...
首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Medicine >Alignment of European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessments: A Review of Licensed Products for Alzheimer's Disease
【24h】

Alignment of European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessments: A Review of Licensed Products for Alzheimer's Disease

机译:欧洲监管和健康技术评估的一致性:对阿尔茨海默病的持牌产品进行审查

获取原文
           

摘要

Aims: To facilitate regulatory learning, we evaluated similarities and differences in evidence requirements between regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) approved products. Methods: The European marketing authorisation application dossiers and European public assessment reports (EPARs) of the licensed AD drugs were screened to identify the phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and outcomes used. We also screened the assessment reports of the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE, England) and the National Health Care Institute (ZiN, the Netherlands) to identify the studies and outcomes used in HTA assessments. Results: The applications dossiers of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine contained 16 phase III RCTs in total. These trials were also included in HTA assessments except that NICE excluded studies that were not published (n=2) or trials that included patients with other types of dementia (n=3). In the regulatory assessments the focus was on cognitive and global outcomes, and to some extent on function. In the HTA assessment of the clinical effectiveness other domains were also covered including: function, behaviour and mood, and, occasionally, quality of life. In the economic analyses of NICE the domains cognition, function, and quality of life were included. Conclusion: There was a large overlap in inclusion of trials in regulatory and HTA assessments, although the focus on specific outcomes slightly differed. Understanding the methods and perceptions of both authorities can stimulate regulatory and HTA cross-talk and further alignment, and therefore more rapid patient access to new treatments.
机译:目的:为了促进监管学习,我们评估了监管和健康技术评估(HTA)批准产品的监管和健康技术评估(HTA)体系之间证据要求的相似之处和差异。方法:筛选欧洲营销授权应用档案和欧洲公共评估报告(欧洲公共评估报告(欧洲公共评估报告(欧洲公共评估报告)筛选持牌广告药物,以确定所使用的III阶段随机对照试验(RCT)和结果。我们还筛选了国家卫生和护理卓越研究所(尼斯,英格兰)和国家医疗机构(荷兰Zin)的评估报告,以确定HTA评估中使用的研究和结果。结果:Opidezil,Galantamine,Rivastigmine和Memantine的应用档案总共包含16阶段III RCT。这些试验还包括在HTA评估中,除了未出版的不包括(n = 2)或包含其他类型痴呆患者的试验(n = 3)的试验。在监管评估中,重点是认知和全球成果,以及在某种程度上的功能。在HTA对临床效果的评估中,其他域也涉及:功能,行为和情绪,偶尔,生活质量。在经济分析中,包括域名认知,功能和生活质量。结论:在监管和HTA评估中包含试验,虽然对特定结果的重点略有不同,但仍有巨大的重叠。了解两位当局的方法和看法都可以刺激监管和HTA串扰和进一步的一致性,从而更快速地患者进入新治疗。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号