Developing an evidence-based methodological framework to systematically compare HTA coverage decisions: A mixed methods study

Rare disease challenges and potential actions in the Middle East

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases, defined variably by global regions, collectively impact approximately 300 million individuals despite affecting small population segments individually. Historically there were no treatments developed for these conditions, leading to significant care challenges. Public interventions have incentivized treatment development, yet up to this day, many rare disease patients are deprived of timely diagnosis and treatment in comparison to patients with more common diseases. This study evaluates the challenges that rare disease patients and healthcare systems face in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), seeking strategies to enhance treatment accessibility.

METHODS

We followed a three-step approach for the study. First, we searched scientific publications and grey literature for the global challenges faced by rare disease patients. Our search also collected information on orphan drug regulations implemented in different countries. Subsequently, we used the findings to conduct a survey to pharmaceutical company representatives across three countries in the region (The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates). The survey assessed the challenges facing rare disease patients in the MENA region and the policies that have been implemented to overcome these challenges. The survey was then followed by governmental expert interviews to validate the survey responses and provide recommendations to mitigate the challenges.

RESULTS

The literature and survey results revealed several challenges facing rare diseases, including lack of awareness, difficulty in acquiring marketing authorization and reimbursing orphan drugs. Validation meetings provided recommendations to mitigate such challenges in the selected countries. For instance, the collaboration between the Ministry of Health and pharmaceutical companies was recommended to improve rare diseases care. A separate registration process for orphan drugs with clear criteria and timelines was suggested. A differential cost-effectiveness threshold for orphan drugs was recommended. It was also recommended to establish a definition for rare diseases and to increase the utilization of managed entry agreements for orphan drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Rare diseases present challenges in the MENA region and globally, requiring focused attention and innovative solutions. By implementing comprehensive strategies that consider both economic efficiency and fairness, healthcare systems can better serve rare disease patients and improve their quality of life.

Institutional Priority-Setting for Novel Drugs and Therapeutics: A Qualitative Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of guidance on approaches to formulary management and funding for high-cost drugs and therapeutics by individual healthcare institutions. The objective of this review was to assess institutional approaches to resource allocation for such therapeutics, with a particular focus on paediatric and rare disease populations.

METHODS

A search of Embase and MEDLINE was conducted for studies relevant to decision-making for off-formulary, high-cost drugs and therapeutics. Abstracts were evaluated for inclusion based on the Simple Multiple-Attribute Rating Techniques (SMART) criteria. A framework of 30 topics across 4 categories was used to guide data extraction and was based on findings from the initial abstract review and previous health technology assessment (HTA) publications. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted using QSR NVivo 12 software.

RESULTS

A total of 168 studies were included for analysis. Only 4 (2%) focused on paediatrics, while 21 (12%) centred on adults and the remainder (85%) did not specify. Thirty-two (19%) studies discussed the importance of high-cost therapeutics and 34 (23%) focused on rare/orphan drugs. Five themes were identified as being relevant to institutional decision-making for high-cost therapeutics: institutional strategy, substantive criteria, procedural considerations, guiding principles and frameworks, and operational activities. Each of these themes encompassed several sub-themes and was complemented by a sixth category specific to paediatrics and rare diseases.

CONCLUSION

The rising cost of novel drugs and therapeutics underscores the need for robust, evidence-based, and ethically defensible decision-making processes for health technology funding, particularly at the hospital level. Our study highlights practices and themes to aid decision-makers in thinking critically about institutional, substantive, procedural, and operational considerations in support of legitimate decisions about institutional funding of high-cost drugs and therapeutics, as well as opportunities and challenges that exist for paediatric and rare disease populations.

Using automated text classification to explore uncertainty in NICE appraisals for drugs for rare diseases

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the application, feasibility, and validity of supervised learning models for text classification in appraisals for rare disease treatments (RDTs) in relation to uncertainty, and analyzed differences between appraisals based on the classification results.

METHODS

We analyzed appraisals for RDTs (n = 94) published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) between January 2011 and May 2023. We used Naïve Bayes, Lasso, and Support Vector Machine models in a binary text classification task (classifying paragraphs as either referencing uncertainty in the evidence base or not). To illustrate the results, we tested hypotheses in relation to the appraisal guidance, advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) status, disease area, and age group.

RESULTS

The best performing (Lasso) model achieved 83.6 percent classification accuracy (sensitivity = 74.4 percent, specificity = 92.6 percent). Paragraphs classified as referencing uncertainty were significantly more likely to arise in highly specialized technology (HST) appraisals compared to appraisals from the technology appraisal (TA) guidance (adjusted odds ratio = 1.44, 95 percent CI 1.09, 1.90, p = 0.004). There was no significant association between paragraphs classified as referencing uncertainty and appraisals for ATMPs, non-oncology RDTs, and RDTs indicated for children only or adults and children. These results were robust to the threshold value used for classifying paragraphs but were sensitive to the choice of classification model.

CONCLUSION

Using supervised learning models for text classification in NICE appraisals for RDTs is feasible, but the results of downstream analyses may be sensitive to the choice of classification model.

Appraisal of Novel Oncological Therapies by the Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: A Comparative Study of Six Years of Data

Background and aims Pharmacoeconomic assessment of novel oncological therapies is an increasingly important factor in determining patient access to therapies. Organisations such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) in Scotland assess medications for their cost-effectiveness through health technology assessments (HTA) and provide guidance on whether the public health service should fund a therapy. We assessed six years of data to determine if there were any differences in timescales and decisions between NICE and SMC for new oncological therapies. Methods and results Time (days) from marketing authorisation (MA) to publication of final HTA guidance was calculated for single technology appraisals published by NICE and SMC between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022, for oncological therapies. We assessed 161 HTAs by NICE and 148 HTAs by SMC published in the study period. The median time from MA to publication of HTA guidance was 291 days (IQR 222-406) for SMC and 257 days (IQR 167-448) for NICE (p=0.054). For solid organ cancer therapies, NICE was significantly faster in publishing guidance, with a median of 231.5 days (IQR 148-392.25), compared to SMC, which took 273 days (IQR 202-378) (p=0.039). Overall recommendation of technologies was similar between the SMC and NICE (90.5% and 89.4%, respectively), with discordance in a minority of cases (12.6%). Conclusions Recommendation rates for single HTAs are similar between NICE and SMC for oncological therapies with discordance in a minority of cases. The time from MA to publication of HTA guidance was similar overall, but NICE was faster in publishing HTA guidance for solid organ cancer indications. Differences in methodology and process between the two organisations, in particular the presence of the Cancer Drugs Fund in England, may explain this difference in publication times.

Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries

BACKGROUND

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) continue to emerge in health technology assessment (HTA)-based decision-making, to address evidentiary uncertainties arising therein. Evidence on the HTA criteria that influence MEAs' uptake remains scarce. This study explores the HTA criteria that determine (i) if an HTA funding decision will be listed with conditions (LWC) other than a MEA, or with a MEA as a condition (LWCMEA), and ii) the MEA type implemented (i.e., financial, outcomes based, or combination).

METHODS

HTA reports of all oncology medicines approved since 2009 in Australia, England, Scotland, and Sweden were searched to capture the clinical/economic evidence uncertainties raised in the decision-making process, the Social Value Judgements (SVJs) considered therein and the final coverage decision. Binary and multinomial logit models captured the probability (odds ratio (OR)) of a coverage decision being LWCMEA vs. LWC, and of the MEA being financial, outcomes based, or combination, based on the HTA criteria studied.

RESULTS

23 (12%) LWC and 163 (88%) LWCMEA decisions were identified; 136 (83.4%) comprised financial, 10 (6.2%) outcomes based and 17 (10.4%) combination MEAs. LWCMEA decisions were driven by economic model utilities' uncertainties (7.16 < OR < 26.7, p < .05), and the innovation (8.5 < OR < 11.7, p < .05) SVJ. Outcomes based contracts were influenced by clinical evidence (OR = 69.2, p < .05) and relevance to clinical practice (OR = 26.4, p < .05) uncertainties, and rarity (OR = 46.2, p < .05) and severity (OR = 23.3, p < .05) SVJs. Financial MEAs were influenced by innovation (8.9 < OR < 9.3, p < .05) and societal impact (OR = 17.7, p < .0001) SVJs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides an empirical framework on the HTA criteria that shape payers' preferences in funding with MEAs, when faced with uncertainty.

The Beneluxa Initiative domain task force health technology assessment: a comparison of member countries' past health technology assessments

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare assessments between Beneluxa Initiative member countries' assessments and identify alignments and divergences.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative analysis was performed that investigated (i) number and type of assessed indications (for Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Ireland (IE), and the Netherlands (NL)); (ii) added benefit conclusions (for BE, IE, and NL); and (iii) the main arguments underlying differences in conclusions (for BE, IE, and NL). Data were retrieved directly from agency representatives and from public HTA reports. European Medicines Agency approved indications were included for drugs assessed between 2016 and 2020, excluding veterinary drugs, generics, and biosimilars.

RESULTS

Only 44 (10 percent) of the 444 included indications were assessed by all four member countries. Between any pair of two countries, the overlap was higher, from 63 (AT-NL) to 188 (BE-IE). Added benefit conclusions matched exactly in 62-74 percent of the indications, depending on the countries compared. In the remaining cases, most often a difference of one added benefit level was observed (e.g., higher vs. equal relative effect). Contradictory outcomes were very rare: only three cases were observed (lower vs. higher effect). When assessing the underlying arguments for seven cases with different outcomes, differences were attributable to slight differences in weighing of evidence and uncertainties rather than disagreement on aspects within the assessment itself.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high variability in European HTA procedures, collaboration on HTA between the Beneluxa Initiative member countries is very feasible and would likely not result in added benefit conclusions that would be very different from added benefit conclusions in national procedures.

A systematic review of economic evaluations for RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease including HTA assessment of broader value

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the key methodological challenges identified by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies assessing gene therapy (GT) and consideration of broad elements of value.

METHOD

Economic evaluations (EEs) of voretigene neparvovec (VN) in RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease (IRD) published in English were selected. HTA evaluations from Australia, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, England, and the United States were reviewed. An existing methodological framework was used to identify the challenges and considerations.

RESULTS

Eight unique EEs were identified of which six were evaluated by HTA agencies. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $68,951 to $643,813 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained (healthcare perspective) and dominant to $480,130 per QALY gained (societal perspective). The key challenges were the lack of validated surrogate outcome, utility values and indirect costs from IRD patients, and limited evidence of the long-term treatment effect. Two HTA agencies reviewed a range of novel broader elements of value and whether they were associated with VN while other agencies discussed some elements of broader value. Caregiver disutility was included in some, but not all, evaluations.

CONCLUSION

The methodological challenges were consistent with innovative interventions for rare diseases and managed using standard methods. Broader value was important to decision-makers but inconsistently applied across agencies. Possible reasons are limitations in the evidence available of the broader benefits that VN offers and how to incorporate these within an EE. A need exists for greater guidance and consistency across jurisdictions regarding the consideration of broader value that considers latest best practice.

HTA Barriers for Conditional Approval Drugs

BACKGROUND

Conditional approval pathways facilitate accelerated marketing authorisation based on immature clinical evidence for drugs that address an unmet medical need in a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition. Lowering evidence requirements for marketing authorisation results in higher clinical uncertainty, which may present challenges for the health technology assessment (HTA) of these products.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess whether conditionally approved drugs face higher probabilities of HTA rejection or delays in HTA approval relative to drugs with standard marketing authorisation.

METHODS

This paper adopts a mixed-methods approach to provide a meta-analysis of HTA outcomes across 80 drug-indication pairs in France, England, Scotland and Canada. Differences in the characteristics (i.e. disease rarity and clinical trial design) of conditionally approved drugs and drugs with standard marketing authorisation and drivers of HTA outcomes are assessed through logistics regressions. Delays in HTA approval are assessed through a survival analysis.

RESULTS

Relative to standard approval drugs, conditionally approved drugs are less likely to include phase III trial designs, less likely to include clinical endpoints and less likely to include an active comparator. Uncertainties in clinical and economic evidence are raised more frequently by HTA agencies for conditionally approved drugs, which have a marginally lower probability of receiving HTA approval relative to drugs with standard approval. Conditionally approved drugs face moderate delays (an average of 6 months) in receiving HTA approval relative to standard approval drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, conditionally approved drugs likely face increased barriers at the HTA level.

Using 5 consecutive years of NICE guidance to describe the characteristics and influencing factors on the economic evaluation of orphan oncology drugs

Objective

Orphan oncology drugs used in this article were defined by the type of disease treated by drugs, as drugs used to treat rare diseases with a prevalence of ≤ 500 per million people per year. In this article, our concern was to explore focus on the economic evaluation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), when orphan oncology drugs were appraised for reimbursement, and provide advice and suggestions to decision-makers.

Methods

A retrospective study was used in this study. Thirty guidance were gathered as our subject by NICE from 2016 to 2020, excluded drugs were not identified as orphan by European Medicines Agency (EMA) and orphan drugs were not used for cancer, and orphan oncology drugs were terminated at the time of data collection at NICE. Qualitative analysis, descriptive statistics, and Fisher's exact test were conducted.

Results

Of all guidance, the partitioned survival model was used most to appraise orphan oncology drugs, and every drug had a kind of commercial arrangement such as patient access scheme (PAS), managed access arrangements (MAAs), and commercial access agreement (CAAs). End of life is an important indicator that had been defined by NICE in the methods of technology appraisal in 2013, and drugs that met the criterion would be given a higher threshold of ICER. In addition, we found that potential health benefits were increasingly concerned such as drug delivery.

Conclusion

In the setting of uncertain clinical and cost efficacy, orphan oncology drugs are comprehensively evaluated in multiple additional dimensions, which include life-extending benefits, and innovation. NICE uses a combination of special considerations for incomplete data, appropriate economic models, and appropriate health technology assessment (HTA) methods during the assessment process, besides, orphan oncology drugs with insufficiency evidence were recommended Cancer Drugs fund (CDF) to afford for patients, which would obtain more availability and accessibility, based on which, high-quality drugs for treating rare cancers can fall within the scope of affordable healthcare provided by the English medical insurance fund.

Impact of Managed Entry Agreements on availability of and timely access to medicines: an ex-post evaluation of agreements implemented for oncology therapies in four countries

BACKGROUND

Despite the increased utilisation of Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs), empirical studies assessing their impact on achieving better access to medicines remains scarce. In this study we evaluated the role of MEAs on enhancing availability of and timely access to a sample of oncology medicines that had received at least one prior rejection from reimbursement.

METHODS

Funding decisions and their respective timelines for all oncology medicines approved between 2009 and 2018 in Australia, England, Scotland and Sweden were studied. A number of binary logit models captured the probability (Odds ratio (OR)) of a previous coverage rejection being reversed to positive after resubmission with vs. without a MEA. Gamma generalised linear models were used to understand if there is any association between time to final funding decision and the presence of MEA, among other decision-making variables, and if so, the strength and direction of this association (Beta coefficient (B)).

RESULTS

Of the 59 previously rejected medicine-indication pairs studied, 88.2% (n = 45) received a favourable decision after resubmission with MEA vs. 11.8% (n = 6) without. Average time from original submission to final funding decision was 404 (± 254) and 452 (± 364) days for submissions without vs. with MEA respectively. Resubmissions with a MEA had a higher likelihood of receiving a favourable funding decision compared to those without MEA (43.36 < OR < 202, p < 0.05), although approval specifically with an outcomes-based agreement was associated with an increase in the time to final funding decision (B = 0.89, p < 0.01). A statistically significant decrease in time to final funding decision was observed for resubmissions in Australia and Scotland compared to England and Sweden, and for resubmissions with a clinically relevant instead of a surrogate endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS

MEAs can improve availability of medicines by increasing the likelihood of reimbursement for medicines that would have otherwise remained rejected from reimbursement due to their evidentiary uncertainties. Nevertheless, approval with a MEA can increase the time to final funding decision, while the true, added value for patients and healthcare systems of the interventions approved with MEAs in comparison to other available interventions remains unknown.

Barriers to Use Artificial Intelligence Methodologies in Health Technology Assessment in Central and East European Countries

The aim of this paper is to identify the barriers that are specifically relevant to the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based evidence in Central and Eastern European (CEE) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systems. The study relied on two main parallel sources to identify barriers to use AI methodologies in HTA in CEE, including a scoping literature review and iterative focus group meetings with HTx team members. Most of the other selected articles discussed AI from a clinical perspective (n = 25), and the rest are from regulatory perspective (n = 13), and transfer of knowledge point of view (n = 3). Clinical areas studied are quite diverse—from pediatric, diabetes, diagnostic radiology, gynecology, oncology, surgery, psychiatry, cardiology, infection diseases, and oncology. Out of all 38 articles, 25 (66%) describe the AI method and the rest are more focused on the utilization barriers of different health care services and programs. The potential barriers could be classified as data related, methodological, technological, regulatory and policy related, and human factor related. Some of the barriers are quite similar, especially concerning the technologies. Studies focusing on the AI usage for HTA decision making are scarce. AI and augmented decision making tools are a novel science, and we are in the process of adapting it to existing needs. HTA as a process requires multiple steps, multiple evaluations which rely on heterogenous data. Therefore, the observed range of barriers come as a no surprise, and experts in the field need to give their opinion on the most important barriers in order to develop recommendations to overcome them and to disseminate the practical application of these tools.

Consideration of quality of life in the health technology assessments of rare disease treatments

OBJECTIVES

Challenges with patient-reported outcome (PRO) evidence and health state utility values (HSUVs) in rare diseases exist due to small, heterogeneous populations, lack of disease knowledge and early onset. To better incorporate quality of life (QoL) into Health Technology Assessment, a clearer understanding of these challenges is needed.

METHODS

NICE appraisals of non-oncology treatments with an EMA orphan designation (n = 24), and corresponding appraisals in the Netherlands, France, and Germany were included. Document analysis of appraisal reports investigated how PROs/HSUVs influenced decision-making and was representative of QoL impact of condition and treatment.

RESULTS

PRO evidence was not included in 6/24 NICE appraisals. When included, it either failed to demonstrate change, capture domains important for patients, or was uncertain. In the other countries, little information was reported and evidence largely did not demonstrate change. In NICE appraisals, HSUVs were derived through the collection of EQ-5D data (7/24 cases), mapping (6/24), vignettes (5/24), and published literature or other techniques (6/24). The majority did not use data collected alongside clinical trials. Few measures demonstrated significant change due to lack of sensitivity or face validity, short-term data, or implausible health states. In 8/24 NICE appraisals, patient surveys or input during appraisal committee meetings supported the interpretation of uncertainty or provided evidence about QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

This study sheds light on the nature of PRO evidence in rare diseases and associated challenges. Results emphasise the need for improved development and use of PRO/HSUVs. Other forms of evidence and expert input are crucial to support better appraisal of uncertain or missing evidence.

Similarities and Differences in Health Technology Assessment Systems and Implications for Coverage Decisions: Evidence from 32 Countries

Health technology assessment (HTA) systems across countries vary in the way they are set up, according to their role and based on how funding decisions are reached. Our objective was to study the characteristics of these systems and their likely impact on the funding of technologies undergoing HTA. Based on a literature review, we created a conceptual framework that captures key operating features of HTA systems. We used this framework to map current HTA activities across 32 countries in the European Union, the UK, Canada and Australia. Evidence was collected through a systematic search of competent authority websites and grey literature sources. Primary data collection through expert consultation validated our findings and further complemented the analysis. Sixty-three HTA bodies were identified. Most have a national scope (76%), are independent (73%), have an advisory role (52%), evaluate pharmaceuticals predominantly or exclusively (76%), assess health technologies based on their clinical and cost-effectiveness (73%) and involve various stakeholders as members of the HTA committee (94%) and/or through external consultation (76%). The majority of HTA outcomes are not legally binding (81%). Although all study countries implement HTA, the way it fits into decision-making, negotiation processes, and coverage and funding decisions differs significantly across countries. HTA is a dynamic and transformative process and there is a need for transparency to investigate whether evidence-based information influences coverage decisions.

Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making

INTRODUCTION

High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable evidence on the comparative efficacy of new medicines. However, non-randomised studies (NRS) are increasingly recognised as a source of insights into the real-world performance of novel therapeutic products, particularly when traditional RCTs are impractical or lack generalisability. This means there is a growing need for synthesising evidence from RCTs and NRS in healthcare decision making, particularly given recent developments such as innovative study designs, digital technologies and linked databases across countries. Crucially, however, no formal framework exists to guide the integration of these data types.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

To address this gap, we used a mixed methods approach (review of existing guidance, methodological papers, Delphi survey) to develop guidance for researchers and healthcare decision-makers on when and how to best combine evidence from NRS and RCTs to improve transparency and build confidence in the resulting summary effect estimates.

RESULTS

Our framework comprises seven steps on guiding the integration and interpretation of evidence from NRS and RCTs and we offer recommendations on the most appropriate statistical approaches based on three main analytical scenarios in healthcare decision making (specifically, 'high-bar evidence' when RCTs are the preferred source of evidence, 'medium,' and 'low' when NRS is the main source of inference).

CONCLUSION

Our framework augments existing guidance on assessing the quality of NRS and their compatibility with RCTs for evidence synthesis, while also highlighting potential challenges in implementing it. This manuscript received endorsement from the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

The 3 levels of HIV stigma in the United States military: perspectives from service members living with HIV

Background

Epidemiological surveillance data indicate that a majority of HIV-infected in the United States (U.S.) military are African-Americans and men who have sex with men. There is limited research about barriers to HIV prevention among military service members and the unique factors that contribute to HIV stigma.

Methods

A convenience sample of 30 U.S. service members were recruited from an infectious disease clinic. In depth interviews were conducted and data analyzed using a thematic coding process.

Results

Two broad categories were identified: 1) Outcomes of HIV Stigma: Fear of Rejection, Shame, and Embarrassment; and 2) Strategies for combating stigma which include increasing HIV education and prevention resources. Military policies and institutional culture regarding sexuality were found to contribute to stigma.

Conclusions

Participants identified a need for HIV education and suggested individuals living with HIV serve as mentors. A peer-to-peer intervention for delivering HIV prevention education may address these needs and reduce HIV stigma.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-11462-9.

Examining the impact of different country processes for appraising rare disease treatments: a case study analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventional appraisal and reimbursement processes are being challenged by the increasing number of rare disease treatments (RDTs) with a small evidence base and often a high price. Processes to appraise RDTs vary across countries; some use standard processes, others have separate processes or adapted processes that explicitly deal with rare disease specificities. The objective of this study was to examine the impacts of different appraisal processes for two RDTs.

METHODS

A case study analysis was conducted using countries with different forms of appraisal processes for RDTs for which public health technology assessment (HTA) reports were available. Two contrasting RDTs were chosen according to the criteria: rare versus ultra-rare treatment, affecting child versus adult, life-threatening versus disabling. Information from public HTA reports for each country's RDT appraisal was extracted into templates, allowing a systematic comparison of the appraisals across countries and identification of the impact of the different processes in practice.

RESULTS

Reports from Belgium, England, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and the USA were selected for nusinersen (for spinal muscular atrophy) and voretigene neparvovec (for inherited retinal disorders). Countries with separate or adapted processes had more consistent approaches for managing RDT-related issues during appraisal, such as stakeholder involvement and criteria to address the specificities of RDTs, creating more transparency in decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that separate or adapted approaches for RDT appraisal may facilitate more structured, consistent decision-making and better management of RDT specificities.

Determinants of Managed Entry Agreements in the context of Health Technology Assessment: a comparative analysis of oncology therapies in four countries

BACKGROUND

Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) are increasingly used to address uncertainties arising in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process due to immature evidence of new, high-cost medicines on their real-world performance and cost-effectiveness. The literature remains inconclusive on the HTA decision-making factors that influence the utilization of MEAs. We aimed to assess if the uptake of MEAs differs between countries and if so, to understand which HTA decision-making criteria play a role in determining such differences.

METHODS

All oncology medicines approved since 2009 in Australia, England, Scotland, and Sweden were studied. Four categories of variables were collected from publicly available HTA reports of the above drugs: (i) Social Value Judgments (SVJs), (ii) Clinical/Economic evidence submitted, (iii) Interpretation of this evidence, and (iv) Funding decision. Conditional/restricted decisions were coded as Listed With Conditions (LWC) other than an MEA or LWC including an MEA (LWCMEA). Cohen's κ-scores measured the inter-rater agreement of countries on their LWCMEA outcomes and Pearson's chi-squared tests explored the association between HTA variables and LWCMEA outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 74 drug-indication pairs were found resulting in n = 296 observations; 8 percent (n = 23) were LWC and 55 percent (n = 163) were LWCMEA. A poor-to-moderate agreement existed between countries (-.29 < κ < .33) on LWCMEA decisions. Cross-country differences within the LWCMEA sample were partly driven by economic uncertainties and largely driven by SVJs considered across agencies.

CONCLUSIONS

A set of HTA-related variables driving the uptake of MEAs across countries was identified. These findings can be useful in future research aimed at informing country-specific, "best-practice" guidelines for successful MEA implementation.

How methodological frameworks are being developed: evidence from a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Although the benefits of using methodological frameworks are increasingly recognised, to date, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a 'methodological framework', nor is there any published guidance on how to develop one. For the purposes of this study we have defined a methodological framework as a structured guide to completing a process or procedure. This study's aims are to: (a) map the existing landscape on the use of methodological frameworks; (b) identify approaches used for the development of methodological frameworks and terminology used; and (c) provide suggestions for developing future methodological frameworks. We took a broad view and did not limit our study to methodological frameworks in research and academia.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted, drawing on Arksey and O'Malley's methods and more recent guidance. We systematically searched two major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science), as well as grey literature sources and the reference lists and citations of all relevant papers. Study characteristics and approaches used for development of methodological frameworks were extracted from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

We included a total of 30 studies, representing a wide range of subject areas. The most commonly reported approach for developing a methodological framework was 'Based on existing methods and guidelines' (66.7%), followed by 'Refined and validated' (33.3%), 'Experience and expertise' (30.0%), 'Literature review' (26.7%), 'Data synthesis and amalgamation' (23.3%), 'Data extraction' (10.0%), 'Iteratively developed' (6.7%) and 'Lab work results' (3.3%). There was no consistent use of terminology; diverse terms for methodological framework were used across and, interchangeably, within studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although no formal guidance exists on how to develop a methodological framework, this scoping review found an overall consensus in approaches used, which can be broadly divided into three phases: (a) identifying data to inform the methodological framework; (b) developing the methodological framework; and (c) validating, testing and refining the methodological framework. Based on these phases, we provide suggestions to facilitate the development of future methodological frameworks.

Differences in Health Technology Assessment Recommendations Among European Jurisdictions: The Role of Practice Variations

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessment (HTA) plays an important role in reimbursement decision-making in many countries, but recommendations vary widely throughout jurisdictions, even for the same drug. This variation may be due to differences in the weighing of evidence or differences in the processes or procedures, which are known as HTA practices.

OBJECTIVE

To provide insight into the effects of differences in practices on interpretation of intercountry differences in HTA recommendations for conditionally approved drugs.

METHODS

HTA recommendations for conditionally approved drugs (N = 27) up until June 2017 from England/Wales, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Scotland were included. Recommendations and practice characteristics were extracted from these five jurisdictions and this data was validated. The effect of nonsubmissions, resubmissions, and reassessments; cost-effectiveness assessments; and price negotiations on changes in the percentage of negative recommendations and the interpretation of intercountry differences in HTA outcomes were analyzed using Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

The inclusion of cost-effectiveness assessments led to significant increases in the proportion of negative recommendations in England/Wales (from 4% to 50%, P<.01) and Scotland (from 21% to 71%, P<.01). The subsequent inclusion of price negotiations led to significant reductions in the proportion of negative recommendations in England/Wales (from 50% to 14%, P<.01), France (from 31% to 3%, P=.012), and Germany (from 34% to 0%, P<.01). Results indicated that the inclusion of nonsubmissions and resubmissions might affect Scottish negative HTA recommendations (from 7% to 21%), but this effect was not significant. No significant effects were observed in the Netherlands, possibly owing to sample size.

CONCLUSION

Variations in HTA practices between international jurisdictions can have a substantial and significant impact on conclusions about recommendations by HTA bodies, as exemplified in this cohort of conditionally approved products. Studies comparing international HTA recommendations should carefully consider possible practice variations between jurisdictions.

Why do health technology assessment drug reimbursement recommendations differ between countries? A parallel convergent mixed methods study

Using quantitative and qualitative research designs, respectively, two studies investigated why countries make different health technology assessment (HTA) drug reimbursement recommendations. Building on these, the objective of this study was to (a) develop a conceptual framework integrating the factors explaining these decisions, (b) explore their relationship and (c) assess if they are congruent, complementary or discrepant. A parallel convergent mixed methods design was used. Countries included in both previous studies were selected (England, Sweden, Scotland and France). A conceptual framework that integrated and organised the factors explaining the decisions from the two studies was developed. Relationships between factors were explored and illustrated through case studies. The framework distinguishes macro-level factors from micro-level ones. Only two of the factors common to both studies were congruent, while two others reached discrepant conclusions (stakeholder input and external review of the evidence processes). The remaining factors identified within one or both studies were complementary. Bringing together these findings contributed to generating a more complete picture of why countries make different HTA recommendations. Results were mostly complementary, explaining and enhancing each other. We conclude that differences often result from a combination of factors, with an important component relating to what occurs during the deliberative process.

What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries

BACKGROUND

Decisions on the reimbursement of the same cancer drugs are different across European countries, but empirical work on the reasons behind these differences has been scarce. The main objective of this paper is to make a methodological contribution to existing research, specifically by outlining the systematic process of analysis to address such questions and determining the factors that might lead to different drug reimbursement decisions, and to explore its application in the field of oncology.

METHODS

Reimbursement decisions on cancer drugs in six European countries (Belgium, England, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, and Sweden) between 2006 and 2014 were included in the study. A taxonomy was developed, comprising two groups of variables (system-level and product-specific) and an econometric model was specified (multilevel mixed-effects ordered probit).

RESULTS

Only one in six evaluations in the sample reach the same reimbursement recommendation. Most health system variables were not determinants of a higher or lower probability of a positive reimbursement recommendation. However, the probability of reimbursement was higher when a drug was considered cost-effective by NICE/SMC and when there was a financial Managed Entry Agreement. This work also demonstrated a possible econometric approach for analysing differences in reimbursement decisions and contributes a structured approach for collecting and preparing data for such analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug reimbursement decisions can be analysed in detail along a set of factors that are related to each decision. This information is essential, not only for understanding why a particular drug is accepted in one country and not in another but also when trying to implement a new HTA system or reform an existing one. This analysis provides policy makers and stakeholders with a model that enables a better understanding of the factors that drive HTA decisions and is adaptable to answer similar questions. Moreover, the data collection limitations encountered and described in this work shed light on the need for greater accessibility and transparency in HTA systems and regarding HTA outcomes.

Rare diseases under different levels of economic analysis: current activities, challenges and perspectives

Rare diseases imply clinical and economic burden as well as a significant challenge for health systems. One relevant objective of the activities planned within the European Reference Network on Rare and Complex Connective Tissue and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ERN ReCONNET) is to address the economic dimensions of rare diseases to identify, develop and suggest strategies to improve research and patients' access to orphan drugs (ODs) and highly specialised health technologies. This paper presents a preliminary review of the existing policies on rare diseases in the countries of the Network members. It also introduces and discusses the theme of how to perform health economic evaluations of rare diseases and of existing or new treatments for rare diseases. To obtain a preliminary overview aiming at defining the state of the art of rare diseases policies and initiatives in ERN ReCONNET countries, we collected and analysed the rare diseases national plans of all the eight countries of the ERN ReCONNET participants. The preliminary overview that has been performed showed that in all the ERN ReCONNET countries are in place national plans for rare diseases; however, heterogeneity exists in the reimbursement of ODs, direct provision by the healthcare system, involvement of patients' associations in decision making and implementation of clinical practice guidelines.

Challenges in Research and Health Technology Assessment of Rare Disease Technologies: Report of the ISPOR Rare Disease Special Interest Group

BACKGROUND

Successful development of new treatments for rare diseases (RDs) and their sustainable patient access require overcoming a series of challenges related to research and health technology assessment (HTA). These impediments, which may be unique to RDs or also apply to common diseases but are particularly pertinent in RDs, are diverse and interrelated.

OBJECTIVE

To develop for the first time a catalog of primary impediments to RD research and HTA, and to describe the cause and effect of individual challenges.

METHODS

Challenges were identified by an international 22-person expert working group and qualitative outreach to colleagues with relevant expertise. A broad range of stakeholder perspectives is represented. Draft results were presented at annual European and North American International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) congresses, and written comments were received by the 385-strong ISPOR Rare Disease Review Group from two rounds of review. Findings were refined and confirmed via targeted literature search.

RESULTS

Research-related challenges linked to the low prevalence of RDs were categorized into those pertaining to disease recognition and diagnosis, evaluation of treatment effect, and patient recruitment for clinical research. HTA-related challenges were classified into issues relating to the lack of a tailored HTA method for RD treatments and uncertainty for HTA agencies and health care payers.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying and highlighting diverse, but interrelated, key challenges in RD research and HTA is an essential first step toward developing implementable and sustainable solutions. A collaborative multistakeholder effort is required to enable faster and less costly development of safe, efficacious, and appropriate new RD therapies that offer value for money.

Evaluating and Valuing Drugs for Rare Conditions: No Easy Answers

We find ourselves in an era of unprecedented growth in the development and use of so-called "orphan" drugs to treat rare diseases, which are poised to represent more than one-fifth of pharmaceutical expenditures by 2022. This widespread use has been facilitated by legislative and regulatory incentives in both the United States and abroad, yet US payers and health systems have not yet made a concerted effort to understand whether and how rare diseases require special considerations on their part and how to adapt traditional methods of health technology assessment and economic evaluation to accommodate these situations. In this article, we explore the general ethical dilemmas that rare diseases present, steps taken by health technology assessment bodies worldwide to define the level of rarity that would necessitate special measures and the modifications to their assessment and valuation processes needed, and the contextual components for rare-disease evaluation that lie outside of the assessment framework as a guide to US decision makers on constructing a formal and relevant process stateside.

Rare diseases under different levels of economic analysis: current activities, challenges and perspectives

Rare diseases imply clinical and economic burden as well as a significant challenge for health systems. One relevant objective of the activities planned within the European Reference Network on Rare and Complex Connective Tissue and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ERN ReCONNET) is to address the economic dimensions of rare diseases to identify, develop and suggest strategies to improve research and patients' access to orphan drugs (ODs) and highly specialised health technologies. This paper presents a preliminary review of the existing policies on rare diseases in the countries of the Network members. It also introduces and discusses the theme of how to perform health economic evaluations of rare diseases and of existing or new treatments for rare diseases. To obtain a preliminary overview aiming at defining the state of the art of rare diseases policies and initiatives in ERN ReCONNET countries, we collected and analysed the rare diseases national plans of all the eight countries of the ERN ReCONNET participants. The preliminary overview that has been performed showed that in all the ERN ReCONNET countries are in place national plans for rare diseases; however, heterogeneity exists in the reimbursement of ODs, direct provision by the healthcare system, involvement of patients' associations in decision making and implementation of clinical practice guidelines.

Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries

BACKGROUND

Although health technology assessment (HTA) systems base their decision making process either on economic evaluations or comparative clinical benefit assessment, a central aim of recent approaches to value measurement, including value based assessment and pricing, points towards the incorporation of supplementary evidence and criteria that capture additional dimensions of value.

OBJECTIVE

To study the practices, processes and policies of value-assessment for new medicines across eight European countries and the role of HTA beyond economic evaluation and clinical benefit assessment.

METHODS

A systematic (peer review and grey) literature review was conducted using an analytical framework examining: (1) 'Responsibilities and structure of HTA agencies'; (2) 'Evidence and evaluation criteria considered in HTAs'; (3) 'Methods and techniques applied in HTAs'; and (4) 'Outcomes and implementation of HTAs'. Study countries were France, Germany, England, Sweden, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Evidence from the literature was validated and updated through two rounds of feedback involving primary data collection from national experts.

RESULTS

All countries assess similar types of evidence; however, the specific criteria/endpoints used, their level of provision and requirement, and the way they are incorporated (e.g. explicitly vs. implicitly) varies across countries, with their relative importance remaining generally unknown. Incorporation of additional 'social value judgements' (beyond clinical benefit assessment) and economic evaluation could help explain heterogeneity in coverage recommendations and decision-making.

CONCLUSION

More comprehensive and systematic assessment procedures characterised by increased transparency, in terms of selection of evaluation criteria, their importance and intensity of use, could lead to more rational evidence-based decision-making, possibly improving efficiency in resource allocation, while also raising public confidence and fairness.

Treatment Is Worth a Lot - But Just How Much

More than at any other time in history, science offers enormous potential to transform the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of many diseases. However, patients are urgently awaiting new therapies - and too often not getting them. And researchers and companies also face significant development obstacles as only one in ten drugs entering clinical trials ever makes it over the finish line. This article looks at the issues involved in bringing innovation into healthcare systems from a political and policy level. It takes a close look at Health Technology Assessment (HTA) across Member States, how it is working and, more to the point, how it isn't, and how it often serves to stymie the introduction of new medicines by undermining the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The article argues that the EU could strengthen HTA cooperation via a common framework, and promote higher quality and fairer assessments; while joint work could reduce duplication of efforts, and promote better synergies as well as better use of Member States' resources. The author also takes an in-depth look into criticism of private-sector pricing of innovative medicines in the light of discussions about what constitutes “value” in the context of new treatments - a discussion that shows no signs of abating - while advocating enhanced contact and the need for compromise between all stakeholders in the great value debate.

Health technology assessment process of a cardiovascular medical device in four different settings

AIM

Health technology assessment (HTA) is a tool to help the decision-making process. The aim is to describe methods and processes used in the reimbursement decision making for drug-eluting stents (DES) in four different settings.

METHODS

DES as a technology under study was selected according to different criteria, all of them agreed by a working group. A survey of key informants was designed.

RESULTS

DES was evaluated following well-structured HTA processes. Nonetheless, scope for improvement was observed in relation to the data considered for the final decision, the transparency and inclusiveness of the process as well as in the methods employed.

CONCLUSION

An attempt to describe the HTA processes of a well-known medical device.

A review of international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs

BACKGROUND

Personalized medicine and orphan drugs share many characteristics-both target small patient populations, have uncertainties regarding efficacy and safety at payer submission, and frequently have high prices. Given personalized medicine's rising importance, this review summarizes international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs as well as their impact on therapy development incentives, payer budgets, and therapy access and utilization.

METHODS

PubMed, Health Policy Reference Center, EconLit, Google Scholar, and references were searched through February 2017 for articles presenting primary data.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine articles summarizing 42 countries' strategies were included. Therapy evaluation criteria varied between countries, as did patient cost-share. Payers primarily valued clinical effectiveness; cost was only considered by some. These differences result in inequities in orphan drug access, particularly in smaller and lower-income countries. The uncertain reimbursement process hinders diagnostic testing. Payer surveys identified lack of comparative effectiveness evidence as a chief complaint, while manufacturers sought more clarity on payer evidence requirements. Despite lack of strong evidence, orphan drugs largely receive positive coverage decisions, while personalized medicine diagnostics do not.

CONCLUSIONS

As more personalized medicine and orphan drugs enter the market, registries can provide better quality evidence on their efficacy and safety. Payers need systematic assessment strategies that are communicated with more transparency. Further studies are necessary to compare the implications of different payer approaches.

Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries

PURPOSE

Health technology assessment (HTA) coverage recommendations differ across countries for the same drugs. Unlike previous studies, this study adopts a mixed methods research design to investigate, in a systematic manner, these differences.

METHODS

HTA recommendations for ten orphan drugs appraised in England (NICE), Scotland (SMC), Sweden (TLV) and France (HAS) (N = 35) were compared using a validated methodological framework that breaks down these complex decision processes into stages facilitating their understanding, analysis and comparison, namely: (1) the clinical/cost-effectiveness evidence, (2) its interpretation (e.g. part of the deliberative process) and (3) influence on the final decision. This allowed qualitative and quantitative identification of the criteria driving recommendations and highlighted cross-country differences.

RESULTS

Six out of ten drugs received diverging HTA recommendations. Reasons for cross-country differences included heterogeneity in the evidence appraised, in the interpretation of the same evidence, and in the different ways of dealing with the same uncertainty. These may have been influenced by agency-specific evidentiary, risk and value preferences, or stakeholder input. "Other considerations" (e.g. severity, orphan status) and other decision modulators (e.g. patient access schemes, lower discount rates, restrictions, re-assessments) also rendered uncertainty and cost-effectiveness estimates more acceptable. The different HTA approaches (clinical versus cost-effectiveness) and ways identified of dealing with orphan drug particularities also had implications on the final decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This research contributes to better understanding the drivers of these complex decisions and why countries make different decisions. It also contributed to identifying those factors beyond the standard clinical and cost-effectiveness tools used in HTA, and their role in shaping these decisions.

Dealing with Uncertainty and Accounting for Social Value Judgments in Assessments of Orphan Drugs: Evidence from Four European Countries

OBJECTIVES

To better understand the reasons for differences in reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs in four European countries that were not readily apparent from health technology assessment (HTA) reports and operating procedures.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews with representatives of HTA bodies in England, Scotland, Sweden, and France were conducted. An interview topic guide was developed on the basis of findings from a systematic comparison of HTA decisions for 10 orphan drugs. Qualitative thematic data analysis was applied to the interview transcripts using the framework approach.

RESULTS

Eight representatives from the four HTA bodies were interviewed between March and June 2015. Evidentiary requirements and approaches to dealing with imperfect or incomplete evidence were explored, including trial design and duration, study population and subgroups, comparators, and end points. Interviewees agreed that decisions regarding orphan drugs are made in a context of lower quality evidence, and the threshold of acceptable uncertainty varied by country. Some countries imposed higher evidentiary standards for greater clinical claims, which may be more challenging for orphan diseases. The acceptability of surrogate end points was not consistent across countries nor were the validation requirements. The most common social value judgments identified related to innovation, disease severity, and unmet need. Differences were seen in the way these concepts were defined and accounted for across countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Although agreement was seen in evidentiary requirements or preferences, there were subtle differences in the circumstances in which uncertain evidence may be considered acceptable, possibly explaining differences in HTA recommendations across countries.

Adoption of the HPV vaccine: a case study of three emerging countries

Background: The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has recently attracted considerable attention in emerging countries, due to its potential to reduce the impact of HPV-related diseases. This case study sheds new light about the variety of HTA arrangements, methods and processes involved in the adoption and use of HPV vaccines in a selected sample of central, eastern and southern Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean, all of them emerging in the use of HTA. Materials & Methods: A multi-country case study was designed. Mixed methods, document review, semi-structured surveys and personal communication with experts, were used for data collection and triangulation. Results: This study shows that common elements of good practice exist in the processes and methods used, with all countries arriving at the same appraisal recommendations. However, the influence of socio-politico-economic factors appears to be determinant on the final decisions and restrictions to access made. Conclusion: This case study intends to draw useful lessons for policymakers in emerging settings interested in the adoption of the HPV vaccine supported by evidence-informed processes, such as those offered by institutionalized HTA. Future studies are also recommended to elucidate the specific roles that social values and uncertainties play in vaccine decision-making across different societies.

HTA programme response to the challenges of dealing with orphan medicinal products: Process evaluation in selected European countries

BACKGROUND

Challenges commonly encountered in HTA of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) were identified in Advance-HTA. Since then, new initiatives have been developed to specifically address issues related to HTA of OMPs.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

This study aimed to understand why these new HTA initiatives in England, Scotland and at European-level were established and whether they resolve the challenges of OMPs. The work of Advance-HTA was updated with a literature review and a conceptual framework of clinical, regulatory and economic challenges for OMPs was developed. The new HTA programmes were critiqued against the conceptual framework and outstanding challenges identified.

RESULTS

The new programmes in England and Scotland recognise the challenges identified in demonstrating the value of ultra-OMPs (and OMPs) and that they require a different process to standard HTA approaches. Wider considerations of disease and treatment experiences from a multi-stakeholder standpoint are needed, combined with other measures to deal with uncertainty (e.g. managed entry agreements). While approaches to assessing this new view of value of OMPs, extending beyond cost/QALY frameworks, differ, their criteria are similar. These are complemented by a European initiative that fosters multi-stakeholder dialogue and consensus about value determinants throughout the life-cycle of an OMP.

CONCLUSION

New HTA programmes specific to OMPs have been developed but questions remain about whether they sufficiently capture value and manage uncertainty in clinical practice.

SCIENTIFIC AND SOCIAL VALUE JUDGMENTS FOR ORPHAN DRUGS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

OBJECTIVES

We explore how broader aspects of a treatment's value and the impact of the condition on patients not captured by routine health technology assessment (HTA) methods using clinical and economic evidence, defined as "other considerations," may influence HTA processes in different settings.

METHODS

Countries included were England, Scotland, Sweden, and France. Data sources were the publicly available reports on HTA recommendations. Ten drugs with European Medicines Agency orphan designation and appraised in England were selected. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to systematically identify and code all "other considerations" based on a previously developed methodological framework, which also coded whether it was provided by stakeholders, and how it influenced the decision.

RESULTS

A classification framework of scientific and social value judgments was developed and used throughout the study. A total of 125 "other considerations" were identified and grouped into ten subcategories based on the information provided. Eighteen to 100 percent of these, depending on the agency, were put forward as one of the main reasons for the final decision potentially contributing to accepting a higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or uncertain evidence. Some of these were nonquantified or nonelicited and pertained to the assessor's judgment. A taxonomy of these value judgments was created to be used in future cases. Results also contributed to better defining the determinants of social value and improving accountability for reasonableness.

CONCLUSIONS

The systematic identification of the scientific and social value judgments enables to better understanding the dimensions of value, which can be used to improve their transparency and consistent use across decisions and settings.