Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

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

Authors: Thomas Staab, Georg Isbary, Volker E. Amelung, Jörg Ruof

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
4.
go back to reference Ruof J, Knoerzer D, Duenne AA, Dintsios CM, Staab T, Schwartz FW. Analysis of endpoints used in marketing authorisations versus value assessments of oncology medicines in Germany. Health Policy. 2014;118(2):242–54.CrossRefPubMed Ruof J, Knoerzer D, Duenne AA, Dintsios CM, Staab T, Schwartz FW. Analysis of endpoints used in marketing authorisations versus value assessments of oncology medicines in Germany. Health Policy. 2014;118(2):242–54.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Ruof J, Fluckiger O, Andre N. Early benefit assessments in oncology in Germany: how can a clinically relevant endpoint not be relevant to patients? Drugs R D. 2015;15(3):221–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ruof J, Fluckiger O, Andre N. Early benefit assessments in oncology in Germany: how can a clinically relevant endpoint not be relevant to patients? Drugs R D. 2015;15(3):221–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Dabisch I, Dethling J, Dintsios CM, Drechsler M, Kalanovic D, Kaskel P, et al. Patient relevant endpoints in oncology: current issues in the context of early benefit assessment in Germany. Health Econ Rev. 2014;4(1):2–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dabisch I, Dethling J, Dintsios CM, Drechsler M, Kalanovic D, Kaskel P, et al. Patient relevant endpoints in oncology: current issues in the context of early benefit assessment in Germany. Health Econ Rev. 2014;4(1):2–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Kvitkina T, ten Haaf A, Reken S, McGauran N, Wieseler B. Patient-relevant outcomes and surrogates in the early benefit assessment of drugs: first experiences [Patientenrelevante Endpunkte und Surrogate in der frühen Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln: erste Erfahrungen]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwesen. 2014;108(8-9):528–38. Kvitkina T, ten Haaf A, Reken S, McGauran N, Wieseler B. Patient-relevant outcomes and surrogates in the early benefit assessment of drugs: first experiences [Patientenrelevante Endpunkte und Surrogate in der frühen Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln: erste Erfahrungen]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwesen. 2014;108(8-9):528–38.
8.
go back to reference Hörn H, Nink K, McGauran N, Wieseler B. Early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany - results from 2011 to 2012. Health Policy. 2014;116(2-3):147–53.CrossRefPubMed Hörn H, Nink K, McGauran N, Wieseler B. Early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany - results from 2011 to 2012. Health Policy. 2014;116(2-3):147–53.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Tafuri G, Pagnini M, Moseley J, Massari M, Petavy F, Behring A, et al. How aligned are the perspectives of EU regulators and HTA bodies? A comparative analysis of regulatory-HTA parallel scientific advice. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;82(4):965–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tafuri G, Pagnini M, Moseley J, Massari M, Petavy F, Behring A, et al. How aligned are the perspectives of EU regulators and HTA bodies? A comparative analysis of regulatory-HTA parallel scientific advice. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;82(4):965–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Lebwohl D, Kay A, Berg W, Baladi JF, Zheng J. Progression-free survival: gaining on overall survival as a gold standard and accelerating drug development. Cancer J. 2009;15(5):386–94.CrossRefPubMed Lebwohl D, Kay A, Berg W, Baladi JF, Zheng J. Progression-free survival: gaining on overall survival as a gold standard and accelerating drug development. Cancer J. 2009;15(5):386–94.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Sargent DJ, Hayes DF. Assessing the measure of a new drug: is survival the only thing that matters? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(12):1922–3.CrossRefPubMed Sargent DJ, Hayes DF. Assessing the measure of a new drug: is survival the only thing that matters? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(12):1922–3.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Axelrod C. The significance of progression-free survival as a clinical end point in oncology. Drug Benefit Trends. 2010;22:39–45. Axelrod C. The significance of progression-free survival as a clinical end point in oncology. Drug Benefit Trends. 2010;22:39–45.
Metadata
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
Authors
Thomas Staab
Georg Isbary
Volker E. Amelung
Jörg Ruof
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1902-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Health Services Research 1/2016 Go to the issue