Background Reimbursement decisions are conventionally based on evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which often have high internal validity but low external validity. Real-world data (RWD) may provide complimentary evidence for relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and cost-effectiveness assessments (CEAs). This study examines whether RWD is incorporated in health technology assessment (HTA) of melanoma drugs by European HTA agencies, as well as differences in RWD use between agencies and across time. Methods HTA reports published between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2016 were retrieved from websites of agencies representing five jurisdictions: England [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)], Scotland [Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC)], France [Haute Autorité de santé (HAS)], Germany [Institute for Quality and Efficacy in Healthcare (IQWiG)] and The Netherlands [Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN)]. A standardized data extraction form was used to extract information on RWD inclusion for both REAs and CEAs. Results Overall, 52 reports were retrieved, all of which contained REAs; CEAs were present in 25 of the reports. RWD was included in 28 of the 52 REAs (54%), mainly to estimate melanoma prevalence, and in 22 of the 25 (88%) CEAs, mainly to extrapolate long-term effectiveness and/or identify drug-related costs. Differences emerged between agencies regarding RWD use in REAs; the ZIN and IQWiG cited RWD for evidence on prevalence, whereas the NICE, SMC and HAS additionally cited RWD use for drug effectiveness. No visible trend for RWD use in REAs and CEAs over time was observed. Conclusion In general, RWD inclusion was higher in CEAs than REAs, and was mostly used to estimate melanoma prevalence in REAs or to predict long-term effectiveness in CEAs. Differences emerged between agencies’ use of RWD; however, no visible trends for RWD use over time were observed.

There is no consensus on the preferred method for defining the non-inferiority margin in non-inferiority trials, and previous studies showed that the rationale for its choice is often not reported. This study investigated how the non-inferiority margin is defined in the published literature, and whether its reporting has changed over time. A systematic PubMed search was conducted for all published randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trials from January 1, 1966, to February 6, 2015. The primary outcome was the number of margins that were defined by methods other than the historical evidence of the active comparator. This was evaluated for a time trend. We also assessed the under-reporting of the methods of defining the margin as a secondary outcome, and whether this changed over time. Both outcomes were analyzed using a Poisson log-linear model. Predictors for better reporting of the methods, and the use of the fixed-margin method (one of the historical evidence methods) were also analyzed using logistic regression. Two hundred seventy-three articles were included, which account for 273 non-inferiority margins. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of margins that were defined by other methods compared to those defined based on the historical evidence (ratio 2.17, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.82, p = 0.11), and this did not change over time. The number of margins for which methods were unreported was similar to those with reported methods (ratio 1.35, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.43, p = 0.31), with no change over time. The method of defining the margin was less often reported in journals with low-impact factors compared to journals with high-impact factors (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.37, p < 0.0001). The publication of the FDA draft guidance in 2010 was associated with increased reporting of the fixed-margin method (after versus before 2010) (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.12 to 13.35, p = 0.04). Non-inferiority margins are not commonly defined based on the historical evidence of the active comparator, and they are poorly reported. Authors, reviewers, and editors need to take notice of reporting this critical information to allow for better judgment of non-inferiority trials.

Aims: To assess the association between concurrent use of potential pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interacting drugs and major bleeding among direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) users.Methods: We performed a case–control study nested in a cohort of new users of DOACs (dabigatran etexilate, apixaban or rivaroxaban). Data were obtained from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (2008–2015). Cases were patients hospitalized having a primary diagnosis of major bleeding. Up to 4 controls were matched on age, sex, index date and region. Odds ratios (ORs) for the risk of major bleeding were assessed by conditional logistic regression analysis and adjusted for well‐known covariates for the risk of bleeding.Results: We identified 393 patients with a major bleeding from a total of 23 492 new users of DOACs and 1494 matched controls. Most subjects were users of rivaroxaban (58.8%) on the index date. The concurrent use of pharmacodynamic interacting drugs was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (21.6% of cases vs 13.5% of controls, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40–2.66). For the antiplatelet drugs the aOR was 2.01 (95% CI, 1.29–3.11) and for the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors the aOR was 1.68 (95% CI, 1.10–2.59). We found no increased risk of major bleeding for concurrent use of pharmacokinetic interacting drugs vs DOACs alone (45.0 vs 51.2%; aOR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.53–1.10).Conclusion: Among patients taking DOACs the concurrent use of antiplatelet drugs or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors was associated with increased risk of major bleeding, while pharmacokinetic interacting drugs do not increase this risk.

In 2012, around 400.000 patients in the Netherlands were treated with Vitamin K Antagonists (VKA) for thromboembolic diseases. Since 2011, non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are available. NOACs do not require frequent INR monitoring which benefits patients, but also imposes a risk of reduced therapy adherence. The objective of this study is to describe uptake and patient adherence of NOACs in The Netherlands until October 2016. Prescription data for 247.927 patients across 560 pharmacies were used to describe patient profiles, uptake of NOACs among new naive patients and switch between VKA and NOACs, and calculate therapy adherence as the Proportion of Days Covered (PDC). During the studied period the share of NOACs in oral anticoagulants has grown to 57% of prescriptions to new patients. More than 70% of new NOAC users were new naive patients and around 26% switched from VKA. The overall share of NOACs among starters is largest in the group of patients of 50-80 years. Calculated compliance rate for NOAC patients shows that 88% of all users are adherent with a PDC higher than 80%. NOAC have overtaken VKA as the major treatment prescribed to new oral anticoagulant patients, and the number of starters on VKA is decreasing. Patients are generally adherent to NOACs during the implementation phase, the period that the medication is used. Fear for inadherence by itself does not need to be a reason for not prescribing NOACs instead of VKA.