Is real-world evidence used in P&T monographs and therapeutic class reviews?

Jason T. Hurwitz, Mary Brown, Jennifer S. Graff, Loretta Peters, Daniel C Malone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Scopus citations


BACKGROUND: Payers are faced with making coverage and reimbursement decisions based on the best available evidence. Often these decisions apply to patient populations, provider networks, and care settings not typically studied in clinical trials. Treatment effectiveness evidence is increasingly available from electronic health records, registries, and administrative claims. However, little is known about when and what types of real-world evidence (RWE) studies inform pharmacy and therapeutic (P&T) committee decisions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate evidence sources cited in P&T committee monographs and therapeutic class reviews and assess the design features and quality of cited RWE studies. METHODS: A convenience sample of representatives from pharmacy benefit management, health system, and health plan organizations provided recent P&T monographs and therapeutic class reviews (or references from such documents). Two investigators examined and grouped references into major categories (published studies, unpublished studies, and other/unknown) and multiple subcategories (e.g., product label, clinical trials, RWE, systematic reviews). Cited comparative RWE was reviewed to assess design features (e.g., population, data source, comparators) and quality using the Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) Checklist. RESULTS: Investigators evaluated 565 references cited in 27 monographs/therapeutic class reviews from 6 managed care organizations. Therapeutic class reviews mostly cited published clinical trials (35.3[%], 155/439), while single-product monographs relied most on manufacturer-supplied information (42.1[%], 53/126). Published RWE comprised 4.8[%] (21/439) of therapeutic class review references, and none (0/126) of the monograph references. Of the 21 RWE studies, 12 were comparative and assessed patient care settings and outcomes typically not included in clinical trials (community ambulatory settings [[]10], long-term safety [[]8]). RWE studies most frequently were based on registry data (6), conducted in the United States (6), and funded by the pharmaceutical industry (5). GRACE Checklist ratings suggested the data and methods of these comparative RWE studies were of high quality. CONCLUSIONS: RWE was infrequently cited in P&T materials, even among therapeutic class reviews where RWE is more readily available. Although few P&T materials cited RWE, the comparative RWE studies were generally high quality. More research is needed to understand when and what types of real-world studies can more routinely inform coverage and reimbursement decisions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)613-620
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 1 2017

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacy
  • Pharmaceutical Science
  • Health Policy


Dive into the research topics of 'Is real-world evidence used in P&T monographs and therapeutic class reviews?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this