ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025
Planning Post-Launch Evidence Generation: Lessons From France, England and Spain.
Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Demonstrating transportability of real-world evidence: what do HTA bodies and health technology developers need?International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Review
- The unregulated majority: who ensures quality in non-submission real-world studies?Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Actions for stakeholders to develop better real-world evidence for HTA bodies/payers decision making.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technological developments and innovations in regulatory pathways have meant medicinal products are increasingly associated with substantial clinical and economic uncertainties at launch. This has increased the focus on continuous evidence generation to assess the real-world value of new medicines post-launch. This paper examines Post-Launch Evidence Generation (PLEG) systems in France, Spain, and England, drawing on insights from a series of multistakeholder roundtables hosted by RWE4Decisions. These discussions provided a platform to compare national approaches to PLEG considering PLEG planning and operationalization. The roundtable events included presentations by representatives of the HTA bodies and payers in France, Spain, and England, an industry response, and multistakeholder discussions. The events highlighted that while there are differences in the products to which PLEG is applied and the way it is operationalized, there are many common challenges experienced across systems and by all stakeholders. First, there is a recognition that evidentiary needs must be anticipated earlier to avoid PLEG where possible and better plan for PLEG where needed. Second, there is a need to streamline data collection. This includes trying to make greater use of existing data sources vs. primary data collection, prioritizing collection of a small number of outcomes that directly address key uncertainties, and by improving international collaborations to streamline data collection and evidence generation across borders. Our findings suggest value in improving scientific advice processes and international collaboration to discuss key data gaps early and ensure efficient and effective evidence collection that improves the speed and quality of reimbursement and pricing decisions.
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.