Department of Health Service Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Centre for Cancer Biomarkers (CCBIO), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
BMC Cancer. 2022 Dec 5;22(1):1268. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-10350-8.
Dealing with uncertainty is one of the critical topics in health technology assessment. The greater decision uncertainty in appraisals, the less clear the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the health technology. Although the development of targeted cancer therapies (TCTs) has improved patient health care, additional complexity has been introduced in drug appraisals due to targeting more specific populations. Real-world data (RWD) are expected to provide helpful information to fill the evidence gaps in appraisals. This study compared appraisals of TCTs with those of non-targeted cancer therapies (non-TCTs) regarding sources of uncertainty and reviewed how RWD have been used to supplement the information in these appraisals.
This study reviews single technology appraisals (STAs) of oncology medicines performed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) over 11 years up to December 2021. Three key sources of uncertainty were identified for comparison (generalisability of clinical trials, availability of direct treatment comparison, maturity of survival data in clinical trials). To measure the intensity of use of RWD in appraisals, three components were identified (overall survival, volume of treatment, and choice of comparators).
TCTs received more recommendations for provision through the Cancer Drugs Fund (27.7, 23.6% for non-TCT), whereas similar proportions were recommended for routine commissioning. With respect to sources of uncertainty, the external validity of clinical trials was greater in TCT appraisals (p = 0.026), whereas mature survival data were available in fewer TCT appraisals (p = 0.027). Both groups showed similar patterns of use of RWD. There was no clear evidence that RWD have been used more intensively in appraisals of TCT.
Some differences in uncertainty were found between TCT and non-TCT appraisals. The appraisal of TCT is generally challenging, but these challenges are neither new nor distinctive. The same sources of uncertainty were often found in the non-TCT appraisals. The uncertainty when appraising TCT stems from insufficient data rather than the characteristics of the drugs. Although RWD might be expected to play a more active role in appraisals of TCT, the use of RWD has generally been limited.
应对不确定性是健康技术评估中的一个关键议题。评估中决策不确定性越大,所评估的卫生技术的临床和成本效益就越不明确。虽然靶向癌症疗法(TCT)的发展改善了患者的医疗保健,但由于针对更特定的人群,药物评估的复杂性有所增加。真实世界数据(RWD)有望提供有助于填补评估中证据空白的信息。本研究比较了 TCT 与非靶向癌症疗法(非 TCT)的评估,比较了不确定性的来源,并回顾了 RWD 如何用于补充这些评估中的信息。
本研究回顾了截至 2021 年 12 月,国家卫生与保健卓越研究所(NICE)在 11 年内进行的肿瘤药物单技术评估(STA)。为了进行比较,确定了三个关键的不确定性来源(临床试验的普遍性、直接治疗比较的可用性、临床试验中生存数据的成熟度)。为了衡量 RWD 在评估中的使用强度,确定了三个组成部分(总生存期、治疗量和对照选择)。
TCT 通过癌症药物基金获得更多提供建议(非 TCT 为 27.7%、23.6%),而常规委托的建议比例相似。就不确定性的来源而言,TCT 评估中的临床试验外部有效性更高(p=0.026),而 TCT 评估中生存数据更不成熟(p=0.027)。两组 RWD 的使用模式相似。没有明确的证据表明 RWD 在 TCT 评估中被更密集地使用。
在 TCT 和非 TCT 评估中发现了一些不确定性的差异。TCT 的评估通常具有挑战性,但这些挑战既不是新的,也没有独特之处。非 TCT 评估中也经常发现同样的不确定性来源。TCT 评估中的不确定性源于数据不足,而非药物的特性。尽管 RWD 可能在 TCT 评估中发挥更积极的作用,但 RWD 的使用通常受到限制。