Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:21:02.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postlaunch evidence generation practices among health technology assessment bodies in Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2022

Janet Puñal-Riobóo ,
Leonor Varela-Lema Open the ORCID record for Leonor Varela-Lema [Opens in a new window] ,
Chantal Guilhaume ,
Margaret Galbraith Open the ORCID record for Margaret Galbraith [Opens in a new window] ,
Chantal Bélorgey ,
Maria José Faraldo  and
Amélie Meillassoux
Janet Puñal-Riobóo
Affiliation:
Galician Health Knowledge Agency (AVALIA-T, ACIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Leonor Varela-Lema*
Affiliation:
Preventive Medicine and Public Health Department, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Chantal Guilhaume
Affiliation:
Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Saint-Denis, France
Margaret Galbraith
Affiliation:
Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Saint-Denis, France
Chantal Bélorgey
Affiliation:
Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Saint-Denis, France
Maria José Faraldo
Affiliation:
Galician Health Knowledge Agency (AVALIA-T, ACIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Amélie Meillassoux
Affiliation:
Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Saint-Denis, France
*
*Author for correspondence: Leonor Varela-Lema, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

The term Postlaunch Evidence Generation (PLEG) refers to evidence generated after the launch or licensing of a health technology. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the implementation of these practices in the European Union in order to explore cross-border cooperation opportunities.

Methods

In December 2019, a survey composed of nine closed-ended questions with multiple choice answers about the PLEG practices in each country was sent to all twenty-five dedicated work package (WP5B) partners of the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action 3. In addition to the survey, the national practices were discussed during a face-to-face meeting with WP5B partners.

Results

Twelve Health TechnologyAssessment (HTA) bodies completed the survey. Of these, eleven reported procedures in place for official requests for PLEGs in their remit. In the large majority of cases, the requests are made at the time of the assessment/appraisal. Several agencies participate in the definition of the scope of the PLEG or review of its protocol. Data collection and analysis mainly lie with companies for pharmaceuticals, whereas it is more the responsibility of the HTA bodies for medical devices. Only one agency owns the data and is able to exchange them without asking permission.

Conclusions

Most agencies recommend European collaboration on PLEG commence once the evidence gaps have been defined or during the production of the HTA report in the case of European joint assessment.

Keywords

EUnetHTA partnersPLEG practiceEvidence gapsHealth technology assessment
Type
Article Commentary
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , 2022 , e33
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors would like to acknowledge Annette Abraham (G-BA), Antje Behring (G-BA), Rimma Berenstein (G-BA), Susanne Brueck (G-BA), Agnese Cangini (AIFA), Anna Cavazzana (Veneto/CRUF), Mariane Cossito (Infarmed), Judith Fernandez (HAS), Emmanuelle Fouteau (HAS), Irena Guzina (HAS), Wim Goettsch (ZIN), Brad Groves (NICE), Hanna-Mari Jauhonen (Fimea), Piia Rannanheimo (Fimea), Krystyna Hviding (NOMA), Matthias Menig (SNHTA), Goedele Van-Hassten (SNHTA), Marija Svajda (HZJZ), Entela Xoxi (UCSC GEMELLI), and Johan Pontén (TLV).

References

Moseley, J, Vamvakas, S, Berntgen, M, et al Regulatory and health technology assessment advice on postlicensing and postlaunch evidence generation is a foundation for lifecycle data collection for medicines. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2020; 86: 1034–1051.10.1111/bcp.14279CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
RWE Navigator. Sources of real-world data [Internet]; 2020 [cited 2022 Jan 12]. Available from: https://rwe-navigator.eu/use-real-world-evidence/sources-of-real-world-data/.Google Scholar
Marsolo, KA, Richesson, R, Edward Hammond, WE, Smerek, M, Curtis, L Common real-world data sources. 2020 [cited 2022 Jan 28]. Available at: https://rethinkingclinicaltrials.org/chapters/conduct/acquiring-real-world-data/common-real-world-data-sources/.Google Scholar
Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) Doctrine de la Commission de la Transparence. Principes d’évaluation de la CT relatifs aux médicaments en vue de leur accès au remboursement [Internet]; 2020 [cited 2021 Oct 8]. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-03/doctrine_ct.pdf.Google Scholar
Xoxi, E, Facey, KM, Cicchetti, A The evolution of AIFA registries to support managed entry agreements for orphan medicinal products in Italy. Front Pharmacol. 2021; 12: 699466.10.3389/fphar.2021.699466CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
AIFA Update list of web-based registries and therapeutic plan website [Internet]; 2021 [cited 2021 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.aifa.gov.it/en/web/guest/registri-e-piani-terapeutici1.Google Scholar
Serrano-Aguilar, P, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I, Díaz, P, et al Postlaunch evidence-generation studies for medical devices in Spain: The RedETS approach to integrate real-world evidence into decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2021; 37: E63.10.1017/S0266462321000295CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Health CAaSS Information system for evaluating therapeutic value in the real clinical practice of medicine of high healthcare and economic impact in the NHS (VALTERMED) [Internet]; 2019 [cited 2022 Jan 12]. Available from: https://www.mscbs.gob.es/en/profesionales/farmacia/valtermed/home.htm.Google Scholar
Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Consultation document: MHRA draft guidance on randomised controlled trials generating real-world evidence to support regulatory decisions [Internet]; 2021 [cited 2021 Jul 20]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/mhra-draft-guidance-on-randomised-controlled-trials-generating-real-world-evidence-to-support-regulatory-decisions/consultation-document-mhra-draft-guidance-on-randomised-controlled-trials-generating-real-world-evidence-to-support-regulatory-decisions.Google Scholar
UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) NICE’s statement of intent to use RWE. Widening the evidence base: Use of broader data and applied analytics in NICE’s work [Internet]; 2020 [cited 2022 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/nice-guidelines/how-we-develop-nice-guidelines/data-and-analytics-statement-of-intent.Google Scholar
Makady, A, Ham, RT, de Boer, A, et al Policies for use of real-world data in health technology assessment (HTA): A comparative study of six HTA agencies. Value Health. 2017; 20: 520–532.10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HTAi Policy Forum Scientific Secretary Real-world evidence in the context of health technology assessment processes-from theory to action [Internet]; 2018 [cited 2022 Jan 28]. Available from: https://htai.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Policy_Brief_GPF_2019_051118_final_line-numbers.pdf.Google Scholar
EUnetHTA Deliverable D5.6 recommendations and tools for post-launch evidence generation. Diemen (The Netherlands); 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 15]. Available from: https://www.eunethta.eu.Google Scholar
Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) Real-world studies for the assessment for medicinal products and medical devices; 2021 [cited 2021 Jul 8]. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-06/real-world_studies_for_the_assessment_of_medicinal_products_and_medical_devices.pdf.Google Scholar
Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) Verfahrensordnung: Verfahren zur Forderung einer anwendungsbegleitenden Datenerhebung [Internet]; 2020 [cited 2021 Jul 8]. Available from: https://www.g-ba.de/beschluesse/4402/.Google Scholar
Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) [A19-43] Development of scientific concepts for the generation of routine practice data and their analysis for the benefit assessment of drugs according to §35a Social Code Book V – Rapid report [Internet]; 2020 [cited 2021 Jul 8]. Available from: https://www.iqwig.de/en/projects/a19-43.html.Google Scholar
Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2021 on health technology assessment and amending Directive 2011/24/EU (Text with EEA relevance), 2021/2282 (2021).Google Scholar
Council conclusions on access to medicines and medical devices for a stronger and resilent EU, 2021/C 269/02 (2021).Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS). Milestone 5.11 options on the sustainable availability of the standards tool. 2019 Sep.Google Scholar