Protocol for data extraction: how real-world data have been used in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals of cancer therapy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Due to the limitations of relying on randomised controlled trials, the potential benefits of real-world data (RWD) in enriching evidence for health technology assessment (HTA) are highlighted. Despite increased interest in RWD, there is limited systematic research investigating how RWD have been used in HTA. The main purpose of this protocol is to extract relevant data from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) appraisals in a transparent and reproducible manner in order to determine how NICE has incorporated a broader range of evidence in the appraisal of oncology medicines.Methods and analysis
The appraisals issued between January 2011 and May 2021 are included following inclusion criteria. The data extraction tool newly developed for this research includes the critical components of economic evaluation. The information is extracted from identified appraisals in accordance with extraction rules. The data extraction tool will be validated by a second researcher independently. The extracted data will be analysed quantitatively to investigate to what extent RWD have been used in appraisals. This is the first protocol to enable data to be extracted comprehensively and systematically in order to review the use of RWD.Ethics and dissemination
This study is approved by the Ethics Committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine on 14 November 2019 (17315). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.
SUBMITTER: Kang J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8739419 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesIndirect comparisons via a common comparator (anchored comparisons) are commonly used in health technology assessment. However, common comparators may not be available, or the comparison may be biased due to differences in effect modifiers between the included studies. Recently proposed population adjustment methods aim to adjust for differences between study populations in the situation where individual patient data are available from at least one study, but not all studies. They can also be used when there is no common comparator or for single-arm studies (unanchored comparisons). We aim to characterise the use of population adjustment methods in technology appraisals (TAs) submitted to the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).MethodsWe reviewed NICE TAs published between 01/01/2010 and 20/04/2018.ResultsPopulation adjustment methods were used in 7 percent (18/268) of TAs. Most applications used unanchored comparisons (89 percent, 16/18), and were in oncology (83 percent, 15/18). Methods used included matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (89 percent, 16/18) and simulated treatment comparisons (17 percent, 3/18). Covariates were included based on: availability, expert opinion, effective sample size, statistical significance, or cross-validation. Larger treatment networks were commonplace (56 percent, 10/18), but current methods cannot account for this. Appraisal committees received results of population-adjusted analyses with caution and typically looked for greater cost effectiveness to minimise decision risk.ConclusionsPopulation adjustment methods are becoming increasingly common in NICE TAs, although their impact on decisions has been limited to date. Further research is needed to improve upon current methods, and to investigate their properties in simulation studies.
| S-EPMC6650293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo 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.DesignCross-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 measureNumber of TAs that used EA data to inform safety, efficacy and/or resource use analyses.ResultsIn 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).ConclusionNICE 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.
| S-EPMC8739059 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMolecular Tumor Boards (MTB) operating in real-world have generated limited consensus on good practices for accrual, actionable alteration mapping, and outcome metrics. These topics are addressed herein in 124 MTB patients, all real-world accrued at progression, and lacking approved therapy options.MethodsActionable genomic alterations identified by tumor DNA (tDNA) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) profiling were mapped by customized OncoKB criteria to reflect diagnostic/therapeutic indications as approved in Europe. Alterations were considered non-SoC when mapped at either OncoKB level 3, regardless of tDNA/ctDNA origin, or at OncoKB levels 1/2, provided they were undetectable in matched tDNA, and had not been exploited in previous therapy lines.ResultsAltogether, actionable alterations were detected in 54/124 (43.5%) MTB patients, but only in 39 cases (31%) were these alterations (25 from tDNA, 14 from ctDNA) actionable/unexploited, e.g. they had not resulted in the assignment of pre-MTB treatments. Interestingly, actionable and actionable/unexploited alterations both decreased (37.5% and 22.7% respectively) in a subset of 88 MTB patients profiled by tDNA-only, but increased considerably (77.7% and 66.7%) in 18 distinct patients undergoing combined tDNA/ctDNA testing, approaching the potential treatment opportunities (76.9%) in 147 treatment-naïve patients undergoing routine tDNA profiling for the first time. Non-SoC therapy was MTB-recommended to all 39 patients with actionable/unexploited alterations, but only 22 (56%) accessed the applicable drug, mainly due to clinical deterioration, lengthy drug-gathering procedures, and geographical distance from recruiting clinical trials. Partial response and stable disease were recorded in 8 and 7 of 19 evaluable patients, respectively. The time to progression (TTP) ratio (MTB-recommended treatment vs last pre-MTB treatment) exceeded the conventional Von Hoff 1.3 cut-off in 9/19 cases, high absolute TTP and Von Hoff values coinciding in 3 cases. Retrospectively, 8 patients receiving post-MTB treatment(s) as per physician's choice were noted to have a much longer overall survival from MTB accrual than 11 patients who had received no further treatment (35.09 vs 6.67 months, p = 0.006).ConclusionsMTB-recommended/non-SoC treatments are effective, including those assigned by ctDNA-only alterations. However, real-world MTBs may inadvertently recruit patients electively susceptible to diverse and/or multiple treatments.
| S-EPMC10577953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Data sharing is now a mandatory prerequisite for several major funders and journals, where researchers are obligated to deposit the data resulting from their studies in an openly accessible repository. Biomedical open data are now widely available in almost all disciplines, where researchers can freely access and reuse these data in new studies. We aim to study the BioLINCC datasets, number of publications that used BioLINCC open access data, and the impact of these publications through the citations they received. Methods: As of July 2019, there was a total of 194 datasets stored in BioLINCC repository and accessible through their portal. We requested the full list of publications that used these datasets from BioLINCC, and we also performed a supplementary PubMed search for other publications. We used Web of Science (WoS) to analyze the characteristics of publications and the citations they received, where WoS database index high quality articles. Results: 1,086 published articles used data from BioLINCC repository for 79 (40.72%) datasets, where 115 (59.28%) datasets didn't have any publications associated with it. Of the total publications, 987 (90.88%) articles were WoS indexed. The number of publications has steadily increased since 2002 and peaked in 2018 with a total number of 138 publications on that year. The 987 open data publications received a total of 34,181 citations up to 1 st October 2019. The average citation per item for the open data publications was 34.63. The total number of citations received by open data publications per year has increased from only 2 citations in 2002, peaking in 2018 with 2361 citations. Conclusion: Majority of BioLINCC datasets were not used in secondary publications. Despite that, the datasets used for secondary publications yielded publications in WoS indexed journals and are receiving an increasing number of citations.
| S-EPMC8447052 | 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 UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is responsible for conducting health technology assessment (HTA) on behalf of the National Health Service (NHS). In seeking to justify its recommendations to the NHS about which technologies to fund, NICE claims to adopt two complementary ethical frameworks, one procedural-accountability for reasonableness (AfR)-and one substantive-an 'ethics of opportunity costs' (EOC) that rests primarily on the notion of allocative efficiency. This study is the first to empirically examine normative changes to NICE's approach and to analyse whether these enhance or diminish the fairness of its decision-making, as judged against these frameworks. It finds that increasing formalisation of NICE's approach and a weakening of the burden of proof laid on technologies undergoing HTA have together undermined its commitment to EOC. This implies a loss of allocative efficiency and a shift in the balance of how the interests of different NHS users are served, in favour of those who benefit directly from NICE's recommendations. These changes also weaken NICE's commitment to AfR by diminishing the publicity of its decision-making and by encouraging the adoption of rationales that cannot easily be shown to meet the relevance condition. This signals a need for either substantial reform of NICE's approach, or more accurate communication of the ethical reasoning on which it is based. The study also highlights the need for further empirical work to explore the impact of these policy changes on NICE's practice of HTA and to better understand how and why they have come about.
| S-EPMC7387327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:One major advantage of developing large, federally funded networks for clinical research in neurology is the ability to have a trial-ready network that can efficiently conduct scientifically rigorous projects to improve the health of people with neurologic disorders. Observations:National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Network for Excellence in Neuroscience Clinical Trials (NeuroNEXT) was established in 2011 and renewed in 2018 with the goal of being an efficient network to test between 5 and 7 promising new agents in phase II clinical trials. A clinical coordinating center, data coordinating center, and 25 sites were competitively chosen. Common infrastructure was developed to accelerate timelines for clinical trials, including central institutional review board (a first for the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), master clinical trial agreements, the use of common data elements, and experienced research sites and coordination centers. During the first 7 years, the network exceeded the goal of conducting 5 to 7 studies, with 9 funded. High interest was evident by receipt of 148 initial applications for potential studies in various neurologic disorders. Across the first 8 studies (the ninth study was funded at end of initial funding period), the central institutional review board approved the initial protocol in a mean (SD) of 59?(21) days, and additional sites were added a mean (SD) of 22?(18) days after submission. The median time from central institutional review board approval to first site activation was 47.5 days (mean,?102.1; range,?1-282) and from first site activation to first participant consent was 27 days (mean,?37.5; range,?0-96). The median time for database readiness was 3.5 months (mean,?4.0; range,?0-8) from funding receipt. In the 4 completed studies, enrollment met or exceeded expectations with 96% overall data accuracy across all sites. Nine peer-reviewed manuscripts were published, and 22 oral presentations or posters and 9 invited presentations were given at regional, national, and international meetings. Conclusions and Relevance:NeuroNEXT initiated 8 studies, successfully enrolled participants at or ahead of schedule, collected high-quality data, published primary results in high-impact journals, and provided mentorship, expert statistical, and trial management support to several new investigators. Partnerships were successfully created between government, academia, industry, foundations, and patient advocacy groups. Clinical trial consortia can efficiently and successfully address a range of important neurologic research and therapeutic questions.
| S-EPMC7483960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the prevalence of financial interests among patient organisations contributing to health technology assessment at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and the extent to which NICE's disclosure policy ensures that decision making committees are aware of these interests.DesignPolicy review using accounts, annual reports, and websites of patient organisations; payments declared by pharmaceutical manufacturers on their websites and a centralised database (Disclosure UK); declarations of interests by nominated representatives of patient organisations; and responses from patient organisations.SettingAppraisals of medicines and treatments (technologies) for use in the English and Welsh National Health Service.Participants53 patient organisations contributing to 41 NICE technology appraisals published in 2015 and 2016, with 117 separate occasions that a patient organisation contributed to the appraisal of a technology.Main outcome measuresPrevalence of specific interests (that is, funding from manufacturer(s) of a technology under appraisal or competitor products); proportion of specific interests of which NICE's decision making committees were aware; proportion of unknown specific interests for which disclosure was not required by NICE's policy RESULTS: 38/53 (72%) patient organisations had accepted funding from the manufacturer(s) of a technology or a competitor product in the same year that they had contributed to the appraisal of that technology or the previous year. Specific interests were present on 92/117 (79%) occasions that patient organisations contributed to appraisals in 2015 and 2016. NICE's decision making committees were aware of less than a quarter of specific interests (30/144; 21%). For nearly two thirds of the specific interests not known to committees (71/114; 62%), disclosure by patient organisations was not required by NICE's policy.ConclusionsFinancial interests are highly prevalent among patient organisations contributing to health technology assessment. NICE should review its disclosure policy to ensure that decision making committees are aware of all relevant interests.
| S-EPMC6334181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is international concern that conflicts of interest (COI) may bias clinical guideline development and render it untrustworthy. Guideline COI policies exist with the aim of reducing this bias but it is not known how such policies are interpreted and used by guideline producing organisations. This study sought to determine how conflicts of interest (COIs) are disclosed and managed by a national clinical guideline developer (NICE: the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence).MethodsQualitative study using semi-structured telephone interviews with 14 key informants: 8 senior staff of NICE's guideline development centres and 6 chairs of guideline development groups (GDGs). We conducted a thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants regard the NICE COI policy as comprehensive leading to transparent and independent guidance. The application of the NICE COI policy is, however, not straightforward and clarity could be improved. Disclosure of COI relies on self reporting and guideline developers have to take "on trust" the information they receive, certain types of COI (non-financial) are difficult to categorise and manage and disclosed COI can impact on the ability to recruit clinical experts to GDGs. Participants considered it both disruptive and stressful to exclude members from GDG meetings when required by the COI policy. Nonetheless the impact of this disruption can be minimised with good group chairing skills.ConclusionsWe consider that the successful implementation of a COI policy in clinical guideline development requires clear policies and procedures, appropriate training of GDG chairs and an evaluation of how the policy is used in practice.
| S-EPMC4374927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitors effectively lower LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol and have been shown to reduce cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients. We used real-world electronic health record data to characterize use of PCSK9 inhibitors, in addition to standard therapies, according to cardiovascular risk status. Methods and Results Data were obtained from 18 health systems with data marts within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) using a common data model. Participating sites identified >17.5 million adults, of whom 3.6 million met study criteria. Patients were categorized into 3 groups: (1) dyslipidemia, (2) untreated LDL ≥130 mg/dL, and (3) coronary artery disease or coronary heart disease. Demographics, comorbidities, estimated 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, and lipid-lowering pharmacotherapies were summarized for each group. Participants' average age was 62 years, 50% were female, and 11% were black. LDL cholesterol ranged from 85 to 151 mg/dL. Among patients in groups 1 and 3, 54% received standard lipid-lowering therapies and a PCSK9 inhibitor was prescribed in <1%. PCSK9 inhibitor prescribing was greatest for patients with coronary artery disease or coronary heart disease and, although prescribing increased during the study period, overall PCSK9 inhibitor prescribing was low. Conclusions We successfully used electronic health record data from 18 PCORnet data marts to identify >3.6 million patients meeting criteria for 3 patient groups. Approximately half of patients had been prescribed lipid-lowering medication, but <1% were prescribed PCSK9 inhibitors. PCSK9 inhibitor prescribing increased over time for patients with coronary artery disease or coronary heart disease but not for those with dyslipidemia.
| S-EPMC6512121 | biostudies-literature