Real-world evidence use in assessments of cancer drugs by NICE

• Published in: International journal of technology assessment in health care Vol. 36; no. 4; pp. 388 - 394
• Main Authors: Bullement, Ash, Podkonjak, Tanja, Robinson, Mark J., Benson, Eugene, Selby, Ross, Hatswell, Anthony J., Shields, Gemma E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, USA Cambridge University Press 01.08.2020
• Subjects: Appraisals; Assessment; Best practice; Cancer; Cancer therapies; Case studies; Committees; Cost analysis; Decision making; Drugs; Funding; Health technology assessment; Quality of life; Regulatory approval; Reimbursement; Resource utilization; Statistical analysis; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Reimbursement; Health technology assessment; Real-world evidence; Cancer
• ISSN: 0266-4623; 1471-6348
• DOI: 10.1017/S0266462320000434

To establish how real-world evidence (RWE) has been used to inform single technology appraisals (STAs) of cancer drugs conducted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). STAs published by NICE from April 2011 to October 2018 that evaluated cancer treatments were reviewed. Information regarding the use of RWE to directly inform the company-submitted cost-effectiveness analysis was extracted and categorized by topic. Summary statistics were used to describe emergent themes, and a narrative summary was provided for key case studies. Materials for a total of 113 relevant STAs were identified and analyzed, of which nearly all (96 percent) included some form of RWE within the company-submitted cost-effectiveness analysis. The most common categories of RWE use concerned the health-related quality of life of patients (71 percent), costs (46 percent), and medical resource utilization (40 percent). While sources of RWE were routinely criticized as part of the appraisal process, we identified only two cases where the use of RWE was overtly rejected; hence, in the majority of cases, RWE was accepted in cancer drug submissions to NICE. RWE has been used extensively in cancer submissions to NICE. Key criticisms of RWE in submissions to NICE are seldom regarding the use of RWE in general; instead, these are typically concerned with specific data sources and the applicability of these to the decision problem. Within an appropriate context, RWE constitutes an extremely valuable source of information to inform decision making; yet the development of best practice guidelines may improve current reporting standards.