MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283591329 · doi:10.18433/jpps32715

Health Canada Usage of Real World Evidence (RWE) in Regulatory Decision Making compared with FDA/EMA usage based on publicly available information

2022· review· en· W4283591329 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Catherine Lau, Fakhreddin Jamali, Raimar Löebenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOrphan drugNoticeAlternative medicineBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Between January 2020 and December 2021, Health Canada provided a Summary Basis of Decision (SBD) for each of 110 products approved, including 29 oncology products and 21 non-oncology orphan drugs. This review sought to gain insight into how Real Word Evidence (RWE) impacts regulatory decision making. METHODS: SBDs for oncology drugs and non-oncology orphan drugs were reviewed for evidence of use of the RWE or historical data to support regulatory decisions. This information was compared with both FDA and EMA reviews. RESULTS: For the 29 Health Canada-approved oncology products, 11 were approved with Notice of Compliance with Conditions (NOCc) status. Two NOCc approvals received extensive RWE reviews, while two other approvals briefly mentioned the use of RWE/historical data. Of the 12 NOC approvals, one received RWE reviews. FDA also approved all 29 drugs, 14 of which received extensive comments on RWE and/or historical data and 8 of which mentioned RWE or historical data. EMA approved 25 of the 29 products and provided extensive comments on 10. Four products received a mention of RWE review. The percentages of submissions with RWE/historical reviews conducted by Health Canada, FDA and EMA were 24.1, 75.9 and 56.0 respectively. Of the 21 non-oncology orphan drugs, Health Canada provided priority review status to 11, with extensive RWE comments in 5 and the mention of RWE in 2 of the regular approvals. Two approvals that used third-party data were not included in the comparison. FDA approved 19, and provided extensive RWE assessment on 5 and mentioned use of historical data in 8. EMA approved 17 and provided extensive RWE and historical comments in 7 and mentioned historical data in 4. The percentages of submissions with RWE/historical reviews by Health Canada, FDA and EMA were 36.8, 68.4 and 64.7 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Use of Real World Data is common among FDA/EMA reviews and Health Canada used RWE in recent NOCc and orphan drug approvals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.343
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.730
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3430.730
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0400.039
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0230.008
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.623
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.080 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207