Burger HU, Gerlinger C, Harbron C, Koch A, Posch M, Rochon J, et al. The use of external controls: To what extent can it currently be recommended? Pharm Stat. 2021;20:1002–16.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Makady A, van Veelen A, Jonsson P, Moseley O, D’Andon A, de Boer A, et al. Using real-world data in health technology assessment (HTA) practice: a comparative study of five HTA agencies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:359–68.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Eichler H, Koenig F, Arlett P, Enzmann H, Humphreys A, Pétavy F, et al. Are novel, nonrandomized analytic methods fit for decision making? The need for prospective, controlled, and transparent validation. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107:773–9.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

European Medicines Agency. Clinical efficacy and safety guidelines. London: EMA. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/research-development/scientific-guidelines/clinical-efficacy-safety-guidelines (Accessed 26 April 2025)

Eichler H, Pignatti F, Schwarzer-Daum B, Hidalgo-Simon A, Eichler I, Arlett P, et al. Randomized controlled trials versus real world evidence: neither magic nor myth. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;109:1212–8.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

European Medicines Agency. ICH E11(R1) guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products in the pediatric population - Scientific guideline. London: EMA; 2018. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/ich-e11r1-guideline-clinical-investigation-medicinal-products-pediatric-population-scientific-guideline (Accessed 26 April 2025)

Mulder J, Teerenstra S, van Hennik PB, Pasmooij AMG, Stoyanova-Beninska V, Voest EE, et al. Single-arm trials supporting the approval of anticancer medicinal products in the European Union: contextualization of trial results and observed clinical benefit. ESMO Open. 2023;8(2): 101209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.101209.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Hatswell AJ, Baio G, Berlin JA, Irs A, Freemantle N. Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999–2014. BMJ Open. 2016;6: e011666.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Goring S, Taylor A, Müller K, Li TJJ, Korol EE, Levy AR, et al. Characteristics of non-randomised studies using comparisons with external controls submitted for regulatory approval in the USA and Europe: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9: e024895.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ribeiro TB, Colunga-Lozano LE, Araujo APV, Bennett CL, Hozo I, Djulbegovic B. Single-arm clinical trials that supported FDA accelerated approvals have modest effect sizes and were at high risk of bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;148:193–5.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Wang X, Dormont F, Lorenzato C, Latouche A, Hernandez R, Rouzier R. Current perspectives for external control arms in oncology clinical trials: analysis of EMA approvals 2016–2021. J Cancer Policy. 2023;35: 100403.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bouwman L, Sepodes B, Leufkens H, Torre C. Trends in orphan medicinal products approvals in the European Union between 2010–2022. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2024;19:91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-024-03095-z.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Bouslouk M. G-BA benefit assessment of new orphan drugs in Germany: the first five years. Expert Opin Orphan Drugs. 2016;4:453–5.

Google Scholar 

Fischer KE, Stargardt T. Early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany. Med Decis Making. 2014;34:1030–47.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hörn H, Nink K, McGauran N, Wieseler B. Early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany—results from 2011 to 2012. Health Policy (New York). 2014;116:147–53.

Google Scholar 

Ruof J, Schwartz FW, Schulenburg J-M, Dintsios C-M. Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:577–89.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Skipka G, Wieseler B, Kaiser T, Thomas S, Bender R, Windeler J, et al. Methodological approach to determine minor, considerable, and major treatment effects in the early benefit assessment of new drugs. Biometr J. 2016;58:43–58.

Google Scholar 

Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen) (IQWiG). General Methods 7.0. 2023. https://www.iqwig.de/en/about-us/methods/methods-paper/ (Accessed 2 July 2025)

Lauenroth VD, Stargardt T. Pharmaceutical pricing in Germany: how is value determined within the scope of AMNOG? Value Health. 2017;20:927–35.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gandjour A, Schüßler S, Hammerschmidt T, Dintsios C-M. Predictors of negotiated prices for new drugs in Germany. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21:1049–57.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Worm F, Dintsios C-M. Determinants of orphan drug prices in Germany. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38:397–411.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ludwig S, Dintsios C-M. Arbitration board setting reimbursement amounts for pharmaceutical innovations in Germany when price negations between payers and manufacturers fail: an empirical analysis of 5 years’ experience. Value Health. 2016;19:1016–25.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Casilli G, Lidonnici D, Jommi C, De Nigris M, Genazzani AA. Do France, Germany, and Italy agree on the added therapeutic value of medicines? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2023;39: e54.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Aerztezeitung. Hecken: Frühe Nutzenbewertung passt nicht mehr zu den neuen Wirkstoffen. https://www.aerztezeitung.de/Politik/Hecken-Fruehe-Nutzenbewertung-passt-nicht-mehr-zu-den-neuen-Wirkstoffen-456149.html (Accessed 27 April 2025)

Dintsios CM, Worm F, Ruof J, Herpers M. Different interpretation of additional evidence for HTA by the commissioned HTA body and the commissioning decision maker in Germany: whenever IQWiG and Federal Joint Committee disagree. Health Econ Rev. 2019;9:35.

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Hankowitz J. AMNOG | Germany’s early benefit assessments in detail: AMNOG-Monitor. https://www.amnog-monitor.com/ (Accessed 27 April 2025)

Hilton JF. The appropriateness of the Wilcoxon test in ordinal data. Stat Med. 1996;15:631–45.

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sheldon MR, Fillyaw MJ, Thompson WD. The use and interpretation of the Friedman test in the analysis of ordinal-scale data in repeated measures designs. Physiother Res Int. 1996;1:221–8.

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss). AIS – Maschinenlesbare Fassung der Beschlüsse zur Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln gemäß § 35a SGB V - Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. https://www.g-ba.de/themen/arzneimittel/arzneimittel-richtlinie-anlagen/nutzenbewertung-35a/ais/ (Accessed 2 July 2025)

Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss). Verfahrensordnung des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses. https://www.g-ba.de/richtlinien/42/ (Accessed 27 April 2025)

Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss). Tragende Gründe zum Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über eine Änderung der Arzneimittel-Richtlinie (AM-RL): Anlage XII-Beschlüsse über die Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln mit neuen Wirkstoffen nach § 35a SGB V-Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir. 2015. https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/40-268-3225/2015-05-21_AM-RL-XII_Ledipasvir-Sofosbuvir_2014-12-01-D-143_TrG.pdf (Accessed 2 July 2025)

Federal Joint Committe (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss). Tragende Gründe zum Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über eine Änderung der Arzneimittel-Richtlinie (AM-RL): Anlage XII-Beschlüsse über die Nutzenbewer-tung von Arzneimitteln mit neuen Wirkstoffen nach § 35a SGB V-Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir (neues Anwendungsgebiet: Chronische Hepatitis C bei Jugendlichen). 2018. https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/40-268-4805/2018-02-15_AM-RL-XII_Ledipasvir-Sofosbuvir-nAWG_D-304_TrG.pdf (Accessed 2 July 2025)

Macabeo B, Rotrou T, Millier A, François C, Laramée P. The acceptance of indirect treatment comparison methods in oncology by health technology assessment agencies in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Pharmacoecon Open. 2024;8:5–18.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Tomeczkowski J, Heidbrede T, Leverkus F, Schmitter S, Dintsios C, Osowski U, et al. Questioning conclusions and statements on the German HTA system: a critical perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2025;117:22–3.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Tomeczkowski J, Partemio G, Nijhuis T, Kubitz N, Kavanagh S. HTA 24 Real-world data as external controls for single-arm trials: Role in regulatory and health technology assessments [abstract]. Value Health. 2022;25(12 suppl):S300-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.09.1484.

Article  Google Scholar 

Patel D, Grimson F, Mihaylova E, Wagner P, Warren J, van Engen A, et al. Use of external comparators for health technology assessment submissions based on single-arm trials. Value Health. 2021;24:1118–25.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sola-Morales O, Curtis LH, Heidt J, Walsh L, Casso D, Oliveria S, et al. Effectively leveraging RWD for external controls: a systematic literature review of regulatory and HTA decisions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2023;114:325–55.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cox O, Sammon C, Simpson A, Wasiak R, Ramagopalan S, Thorlund K. The (harsh) reality of real-world data external comparators for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2022;25:1253–6.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss). Nutzenbewertungsverfahren zum Wirkstoff Simeprevir (Chronische Hepatitis C). 2014. https://www.g-ba.de/bewertungsverfahren/nutzenbewertung/118/#nutzenbewertung (Accessed 27 April 2025)

European Medicines Agency (EMA). ICH E10 Choice of control group in clinical trials - Scientific guideline. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/ich-e10-choice-control-group-clinical-trials-scientific-guideline (Accessed 27 April 2025)

Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M, McCulloch P. When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise BMJ. 2007;334:349–51.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss). Nutzenbewertungsverfahren zum Wirkstoff Amivantamab (Nicht-kleinzelliges Lungenkarzinom, EGFR-Exon-20-Insertionsmutation, nach platinbasierter Therapie). 2022. https://www.g-ba.de/bewertungsverfahren/nutzenbewertung/783/#english (Accessed 27 April 2025)

Bucher H. Assessment of the added benefit of pharmaceuticals without RCT – a case study. https://r-connect.org/IPoBA%20Volume%2016.pdf. 2023. https://r-connect.org/ipoba.html (Accessed 27 April 2025)

Subramaniam D, Anderson-Smits C, Rubinstein R, Thai ST, Purcell R, Girman C. A framework for the use and likelihood of regulatory acceptance of single-arm trials. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2024;58:1214–32.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Igarashi A, Tanaka S, De Moor R, Li N, Hirozane M, Wu DBC, et al. Indirect treatment comparisons in healthcare decision making: a targeted review of regulatory approval, reimbursement, and pricing recommendations globally for oncology drugs in 2021–2023. Adv Ther. 2025;42(1):52–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-024-03013-6.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Tomeczkowski J, Leverkus F, Bussilliat P, Osowski U, Herrmann KH, Eichinger B, et al. Letter to the Editor Regarding “Indirect Treatment Comparisons in Healthcare Decision Making: A Targeted Review of Regulatory Approval, Reimbursement, and Pricing Recommendations Globally for Oncology Drugs in 2021–2023.” [online ahead of print]. Adv Ther. 2025 Jun 20; https://doi.org/10.1008/s12325-025-03269-6.

Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss). Nutzenbewertungsverfahren zum Wirkstoff Asfotase alfa (Überschreitung 50 Mio. € Grenze: Hypophosphatasie). 2020. https://www.g-ba.de/bewertungsverfahren/nutzenbewertung/505/#english (Accessed 27 April 2025)

Sachdeva A, Tiwari RC, Guha S. A novel approach to augment single-arm clinical studies with real-world data. J Biopharm Stat. 2022;32:141–57.

PubMed