Open access

Review

21 August 2025

Transportability of nonlocal real-world evidence and its relevance to health technology assessment: a primer

Authors: Alind Gupta https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1139-9769 [email protected], Stephen Duffield, Cal Shephard, Eon Ting, Sanjay Popat https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2087-4963, Winson Y Cheung https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3679-4290, and Paul Arora https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6617-3631Author Info & Affiliations

Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volume 14, Number 10

https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2025-0041

PDF OtherFormats

Abstract

Real-world evidence (RWE) from outside Canada or the UK is sometimes included in submissions to health technology assessments by Canada’s Drug Agency/L'Agence des médicaments du Canada (CDA-AMC) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence when local data are lacking, particularly in rare diseases. However, differences in population demographics, healthcare systems and clinical practice patterns between different jurisdictions can pose challenges for contextualizing nonlocal data for health technology assessments. This primer outlines the challenges of using nonlocal RWE for decision-making, presents assumptions necessary for transportability of RWE, and describes quantitative methods to address these challenges. This primer is written for a broad audience, including industry stakeholders, researchers and clinicians, who are seeking accessible guidance on the use of nonlocal RWE and developments in the field of transportability.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

View PDF View Full Text

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest

1.

Liu F, Panagiotakos D. Real-world data: a brief review of the methods, applications, challenges, and opportunities. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 22, 287 (2022).

2.

Makady A, Ten Ham R, de Boer A, Hillege H, Klungel O, Goettsch W. Policies for use of real-world data in health technology assessment (HTA): a comparative study of six HTA agencies. Value Health 20(4), 520–532 (2017).

3.

Stuart EA, Bradshaw CP, Leaf PJ. Assessing the generalizability of randomized trial results to target populations. Prev. Sci. 16(3), 475–485 (2015).

4.

Degtiar I, Rose S. A review of generalizability and transportability. Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 10, 501–524 (2023).

• Provides a comprehensive and accessible review of generalizability and transportability concepts and methods, making it a cornerstone reference for applying these frameworks in real-world data (RWD) and health technology assessment (HTA) contexts.

5.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE real-world evidence framework corporate document [ECD9]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/corporate/ecd9/chapter/overview

6.

Jaksa A, Arena PJ, Chan KKW, Ben-Joseph RH, Jónsson P, Campbell UB. Transferability of real-world data across borders for regulatory and health technology assessment decision-making. Front. Med. 9, 1073678 (2022).

• Reviews practical challenges and opportunities for cross-border RWD use, relevant for understanding the limitations and potential of data sharing across HTA jurisdictions.

7.

Saesen R, Kantidakis G, Marinus A, Lacombe D, Huys I. How do cancer clinicians perceive real-world data, and the evidence derived therefrom? Findings from an international survey of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Front. Pharmacol. 13, 969778 (2022).

8.

Sharp J, Khaki AR, Prasad V. Use of second-line immunotherapy in control arms of randomized clinical trials in kidney cancer: a systematic review. JAMA Netw. Open 4(9), e2124728 (2021).

9.

Angrist JD, Hull P. Instrumental variables methods reconcile intention-to-screen effects across pragmatic cancer screening trials. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 120(51), e2311556120 (2023).

10.

Hernán MA, Robins JM. Per-protocol analyses of pragmatic trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 377(14), 1391–1398 (2017).

11.

Turner AJ, Sammon C, Latimer N et al. Transporting comparative effectiveness evidence between countries: considerations for health technology assessments. Pharmacoeconomics 42(2), 165–176 (2024).

12.

Ramagopalan SV, Popat S, Gupta A et al. Transportability of overall survival estimates from US to Canadian patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer with implications for regulatory and health technology assessment. JAMA Netw. Open 5(11), e2239874 (2022).

• Provides a detailed case study applying transportability methods to lung cancer from US RWD to Canada.

13.

Gupta A, Hsu G, Kent S et al. Quantitative bias analysis for single-arm trials with external control arms. JAMA Netw. Open 8(3), e252152 (2025).

14.

Zhao X, Suryawanshi S, Hruska M et al. Assessment of nivolumab benefit–risk profile of a 240-mg flat dose relative to a 3-mg/kg dosing regimen in patients with advanced tumors. Ann. Oncol. 28(8), 2002–2008 (2017).

15.

Kent S, Mpofu P, Duffield S et al. Evaluating transportability of overall survival estimates from US to UK populations receiving first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 14(12), e085722 (2024).

• Demonstrates applied transportability in lung cancer treatment from the US to the UK.

16.

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Draft reimbursement recommendation: teclistamab (Tecvayli). PC0332 (2024).

17.

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Combined review report: pcP–related 2024 assessment. Report No.: PC0315 (2024). Available at: https://www.cda-amc.ca/sites/default/files/DRR/2024/PC0315-Combined_Report.pdf

18.

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Pralsetinib (Gavreto): CADTH reimbursement review: therapeutic area: rET fusion–positive non–small cell lung cancer. Report No.: NBK601720 (2023). Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK601720/

19.

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Reassessment report: nusinersen (Spinraza). Report No.: SR0713 (2022). Available at: https://www.cda-amc.ca/sites/default/files/DRR/2022/SR0713-Spinraza-Reassessment.pdf

20.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Nusinersen for treating spinal muscular atrophy. NICE Technol. Appraisals, TA588 (2019). Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta588

21.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Tepotinib for treating advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with MET gene alterations. NICE Technol. Appraisals, TA789 (2022). Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta789

22.

Levy NS, Arena PJ, Jemielita T et al. Use of transportability methods for real-world evidence generation: a review of current applications. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 13(3), e240064 (2024).

23.

Devlin N, Roudijk B, Ludwig K. Value sets for EQ-5D-5L: a compendium, comparative review & user guide. Value Health 25, 276–289 (2022).

24.

Wang Z, Luo N, Wang P. A comparative analysis of EQ-5D-5L general population norms across 23 countries: gender and age disparities. Pharmacoecon. Policy (2025) (In Press).

25.

Fox MP, MacLehose RF, Lash TL. Applying quantitative bias analysis to epidemiologic data. Springer, NY, USA (2021).

26.

Zhang M, Falconer M, Taylor L. A quantitative bias analysis of the confounding effects due to smoking on the association between fluoroquinolones and risk of aortic aneurysm. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 29(8), 958–961 (2020).

27.

Banack HR, Hayes-Larson E, Mayeda ER. Monte Carlo simulation approaches for quantitative bias analysis: a tutorial. Epidemiol. Rev. 43(1), 106–117 (2022).

28.

Thorlund K, Duffield S, Popat S et al. Quantitative bias analysis for external control arms using real-world data in clinical trials: a primer for clinical researchers. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 13(3), e230147 (2024).

29.

Harricharan S, Curran E, Lin HM et al. Real-world evidence in lung and hematologic oncology health technology appraisals: a review of six assessment agencies. Future Oncol. 19(8), 603–616 (2023).

|