A TARGETED LITERATURE REVIEW COMPARING GLOBAL GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND REGULATORY DECISION-MAKING...
Author(s)
Rajanikanth Manupati, M.Pharm1, Manpreet Singh Kalsey, MBA1, Mahendra Kumar Rai, PhD2.
1Trinity Life Sciences, Gurgaon, India, 2Trinity Lifesciences, Singapore, Singapore.
1Trinity Life Sciences, Gurgaon, India, 2Trinity Lifesciences, Singapore, Singapore.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically identify, compare, and synthesise key recommendations from major global guidelines on the generation and use of real-world evidence (RWE) in regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making.
METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify guidance documents on RWE. Search terms included “real-world evidence,” “real-world data,” “RWE,” “RWD,” and “guidelines.” Searches were supplemented by manual review of HTA and regulatory agency websites. Eligible documents included formal RWE guidance issued by regulatory bodies or HTA agencies. Extracted data were qualitatively synthesised to compare recommendations across domains, including data sources, study design, methodological rigour, and decision-making applications.
RESULTS: Five key guidelines were included: NICE (UK), HAS (France), CADTH (Canada), NMPA (China), and the REALISE framework. Across guidelines, RWD was consistently defined as routinely collected data from healthcare delivery, and RWE as evidence derived using observational or pragmatic study designs. All agencies recognise the growing role of RWE, particularly in:
CONCLUSIONS: Global RWE guidelines show broad alignment in recognising the importance of RWE but vary in methodological expectations and decision contexts. Harmonisation of standards and increased emphasis on data quality, transparency, and analytical rigour will be critical to maximise the acceptance and impact of RWE in HTA and regulatory decision-making.
METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify guidance documents on RWE. Search terms included “real-world evidence,” “real-world data,” “RWE,” “RWD,” and “guidelines.” Searches were supplemented by manual review of HTA and regulatory agency websites. Eligible documents included formal RWE guidance issued by regulatory bodies or HTA agencies. Extracted data were qualitatively synthesised to compare recommendations across domains, including data sources, study design, methodological rigour, and decision-making applications.
RESULTS: Five key guidelines were included: NICE (UK), HAS (France), CADTH (Canada), NMPA (China), and the REALISE framework. Across guidelines, RWD was consistently defined as routinely collected data from healthcare delivery, and RWE as evidence derived using observational or pragmatic study designs. All agencies recognise the growing role of RWE, particularly in:
- Characterising disease epidemiology and treatment pathways
- Assessing comparative effectiveness and safety
- Supporting economic evaluations and reimbursement decisions
CONCLUSIONS: Global RWE guidelines show broad alignment in recognising the importance of RWE but vary in methodological expectations and decision contexts. Harmonisation of standards and increased emphasis on data quality, transparency, and analytical rigour will be critical to maximise the acceptance and impact of RWE in HTA and regulatory decision-making.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-09, ISPOR Asia Pacific 2026, Bangkok, Thailand
Value in Health, Volume 55, Issue S1
Code
HTA14
Topic
Health Technology Assessment
Topic Subcategory
Decision & Deliberative Processes, Systems & Structure, Value Frameworks & Dossier Format
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas