Cargando…

Inconsistent approaches of the G-BA regarding acceptance of primary study endpoints as being relevant to patients - an analysis of three disease areas: oncological, metabolic, and infectious diseases

BACKGROUND: Previous evaluations of oncological medicines in the German early benefit assessment (EBA) procedure have demonstrated inconsistent acceptance of endpoints by regulatory authorities and the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). Accepted standard endpoints for regulatory purposes are frequently...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Staab, Thomas, Isbary, Georg, Amelung, Volker E., Ruof, Jörg
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5109700/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27842592
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1902-8
_version_ 1782467587844603904
author Staab, Thomas
Isbary, Georg
Amelung, Volker E.
Ruof, Jörg
author_facet Staab, Thomas
Isbary, Georg
Amelung, Volker E.
Ruof, Jörg
author_sort Staab, Thomas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Previous evaluations of oncological medicines in the German early benefit assessment (EBA) procedure have demonstrated inconsistent acceptance of endpoints by regulatory authorities and the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). Accepted standard endpoints for regulatory purposes are frequently not considered as patient-relevant in the German EBA system. In this study the acceptance of clinically acknowledged primary endpoints (PEPs) from regulatory trials in EBAs conducted by the G-BA was evaluated across three therapeutic areas. METHODS: Medicines for oncological, metabolic and infectious diseases with EBAs finalised before 25 January 2016 were evaluated. Respective manufacturer’s dossiers, regulatory assessments, G-BA appraisals and oral hearing minutes were reviewed, and PEPs were examined to determine whether they were considered relevant to patients by the G-BA. Furthermore, the acceptance of symptomatic vs asymptomatic PEPs was also analysed. RESULTS: A total of 65 EBAs were evaluated. Mortality PEPs were widely accepted as patient-relevant but were only used in a minority of EBAs and exclusively in oncological diseases. Morbidity PEPs constituted around 72 % of assessed PEPs, but were excluded from the EBA in over half of the corresponding assessments as they were not considered patient-relevant. Symptomatic endpoints were largely deemed patient-relevant, whereas acceptance of asymptomatic endpoints varied between therapeutic areas. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation identified inconsistencies in patient relevance of morbidity-related PEPs as well as in acceptance of asymptomatic endpoints by the G-BA in all three disease areas examined. Better harmonisation between the regulatory authorities and the G-BA is still required after 5 years of AMNOG health technology assessment in Germany. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1902-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5109700
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51097002016-11-28 Inconsistent approaches of the G-BA regarding acceptance of primary study endpoints as being relevant to patients - an analysis of three disease areas: oncological, metabolic, and infectious diseases Staab, Thomas Isbary, Georg Amelung, Volker E. Ruof, Jörg BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Previous evaluations of oncological medicines in the German early benefit assessment (EBA) procedure have demonstrated inconsistent acceptance of endpoints by regulatory authorities and the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). Accepted standard endpoints for regulatory purposes are frequently not considered as patient-relevant in the German EBA system. In this study the acceptance of clinically acknowledged primary endpoints (PEPs) from regulatory trials in EBAs conducted by the G-BA was evaluated across three therapeutic areas. METHODS: Medicines for oncological, metabolic and infectious diseases with EBAs finalised before 25 January 2016 were evaluated. Respective manufacturer’s dossiers, regulatory assessments, G-BA appraisals and oral hearing minutes were reviewed, and PEPs were examined to determine whether they were considered relevant to patients by the G-BA. Furthermore, the acceptance of symptomatic vs asymptomatic PEPs was also analysed. RESULTS: A total of 65 EBAs were evaluated. Mortality PEPs were widely accepted as patient-relevant but were only used in a minority of EBAs and exclusively in oncological diseases. Morbidity PEPs constituted around 72 % of assessed PEPs, but were excluded from the EBA in over half of the corresponding assessments as they were not considered patient-relevant. Symptomatic endpoints were largely deemed patient-relevant, whereas acceptance of asymptomatic endpoints varied between therapeutic areas. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation identified inconsistencies in patient relevance of morbidity-related PEPs as well as in acceptance of asymptomatic endpoints by the G-BA in all three disease areas examined. Better harmonisation between the regulatory authorities and the G-BA is still required after 5 years of AMNOG health technology assessment in Germany. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1902-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5109700/ /pubmed/27842592 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1902-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Staab, Thomas
Isbary, Georg
Amelung, Volker E.
Ruof, Jörg
Inconsistent approaches of the G-BA regarding acceptance of primary study endpoints as being relevant to patients - an analysis of three disease areas: oncological, metabolic, and infectious diseases
title Inconsistent approaches of the G-BA regarding acceptance of primary study endpoints as being relevant to patients - an analysis of three disease areas: oncological, metabolic, and infectious diseases
title_full Inconsistent approaches of the G-BA regarding acceptance of primary study endpoints as being relevant to patients - an analysis of three disease areas: oncological, metabolic, and infectious diseases
title_fullStr Inconsistent approaches of the G-BA regarding acceptance of primary study endpoints as being relevant to patients - an analysis of three disease areas: oncological, metabolic, and infectious diseases
title_full_unstemmed Inconsistent approaches of the G-BA regarding acceptance of primary study endpoints as being relevant to patients - an analysis of three disease areas: oncological, metabolic, and infectious diseases
title_short Inconsistent approaches of the G-BA regarding acceptance of primary study endpoints as being relevant to patients - an analysis of three disease areas: oncological, metabolic, and infectious diseases
title_sort inconsistent approaches of the g-ba regarding acceptance of primary study endpoints as being relevant to patients - an analysis of three disease areas: oncological, metabolic, and infectious diseases
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5109700/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27842592
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1902-8
work_keys_str_mv AT staabthomas inconsistentapproachesofthegbaregardingacceptanceofprimarystudyendpointsasbeingrelevanttopatientsananalysisofthreediseaseareasoncologicalmetabolicandinfectiousdiseases
AT isbarygeorg inconsistentapproachesofthegbaregardingacceptanceofprimarystudyendpointsasbeingrelevanttopatientsananalysisofthreediseaseareasoncologicalmetabolicandinfectiousdiseases
AT amelungvolkere inconsistentapproachesofthegbaregardingacceptanceofprimarystudyendpointsasbeingrelevanttopatientsananalysisofthreediseaseareasoncologicalmetabolicandinfectiousdiseases
AT ruofjorg inconsistentapproachesofthegbaregardingacceptanceofprimarystudyendpointsasbeingrelevanttopatientsananalysisofthreediseaseareasoncologicalmetabolicandinfectiousdiseases