Enhancing Health Technology Assessment With Data Transportability Analyses: Addressing Bias and Generalizability Challenges In Non-Local Real-World Evidence
Author(s)
Alind Gupta, PhD1, Cal Shephard, MSc2, Eon Ting, MBA, MSc2, Stephen Duffield, PhD, MD3, Sanjay Popat, MBBS, FRCP, PhD4, Winson Y. Cheung, MPH, MD5, Paul Arora, PhD1.
1Inka Health, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2AstraZeneca, Toronto, ON, Canada, 3NICE, London, United Kingdom, 4Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom, 5University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
1Inka Health, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2AstraZeneca, Toronto, ON, Canada, 3NICE, London, United Kingdom, 4Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom, 5University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
OBJECTIVES: Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to support HTA submissions, particularly for rare diseases. When local data are unavailable, ‘non-local’ RWE could be of use. However, demographic, clinical practice, and healthcare system differences often limit the perceived external validity of ‘non-local’ RWE. This study outlines methodological advancements and potential real-world applications of data transportability analyses to address these limitations, with a particular focus on mitigating biases and enhancing decision-grade evidence for HTA.
METHODS: This methodological review identifies key assumptions necessary for transportability, including consistency, positivity, and conditional exchangeability. It highlights the role of matching, weighting, and standardization to address differences between source and target populations. We reviewed prior assessments from CDA-AMC (Canada) and the NICE (UK) to evaluate how transportability analyses might have directly addressed committee concerns regarding external validity.
RESULTS: Our analysis identified several instances where transportability methods could have mitigated bias in submissions using non-local RWE. For example, external control arm data for teclistamab and elranatamab for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma faced criticism from HTA agencies due to differences in treatment regimens and unmeasured prognostic variables relative to the local HTA jurisdiction. Case studies demonstrate that incorporating transportability analyses during study design and submission can enhance the credibility of ‘non-local’ RWE.
CONCLUSIONS: Transportability analyses may be an underused tool offering a rigorous framework for addressing key challenges in adapting non-local RWE to local HTA decision-making. Implementing these methodologies could improve the acceptance of non-local evidence, accelerate patient access to therapies, and support globally harmonized evidence generation and interpretation strategies. Further development of practical guidelines and case studies are essential to standardize these methods and ensure broader adoption in HTA practice.
METHODS: This methodological review identifies key assumptions necessary for transportability, including consistency, positivity, and conditional exchangeability. It highlights the role of matching, weighting, and standardization to address differences between source and target populations. We reviewed prior assessments from CDA-AMC (Canada) and the NICE (UK) to evaluate how transportability analyses might have directly addressed committee concerns regarding external validity.
RESULTS: Our analysis identified several instances where transportability methods could have mitigated bias in submissions using non-local RWE. For example, external control arm data for teclistamab and elranatamab for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma faced criticism from HTA agencies due to differences in treatment regimens and unmeasured prognostic variables relative to the local HTA jurisdiction. Case studies demonstrate that incorporating transportability analyses during study design and submission can enhance the credibility of ‘non-local’ RWE.
CONCLUSIONS: Transportability analyses may be an underused tool offering a rigorous framework for addressing key challenges in adapting non-local RWE to local HTA decision-making. Implementing these methodologies could improve the acceptance of non-local evidence, accelerate patient access to therapies, and support globally harmonized evidence generation and interpretation strategies. Further development of practical guidelines and case studies are essential to standardize these methods and ensure broader adoption in HTA practice.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
HTA83
Topic
Health Technology Assessment
Topic Subcategory
Decision & Deliberative Processes
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, SDC: Oncology