Pmu111 Use of External Comparators in Health Technology Assessment Submissions

Abstract

were screened 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 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: A total of 52 NICE TAs were identified, 47 used the GPRD/CPRD database, 10 used the 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: 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.