PP189 Filling In The Blanks: Is RWE From MAAs Used In NICE Decision Making?

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 20192019Cambridge University PressIntroductionThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) may recommend temporary funding through managed access agreements (MAAs) for oncology drugs (via the Cancer Drugs Fund [CDF]) and highly specialized thera...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of technology assessment in health care 2019, Vol.35 (S1), p.72-73
Hauptverfasser: Liu, Lok Wan, Hall, Adam, Macaulay, Richard, Walsh, Sean
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 73
container_issue S1
container_start_page 72
container_title International journal of technology assessment in health care
container_volume 35
creator Liu, Lok Wan
Hall, Adam
Macaulay, Richard
Walsh, Sean
description Copyright © Cambridge University Press 20192019Cambridge University PressIntroductionThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) may recommend temporary funding through managed access agreements (MAAs) for oncology drugs (via the Cancer Drugs Fund [CDF]) and highly specialized therapies for rare diseases. MAAs allow for the collection of evidence to address key areas of clinical uncertainty, while providing access of medicines to patients, prior to re-appraisal by NICE. Observational data and other real-world evidence (RWE) are crucial requirements for all MAAs and herein we examine the extent these data are being used to inform HTA decisions at re-appraisal.MethodsExisting MAAs entered into between the National Health Service (NHS) England and manufacturers as of 30 October 2018 were identified; for drug:indication pairings with NICE re-appraisals, all information was reviewed and the key data extracted.ResultsOf the twenty-two MAAs identified, only two drug:indication pairings have been subsequently re-appraised by NICE: BV(brentuximab vedotin):non-Hodgkin lymphoma (’recommended’) and pembrolizumab:relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (’recommended’). Data from a retrospective questionnaire regarding the proportion of patients that received curative stem cell transplant (SCT) post-BV (from patients who received BV in the old CDF) were accepted to provide sufficient evidence on the post-BV SCT rate by NICE. Meanwhile, for pembrolizumab, long-term survival benefit was the key clinical uncertainty; the primary data collection source was updated phase III randomized controlled trial data. At re-appraisal no reference was made to the observational data component; more mature survival data reduced uncertainty over survival benefits and were sufficient to support a positive NICE recommendation.ConclusionsOf the twenty-two MAAs to date, only two drugs have been re-appraised thus far, with both receiving positive NICE recommendations. Observational data were successfully used to address key clinical uncertainties regarding subsequent real-world treatment patterns for BV, but observational data were not referred to in the NICE recommendation for pembrolizumab. The re-appraisal of more drugs in the future will clarify the importance being placed on observational data collection requested by NICE for existing MAAs.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0266462319002769
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2331306731</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2331306731</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1181-711386d3cf514bf516ca70c96538c9840a2fd2b1a9baa7cffe0446e3aba486303</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplUE1PwkAU3BhNRPQHeNvEc_W97rIfXgxC0UZQohCPzXbZaqG0uCsH_71t8OZl5jAz72WGkEuEawSUN28QC8FFzFADxFLoI9JDLjESjKtj0uvkqNNPyVkIawBkoKFHnuZzVJpOyqoq6w-a1nTx6eh9ZepNuKVpoK_vCZ34Zktnw2Ggy-BWnek5HSV07GwZyqamM7Npw3fn5KQwVXAXf9wny0myGD1G05eHdDScRhZRYSQRmRIrZosB8rwFYY0Eq8WAKasVBxMXqzhHo3NjpC0KB5wLx0xuuBIMWJ9cHe7ufPO1d-E7Wzd7X7cvs5ixtpiQLfYJHlzWNyF4V2Q7X26N_8kQsm6z7N9m7Bej5lmQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2331306731</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>PP189 Filling In The Blanks: Is RWE From MAAs Used In NICE Decision Making?</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Liu, Lok Wan ; Hall, Adam ; Macaulay, Richard ; Walsh, Sean</creator><creatorcontrib>Liu, Lok Wan ; Hall, Adam ; Macaulay, Richard ; Walsh, Sean</creatorcontrib><description>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 20192019Cambridge University PressIntroductionThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) may recommend temporary funding through managed access agreements (MAAs) for oncology drugs (via the Cancer Drugs Fund [CDF]) and highly specialized therapies for rare diseases. MAAs allow for the collection of evidence to address key areas of clinical uncertainty, while providing access of medicines to patients, prior to re-appraisal by NICE. Observational data and other real-world evidence (RWE) are crucial requirements for all MAAs and herein we examine the extent these data are being used to inform HTA decisions at re-appraisal.MethodsExisting MAAs entered into between the National Health Service (NHS) England and manufacturers as of 30 October 2018 were identified; for drug:indication pairings with NICE re-appraisals, all information was reviewed and the key data extracted.ResultsOf the twenty-two MAAs identified, only two drug:indication pairings have been subsequently re-appraised by NICE: BV(brentuximab vedotin):non-Hodgkin lymphoma (’recommended’) and pembrolizumab:relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (’recommended’). Data from a retrospective questionnaire regarding the proportion of patients that received curative stem cell transplant (SCT) post-BV (from patients who received BV in the old CDF) were accepted to provide sufficient evidence on the post-BV SCT rate by NICE. Meanwhile, for pembrolizumab, long-term survival benefit was the key clinical uncertainty; the primary data collection source was updated phase III randomized controlled trial data. At re-appraisal no reference was made to the observational data component; more mature survival data reduced uncertainty over survival benefits and were sufficient to support a positive NICE recommendation.ConclusionsOf the twenty-two MAAs to date, only two drugs have been re-appraised thus far, with both receiving positive NICE recommendations. Observational data were successfully used to address key clinical uncertainties regarding subsequent real-world treatment patterns for BV, but observational data were not referred to in the NICE recommendation for pembrolizumab. The re-appraisal of more drugs in the future will clarify the importance being placed on observational data collection requested by NICE for existing MAAs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-4623</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-6348</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0266462319002769</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Appraisals ; Clinical decision making ; Data collection ; Decision making ; Drugs ; Indication ; Lymphoma ; Monoclonal antibodies ; Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma ; Oncology ; Patients ; Pembrolizumab ; Stem cell transplantation ; Stem cells ; Survival ; Targeted cancer therapy ; Uncertainty</subject><ispartof>International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2019, Vol.35 (S1), p.72-73</ispartof><rights>Copyright Cambridge University Press 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1181-711386d3cf514bf516ca70c96538c9840a2fd2b1a9baa7cffe0446e3aba486303</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4010,27900,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Liu, Lok Wan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hall, Adam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macaulay, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walsh, Sean</creatorcontrib><title>PP189 Filling In The Blanks: Is RWE From MAAs Used In NICE Decision Making?</title><title>International journal of technology assessment in health care</title><description>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 20192019Cambridge University PressIntroductionThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) may recommend temporary funding through managed access agreements (MAAs) for oncology drugs (via the Cancer Drugs Fund [CDF]) and highly specialized therapies for rare diseases. MAAs allow for the collection of evidence to address key areas of clinical uncertainty, while providing access of medicines to patients, prior to re-appraisal by NICE. Observational data and other real-world evidence (RWE) are crucial requirements for all MAAs and herein we examine the extent these data are being used to inform HTA decisions at re-appraisal.MethodsExisting MAAs entered into between the National Health Service (NHS) England and manufacturers as of 30 October 2018 were identified; for drug:indication pairings with NICE re-appraisals, all information was reviewed and the key data extracted.ResultsOf the twenty-two MAAs identified, only two drug:indication pairings have been subsequently re-appraised by NICE: BV(brentuximab vedotin):non-Hodgkin lymphoma (’recommended’) and pembrolizumab:relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (’recommended’). Data from a retrospective questionnaire regarding the proportion of patients that received curative stem cell transplant (SCT) post-BV (from patients who received BV in the old CDF) were accepted to provide sufficient evidence on the post-BV SCT rate by NICE. Meanwhile, for pembrolizumab, long-term survival benefit was the key clinical uncertainty; the primary data collection source was updated phase III randomized controlled trial data. At re-appraisal no reference was made to the observational data component; more mature survival data reduced uncertainty over survival benefits and were sufficient to support a positive NICE recommendation.ConclusionsOf the twenty-two MAAs to date, only two drugs have been re-appraised thus far, with both receiving positive NICE recommendations. Observational data were successfully used to address key clinical uncertainties regarding subsequent real-world treatment patterns for BV, but observational data were not referred to in the NICE recommendation for pembrolizumab. The re-appraisal of more drugs in the future will clarify the importance being placed on observational data collection requested by NICE for existing MAAs.</description><subject>Appraisals</subject><subject>Clinical decision making</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Drugs</subject><subject>Indication</subject><subject>Lymphoma</subject><subject>Monoclonal antibodies</subject><subject>Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pembrolizumab</subject><subject>Stem cell transplantation</subject><subject>Stem cells</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Targeted cancer therapy</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><issn>0266-4623</issn><issn>1471-6348</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNplUE1PwkAU3BhNRPQHeNvEc_W97rIfXgxC0UZQohCPzXbZaqG0uCsH_71t8OZl5jAz72WGkEuEawSUN28QC8FFzFADxFLoI9JDLjESjKtj0uvkqNNPyVkIawBkoKFHnuZzVJpOyqoq6w-a1nTx6eh9ZepNuKVpoK_vCZ34Zktnw2Ggy-BWnek5HSV07GwZyqamM7Npw3fn5KQwVXAXf9wny0myGD1G05eHdDScRhZRYSQRmRIrZosB8rwFYY0Eq8WAKasVBxMXqzhHo3NjpC0KB5wLx0xuuBIMWJ9cHe7ufPO1d-E7Wzd7X7cvs5ixtpiQLfYJHlzWNyF4V2Q7X26N_8kQsm6z7N9m7Bej5lmQ</recordid><startdate>2019</startdate><enddate>2019</enddate><creator>Liu, Lok Wan</creator><creator>Hall, Adam</creator><creator>Macaulay, Richard</creator><creator>Walsh, Sean</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2019</creationdate><title>PP189 Filling In The Blanks: Is RWE From MAAs Used In NICE Decision Making?</title><author>Liu, Lok Wan ; Hall, Adam ; Macaulay, Richard ; Walsh, Sean</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1181-711386d3cf514bf516ca70c96538c9840a2fd2b1a9baa7cffe0446e3aba486303</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Appraisals</topic><topic>Clinical decision making</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Drugs</topic><topic>Indication</topic><topic>Lymphoma</topic><topic>Monoclonal antibodies</topic><topic>Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pembrolizumab</topic><topic>Stem cell transplantation</topic><topic>Stem cells</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Targeted cancer therapy</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Liu, Lok Wan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hall, Adam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macaulay, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walsh, Sean</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Liu, Lok Wan</au><au>Hall, Adam</au><au>Macaulay, Richard</au><au>Walsh, Sean</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>PP189 Filling In The Blanks: Is RWE From MAAs Used In NICE Decision Making?</atitle><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle><date>2019</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>S1</issue><spage>72</spage><epage>73</epage><pages>72-73</pages><issn>0266-4623</issn><eissn>1471-6348</eissn><abstract>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 20192019Cambridge University PressIntroductionThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) may recommend temporary funding through managed access agreements (MAAs) for oncology drugs (via the Cancer Drugs Fund [CDF]) and highly specialized therapies for rare diseases. MAAs allow for the collection of evidence to address key areas of clinical uncertainty, while providing access of medicines to patients, prior to re-appraisal by NICE. Observational data and other real-world evidence (RWE) are crucial requirements for all MAAs and herein we examine the extent these data are being used to inform HTA decisions at re-appraisal.MethodsExisting MAAs entered into between the National Health Service (NHS) England and manufacturers as of 30 October 2018 were identified; for drug:indication pairings with NICE re-appraisals, all information was reviewed and the key data extracted.ResultsOf the twenty-two MAAs identified, only two drug:indication pairings have been subsequently re-appraised by NICE: BV(brentuximab vedotin):non-Hodgkin lymphoma (’recommended’) and pembrolizumab:relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (’recommended’). Data from a retrospective questionnaire regarding the proportion of patients that received curative stem cell transplant (SCT) post-BV (from patients who received BV in the old CDF) were accepted to provide sufficient evidence on the post-BV SCT rate by NICE. Meanwhile, for pembrolizumab, long-term survival benefit was the key clinical uncertainty; the primary data collection source was updated phase III randomized controlled trial data. At re-appraisal no reference was made to the observational data component; more mature survival data reduced uncertainty over survival benefits and were sufficient to support a positive NICE recommendation.ConclusionsOf the twenty-two MAAs to date, only two drugs have been re-appraised thus far, with both receiving positive NICE recommendations. Observational data were successfully used to address key clinical uncertainties regarding subsequent real-world treatment patterns for BV, but observational data were not referred to in the NICE recommendation for pembrolizumab. The re-appraisal of more drugs in the future will clarify the importance being placed on observational data collection requested by NICE for existing MAAs.</abstract><cop>Cambridge</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0266462319002769</doi><tpages>2</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0266-4623
ispartof International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2019, Vol.35 (S1), p.72-73
issn 0266-4623
1471-6348
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2331306731
source Cambridge University Press Journals Complete
subjects Appraisals
Clinical decision making
Data collection
Decision making
Drugs
Indication
Lymphoma
Monoclonal antibodies
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
Oncology
Patients
Pembrolizumab
Stem cell transplantation
Stem cells
Survival
Targeted cancer therapy
Uncertainty
title PP189 Filling In The Blanks: Is RWE From MAAs Used In NICE Decision Making?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T14%3A48%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=PP189%20Filling%20In%20The%20Blanks:%20Is%20RWE%20From%20MAAs%20Used%20In%20NICE%20Decision%20Making?&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20technology%20assessment%20in%20health%20care&rft.au=Liu,%20Lok%20Wan&rft.date=2019&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=S1&rft.spage=72&rft.epage=73&rft.pages=72-73&rft.issn=0266-4623&rft.eissn=1471-6348&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0266462319002769&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2331306731%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2331306731&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true