The reply is ‘sure’, however the query is in what method? A paper by Che et al. (2024) examines using real-world knowledge (RWD) throughout 2016-2023 HTA assessments. Over this time interval, 11% of HTA submissions included real-world knowledge. Additional, they discover that:
The principle sources of RWD thought of within the submissions had been illness registries and digital well being information. RWD had been primarily used to supply an exterior management arm to allow comparisons inside single-arm trials and to tell long-term remedy results when extrapolating survival knowledge past the trial follow-up. Changes for potential systematic variations between remedy teams have improved over time; nonetheless, roughly one-third of the submissions nonetheless relied on unadjusted remedy comparisons…Over one-third of the submissions relied on naïve and/or unadjusted remedy comparisons…
We see a development in the direction of rising use of RWD as a part of NICE HTA submission.
Out of the 64 HTA submissions with RWD, two-thirds (n=44 ) thought of RWD for ECA evaluation solely within the base-case, 9 had been thought of in each the base-case and sensitivity evaluation, and 11 thought of RWD solely in sensitivity/situation evaluation.
Confounding changes had been carried out within the majority of instances (30 of 44), with weighting (n=20), matching (n=7), regression (n=4), and simulated remedy comparability (n=2) the approaches used.
Why was RWD not used? For survival extrapolation, numerous rationales had been offered:
In 20 submissions, the real-world ECA [external control arm] was deemed inappropriate for extrapolation for numerous causes, reminiscent of (1) brief follow-up, (2) inclusion of therapies not noticed in UK scientific follow, and (3) key endpoints (e.g., progression-free survival) not collected.
You may learn the total article right here.
