Information on new drugs at market entry: retrospective analysis of health technology assessment reports versus regulatory reports, journal publications, and registry reports

Abstract

Background When a new drug becomes available, patients and doctors require information on its benefits and harms. In 2011, Germany introduced the early benefit assessment of new drugs through the act on the reform of the market for medicinal products (AMNOG). At market entry, the pharmaceutical company responsible must submit a standardised dossier containing all available evidence of the drug's added benefit over an appropriate comparator treatment. The added benefit is mainly determined using patient relevant outcomes. The "dossier assessment" is generally performed by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) and then published online. It contains all relevant study information, including data from unpublished clinical study reports contained in the dossiers. The dossier assessment refers to the patient population for which the new drug is approved according to the summary of product characteristics. This patient population may comprise either the total populations investigated in the studies submitted to regulatory authorities in the drug approval process, or the specific subpopulations defined in the summary of product characteristics ("approved subpopulations").Objective To determine the information gain from AMNOG documents compared with non-AMNOG documents for methods and results of studies available at market entry of new drugs. AMNOG documents comprise dossier assessments done by IQWiG and publicly available modules of company dossiers; non-AMNOG documents comprise conventional, publicly available sources-that is, European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports. The analysis focused on the approved patient populations. Design Retrospective analysis.Data sources All dossier assessments conducted by IQWiG between 1 January 2011 and 28 February 2013 in which the dossiers contained suitable studies allowing for a full early benefit assessment. We also considered all European public assessment reports, journal publications, and registry reports referring to these studies and included in the dossiers. Data analysisWe assessed reporting quality for each study and each available document for eight methods and 11 results items (three baseline characteristics and eight patient relevant outcomes), and dichotomised them as "completely reported" or "incompletely reported (including items not reported at all)." For each document type we calculated the proportion of items with complete reporting for methods and results, for each item and overall, and compared the findings.Results 15 out of 27 dossiers were eligible for inclusion and contained 22 studies. The 15 dossier assessments contained 28 individual assessments of 15 total study populations and 13 approved subpopulations. European public assessment reports were available for all drugs. Journal publications were available for 14 out of 15 drugs and 21 out of 22 studies. A registry report in ClinicalTrials.gov was available for all drugs and studies; however, only 11 contained results. In the analysis of...

Challenges of identifying unpublished data from clinical trials: Getting the best out of clinical trials registers and other novel sources

“…Köhler et al studied differences in reporting study methods and results in manufacturers' dossiers submitted in Germany under the Arzneimittelmarktneuordnungsgesetz (AMNOG) early benefit assessment process of new drugs (labelled as AMNOG documents, including data extracted from CSRs), and respective journal publications, trials register records, and European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) (non‐AMNOG documents). Fifteen dossiers were assessed.…”

Understanding the challenge of comparative effectiveness research in focal epilepsy: A review of network meta‐analyses and real‐world evidence on antiepileptic drugs

“…Drug efficacy and safety comparisons are required for health technology assessment (HTA), for example, by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 1 and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, 2 by payers, and in some cases, by regulatory authorities 3 . Comparative evidence is also crucial for the development of treatment guidelines that support clinical decision‐making, such as guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology 4…”

Industry - from sponsor to provider?

“…Currently about 80% of all trial patients have been in clinical trials sponsored by industry [5]. However, there is published evidence that industry withholds a substantial amount of clinical study data from public scrutiny [6] and/or tries to influence its publication [7]. Thus, the medical community would probably unanimously welcome industry as a partner in ethically conducted medical research, but there is still much to do to improve transparency in these areas.…”