{"title":"PP146 Seeing Eye-To-Eye on Real-World Evidence: Are Guidance from Japan and China Consistent with Recommendations from REALISE in Asia?","authors":"Yan Ran Wee, Natsumi Fujita, Jennifer S Evans","doi":"10.1017/s0266462323002507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span>Introduction</span><p>The REAL World Data (RWD) In Asia for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) guidance was developed by a regional working group to facilitate the increasing acceptance of real-world evidence (RWE) in Asia. We compared the consistency of REALISE against guidance from Japan and China.</p><span>Methods</span><p>Country-specific guidance for RWE/RWD use in pharmaceutical development were identified in May 2022 through governmental websites, with validation searches via Google. Sections from local guidance were mapped onto REALISE and categorized as “agree”, “mixed”, “disagree” or “missing” based on coverage and consistency.</p><span>Results</span><p>Five Japanese and three Chinese documents were mapped. Most sections in Chinese guidance (77%) and 36 percent of sections in Japanese guidance were tagged “agree” or “mixed”, with general alignment on definitions and good practice considerations (study design, accountability); however, 63 percent of Japanese sections were tagged “missing” from REALISE. As local documents took the regulatory perspective, they lacked REALISE’s discussion of translating RWD to RWE for HTA/economic evaluations specifically. Local guidance focused on practicalities of RWD collection in local contexts, including descriptions of specific actions (e.g., evaluating RWD sources, ensuring data security) rather than overarching principles described in REALISE; specifically, Japanese guidance described how to access and analyze databases/registries, reflecting Japan’s landscape of robust sources of national healthcare data, but lacked discussion of other RWE study types, data sources and specialized analytical methods. While Chinese guidance had a broader view of RWD types (more similar to REALISE), they also contained discussions on pharmacovigilance and omics data, communication with regulatory bodies, and incorporation of RWE into the approval pathway for traditional Chinese medicines.</p><span>Conclusions</span><p>Despite differing purposes (with no RWE guidance from local HTA bodies), local and regional guidance align on general principles/good practice in generating/using RWE, providing common ground for increasing usage of RWE in HTA in Asia.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462323002507","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
The REAL World Data (RWD) In Asia for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) guidance was developed by a regional working group to facilitate the increasing acceptance of real-world evidence (RWE) in Asia. We compared the consistency of REALISE against guidance from Japan and China.
Methods
Country-specific guidance for RWE/RWD use in pharmaceutical development were identified in May 2022 through governmental websites, with validation searches via Google. Sections from local guidance were mapped onto REALISE and categorized as “agree”, “mixed”, “disagree” or “missing” based on coverage and consistency.
Results
Five Japanese and three Chinese documents were mapped. Most sections in Chinese guidance (77%) and 36 percent of sections in Japanese guidance were tagged “agree” or “mixed”, with general alignment on definitions and good practice considerations (study design, accountability); however, 63 percent of Japanese sections were tagged “missing” from REALISE. As local documents took the regulatory perspective, they lacked REALISE’s discussion of translating RWD to RWE for HTA/economic evaluations specifically. Local guidance focused on practicalities of RWD collection in local contexts, including descriptions of specific actions (e.g., evaluating RWD sources, ensuring data security) rather than overarching principles described in REALISE; specifically, Japanese guidance described how to access and analyze databases/registries, reflecting Japan’s landscape of robust sources of national healthcare data, but lacked discussion of other RWE study types, data sources and specialized analytical methods. While Chinese guidance had a broader view of RWD types (more similar to REALISE), they also contained discussions on pharmacovigilance and omics data, communication with regulatory bodies, and incorporation of RWE into the approval pathway for traditional Chinese medicines.
Conclusions
Despite differing purposes (with no RWE guidance from local HTA bodies), local and regional guidance align on general principles/good practice in generating/using RWE, providing common ground for increasing usage of RWE in HTA in Asia.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.