Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 7, 2025

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits
Published on: September 27, 2019
Intraindividual Comparisons to Determine Comparative Effectiveness: Their Relevance for G-BA's Health Technology
Julia Annabel Wagle1, Jan-Paul Flacke1, Dietrich Knoerzer1
1Roche Pharma AG.
Objectives:
Health technology assessments (HTA) rely on head-to-head comparisons. We searched for intraindividual comparisons (IIC) qualifying as head-to-head design to develop comparative evidence.
Methods:
Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) appraisals between January 2011 and April 2020 were reviewed for inclusion of IIC. Identified IIC were grouped according to disease characteristics into nonprogressive, progressive, irregular, or symmetrical conditions. Evaluation of IIC by Institut für Qualität und Wirschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWIG) and acceptance of IIC by G-BA were determined, and criteria for the usage and quality of IIC were developed.
Results:
A total of 483 appraisals finalized between January 2011 and April 2020 were reviewed. Eleven appraisals included IIC: nonacog beta (hemophilia B), turoctocog alpha (hemophilia A), emicizumab (2 appraisals: hemophilia A), pasireotide (unresectable pituitary tumor), lomitapid (homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia), glycerol phenylbutyrate (2 appraisals: urea cycle disorders), asfotase alfa (hypophosphatasia), lumacaftor (cystic fibrosis), and larotrectinib (NTRK+ solid tumors). All those appraisals related to rare genetic conditions with hemophilia and its bleeding rate are considered mainly a nonprogressive condition. All the other diseases show progressive disease characteristics. None of the identified IIC has been accepted by G-BA. Inconsistencies of before/after study design, lack of clarity on treatments prior to the switch, and different time intervals were among the most commonly cited methodological concerns.
Conclusions:
IICs provide a rare opportunity to determine comparative effectiveness in distinct clinical settings that are not suitable or difficult to randomize into parallel groups. While manufacturers and researchers should aim for highest methodological standards when running an IIC, HTA bodies should accept IIC in distinct settings when determining relative effectiveness.
More Related Videos
07:25In Vitro Methods for Comparing Target Binding and CDC Induction Between Therapeutic Antibodies: Applications in Biosimilarity Analysis
Published on: May 4, 2017
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Bioequivalence of Drugs: Drugs with Multiple Indications
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
Bioequivalence studies: Biowaivers
Bioequivalence Data: Statistical Interpretation
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups