OBJECTIVES: To understand how health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and payers perceive the use and value of RWE when reassessing oncology therapies, and their perceptions on its most desired attributes.

METHODS: A web-based survey was administered via the Rapid Payer Response (RPR) online portal in May 2022, among 30 national and regional payer decision-makers from France, Germany, Spain, the UK, and the US. Responses were collected through RPR in 5 days on the importance of evidence types, use cases of RWE, ranking of RWE attributes, and preference of endpoints, among other considerations. Payer responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: While clinical trial evidence was confirmed as being of greatest importance during reassessments, decision-makers ranked RWE as the next most important among various payer considerations. Specifically, most responders agreed that confirming the real-world effectiveness (27 of 30 responders, 90%) and safety (80%) of oncology therapies are the primary use cases. Payers also noted that RWE was used to confirm treatment utilization (63%) as well as healthcare resource use and economic benefit (53% each). Demonstrating clinical benefit to subpopulations and comparing with standard of care (SOC) were also highly rated during reassessment. Especially because of the lack of longer-term data at launch and the relatively short duration of registrational trials, payers looked to RWE at reassessment to provide meaningful data on overall survival, incidence of adverse events, and comparative clinical and economic data vs SOC. RWE from prospective observational studies and product/disease registries were considered of higher value, while peer-reviewed published data that are transparently presented as part of industry dossiers were considered to be of highest quality.

CONCLUSIONS: RWE can contribute significantly to HTA and payer reassessment decisions on coverage and reimbursement of oncology therapies, especially if meeting certain quality standards.