Evidara for Health Economics & Outcomes Research

Evidence for your QALY model
by end of day one.

You spend three weeks pulling evidence before building a cost-effectiveness model. The search is scattered, the formats are inconsistent, and the gaps need chasing. Evidara compresses that to under an hour — fully sourced, audit-ready, and structured for model input.

Request a Demo → Explore free →

8wk → 1hr

Evidence gathering for QALY model input — median time saved

Payer systems covered — NICE, ICER, HAS, G-BA, CADTH and more

100%

Of outputs carry source provenance — PMID, NCT ID, or NDA number

PDF+PPTX

Value dossier export ready for submission on every analysis

The HEOR workflow problem

Three friction points that consume
most of your time before modelling starts.

The evidence work that precedes every QALY model, budget impact analysis, or HTA dossier is where HEOR teams lose weeks — on work that is largely replicable and searchable.

01 — Evidence Gathering

The literature search takes longer than the model

Pulling comparative effectiveness data from PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and grey literature — then deduplicating, assessing quality, and aligning to model parameters — consistently takes 2–4 weeks. That's before any analysis begins.

~$12,000 in researcher-hours per study

02 — HTA Landscape

Precedent searches require manual review of each HTA body

NICE, ICER, G-BA, CADTH, and HAS each maintain separate appraisal archives in different formats. Building a reimbursement landscape means checking each one — no unified source exists. Gaps are inevitable.

~1 week per HTA landscape

03 — Audit Readiness

Evidence packages need source documentation a regulator can follow

Every HTA submission or payer dossier requires documented provenance for every evidence claim. Manual literature searches leave no traceable audit trail — requiring a separate documentation step before any submission.

Retraction risk on unchecked citations

How Evidara solves it

Three evidence protocols built
for how HEOR teams work.

Protocol P — Payer Intelligence

Complete HTA landscape in 20 minutes

Chain P simultaneously queries ICER appraisals, formulary databases, NICE reference cases, and comparative effectiveness literature — returning a structured payer brief in the format your dossier requires. 14 payer systems covered on every run.

ICER cost-effectiveness thresholds and precedents

NICE reference case alignment and comparators

Budget impact signals across formulary databases

HTA evidence gaps flagged for primary research

Protocol B — Trial Intelligence

Endpoint benchmarking and NMA inputs

Chain B extracts trial design, primary endpoints, patient populations, and outcomes data from ClinicalTrials.gov and literature — structured for network meta-analysis input and indirect treatment comparison. Retraction check on every citation.

Trial-level data extraction ready for NMA input

Primary and secondary endpoint landscape

Patient population comparators across trials

Comparator arms and dosing schedules

Protocol C — Safety Evidence

Safety profile for indirect comparison dossiers

Chain C queries FDA FAERS adverse event data, published safety literature, and drug label history — returning a structured safety evidence package that satisfies NICE DSU and AMCP Format requirements for indirect comparisons and systematic reviews.

FAERS disproportionality signals with SPARSE_DATA flags

Published safety literature — systematic reviews prioritized

Drug label history and label update timeline

GRADE evidence level assigned per finding

Illustrative example

GLP-1 cost-effectiveness evidence — run live

Chain P assembles the cost-effectiveness and HTA evidence base for an asset — retrieving registered trials, prior HTA assessments and reference cases, and comparative safety data, structured for QALY model input and exportable with every finding carrying a source identifier.

Run this analysis yourself →

"What cost-effectiveness and HTA evidence exists for semaglutide in cardiovascular disease — include ICER analysis, NICE precedents, and comparative safety data?"

Registered GLP-1 trials retrieved across indications — SELECT dominates Phase 3 RWE

Prior ICER assessments surfaced with their stated value-based price range

Relevant NICE technology appraisals matched to the comparator and population

FAERS adverse-event profile summarised by event class, with new-signal status stated

GRADE certainty rated per outcome, with the rationale for each rating shown

Chain P · Illustrative example — not a live run · PROVISIONAL, requires expert review

Evidence for your QALY modelby end of day one.

Three friction points that consumemost of your time before modelling starts.

Three evidence protocols builtfor how HEOR teams work.