| Additional benefit | Resolutions (955) | Subpopulations (1,630) | Patients (147.7 m) |
|---|---|---|---|
| major benefit | 1.5% | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| considerable benefit | 17.0% | 13.1% | 7.5% |
| minor benefit | 15.6% | 13.4% | 18.9% |
| non-quant. benefit | 19.5% | 18.9% | 1.0% |
| no additional benefit | 45.7% | 52.6% | 72.5% |
| less benefit | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.1% |
| benefit considered proven | 0.7% | 0.7% | 0.0% |
When taking the number of patients in each subpopulation into account, the no additional benefit assessments apply to xx% of the total population of xx million possible patients so far. A non-quantifiable benefit was shown for xx% of this total patient population. A minor benefit was shown for xx%, a considerable additional benefit for xx% and a major additional benefit for just ~xx% of the total patient population.
The table above lists the additional benefit by number of resolutions, subpopulations and patients.
There are remarkably large differences in the G-BA assessments of extent and probability of additional benefit in various indication areas. These are discussed in the following chapters. In particular, indications with high patient numbers receive significantly worse assessments than those with low patient numbers. Oncological products with or without orphan drug status are more likely to be assessed as having an additional benefit. In indication areas such as infectious diseases, mental illnesses and others, the verdict of no additional benefit is seen more often.