Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Lou J, Kc S, Toh KY, Dabak S, Adler A, Ahn J, et al.
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2020 Oct;36(5):474-480.
    PMID: 32928330 DOI: 10.1017/S0266462320000628
    There is growing interest globally in using real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) for health technology assessment (HTA). Optimal collection, analysis, and use of RWD/RWE to inform HTA requires a conceptual framework to standardize processes and ensure consistency. However, such framework is currently lacking in Asia, a region that is likely to benefit from RWD/RWE for at least two reasons. First, there is often limited Asian representation in clinical trials unless specifically conducted in Asian populations, and RWD may help to fill the evidence gap. Second, in a few Asian health systems, reimbursement decisions are not made at market entry; thus, allowing RWD/RWE to be collected to give more certainty about the effectiveness of technologies in the local setting and inform their appropriate use. Furthermore, an alignment of RWD/RWE policies across Asia would equip decision makers with context-relevant evidence, and improve timely patient access to new technologies. Using data collected from eleven health systems in Asia, this paper provides a review of the current landscape of RWD/RWE in Asia to inform HTA and explores a way forward to align policies within the region. This paper concludes with a proposal to establish an international collaboration among academics and HTA agencies in the region: the REAL World Data In ASia for HEalth Technology Assessment in Reimbursement (REALISE) working group, which seeks to develop a non-binding guidance document on the use of RWD/RWE to inform HTA for decision making in Asia.
  2. Kc S, Lin LW, Bayani DBS, Zemlyanska Y, Adler A, Ahn J, et al.
    PMID: 37579427 DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.6858
    BACKGROUND: Globally, there is increasing interest in the use of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) to inform health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement decision-making. Using current practices and case studies shared by eleven health systems in Asia, a non-binding guidance that seeks to align practices for generating and using RWD/RWE for decision-making in Asia was developed by the REAL World Data In ASia for HEalth Technology Assessment in Reimbursement (REALISE) Working Group, addressing a current gap and needs among HTA users and generators.

    METHODS: The guidance document was developed over two face-to-face workshops, in addition to an online survey, a face-to-face interview and pragmatic search of literature. The specific focus was on what, where and how to collect RWD/ RWE.

    RESULTS: All 11 REALISE member jurisdictions participated in the online survey and the first in-person workshop, 10 participated in the second in-person workshop, and 8 participated in the in-depth face-to-face interviews. The guidance document was iteratively reviewed by all working group members and the International Advisory Panel. There was substantial variation in: (a) sources and types of RWD being used in HTA, and (b) the relative importance and prioritization of RWE being used for policy-making. A list of national-level databases and other sources of RWD available in each country was compiled. A list of useful guidance on data collection, quality assurance and study design were also compiled.

    CONCLUSION: The REALISE guidance document serves to align the collection of better quality RWD and generation of reliable RWE to ultimately inform HTA in Asia.

  3. Zerillo JA, Schouwenburg MG, van Bommel ACM, Stowell C, Lippa J, Bauer D, et al.
    JAMA Oncol, 2017 May 01;3(5):686-694.
    PMID: 28384684 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0417
    Importance: Global health systems are shifting toward value-based care in an effort to drive better outcomes in the setting of rising health care costs. This shift requires a common definition of value, starting with the outcomes that matter most to patients.

    Objective: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), a nonprofit initiative, was formed to define standard sets of outcomes by medical condition. In this article, we report the efforts of ICHOM's working group in colorectal cancer.

    Evidence Review: The working group was composed of multidisciplinary oncology specialists in medicine, surgery, radiation therapy, palliative care, nursing, and pathology, along with patient representatives. Through a modified Delphi process during 8 months (July 8, 2015 to February 29, 2016), ICHOM led the working group to a consensus on a final recommended standard set. The process was supported by a systematic PubMed literature review (1042 randomized clinical trials and guidelines from June 3, 2005, to June 3, 2015), a patient focus group (11 patients with early and metastatic colorectal cancer convened during a teleconference in August 2015), and a patient validation survey (among 276 patients with and survivors of colorectal cancer between October 15, 2015, and November 4, 2015).

    Findings: After consolidating findings of the literature review and focus group meeting, a list of 40 outcomes was presented to the WG and underwent voting. The final recommendation includes outcomes in the following categories: survival and disease control, disutility of care, degree of health, and quality of death. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline to facilitate comparison of results across treatments and health care professionals.

    Conclusions: A standardized set of patient-centered outcome measures to inform value-based health care in colorectal cancer was developed. Pilot efforts are under way to measure the standard set among members of the working group.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links