OBJECTIVES: The objective of the current study was to review the latest reports published by the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) and collect information regarding the relevance of systematic (SLRs), targeted (TLRs) and rapid (RLRs) literature reviews in the decision-making process.

METHODS: Reports published by the HAS in the years 2020-2022 were identified and analyzed in terms of approach to literature reviews (SLRs, or TLRs/RLRs). Only first inclusion reports of branded products were selected. Data on the indication, drug, type of review, the number of included studies, methodology, and results were collected, as well as comments from HAS regarding the methodology and results. Literature reviews without a sufficient description of methodology were classified under the „TLR/RLR” category.

RESULTS: Out of 813 analyzed reports, less than 10% mentioned that literature reviews were conducted as a part of the manufacturer’s submission – SLRs in 43, and TRLs or RLRs in 38 documents. Most reviews focused on clinical data. Among documents mentioning the SLRs, 34 (79.1%) provided some descriptions of the methodology, while for the TLR/RLR, a brief description of the methodology was provided in 21 reports – most often, the inclusion criteria were described. Across all mentioned by HAS reviews, utilities/disutilities were most frequently the outcome of interest (n=12), followed by overall survival and progression-free survival (n=10 each). In general, HAS frequently questioned the quality of identified data used in the submissions, as well as the small sample size in the identified trials. In 19 reports, it was specified that a literature review was conducted to identify studies for a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS: Generally, the methodology of literature reviews performed by the submitting company is rarely described in the reports published by HAS. In economic reports, data from literature reviews are often used to inform model inputs and therefore may be of relevance when assessing the submission.