IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v9y2025i4d10.1007_s41669-025-00575-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indirect Treatment Comparisons in EUnetHTA Relative Effectiveness Assessments: Learnings and Recommendations for the Implementation of EU Joint Clinical Assessments

Author

Listed:
  • Sophie Beekhuizen

    (Cytel, Inc.)

  • Menglu Che

    (Cytel, Inc.)

  • Loraine Monfort

    (Cytel, Inc.)

  • Mahmoud Hashim

    (Janssen Pharmaceutica NV)

  • Ali Azough

    (Janssen EMEA)

  • Nicole Kubitz

    (Janssen-Cilag GmbH)

  • Adrian Griffin

    (Johnson & Johnson)

  • Martin Price

    (Janssen EMEA)

Abstract

Background Beginning in January 2025, all new active substances must undergo evaluation of relative clinical effectiveness through European Union (EU) joint clinical assessments (JCAs). In the absence of head-to-head data, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) become indispensable in meeting the numerous population, intervention, comparators and outcomes (PICO) criteria to support decision-making. Objective This study examined ITCs in European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) to obtain valuable insights into their potential implications for future JCAs. Methods The EUnetHTA website was hand-searched for REAs of pharmaceutical products between 2010 and 2021. Information on PICO, ITC methods, ITC limitations/critiques, and relative effectiveness conclusions were systematically extracted. On the basis of the final EUnetHTA critiques, suitability of ITC evidence was categorised by the current study authors as appropriate, unsuitable or unclear. Results Twenty-three REAs were identified. Twelve REAs included an ITC, of which six were in oncology indications. Across the REAs, 64 comparisons were required, with a median of four comparators per REA (range 1–18). In total, 25 comparisons were informed by indirect evidence; the suitability of ITCs was categorised as unclear in all but one of the 25 comparisons. Conclusion Multiple analyses and ITCs were necessary to address multiple PICOs. Although most ITCs were categorised as unclear within the REAs, they were still considered appropriate to inform decision-making. The EU JCA process will most likely require health technology developers to use various ITC approaches to address the multiple PICOs requested, recognising the inherent limitations of these methodologies. Efforts to address potential challenges for EU JCA should focus on supporting JCA assessors/co-assessors and national HTA agencies in the evaluation and interpretation of ITCs to enable decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Sophie Beekhuizen & Menglu Che & Loraine Monfort & Mahmoud Hashim & Ali Azough & Nicole Kubitz & Adrian Griffin & Martin Price, 2025. "Indirect Treatment Comparisons in EUnetHTA Relative Effectiveness Assessments: Learnings and Recommendations for the Implementation of EU Joint Clinical Assessments," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 597-609, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:9:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-025-00575-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-025-00575-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-025-00575-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-025-00575-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:9:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-025-00575-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.