Relevance of indirect comparisons in the German early benefit assessment and in comparison to HTA processes in England, France and Scotland

Table 3 Evaluation of indirect comparisons submitted to IQWiG, HAS, NICE and SMC

Drug substance	Trade name	Acceptance of indirect comparison
Drug substance	Trade name	Germany	France	England	Scotland
Abirateron acetat	Zytiga	No	Yes	-	-
Aclidinium bromide	Eklira		No	-	-
Aflibercept	Eylea		-	No^e	Yes
Axitinib	Inlyta		No	Ongoing	Unclear
Collagenase clostridium histolyticum	Xiapex		-	-
Dapagliflozin^a	Forxiga			No
Fingolimod	Gilenya			No
Ingenolmebutat	Picato			-	-
Linagliptin	Trajenta				Unclear
Perampanel	Fycompa				Unclear
Retigabine	Trobalt			Yes	Yes
Ticagrelor^b	Brilique	Yes	No	-	-
Telaprevir	Incivo	No	-	-
Dabrafenib	Tafinlar			Ongoing
Elvitegravir, Cobicistat, Emtricitabin, Tenofovirdisoproxil^a	Stribild			-^c
Fampridin	Fampyra
Lixisenatid	Lyxumia				Unclear
Saxagliptin	Onglyza				Yes
Saxagliptin (new indication)	Onglyza			-	-
Saxagliptin/Metformin (new indication)	Komboglyze			-	-
Sitagliptin	Januvia, Xelevia		Ongoing	-^c	Unclear
Teriflunomid	Aubagio		-	No	-
Vildagliptin^a	Galvus, Jalra, Xiliarx		-	-^c	Unclear^d

^aIndirect comparison not in all submitted indications.
^bIndirect comparison only for STEMI PIC population.
^cNo HTA report available due to existence of block scoping report, policy statement, guideline, recommendation and evidence summary.
^dIndirect comparison was used as sensitivity analysis to support the primary analysis.
^eIndirect comparison of included trials should be taken with caution, due to a high heterogeneity of these trials.
The detailed reasons of rejection of the comparisons in Germany are presented in Table 2.
Sources: [17],[19]-[121].

ISSN: 2191-1991