新药上市时的信息:卫生技术评估报告与监管报告、期刊出版物及登记报告的回顾性分析
Information on new drugs at market entry: retrospective analysis of health technology assessment reports versus regulatory reports, journal publications, and registry reports.
作者信息
Köhler Michael, Haag Susanne, Biester Katharina, Brockhaus Anne Catharina, McGauran Natalie, Grouven Ulrich, Kölsch Heike, Seay Ulrike, Hörn Helmut, Moritz Gregor, Staeck Kerstin, Wieseler Beate
机构信息
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany.
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany
出版信息
BMJ. 2015 Feb 26;350:h796. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h796.
BACKGROUND
When a new drug becomes available, patients and doctors require information on its benefits and harms. In 2011, Germany introduced the early benefit assessment of new drugs through the act on the reform of the market for medicinal products (AMNOG). At market entry, the pharmaceutical company responsible must submit a standardised dossier containing all available evidence of the drug's added benefit over an appropriate comparator treatment. The added benefit is mainly determined using patient relevant outcomes. The "dossier assessment" is generally performed by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) and then published online. It contains all relevant study information, including data from unpublished clinical study reports contained in the dossiers. The dossier assessment refers to the patient population for which the new drug is approved according to the summary of product characteristics. This patient population may comprise either the total populations investigated in the studies submitted to regulatory authorities in the drug approval process, or the specific subpopulations defined in the summary of product characteristics ("approved subpopulations").
OBJECTIVE
To determine the information gain from AMNOG documents compared with non-AMNOG documents for methods and results of studies available at market entry of new drugs. AMNOG documents comprise dossier assessments done by IQWiG and publicly available modules of company dossiers; non-AMNOG documents comprise conventional, publicly available sources-that is, European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports. The analysis focused on the approved patient populations.
DESIGN
Retrospective analysis.
DATA SOURCES
All dossier assessments conducted by IQWiG between 1 January 2011 and 28 February 2013 in which the dossiers contained suitable studies allowing for a full early benefit assessment. We also considered all European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports referring to these studies and included in the dossiers.
DATA ANALYSIS
We assessed reporting quality for each study and each available document for eight methods and 11 results items (three baseline characteristics and eight patient relevant outcomes), and dichotomised them as "completely reported" or "incompletely reported (including items not reported at all)." For each document type we calculated the proportion of items with complete reporting for methods and results, for each item and overall, and compared the findings.Results 15 out of 27 dossiers were eligible for inclusion and contained 22 studies. The 15 dossier assessments contained 28 individual assessments of 15 total study populations and 13 approved subpopulations. European public assessment reports were available for all drugs. Journal publications were available for 14 out of 15 drugs and 21 out of 22 studies. A registry report in ClinicalTrials.gov was available for all drugs and studies; however, only 11 contained results. In the analysis of total study populations, the AMNOG documents reached the highest grade of completeness, with about 90% of methods and results items completely reported. In non-AMNOG documents, the rate was 75% for methods and 52% for results items; journal publications achieved the best rates, followed by European public assessment reports and registry reports. The analysis of approved subpopulations showed poorer complete reporting of results items, particularly in non-AMNOG documents (non-AMNOG versus AMNOG: 11% v 71% for overall results items and 5% v 70% for patient relevant outcomes). The main limitation of our analysis is the small sample size.
CONCLUSION
Conventional, publicly available sources provide insufficient information on new drugs, especially on patient relevant outcomes in approved subpopulations. This type of information is largely available in AMNOG documents, albeit only partly in English. The AMNOG approach could be used internationally to develop a comprehensive publication model for clinical studies and thus represents a key open access measure.
背景
当一种新药上市时,患者和医生需要了解其益处和危害的信息。2011年,德国通过《药品市场改革法案》(AMNOG)引入了新药早期效益评估。在药品上市时,负责的制药公司必须提交一份标准化档案,其中包含该药物相对于适当对照治疗的所有可用附加效益证据。附加效益主要通过与患者相关的结果来确定。“档案评估”通常由医疗质量与效率研究所(IQWiG)进行,然后在线发布。它包含所有相关研究信息,包括档案中未发表的临床研究报告的数据。档案评估针对的是根据产品特性摘要批准使用该新药的患者群体。这个患者群体可能包括在药品审批过程中提交给监管机构的研究中所调查的全部人群,或者产品特性摘要中定义的特定亚组(“批准的亚组”)。
目的
确定与非AMNOG文件相比,从AMNOG文件中获得的关于新药上市时可用研究的方法和结果的信息。AMNOG文件包括IQWiG进行的档案评估和公司档案的公开可用模块;非AMNOG文件包括传统的公开可用来源,即欧洲公共评估报告、期刊出版物和注册报告。分析集中在批准的患者群体上。
设计
回顾性分析。
数据来源
IQWiG在2011年1月1日至2013年2月28日期间进行的所有档案评估,其中档案包含合适的研究,允许进行全面的早期效益评估。我们还考虑了所有提及这些研究并包含在档案中的欧洲公共评估报告、期刊出版物和注册报告。
数据分析
我们评估了每项研究和每份可用文件在8种方法和11个结果项目(3个基线特征和8个与患者相关的结果)方面的报告质量,并将其分为“完整报告”或“不完整报告(包括根本未报告的项目)”。对于每种文件类型,我们计算了方法和结果方面完整报告项目的比例,针对每个项目和总体情况进行计算,并比较结果。结果27份档案中有15份符合纳入条件,包含22项研究。15份档案评估包含对15个总体研究人群和13个批准亚组的28项个体评估。所有药物都有欧洲公共评估报告。15种药物中有14种、22项研究中有21项有期刊出版物。所有药物和研究在ClinicalTrials.gov上都有注册报告;然而,只有11份包含结果。在对总体研究人群的分析中,AMNOG文件的完整性等级最高,约90%的方法和结果项目完整报告。在非AMNOG文件中,方法的完整报告率为75%,结果项目的完整报告率为52%;期刊出版物的报告率最高,其次是欧洲公共评估报告和注册报告。对批准亚组的分析显示结果项目的完整报告较差,特别是在非AMNOG文件中(非AMNOG与AMNOG相比:总体结果项目为11%对71%,与患者相关的结果为5%对70%)。我们分析的主要局限性是样本量小。
结论
传统的公开可用来源提供的关于新药的信息不足,特别是关于批准亚组中与患者相关的结果。这类信息在AMNOG文件中大多可以获得,尽管只有部分是英文的。AMNOG方法可在国际上用于开发临床研究的综合出版模式,因此是一项关键的开放获取措施。