ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2017
Integrating health technology assessment requirements in the clinical development of medicines: the experience from NICE scientific advice.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of the early dialogue frameworks used within health technology assessment and their actual adoption from HTA agencies.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Marketing authorisation and pricing of FDA-approved cancer drugs in Brazil: a retrospective analysis.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-VAS stand-alone component and Oxford knee score in the Australian knee arthroplasty population utilising minimally important difference, concurrent validity, predictive validity and responsiveness.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe primary objective of the study was to analyse the proposed clinical development and economic evaluation plans for investigational medicinal products for which pharmaceutical companies have sought health technology assessment (HTA) scientific advice (SA).
methodsWe have selected and analysed all the scientific advice procedures undertaken by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) SA between 1 January 2009 and 3 December 2015 for investigational medicinal products. We have mapped the questions asked by the companies and the areas of advice highlighted in the advice reports to the sections of the NICE methods guide to the technology appraisals (2013).
resultsAn overwhelming proportion of SA procedures have addressed questions related to the clinical development and specifically the main pivotal efficacy studies. Approximately a quarter of the questions relate to the approaches to economic evaluation. Questions raised in European Medicines Agency-HTA procedures generally focus on clinical efficacy issues whereas cost-effectiveness ones tend to dominate in NICE-only procedures. Our analysis shows that the issues mostly discussed in the HTA SA are the choice of comparator, the generalisability of the clinical trial evidence to the NHS practice and the impact of the clinical trial outcomes on quality of life and survival. Less disagreement with the developers' plans was seen in the choice of clinical endpoints, population definition, position of the technology in the treatment pathway and study design.
conclusionsScientific advice is designed to improve the quality of evidence and approaches to evidence generation for future regulatory approval and HTA evaluation. Our experience to date suggests that payer requirements are inconsistently integrated in the clinical development programmes. More efforts should be dedicated to demonstrating the clinical value of new medicinal products to patients and key decision-makers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27942759What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.