• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

适应证变更对欧盟联合临床评估范围界定的影响:问题的规模以及如何解决。

Impact of indication changes on scoping for European Union Joint Clinical Assessment: scale of the problem and how to address it.

机构信息

Global Regulatory Policy and Intelligence, MSD Danmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Goodall HTA Consulting Ltd., UK.

出版信息

Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2024 Nov 25;40(1):e62. doi: 10.1017/S0266462324004641.

DOI:10.1017/S0266462324004641
PMID:39582418
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11703616/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The European Union Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) process aligns with the regulatory process to promote faster patient access. The PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) scoping for the JCA must occur before the regulatory process concludes. The risk of indication change during this period is one of the concerns for the success of the JCA process. We investigated the frequency and type of changes that are made to proposed indications and examined how such changes could impact the PICO scoping for JCA.

METHODS

Twenty-seven recently approved oncology and 15 Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMP) products were included. Observed indication changes were categorized into editorial or population changes population changes were graded based on the anticipated impact on JCA scope depending on their nature.

RESULTS

The majority of products had only editorial changes between proposed and approved indications (67 percent). Once amended, it was common for the indicated population to be narrowed, and rare for it to be broadened. The most common change observed was the shift to a later treatment line. The greatest risk for PICO rescoping would be when new populations would have been added, or new subpopulations or subgroups would have been omitted from the initial scope.

CONCLUSION

The impact on JCA scope depends on the proposed indication wording and how the PICO scoping would have been conducted. Rescoping warrants a considered decision, and to mitigate the risk of delays, dialogue between the assessors and the developer is recommended for informed decision-making.

摘要

目的

欧盟联合临床评估(JCA)流程与监管流程保持一致,旨在促进患者更快获得治疗。在监管流程结束之前,必须进行 JCA 的 PICO(人群、干预、对照和结局)范围界定。在此期间出现适应证变更的风险是 JCA 流程成功的关注点之一。我们调查了建议适应证变更的频率和类型,并研究了这些变更如何影响 JCA 的 PICO 范围界定。

方法

纳入了 27 种最近批准的肿瘤学药物和 15 种先进治疗药物产品(ATMP)。观察到的适应证变更分为编辑变更或人群变更;根据其性质,人群变更分为预期对 JCA 范围的影响程度进行分级。

结果

大多数产品在建议适应证和批准适应证之间只有编辑变更(67%)。修改后,适应证人群通常会缩小,很少会扩大。观察到的最常见变更为治疗线后移。PICO 范围重新界定的最大风险是新增人群,或初始范围中遗漏了新的亚人群或亚组。

结论

JCA 范围的影响取决于建议适应证的措辞以及 PICO 范围界定的方式。重新界定需要慎重考虑,为了降低延误的风险,建议评估人员与开发者之间进行对话,以便做出知情决策。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2bc9/11703616/f1a51145adfc/S0266462324004641_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2bc9/11703616/f1a51145adfc/S0266462324004641_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2bc9/11703616/f1a51145adfc/S0266462324004641_fig1.jpg

相似文献

1
Impact of indication changes on scoping for European Union Joint Clinical Assessment: scale of the problem and how to address it.适应证变更对欧盟联合临床评估范围界定的影响:问题的规模以及如何解决。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2024 Nov 25;40(1):e62. doi: 10.1017/S0266462324004641.
2
Shaping a suitable EU HTA dossier template: why the German template is not fit for purpose.制定合适的欧盟 HTA 档案模板:德国模板为何不适用。
Eur J Health Econ. 2024 Jul;25(5):877-888. doi: 10.1007/s10198-023-01631-5. Epub 2023 Oct 16.
3
Mapping methods gaps between EU joint clinical assessments and local health technology assessment decision-making: an environmental scan of guidance in select EU markets and harmonization challenges.绘制欧盟联合临床评估与地方卫生技术评估决策之间的方法差距:对部分欧盟市场指南及协调挑战的环境扫描
J Comp Eff Res. 2025 May;14(5):e240240. doi: 10.57264/cer-2024-0240. Epub 2025 Feb 26.
4
The Impact of Additive Population(s), Intervention, Comparator(s), and Outcomes in a European Joint Clinical Health Technology Assessment.在欧洲联合临床卫生技术评估中,附加人群、干预、对照和结局的影响。
Value Health. 2024 Dec;27(12):1722-1731. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2024.07.024. Epub 2024 Aug 10.
5
Indirect Treatment Comparisons in EUnetHTA Relative Effectiveness Assessments: Learnings and Recommendations for the Implementation of EU Joint Clinical Assessments.欧盟卫生技术评估网络(EUnetHTA)相对疗效评估中的间接治疗比较:欧盟联合临床评估实施的经验与建议
Pharmacoecon Open. 2025 Apr 22. doi: 10.1007/s41669-025-00575-1.
6
Ensuring the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Joint Clinical Assessment in National HTA Decision-Making: Insights from the 2024 CIRS Multi-Stakeholder Workshop.确保联合临床评估在国家卫生技术评估决策中的效率和有效性:来自2024年CIRS多利益相关方研讨会的见解。
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2025 Mar 3;13(1):9. doi: 10.3390/jmahp13010009. eCollection 2025 Mar.
7
Towards compatibility of EUnetHTA JCA methodology and German HTA: a systematic comparison and recommendations from an industry perspective.迈向欧盟卫生技术评估联合委员会方法与德国卫生技术评估的兼容性:从行业角度进行的系统比较与建议
Eur J Health Econ. 2022 Jul;23(5):863-878. doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01400-2. Epub 2021 Nov 12.
8
EU HTA Regulation and Joint Clinical Assessment-Threat or Opportunity?欧盟卫生技术评估法规与联合临床评估——威胁还是机遇?
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2024 May 13;12(2):100-104. doi: 10.3390/jmahp12020008. eCollection 2024 Jun.
9
Implementing the EU HTA regulation: Insights from semi-structured interviews on patient expectations, Belgian and European institutional perspectives, and industry outlooks.实施欧盟卫生技术评估法规:关于患者期望、比利时和欧洲机构观点以及行业展望的半结构化访谈见解
Front Pharmacol. 2024 Apr 10;15:1369508. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1369508. eCollection 2024.
10
Comparison of regulatory pathways for the approval of advanced therapies in the European Union and the United States.比较欧盟和美国批准先进疗法的监管途径。
Cytotherapy. 2021 Mar;23(3):261-274. doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2020.11.008. Epub 2021 Jan 19.

引用本文的文献

1
The EU Health Technology Assessment Regulation Halo Effect: Are Cross-Functional Teams Ready?欧盟卫生技术评估法规的光环效应:跨职能团队准备好了吗?
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2025 Jan 30;13(1):3. doi: 10.3390/jmahp13010003. eCollection 2025 Mar.

本文引用的文献

1
A decade comparison of regulatory decision patterns for oncology products to all other non-oncology products among Swissmedic, European Medicines Agency, and US Food and Drug Administration.瑞士药品管理局、欧洲药品管理局和美国食品药品监督管理局对肿瘤药物和其他非肿瘤药物的监管决策模式的十年比较。
Clin Transl Sci. 2023 Sep;16(9):1569-1581. doi: 10.1111/cts.13567. Epub 2023 Jul 5.
2
EUnetHTA relative effectiveness assessments: efforts to increase usability, transparency and inclusiveness.欧盟卫生技术评估网络(EUnetHTA)的相对疗效评估:提高实用性、透明度和包容性的努力。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2022 May 26;38(1):e41. doi: 10.1017/S0266462322000058.
3
Transparency in European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration Decision Making: Is It Possible to Identify the Rationale for Divergences in Approved Indication From Public Assessment Reports?
欧洲药品管理局和美国食品药品监督管理局决策的透明度:能否从公共评估报告中确定批准适应症差异的理由?
Clin Ther. 2021 May;43(5):888-905. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2021.03.010. Epub 2021 Apr 18.