentation. We automated searching for terms related to EA in 22,506 documents using machine learning techniques. We included all approvals where EA terms appeared in the regulatory documentation. Our main outcome was the inclusion of EA data as evidence of clinical efficacy. Characterization was based on approval date, disease area, orphan designation and whether the evidence was supportive or pivotal.ResultsEA terms appeared in 693 out of 22,506 (3.1%) documents, which referenced 187 approvals. For 39 approvals, data from EA programmes were used to inform on clinical efficacy. The yearly number of approvals with EA data increased from 1.25 for 1993-2013 to 4.6 from 2014-2018. In 13 cases, these programmes formed the main evidence for approval. Of these, patients in EA programmes formed over half (median 71%, interquartile range: 34-100) of the total patient population available for efficacy evaluation. Almost all (12/13) approvals were granted orphan designation. In 8/13, there were differences between regulators in approval status and valuation of evidence. Strikingly, 4 treatments were granted approval based solely on efficacy from EA.ConclusionSponsors and regulators increasingly include real-world data from EA programmes in the efficacy profile of a treatment. The indications of the approved treatments are characterized by orphan designation and high unmet medical need.
| S-EPMC7444779 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesExamine whether data from early access to medicines in the USA can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) health technology assessments (HTA) in oncology.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingOncology-based community and academic treatment centres in the USA.ParticipantsPatients present in a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived deidentified database.InterventionsCancer drugs that underwent NICE technology appraisal (TA) between 2014 and 2019.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe count and follow-up time of US patients, available in the EHR, who were exposed to cancer drugs of interest in the period between Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and dates relevant to the NICE appraisal process.ResultsIn 59 of 60 TAs analysed, the cancer therapy was approved in the USA before the final appraisal by NICE. The median time from FDA approval to the publication of NICE recommendations was 18.5 months, at which time the US EHR-derived database had, on average, 269 patients (SD=356) exposed to the new therapy, with a median of 75.3 person-years (IQR: 13.1-173) in time-at-risk. A case study generated evidence on real-world overall survival and treatment duration.ConclusionsAcross different cancer therapies, there was substantial variability in US real-world data accumulated between FDA approval and NICE decision milestones. The applicability of these data to generate evidence for HTA decision-making should be assessed on a case-by-case basis depending on the intended HTA use case.
| S-EPMC10582952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The available evidence on relative effectiveness and risks of new health technologies is often limited at the time of health technology assessment (HTA). Additionally, a wide variety in real-world data (RWD) policies exist among HTA organizations. This study assessed which challenges, related to the increasingly complex nature of new health technologies, make the acceptance of RWD most likely. A questionnaire was disseminated among 33 EUnetHTA member HTA organizations. The questions focused on accepted data sources, circumstances that allowed for RWD acceptance and barriers to acceptance. The questionnaire was validated and tested for reliability by an expert panel, and pilot-tested before dissemination via LimeSurvey. Twenty-two HTA organizations completed the questionnaire (67%). All reported accepting randomized clinical trials. The most accepted RWD source were patient registries (19/22, 86%), the least accepted were editorials and expert opinions (8/22, 36%). With orphan treatments or companion diagnostics, organizations tended to be most likely to accept RWD sources, 4.3-3.2 on a 5-point Likert scale, respectively. Additional circumstances were reported to accept RWD (e.g., a high disease burden). The two most important barriers to accepting RWD were lacking necessary RWD sources and existing policy structures. European HTA organizations seem positive toward the (wider) use of RWD in HTA of complex therapies. Expanding the use of patient registries could be potentially useful, as a large share of the organizations already accepts this source. However, many barriers still exist to the widespread use of RWD. Our results can be used to prioritize circumstances in which RWD might be accepted.
| S-EPMC8866967 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the incremental value of new drugs across disease areas receiving favourable coverage decisions by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) over the past decade.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study assessed favourable appraisal decisions of drugs between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. Estimates of incremental benefit were extracted from NICE's evidence review groups reports.Primary outcome measureIncremental benefit of novel drugs relative to the best alternative therapeutic option, expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).Results184 appraisals of 129 drugs provided QALYs. The median incremental value was 0.27 QALY (IQR: 0.07-0.73). Benefits varied across drug-indication pairs (range: -0.49 to 5.22 QALY). The highest median benefits were found in haematology (0.70, IQR: 0.55-1.22) and oncology (0.46, IQR: 0.20-0.88), the lowest in ophthalmology (0.09, IQR: 0.04-0.22) and endocrinology (0.02, IQR: 0.01-0.06). Eight appraisals (4.3%) found contributions of more than two QALYs, but one in four (50/184) drug-indication pairs provided less than the equivalent of 1 month in perfect health compared to existing treatments.ConclusionsIn our review period, the median incremental value of novel drugs approved for use within the English National Health System, relative to the best alternative therapeutic option, was equivalent to 3-4 months of life in perfect health, but data were heterogeneous. Objective evaluations of therapeutic value helps patients and physicians to develop reasonable expectations of drugs and delivers insights into disease areas where medicinal therapeutic progress has had the most and least impact.
| S-EPMC8996039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction Real-world evidence is important in regulatory and funding decisions. Manual data extraction from electronic health records (EHRs) is time-consuming and challenging to maintain. Automated extraction using natural language processing (NLP) and artificial intelligence may facilitate this process. Whereas NLP offers a faster solution than manual methods of extraction, the validity of extracted data remains in question. The current study compared manual and automated data extraction from the EHR of patients with advanced lung cancer. Methods Previously, we extracted EHRs from 1209 patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (stage IIIB or IV) between January 2015 and December 2017 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (Toronto, Canada) using the commercially available artificial intelligence engine, DARWEN (Pentavere, Ontario, Canada). For comparison, 100 of 333 patients that received systemic therapy were randomly selected and clinical data manually extracted by two trained abstractors using the same accepted gold standard feature definitions, including patient, disease characteristics, and treatment data. All cases were re-reviewed by an expert adjudicator. Accuracy and concordance between automated and manual methods are reported. Results Automated extraction required considerably less time (<1 day) than manual extraction (∼225 person-hr). The collection of demographic data (age, sex, diagnosis) was highly accurate and concordant with both methods (96%–100%). Accuracy (for either extraction approach) and concordance were lower for unstructured data elements in EHR, such as performance status, date of diagnosis, and smoking status (NLP accuracy: 88%–94%; Manual accuracy: 78%–94%; concordance: 71%–82%). Concurrent medications (86%–100%) and comorbid conditions (96%–100%), were reported with high accuracy and concordance. Treatment details were also accurately captured with both methods (84%–100%) and highly concordant (83%–99%). Detection of whether biomarker testing was performed was highly accurate and concordant (96%–98%), although detection of biomarker test results was more variable (accuracy 84%–100%, concordance 84%–99%). Features with syntactic or semantic variation requiring clinical interpretation were extracted with slightly lower accuracy by both NLP and manual review. For example, metastatic sites were more accurately identified through NLP extraction (NLP: 88%–99%; manual: 71%–100%; concordance: 70%–99%) with the exception of lung and lymph node metastases (NLP: 66%–71%; manual: 87%–92%; concordance: 58%) owing to analogous terms used in radiology reports not being included in the accepted gold standard definition. Conclusions Automated data abstraction from EHR is highly accurate and faster than manual abstraction. Key challenges include poorly structured EHR and the use of analogous terms beyond the accepted gold standard definition. The application of NLP can facilitate real-world evidence studies at a greater scale than could be achieved with manual data extraction
| S-EPMC9201015 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient Support Programmes (PSPs) are used by the pharmaceutical industry to provide education and support to consumers to overcome the challenges they face managing their condition and treatment. Whilst there is an increasing number of PSPs, limited information is available on whether these programmes contribute to safety signals. PSPs do not have a scientific hypothesis, nor are they governed by a protocol. However, by their nature, PSPs inevitably generate adverse event (AE) reports. The main goal of the research was to gather all Novartis-initiated PSPs for sacubitril/valsartan, followed by research in the company safety database to identify all AE reports emanating from these PSPs. Core data sheets (CDS) were reviewed to assess if these PSPs contributed to any new, regulatory-authority approved, validated signals. Overall, AEs entered into the safety database from PSPs confirmed no contribution to CDS updates. Detailed review of real-world data revealed tablet splitting or taking one higher dose tablet a day instead of twice daily. This research, and subsequent analyses, revealed that PSPs did not impact safety label changes for sacubitril/valsartan. It revealed an important finding concerning drug utilisation i.e. splitting of sacubitril/valsartan tablets to reduce cost. This finding suggests that PSPs may contribute important real-world data on patterns of medication usage. There remains a paucity of literature available on this topic, hence further research is required to assess if it would be worth designing PSPs for collecting data on drug utilisation and (lack of) efficacy. Such information from PSPs could be important for all stakeholders.
| S-EPMC10852303 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-JCBD-201004104 | bioimages
Project description:ObjectiveThis study investigated early, real-world outcomes with cenobamate (CNB) in a large series of patients with highly drug-resistant epilepsy within a Spanish Expanded Access Program (EAP).MethodThis was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study in 14 hospitals. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, focal seizures, and EAP authorization. Data were sourced from patient clinical records. Primary effectiveness endpoints included reductions (100%, ≥90%, ≥75%, and ≥50%) or worsening in seizure frequency at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits and at the last visit. Safety endpoints included rates of adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to discontinuation.ResultsThe study included 170 patients. At baseline, median epilepsy duration was 26 years and median number of seizures/month was 11.3. The median number of prior antiseizure medications (ASMs) and concomitant ASMs were 12 and 3, respectively. Mean CNB dosages/day were 176 mg, 200 mg, and 250 mg at 3, 6, and 12 months. Retention rates were 98.2%, 94.5%, and 87% at 3, 6, and 12 months. At last available visit, the rate of seizure freedom was 13.3%; ≥90%, ≥75%, and ≥50% responder rates were 27.9%, 45.5%, and 63%, respectively. There was a significant reduction in the number of seizures per month (mean: 44.6%; median: 66.7%) between baseline and the last visit (P < 0.001). Responses were maintained regardless of the number of prior or concomitant ASMs. The number of concomitant ASMs was reduced in 44.7% of patients. The cumulative percentage of patients with AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation were 68.2% and 3.5% at 3 months, 74.1% and 4.1% at 6 months, and 74.1% and 4.1% at 12 months. The most frequent AEs were somnolence and dizziness.SignificanceIn this highly refractory population, CNB showed a high response regardless of prior and concomitant ASMs. AEs were frequent but mostly mild-to-moderate, and few led to discontinuation.
| S-EPMC10472366 | biostudies-literature