scholarly journals REAL WORLD EVIDENCE OF THE CLINICAL BENEFIT OF FULVESTRANT AS MAINTENANCE AFTER PREVIOUS THERAPY

The Breast ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
pp. S50
Author(s):  
Fernando Valencia ◽  
Ronald Limon ◽  
Valeria Colomo ◽  
Henry Gomez
Author(s):  
Alex Simpson ◽  
Sreeram V Ramagopalan

In this month’s round up, we discuss a number of recent publications and guidelines addressing the use of real-world evidence to evaluate the clinical benefit of health technology assessments and what the publications mean practically for manufacturers.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 159-160
Author(s):  
Dolly Han ◽  
Missale Tiruneh ◽  
Alexandra Chambers ◽  
Adam Haynes

Introduction:The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) program was established by Canada's provincial and territorial Ministries of Health (except Quebec) to assess cancer drug therapies and make recommendations to guide drug reimbursement decisions. The pCODR Expert Review Committee (pERC) makes reimbursement recommendations, providing a rationale for the recommendation and next steps for stakeholders. The objective of this analysis was to identify reviews and reasons pERC has requested real-world evidence (RWE) data collection.Methods:A retrospective analysis of pERC Final Recommendations (January 2012 – May 2017) was conducted. pERC Final Recommendations include drug information, reimbursement recommendation, rationale for recommendation following pERC's Deliberative Framework (clinical benefit, patient-based values, economic evaluation, and adoption feasibility), next steps for jurisdictions to consider to support their funding decisions, summary of deliberations, and evidence in brief. Reviews were included if there was a next step advising the collection of RWE to reduce uncertainty in the drug under review.Results:Out of eighty-four reviews, forty-one (forty-eight percent) included a next step to collect RWE to address a gap in the available evidence. Reasons for RWE data collection, in descending order of frequency, were to inform: sequencing of available therapies; magnitude of clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness or the true cost-effectiveness; duration of treatment and cost-effectiveness; defining the population or disease progression; quality of life; and dosage.Conclusions:In almost half of pERC's recommendation there is an indication that there is a gap in the existing evidence that could potentially be addressed through the collection of RWE. This reflects the rising number of new cancer drugs, limited evidence supporting submissions (for example non-comparative studies), and newer drugs such as immunotherapies which may not have a fixed treatment duration. Further research includes development of mechanisms for RWE data collection to help inform pERC recommendations and assist stakeholders with adoption feasibility of reviewed drugs.


Diabetes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1243-P
Author(s):  
JIANMIN WU ◽  
FRITHA J. MORRISON ◽  
ZHENXIANG ZHAO ◽  
XUANYAO HE ◽  
MARIA SHUBINA ◽  
...  

Diabetes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 381-P
Author(s):  
ALEXANDRIA RATZKI-LEEWING ◽  
STEWART B. HARRIS ◽  
NATALIE H. AU ◽  
SUSAN WEBSTER-BOGAERT ◽  
JUDITH B. BROWN ◽  
...  

Diabetes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1607-P
Author(s):  
MAYU HAYASHI ◽  
KATSUTARO MORINO ◽  
KAYO HARADA ◽  
MIKI ISHIKAWA ◽  
ITSUKO MIYAZAWA ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document