ArticlePharmacoEconomics2025
Acceptance of Evidence Transfer Within German Early Benefit Assessment of New Drugs for Pediatric and Adolescents Target Populations.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveIn Germany, all new drugs undergo an early benefit assessment (EBA) by the decision-making body (G-BA). Due to limited access to clinical data in pediatric healthcare since 2017, evidence transfer has allowed for data from adult studies to be used in the EBA of pediatric drugs. This study examines the acceptance of evidence transfer, aiming to understand its correlation with granted added benefit.
methodsBy searching the G-BA database, relevant EBAs were identified. In addition to descriptive statistics, agreement statistics regarding binary and ordinal extent of added benefit and binary logistic regression with and without intercept were performed to investigate acceptance of evidence transfer, juxtaposing it with manufacturers' claims, and to evaluate the impact of identified factors on evidence transfer.
resultsIn 14 of 36 identified EBAs, the evidence transfer was accepted by the G-BA. They referred to four therapeutic areas, received a non-quantifiable added benefit and were subject to a pediatric investigation program. Non-quantifiable added benefit implies an added value in itself which can range from minor to major added benefit and is considering the genuine uncertainty mainly induced in theese EBAs due to evidence transfer, which is not allowing a quantification of an added benefit. The binary agreement between manufacturers' claims and G-BA's appraisals was less than by chance [kappa - 0.054 (- 0.158 to 0.050)] whereas the ordinal agreement became fair [kappa 0.333 (0.261-0.406)]. Congruence of the mechanism of action, alignment of disease pattern, transferability of efficacy and safety, and same comparator were fundamental for evidence transfer. Additionally, supportive evidence, therapeutic breakthroughs, and small-scale approval enhanced the acceptance of evidence transfer. The regression models yielded similar results showing different model fit and explained variance.
conclusionsEvidence transfer hinges upon fulfilling various minimum criteria and additional supportive evidence. Availability of study data from adult or older patients and the pediatric group under evaluation is crucial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.