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 primary sources of RWD thought-about 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 therapy results when extrapolating survival knowledge past the trial follow-up. Changes for potential systematic variations between therapy teams have improved over time; nonetheless, roughly one-third of the submissions nonetheless relied on unadjusted therapy comparisons…Over one-third of the submissions relied on naïve and/or unadjusted therapy comparisons…
We see a pattern in direction of growing use of RWD as a part of NICE HTA submission.
Out of the 64 HTA submissions with RWD, two-thirds (n=44 ) thought-about RWD for ECA evaluation solely within the base-case, 9 had been thought-about in each the base-case and sensitivity evaluation, and 11 thought-about RWD solely in sensitivity/state of affairs evaluation.
Confounding changes had been carried out within the majority of circumstances (30 of 44), with weighting (n=20), matching (n=7), regression (n=4), and simulated therapy comparability (n=2) the approaches used.
Why was RWD not used? For survival extrapolation, a lot of rationales had been supplied:
In 20 submissions, the real-world ECA [external control arm] was deemed inappropriate for extrapolation for numerous causes, reminiscent of (1) quick follow-up, (2) inclusion of therapies not noticed in UK medical apply, and (3) key endpoints (e.g., progression-free survival) not collected.
You’ll be able to learn the complete article right here.
