对 NICE 2000-2016 年药品评估的回顾发现,在确定比较临床疗效方面存在差异。
A review of NICE appraisals of pharmaceuticals 2000-2016 found variation in establishing comparative clinical effectiveness.
机构信息
LSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.
LSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.
出版信息
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jan;105:50-59. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.09.003. Epub 2018 Sep 18.
OBJECTIVE
To identify and assess the methods for estimating comparative clinical effectiveness for novel pharmaceutical products licensed on the basis of nonrandomized controlled trial (non-RCT) data and to evaluate the corresponding National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations.
METHODS
Our identification strategy was twofold. First, we reviewed all NICE appraisals between 2010 and 2016 and identified technologies where comparative clinical effectiveness estimates were calculated using non-RCT data. Second, we checked if NICE appraisals completed from 2000 to 2010 had included pharmaceuticals that were granted European Medicines Agency marketing authorization without RCT data between 1999 and 2014. Information was extracted on the method used to establish comparative clinical effectiveness as well as the corresponding NICE recommendations. We also collected information on the rationale for utilizing non-RCT data in NICE appraisals.
RESULTS
Of 489 individual pharmaceutical technologies assessed by NICE, 22 (4%) used non-RCT data to estimate comparative clinical effectiveness. Methods for establishing external controls in such studies varied: 13 (59%) used published trials, 6 (27%) used observational data, 2 (9%) used expert opinion, and 1 (5%) used a responder vs nonresponder analysis. Only 5 (23%) used a regression model to adjust for covariates. We did not observe a notable difference in the proportion of pharmaceutical technologies that received a positive recommendation from NICE whether the decision was based on RCT or non-RCT data (83% vs 86%).
CONCLUSIONS
To date, a small number of appraisals by NICE based on non-RCT data did not result in substantially different treatment decisions. The majority of the technologies appraised on the basis of non-RCT data either received a positive recommendation or a positive recommendation with restrictions. The methods used to calculate comparative clinical effectiveness estimates varied, highlighting the need to establish clear guidance.
目的
识别和评估基于非随机对照试验(non-RCT)数据来估计新型药物产品的临床疗效比较的方法,并评估相应的英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)建议。
方法
我们的识别策略是双重的。首先,我们审查了 2010 年至 2016 年期间的所有 NICE 评估,并确定了使用非 RCT 数据计算临床疗效比较估计的技术。其次,我们检查了 2000 年至 2010 年期间完成的 NICE 评估中是否包括在 1999 年至 2014 年期间没有 RCT 数据的情况下获得欧洲药品管理局营销授权的药品。提取了用于建立临床疗效比较的方法以及相应的 NICE 建议的信息。我们还收集了在 NICE 评估中使用非 RCT 数据的基本原理的信息。
结果
在 NICE 评估的 489 种单独药物技术中,有 22 种(4%)使用非 RCT 数据来估计临床疗效比较。在这些研究中建立外部对照的方法各不相同:13 种(59%)使用已发表的试验,6 种(27%)使用观察性数据,2 种(9%)使用专家意见,1 种(5%)使用应答者与非应答者分析。只有 5 种(23%)使用回归模型来调整协变量。我们没有观察到基于 RCT 或非 RCT 数据做出的决定对 NICE 推荐的药物技术比例有显著差异(83%对 86%)。
结论
迄今为止,NICE 基于非 RCT 数据进行的少数评估并未导致治疗决策有显著差异。基于非 RCT 数据评估的大多数技术要么获得了正面推荐,要么获得了有条件的正面推荐。用于计算临床疗效比较估计的方法各不相同,这凸显了制定明确指导的必要性。