A pilot study assessing the similarity between core outcome sets and outcomes included in health technology assessments

Abstract

Objective: Core outcome sets (COS) are an agreed standardised collection of outcomes created with representation from all key stakeholders (such as patients, clinicians, researchers), which should be reported as a minimum for all trials in that corresponding clinical area. There has been little research investigating the use of core outcomes in Health technology assessments (HTAs) and none in non-oncology HTAs. This study aimed to assess the similarity between COS and HTA outcomes. Methods: Ten COS published between 2015 and 2019 were selected, with patient participation taken as a proxy measure for a high quality COS. The INAHTA database was used as a source to identify relevant HTAs, which were accessed through the hyperlinks provided. Outcomes selected for these assessments were categorised as either a specific, partial or no match compared to the COS. An additional cohort of non-oncology HTAs published between 2019 and 2021 were identified from the NICE website and compared against a relevant COS. Results: Six hundred and fifty-one HTAs were matched to the ten COS areas, of which 119 were reviewed. Of a possible 1318 core outcome matches, there were 562 (43%) matches, 413 (31%) specific and 149 (11%) partial. NICE HTA matches against corresponding COS ranged from 44% to 100%, with a total of 78% (73/94) matches, 57 (61%) specific and 16 (17%) partial. Conclusion: Further work is required to promote the awareness and implementation of COS within HTAs. The degree of matching between COS and NICE HTA outcomes is encouraging, demonstrating acceptance of COS by HTA producers.

Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement

“…Comparisons between outcomes used in HTAs and those in COS for research have been undertaken for a range of health conditions and international HTA organizations [22], sometimes with inclusion of all core outcomes but more typically with only partial coverage (Table 1). Outcome measures used in oncology have also been compared for HTAs and COS for routine care with some overlaps and some discrepancies [57].…”

Protocol of the development of a core outcome set for stroke in multidimensional value assessment of traditional Chinese medicine

“…HTA agencies indicate a stronger preference for endpoint outcome measures, whereas regulators tend to accept intermediate outcomes 13. In a recent study assessing the similarity between COS and HTA outcomes, only 43% of the core outcomes overlapped in both the HTA database and the COS, indicating heterogeneity between the outcome sets used in clinical studies and HTA 14. TCM (eg, Ginkgo biloba Damo injection) is often used as an adjuvant therapy for AIS patients in China but its clinical and economic value has not been well justified owing to the lack of methods, especially outcome sets that incorporate TCM syndromes.…”