Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 13, 2025

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Challenges and Criteria for Single-Arm Trials Leading to an Added Benefit in German Health Technology Assessments
Jörg Tomeczkowski1, Tanja Heidbrede2, Birte Eichinger3
1EGDE-Evidence-generating Data Evaluation, Dormagen, NW, Germany. joerg@tomeczkowski.de.
Background:
Randomized controlled trials are the standard for health technology assessment, but when they are infeasible or unethical, single-arm trials (SATs) are submitted.
Objectives:
This study examined when SATs were accepted for added benefit by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) and/or the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) in Germany.
Methods:
We identified health technology assessments via the AMNOG-Monitor database through December 2024, with additional details from G-BA documents. We compared the SATs and other evidence for added benefit decisions (granted/not granted), stratified by orphan drug status, special marketing authorization, approved indication (chronic hepatitis C/others), and population (adults/children). Added benefit claims by manufacturers, IQWiG recommendations, and G-BA appraisals were compared.
Results:
Among 1738 G-BA decisions, 85.8% (1491/1738) of the subpopulations were fully assessed by IQWiG, with 13.5% (202/1491) based on SATs. Among the 247 orphan drugs assessed by the G-BA, 37.7% (93/247) were SAT-based. Overall, SAT-based assessments demonstrated an added benefit in 12.2% (36/295) of cases. This included 13.4% (27/202) of full assessments and 9.7% (9/93) of orphan drug assessments. IQWiG accepted only 18.5% (5/27) of the SATs endorsed by the G-BA. Statistical tests revealed significant differences between manufacturers' claims, IQWiG recommendations, and G-BA appraisals. SATs were most frequently accepted for chronic hepatitis C treatments (mostly with non-standard marketing authorization) and paediatric indications. The G-BA cited reasons such as dramatic effects, rare diseases, a lack of alternatives, or fewer side effects, although justifications were often unclear.
Conclusion:
Acceptance rates for SATs remain low, and criteria for added benefit are not always explicitly defined. To enable benefit assessments when randomised controlled trials are infeasible or unethical, clear and binding criteria developed in collaboration with the G-BA are essential.
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials: Overview
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
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,...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...

