Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39582418›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2024

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

Inka Heikkinen, Melinda Goodall, Natalie Steck, Maria Poulakou, Katherine Piso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Inka HeikkinenGlobal Regulatory Policy and Intelligence, MSD Danmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0916-4189
Melinda GoodallGoodall HTA Consulting Ltd., UK.
Natalie SteckGlobal Access Strategy and Policy, MSD International, Zurich, Switzerland.
Maria PoulakouRegulatory Affairs, MSD Greece, Athens, Greece.
Katherine PisoGlobal Access Strategy and Policy, MSD International, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe 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.

methodsTwenty-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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionThe 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.

Indexed as

European UnionTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalDrug ApprovalHumansEU HTAJoint Clinical AssessmentPICO scopingtherapeutic indication statement

Identifiers

PMID39582418
PMCPMC11703616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.