Exploring Nordic Real-World Evidence Sources for a PICO Assessment of a Hypothetical Oncology Drug and Medical Device Product
Author(s)
Johanna Vinblad, MSc1, Sara Dalin, MSc2, Annabelle Forsmark, PhD3.
1Senior Manager Market Access, Cencora, Göteborg, Sweden, 2PharmaLex - a part of Cencora, Gothenburg, Sweden, 3PharmaLex, Gothenburg, Sweden.
1Senior Manager Market Access, Cencora, Göteborg, Sweden, 2PharmaLex - a part of Cencora, Gothenburg, Sweden, 3PharmaLex, Gothenburg, Sweden.
OBJECTIVES: The Nordic registries are well known for the possibility to conduct longitudinal and extensive studies, where the personal identification number enables linking data from several registries for an individual level multi-variable approach. The objective of this assessment was to explore how Nordic registries can support a PICO assessment/simulation by providing Real World Data.
METHODS: A PICO assessment for a fictive oncology drug and a fictive hip replacement medical device was explored, where relevant registries in each of the Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland) were sought for addressing each PICO dimension.
RESULTS: Sources for registry data to support a PICO assessment for both the fictive oncology and medical device products were identified in each of the Nordic countries. There were seven relevant registries for the oncology product, of which four were available in all of the Nordic countries and one was a disease specific quality registry available in three countries. For the medical device there were four relevant registries, of which one was available in all countries, and two were quality registries specific for the therapeutic area available in three countries. Overall, Sweden had the highest number of health registers followed by Denmark. For all therapeutic areas there were relevant registers in at least two countries, with Oncology being the area with most relevant registers in all five countries.
CONCLUSIONS: Nordic RWE can contribute to valuable insights for every PICO dimension, based on a simulation of a fictive oncology drug and a fictive medical device. With the total population in the Nordics being around 30 million people, conducting an RWE study in the Nordics is relevant even where this region is not the primary market, where the value lies in the numerous high quality longitudinal registers and personal identification numbers allowing for linkage of data sources.
METHODS: A PICO assessment for a fictive oncology drug and a fictive hip replacement medical device was explored, where relevant registries in each of the Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland) were sought for addressing each PICO dimension.
RESULTS: Sources for registry data to support a PICO assessment for both the fictive oncology and medical device products were identified in each of the Nordic countries. There were seven relevant registries for the oncology product, of which four were available in all of the Nordic countries and one was a disease specific quality registry available in three countries. For the medical device there were four relevant registries, of which one was available in all countries, and two were quality registries specific for the therapeutic area available in three countries. Overall, Sweden had the highest number of health registers followed by Denmark. For all therapeutic areas there were relevant registers in at least two countries, with Oncology being the area with most relevant registers in all five countries.
CONCLUSIONS: Nordic RWE can contribute to valuable insights for every PICO dimension, based on a simulation of a fictive oncology drug and a fictive medical device. With the total population in the Nordics being around 30 million people, conducting an RWE study in the Nordics is relevant even where this region is not the primary market, where the value lies in the numerous high quality longitudinal registers and personal identification numbers allowing for linkage of data sources.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
HTA146
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Health Technology Assessment, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Value Frameworks & Dossier Format
Disease
Musculoskeletal Disorders (Arthritis, Bone Disorders, Osteoporosis, Other Musculoskeletal), Oncology