ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2025
Indirect Treatment Comparisons in EUnetHTA Relative Effectiveness Assessments: Learnings and Recommendations for the Implementation of EU Joint Clinical Assessments.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing National Health Technology Assessment approaches and the new European Joint Clinical Assessment framework: The case of onco-hematological medicines.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Mapping the Use of Real-World Evidence Across the EU Health Technology Assessment Regulation: Methodological Considerations, Challenges, and Opportunities for Harmonization.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
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
backgroundBeginning in January 2025, all new active substances must undergo evaluation of relative clinical effectiveness through European Union (EU) joint clinical assessments (JCAs). In the absence of head-to-head data, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) become indispensable in meeting the numerous population, intervention, comparators and outcomes (PICO) criteria to support decision-making.
objectiveThis study examined ITCs in European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) to obtain valuable insights into their potential implications for future JCAs.
methodsThe EUnetHTA website was hand-searched for REAs of pharmaceutical products between 2010 and 2021. Information on PICO, ITC methods, ITC limitations/critiques, and relative effectiveness conclusions were systematically extracted. On the basis of the final EUnetHTA critiques, suitability of ITC evidence was categorised by the current study authors as appropriate, unsuitable or unclear.
resultsTwenty-three REAs were identified. Twelve REAs included an ITC, of which six were in oncology indications. Across the REAs, 64 comparisons were required, with a median of four comparators per REA (range 1-18). In total, 25 comparisons were informed by indirect evidence; the suitability of ITCs was categorised as unclear in all but one of the 25 comparisons.
conclusionMultiple analyses and ITCs were necessary to address multiple PICOs. Although most ITCs were categorised as unclear within the REAs, they were still considered appropriate to inform decision-making. The EU JCA process will most likely require health technology developers to use various ITC approaches to address the multiple PICOs requested, recognising the inherent limitations of these methodologies. Efforts to address potential challenges for EU JCA should focus on supporting JCA assessors/co-assessors and national HTA agencies in the evaluation and interpretation of ITCs to enable decision-making.
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.