The use of UK primary care databases in health technology assessments carried out by the National Institute for health and care excellence (NICE).
Appraisals
CPRD
Guidance
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Jul 2020
22 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
14
08
2019
accepted:
12
07
2020
entrez:
24
7
2020
pubmed:
24
7
2020
medline:
22
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Real world evidence (RWE) is becoming more frequently used in technology appraisals (TAs). This study sought to explore the use and acceptance of evidence from primary care databases, a key source of RWE in the UK, in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology assessments and to provide recommendations regarding their use in future submissions. A keyword search was conducted relating to the main primary care databases in the UK on the NICE website. All NICE TAs identified through this search were screened, assessed for duplication and information on the data source and the way the data was used in the submission were extracted. Comments by the evidence review group (ERG) and the appraisal committee were also extracted and reviewed. All data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers and all decisions were reached by consensus with an additional third reviewer. A total of 52 NICE TAs were identified, 47 used the General Practice Research Database /Clinical Practice Research Datalink (GPRD/CPRD) database, 10 used The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database and 3 used the QResearch databases. Data from primary care databases were used to support arguments regarding clinical need and current treatment in 33 NICE TAs while 36 were used to inform input parameters for economic models. The databases were sometimes used for more than one purpose. The data from the three data sources were generally well received by the ERGs/committees. Criticisms of the data typically occurred where the results had been repurposed from a published study or had not been applied appropriately. The potential of UK primary care databases in NICE submissions is increasingly being realised, particularly in informing the parameters of economic models. Purpose conducted studies are less likely to receive criticism from ERGs/committees, particularly when providing clinical input into cost effectiveness models.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Real world evidence (RWE) is becoming more frequently used in technology appraisals (TAs). This study sought to explore the use and acceptance of evidence from primary care databases, a key source of RWE in the UK, in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology assessments and to provide recommendations regarding their use in future submissions.
METHODS
METHODS
A keyword search was conducted relating to the main primary care databases in the UK on the NICE website. All NICE TAs identified through this search were screened, assessed for duplication and information on the data source and the way the data was used in the submission were extracted. Comments by the evidence review group (ERG) and the appraisal committee were also extracted and reviewed. All data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers and all decisions were reached by consensus with an additional third reviewer.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 52 NICE TAs were identified, 47 used the General Practice Research Database /Clinical Practice Research Datalink (GPRD/CPRD) database, 10 used The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database and 3 used the QResearch databases. Data from primary care databases were used to support arguments regarding clinical need and current treatment in 33 NICE TAs while 36 were used to inform input parameters for economic models. The databases were sometimes used for more than one purpose. The data from the three data sources were generally well received by the ERGs/committees. Criticisms of the data typically occurred where the results had been repurposed from a published study or had not been applied appropriately.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The potential of UK primary care databases in NICE submissions is increasingly being realised, particularly in informing the parameters of economic models. Purpose conducted studies are less likely to receive criticism from ERGs/committees, particularly when providing clinical input into cost effectiveness models.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32698805
doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05529-3
pii: 10.1186/s12913-020-05529-3
pmc: PMC7374907
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
675Références
Br Med Bull. 2007;81-82:51-64
pubmed: 17409119
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul 26;16:299
pubmed: 27456701
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Feb 11;11:157-167
pubmed: 30809103
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
Eur Heart J. 2018 Aug 21;39(32):2932-2941
pubmed: 29688403
PLoS Med. 2015 Oct 06;12(10):e1001885
pubmed: 26440803
Int J Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;44(3):827-36
pubmed: 26050254
Health Inf Sci Syst. 2014 Feb 07;2:3
pubmed: 25825667
Inform Prim Care. 2004;12(1):49-50
pubmed: 15140353
Clin Transl Sci. 2018 Sep;11(5):450-460
pubmed: 29768712
J Comp Eff Res. 2017 Jan;6(1):5-7
pubmed: 27759422