Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25722024›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2015

Information on new drugs at market entry: retrospective analysis of health technology assessment reports versus regulatory reports, journal publications, and registry reports.

Michael Köhler, Susanne Haag, Katharina Biester, Anne Catharina Brockhaus, Natalie McGauran, Ulrich Grouven, Heike Kölsch, Ulrike Seay, Helmut Hörn, Gregor Moritz and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Analysis of adverse drug events as a way to improve cancer patient care.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2023
    Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. What Does CME Accreditation Stand for?Journal of European CME · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Michael KöhlerInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany.
Susanne HaagInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany.
Katharina BiesterInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany.
Anne Catharina BrockhausInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany.
Natalie McGauranInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany.
Ulrich GrouvenInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany.
Heike KölschInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany.
Ulrike SeayInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany.
Helmut HörnInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany.
Gregor MoritzInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany.
Kerstin StaeckInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany.
Beate WieselerInstitute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Im Mediapark 8, 50670 Cologne, Germany beate.wieseler@iqwig.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen 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").

objectiveTo 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.

designRetrospective 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.

conclusionConventional, 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.

Indexed as

RegistriesBiomedical TechnologyDrug and Narcotic ControlDrug ApprovalDrug Information ServicesGermanyHumansPeriodicals as TopicResearch ReportRetrospective StudiesTechnology Assessment, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID25722024
PMCPMC4353284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.