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

Suitability of the Current Health Technology Assessment of Innovative Artificial Intelligence-Based Medical Devices: Scoping Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based medical devices have garnered attention due to their ability to revolutionize medicine. Their health technology assessment framework is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to analyze the suitability of each health technology assessment (HTA) domain for the assessment of AI-based medical devices.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping literature review following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. We searched databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library), gray literature, and HTA agency websites.

RESULTS

A total of 10.1% (78/775) of the references were included. Data quality and integration are vital aspects to consider when describing and assessing the technical characteristics of AI-based medical devices during an HTA process. When it comes to implementing specialized HTA for AI-based medical devices, several practical challenges and potential barriers could be highlighted and should be taken into account (AI technological evolution timeline, data requirements, complexity and transparency, clinical validation and safety requirements, regulatory and ethical considerations, and economic evaluation).

CONCLUSIONS

The adaptation of the HTA process through a methodological framework for AI-based medical devices enhances the comparability of results across different evaluations and jurisdictions. By defining the necessary expertise, the framework supports the development of a skilled workforce capable of conducting robust and reliable HTAs of AI-based medical devices. A comprehensive adapted HTA framework for AI-based medical devices can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and societal impact of AI-based medical devices, guiding their responsible implementation and maximizing their benefits for patients and health care systems.

Real-world evidence in the reassessment of oncology therapies: payer perceptions from five countries

Aim: This study explored the perceived value of real-world evidence (RWE) in the reassessment of oncology therapies by collecting the perspectives of health technology assessment/payer decision-makers. Materials & methods: A web-based survey was conducted using the Market Access Transformation Rapid Payer Response online portal. 30 participants from France, Germany, Spain, the UK and the USA were recruited based on their expertise. Results: Participants agreed that the most common uses of RWE are to confirm efficacy and safety results from randomized controlled trials and to reevaluate the projected utilization of an oncology therapy. We found variability in other reported uses of RWE. Conclusion: The organizations developing RWE should ensure that their plans recognize the heterogeneity in payer perceptions.

Agreement about Availability of Alternative Treatments for Innovative Drugs Assessed by the EMA and HTA Organizations

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and European national/regional health technology assessment (HTA) organizations consider the availability of existing treatments when evaluating a new drug. Since disagreement about the availability of alternative treatments may impact patient access to new drugs, this study aimed to investigate whether the EMA and HTA organizations agreed on the availability of alternative treatments and whether a lack of alternative treatments was associated with HTA organizations' added benefit assessment outcomes. For 97 innovative drugs authorized in 2019-2021 (excluding vaccines and diagnostic tools), assessments by the EMA and AEMPS (Spain), AIFA (Italy), HAS (France), IQWiG/G-BA (Germany), NICE (England and Wales), and ZIN (the Netherlands) were identified. Until 1 June 2022, 429 HTA drug-indication combinations were identified for these 97 drugs, of which 205 exactly matched the EMA's indication. For those, the overall agreement between the EMA and HTA organizations on whether alternative treatments were available was 87%. The agreement of HTA organizations with the EMA on whether available treatments were either pharmacological on-label, pharmacological off-label, or non-pharmacological was 87%, 21%, and 57%, respectively. For all 429 HTA drug-indication combinations, absence of alternative treatments as considered by HTA organizations was associated with a higher chance to provide added benefit: risk ratio 1.8 (95%-CI 1.4-2.3). In conclusion, although there was high overall agreement between the EMA and HTA organizations about whether alternative treatments exist, there were differences in the types of treatment considered. Parallel joint scientific consultations could inform drug developers about relevant alternative treatments to facilitate patient access to innovative drugs.

Added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 1995 and 2020: retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs, explore their association, and investigate potential discrepancies between added benefit and revenues across different approval pathways of the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Oncology drugs and their indications approved by the EMA between 1995 and 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Added benefit was evaluated using ratings published by seven organisations: health technology assessment agencies from the United States, France, Germany, and Italy, two medical oncology societies, and a drug bulletin. All retrieved ratings were recategorised using a four point ranking scale to indicate negative or non-quantifiable, minor, substantial, or major added benefit. Revenue data were extracted from publicly available financial reports and compared with published estimates of research and development (R&D) costs. Finally, the association between added benefit and revenue was evaluated. All analyses were performed within the overall study cohort, and within subgroups based on the EMA approval pathway: standard marketing authorisation, conditional marketing authorisation, and authorisation under exceptional circumstances.

RESULTS

131 oncology drugs with 166 indications were evaluated for their added benefit by at least one organisation within the required timeframe, yielding a total of 458 added benefit ratings; 189 (41%) were negative or non-quantifiable. The median time to offset the median R&D costs ($684m, £535m, €602m, adjusted to 2020 values) was three years; 50 of 55 (91%) drugs recovered these costs within eight years. Drugs with higher added benefit ratings generally had greater revenues. Negative or non-quantifiable added benefit ratings were more frequent for conditional marketing authorisations and authorisations under exceptional circumstances than for standard marketing authorisations (relative risk 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.89). Conditional marketing authorisations generated lower revenues and took longer to offset R&D costs than standard marketing authorisations (four years compared with three years).

CONCLUSIONS

While revenues seem to align with added benefit, most oncology drugs recover R&D costs within a few years despite providing little added benefit. This is particularly true for drugs approved through conditional marketing authorisations, which inherently appear to lack comprehensive evidence. Policy makers should evaluate whether current regulatory and reimbursement incentives effectively promote development of the most effective drugs for patients with the greatest needs.

AOTMiT reimbursement recommendations compared to other HTA agencies

Our objective was to compare AOTMiT (Polish: Agencja Oceny Technologii Medycznych i Taryfikacji) recommendations to other HTA (Health Technology Assessment) agencies for newly registered drugs and new registration indications issued by the European Medicines Agency between 2014 and 2019. The study aims to assess the consistency and justifications of AOTMiT recommendations compared to that of other HTA agencies in 11 countries. A total of 2494 reimbursement recommendations published by 12 HTA agencies for 464 medicinal products and 525 indications were analyzed. Our analysis confirmed that the Polish AOTMiT agency seems to bear the closest resemblance to the corresponding HTA agencies from Canada (CADTH) and New Zealand (PHARMAC), when it comes to the outcome of HTA recommendations (positive or negative). Poland had a general scheme for justifying recommendations, similar to that of Ireland-four aspects (i.e., clinical efficacy, safety profile, cost-effectiveness, and impact on the payer's budget) are important for Poland when formulating the final decision. Compared to other countries, Poland shows a noticeably different pattern of justifying reimbursement recommendations, as revealed primarily in terms of budget impact and somewhat less so for cost-effectiveness rationales.

Shaping a suitable EU HTA dossier template: why the German template is not fit for purpose

From 2025, Health Technology Developers (HTDs) have to submit EU HTA dossiers. The joint clinical assessment (JCA) aims to streamline HTA processes and access to medicinal products across Europe. Currently, German HTA bodies IQWiG and G-BA actively shape the JCA methodology. Here we examine if German HTA dossier requirements are suitable for the JCA. We compare the number of safety endpoint and subgroup analyses in German dossiers with analyses considered in IQWIG's benefit assessment and evaluate if these analyses were considered by the G-BA. We further investigated how the number of analyses was affected by the latest change in the German dossier template. With the current template, HTDs report in median 2.6 times more analyses on adverse events (AE) and 1.1 times more subgroup categories than in the previous template. IQWiG does not consider 33% of AE analyses and 73% of the subgroup categories presented by the HTD under the current template. G-BA considered the same AE as IQWiG in 76% of cases. Subgroups were uncommented by G-BA in most cases, independent of the template (previous: 93%, current 85%) and unconsidered in the conclusion on additional benefit (previous: 77%, current 69%). Thus, changes in the dossier template drastically increased HTD workload, but additional analyses seem unconsidered by the HTA bodies. With a broader scope in JCA, this effect could be amplified. To mitigate duplicative efforts and ensure prompt availability of medicinal products as envisioned by the HTAR, we suggest well-chosen and precise dossier requirements, early consultations, and early HTD engagement.

Reimbursement decision-making system in Poland systematically compared to other countries

Introduction: Our objective was to analyze and compare systematically and structurally reimbursement systems in Poland and other countries. Methods: The systems were selected based on recommendations issued by the Polish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Tariffication (AHTAPol), which explicitly referred to other countries and agencies). Consequently, apart from Poland, the countries included in the analysis were England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France, Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Relevant information and data were collected through a systematic search of PubMed (Medline), Embase and The Cochrane Library as well as competent authority websites and grey literature sources. Results and discussion: In most of the countries, the submission of a reimbursement application is initiated by a pharmaceutical company, and only a few countries allow it before a product is approved for marketing. All of the agencies analyzed are independent and some have regulatory function of reimbursement decision making body. A key criterion differentiating the various agencies in terms of HTA is the cost-effectiveness threshold. Most of the countries have specific mechanisms to improve access to expensive specialty drugs, including cancer drugs and those used for rare diseases. Reimbursement systems often lack consistency in appreciating the same stages, leading to heterogeneous decision-making processes. The analysis of recommendations issued in different countries for the same medicinal product will allow a better understanding of the relations between the reimbursement system, HTA assessment, stakeholders involvement and decision on reimbursement of innovative drugs.

Effectively Leveraging RWD for External Controls: A Systematic Literature Review of Regulatory and HTA Decisions

Real-world data (RWD)-derived external controls can be used to contextualize efficacy findings for investigational therapies evaluated in uncontrolled trials. As the number of submissions to regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies using external controls rises, and in light of recent regulatory and HTA guidance on the appropriate use of RWD, there is a need to address the operational and methodological challenges impeding the quality of real-world evidence (RWE) generation and the consistency in evaluation of RWE across agencies. This systematic review summarizes publicly available information on the use of external controls to contextualize outcomes from uncontrolled trials for all indications from January 1, 2015, through August 20, 2021, that were submitted to the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and/or select major HTA bodies (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), and Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA)). By systematically reviewing submissions to regulatory and HTA bodies in the context of recent guidance, this study provides quantitative and qualitative insights into how external control design and analytic choices may be viewed by different agencies in practice. The primary operational and methodological aspects identified for discussion include, but are not limited to, engagement of regulators and HTA bodies, approaches to handling missing data (a component of data quality), and selection of real-world endpoints. Continued collaboration and guidance to address these and other aspects will inform and assist stakeholders attempting to generate evidence using external controls.

Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries

CONTEXT

Positive health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes can have important implications for equity, efficiency and timely patient access to novel therapies. Several outcomes and dimensions of benefit beyond utility feed into HTA processes.

OBJECTIVE

We analyse a proprietary dataset of HTA outcomes in 7 countries, to (a) test whether HTA decision-making is grounded in welfarist or extra-welfarist approaches; and (b) empirically determine the factors associated with positive HTA outcomes, the time to achieve these and establish the magnitude of inter-country differences in assessment processes.

METHODS

Data were extracted from publicly available HTA reports on drugs that received marketing authorisation between 2009 and 2018 (N = 1415). The outcomes of interest were the probability of positive HTA outcomes and the time-to-HTA outcome; these were examined with respect to clinical, regulatory, product- and disease-related, evidence uncertainty and contextual variables. Econometric models utilising survival analysis and multinomial logistic regression were specified.

FINDINGS

Positive HTA outcomes accounted for 87.3% of the sample (n = 1235), of which 71% (n = 1004) were restricted. Drugs with positive HTA outcomes were subject to clinical restrictions (n = 652, 46%), financial risk-sharing (n = 439, 31%) or had been rejected at least once (n = 282, 20%). Significant predictors of positive HTA outcomes were orphan drugs with cancer indications, high quality of evidence linked to clinical and economic evidence uncertainties which had been overcome, and contextual considerations, particularly innovativeness and unmet need. Comparative analyses revealed systematic differences between countries in their propensity to accept the same drugs, particularly oncology and orphan drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results are contextual and reinforce arguments in favour of explicitly accounting for social value judgements, establishing separate assessment frameworks for highly uncertain products, adopting risk mitigation strategies for novel therapies with early phase evidence, and sharing of HTA practices across settings. Lastly, HTA agencies have adopted an extra-welfarist approach to value assessment and resource allocation.

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.

Synergy between health technology assessments and clinical guidelines for multiple sclerosis

Decision-making for reimbursement and clinical guidelines (CGs) serves different purposes although the decision-criteria and required evidence largely overlap. This study aimed to assess similarities and discrepancies between health technology assessment (HTA) reports as compared to CGs for multiple sclerosis (MS) medicines. All HTA reports and corresponding CGs for MS from the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and the European Union were assessed to identify synergies in recommendations for MS medicines (approved 1995-2020). A content analysis of HTA reports and CGs was performed to identify similarities and discrepancies in wording of treatment recommendations across documents. We assessed 132 HTA reports and 9 CGs for 16 MS treatments. Final recommendations for reimbursement and inclusion in CGs were mostly similar (90%), albeit with considerable differences in treatment lines and subindications. Since 2010, HTA reports refer to the use of CGs in 42% (55/132) and to consultations with clinicians in 43% (57/132) of cases. Six of nine CGs referred to HTA reports and two referred to HTA consultations, in one case having a formal relation to the HTA organization. CGs referenced pharmacoeconomic studies (4/9) for costs and cost-effectiveness. To date, not all new HTA recommendations for MS treatments are included in CGs. Some synergy exists between treatment recommendations in HTA reports and CGs, although discrepancies were seen in timelines and in recommended treatment lines and subindications. More stakeholder dialogue and/or consultation of each other's publications may further improve synergy, facilitate transparency, and enhance patient access.

Access to medicines for rare diseases: A European regulatory roadmap for academia

Background: Novel or repurposed medicines for rare diseases often emerge from fundamental research or empirical findings in academia. However, researchers may be insufficiently aware of the possibilities and requirements to bring novel medicinal treatment options to the patient. This paper aims to provide an easily applicable, comprehensive roadmap designed for academic researchers to make medicines for rare diseases available for patients by addressing the relevant regulatory frameworks, including marketing authorization and alternative routes. Methods: Key points of the regulatory chapters "Placing on the Market" and "Scope" of Directive 2001/83/EC relating to medicinal products for human use were summarized. Provisions in EU directives regarding blood products, radiopharmaceuticals, and herbal and homeopathic medicinal products were excluded. Cross-referencing to other provisions was included. European case-law was retrieved from the InfoCuria database to exemplify the implications of alternative routes. Results: Medicines may only be placed on the market with a valid marketing authorization. To obtain such authorization in Europe, a "Common Technical Document" comprising reports on quality and non-clinical and clinical studies must be submitted to a "competent authority", a national medicine agency or the European Medicines Agency. Timely interaction of academic researchers with regulators via scientific advice may lead to better regulatory alignment and subsequently a higher chance for approval of academic inventions. Furthermore, reimbursement by national payers could be essential to ensure patient access. Apart from the marketing authorization route, we identified multiple alternative routes to provide (early) access. These include off-label use, named-patient basis, compassionate use, pharmacy compounding, and hospital exemption for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products. Discussion: Aligning academic (non-)clinical studies on rare diseases with regulatory and reimbursement requirements may facilitate fast and affordable access. Several alternative routes exist to provide (early) pharmaceutical care at a national level, but case-law demonstrates that alternative routes should be interpreted strictly and for exceptional situations only. Academics should be aware of these routes and their requirements to improve access to medicines for rare diseases.

Toward comprehensive value assessment for Alzheimer's disease innovations

INTRODUCTION

Assessing medical technologies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) creates challenges for current methods of value assessment. New value assessment approaches for AD are also needed.

METHODS

We adapted concepts from health economics to help guide decision makers to more informed decisions about AD therapies and diagnostics.

RESULTS

We propose a value framework based on five categories: perspective, value elements, analysis, reporting, and decision making. AD value assessments should include the perspective of the patient-caregiver dyad. We propose a broader array of value elements than currently used. Analytics and decision methods can synthesize evidence for all elements of value. Decisions should use a "deliberative appraisal" approach informed by the composite evidence and be transparently reported.

DISCUSSION

Using the proposed framework, the value of forthcoming innovations for AD may be more thoroughly assessed for and by all stakeholders. It can guide decision makers to carefully consider all relevant elements of value contributing to more holistic and transparent decision making.

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS

Alzheimer's disease challenges common methods of evaluating medical technology. Using current methods, new AD innovations might not be appropriately valued. Poor value assessments will adversely affect patient access to AD innovations. A full AD value framework expands perspective, elements, analysis, decision-making, reporting.

Appraisals by Health Technology Assessment Agencies of Economic Evaluations Submitted as Part of Reimbursement Dossiers for Oncology Treatments: Evidence from Canada, the UK, and Australia

Publicly funded healthcare systems, including those in Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), and Australia, often use health technology assessment (HTA) to inform drug reimbursement decision-making, based on dossiers submitted by manufacturers, and HTA agencies issue publicly available reports to support funding recommendations. However, the level of information reported by HTA agencies in these reports may vary. To provide insights on this issue, we describe and assess the reporting of economic methods in recent oncology HTA recommendations from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Publicly available HTA recommendations and reports for oncology drugs issued by CADTH over a 2-year period, 2019-2020, were identified and compared with the corresponding HTA documents from NICE and the PBAC. Reporting of key model characteristics and attributes, survival analysis methods, methodological criticisms, and re-assessment of the economic results were characterized using descriptive statistics. Dichotomous differences in the methodological criticisms observed between the three agencies were assessed using Cochran's Q tests and substantiated using pairwise McNemar tests. Chi-squared tests were used to assess the dichotomous differences in the reporting of methods and explore the potential relationships between categorical variables, where appropriate. HTAs published by CADTH, NICE, and the PBAC consistently reported a broad spectrum of descriptive information on the economic models submitted by manufacturers. While common economic evaluation attributes were well-reported across the three HTA agencies, significant differences in the reporting of survival analysis methods and methodological criticisms were observed. NICE consistently reported more comprehensive information, compared to either CADTH or PBAC. Despite these differences, broadly similar recommendation rates were observed between CADTH and NICE. The PBAC was found to be more restrictive. Based on our 2-year sample of oncology, the HTAs published by CADTH matched with the corresponding HTAs from NICE and PBAC; we observed important variations in the reporting of economic evidence, especially technical aspects, such as survival analysis, across the three agencies. In addition to guidelines for HTA submissions by manufacturers, the community of HTA agencies should also have common standards for reporting the results of their assessments, though the information and opinions reported may differ.

Market access for medicines treating rare diseases: Association between specialised processes for orphan medicines and funding recommendations

Access to medicines treating rare diseases ('orphan medicines') has proven challenging due to high prices and clinical uncertainty. To optimise market access to these medicines, some healthcare systems are implementing specialised pathways and/or processes during marketing authorisation (MA) and/or health technology assessment (HTA). Comparing one setting where these medicines are classed as "orphan" (Scotland) to another where they considered "non-orphan" (Canada), this study aims to explore whether the presence of specialised pathways and processes at MA and HTA levels is associated with more favourable funding recommendations and faster time to market access. A matched sample of 116 medicine-indication pairs with MA approval from 2001 to 2019 in Europe and Canada was identified, and publicly available sources were used for data extraction. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. All medicines were commercially marketed in both countries, except one instance in Scotland. In Scotland, more orphan medicines (68.1%) had a favourable HTA recommendation than in Canada (60.4%), while Canada issued more negative HTA recommendations (20.7%) than Scotland (15.5%). Low levels of agreement on HTA recommendations and the main reasons driving recommendations were found between settings. In both countries, medicines with specialised MA approval were less likely to receive negative HTA recommendations than medicines with standard MA. Time to market access was faster in Canada than Scotland, though medicines with specialised MA approval had slower timelines than medicines with standard MA approval in both countries. However, it is unclear whether the presence of orphan designation and HTA specialised processes alone could result in favourable funding recommendations without accounting for other healthcare system-related factors and differences in the decision-making processes across settings. Holistic approaches and better alignment of evidentiary requirements across regulators are needed to optimise access to orphan medicines.

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.

Getting to 100%: Research Priorities and Unanswered Questions to Inform the US Debate on Universal Health Insurance Coverage

A majority of Americans favor universal health insurance, but there is uncertainty over how best to achieve this goal. Whatever the insurance design that is implemented, additional details that must be considered include breadth of services covered, restrictions and limits on volumes of services, cost-sharing for individuals, and pricing. In the hopes that research can inform this ongoing debate, we review evidence supporting different models for achieving universal coverage in the US and identify areas where additional research and stakeholder input is needed. Key areas in need of further research include how care should be organized, how costs can be reduced, and what healthcare services universal insurance should cover.

Addressing uncertainty in relative effectiveness assessments by HTA organizations

This study outlines the ways in which different health technology assessment (HTA) organizations deal with uncertainty in relative effectiveness assessments (REAs), using the GRADE framework as a common reference. Guidelines regarding REA and uncertainty assessment methods and three most recent HTA reports (as of April 2020) of seven HTA organizations in Germany, England and Wales, France, the Netherlands, Europe (EUnetHTA), the USA, and Canada were included. First, it was analyzed how each organization addressed uncertainty on the following levels of evidence: (i) individual studies, (ii) body of evidence for one outcome, (iii) body of evidence across all outcomes, and (iv) added net benefit. Second, the extent to which HTA organizations considered the eight domains of certainty of evidence defined by GRADE was assessed. For individual studies, checklists were the most common approach to express uncertainty (4/7 organizations). Uncertainty in the body of evidence for all outcomes and in added benefit was combined in a single conclusion by five organizations. All organizations reported on at least 4/5 downgrading domains of GRADE, while the three upgrading domains were reported less. The operationalization of the assessment of multiple domains was unclear due to vague or absent guidelines. HTA organizations consider most domains of the GRADE framework, but approaches to assess uncertainty within REAs on different levels of evidence differ substantially between organizations. More alignment and guidance on the best methods to deal with uncertainty within HTA could lead to more clarity for stakeholders and to more aligned reimbursement recommendations.

Non-Price-Related Determinants of Value and Access for Novel Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treatments: A Cross-Country Review of HTA Decision Making

INTRODUCTION

Access and funding for newly approved treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are often dependent on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) involving cost-effectiveness analysis. Whilst methods used by HTA agencies share many similarities, final decisions may differ. This may be the result, not just of price considerations, but also of variation in value judgements by different agencies. The aim of this study was to review international HTA evaluations to identify determinants of value and access for NSCLC treatments.

METHODS

A targeted review and analysis was undertaken of published HTAs for NSCLC across HTA agencies in six countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, Ireland and Scotland). Analysis of extracted data consisted of three stages: descriptive analysis, bivariate analysis and multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis included 163 HTAs that assessed oncological treatments for NSCLC from 2003 to 2019. The majority of HTA decisions (67.5%) were positive. However, some evidence of heterogeneity in HTA decisions and the factors informing them were identified. The most influential factors included in the multivariate model related to the HTA agency conducting the appraisal, the year of market authorisation, treatment type and the line of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Heterogenous decision-making frameworks can present a challenge to developing HTA submissions. This research contributes to understanding decision-making factors and why countries make different decisions.

The Challenge of Sustainable Access to Telemonitoring Tools for People with Diabetes in Europe: Lessons from COVID-19 and Beyond

Telemedicine in diabetes care has been evolving over several years, particularly since the advent of cloud-connected technologies for diabetes management, such as glucose monitoring devices, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, that facilitate sharing of glucose data between people with diabetes and their healthcare professionals in near-real time. Extreme social distancing and shielding in place for vulnerable patients during the COVID-19 pandemic has created both the challenge and the opportunity to provide care at a distance on a large scale. Available evidence suggests that glucose control has in fact improved during this period for people with diabetes who are able to use CGM devices for remote glucose monitoring. The development of telemedicine as part of the standard of care in diabetes faces significant challenges in the European context, particularly in terms of providing consistent and effective care at a distance to large populations of patients while using robust systems that can be supported by large regional and national healthcare services. These challenges include a fragmented approach to healthcare technology assessment and reimbursement, lack of eHealth education and literacy, particularly amongst healthcare professionals, lack of data integration, as well as concerns about electronic health records, patient consent and privacy. Here we review the benefits of and challenges to wider application of telemedicine and telemonitoring in the post-pandemic future, with the aim to ensure that the value of these eHealth services is provided to patients, healthcare providers and health systems.

Quantifying The Economic Burden Of Drug Utilization Management On Payers, Manufacturers, Physicians, And Patients

The continuing launch of innovative but high-price drugs has intensified efforts by payers to manage use and spending and by pharmaceutical manufacturers to support patient access and sales. Payers are restricting drug formularies, requiring more stringent prior authorizations, and raising patient cost-sharing requirements. Manufacturers are investing in programs that help patients and physician practices navigate administrative controls and help patients meet cost-sharing obligations. Based on a compilation and analysis of the existing peer-reviewed and professional literature, this article estimates that payers, manufacturers, physicians, and patients together incur approximately $93.3 billion in costs annually on implementing, contesting, and navigating utilization management. Payers spend approximately $6.0 billion annually administering drug utilization management, and manufacturers spend approximately $24.8 billion supporting patient access in response. Physicians devote approximately $26.7 billion in time spent navigating utilization management, whereas patients spend approximately $35.8 billion annually in drug cost sharing, even after taking advantage of manufacturer and philanthropic sources of financial support. All stakeholders in the US pharmaceutical system would benefit from a deescalation of utilization management, combining lower drug prices with lower barriers to patient access.

A decade of early benefit assessment of ophthalmic drugs in Germany: success story or not?

OBJECTIVE

To analyze how ophthalmic drugs fared in the early benefit assessment (EBA) after its introduction in Germany up to 2020 and to quantify its impact on their negotiated prices.

METHODS

Relevant documents were screened and essential content on added benefit outcomes and the underlying evidence was extracted next to pricing information. In addition to descriptive statistics, cross-stakeholder analyses and agreement statistics were implemented.

RESULTS

Thirteen completed EBA were identified involving eight drugs. Only four drugs (30.8%) received an added benefit. The OR for no added benefit of ophthalmic drugs versus all other drugs was 2.971 (0.902-9.781). The agreement between manufacturers' claims and decision-maker appraisals is fair (kappa 0.435). In all cases, evidence was derived for RCTs, but for different reasons, not all of them allowed direct comparisons with the comparator as defined by the decision-maker. The negotiated rebates on manufacturer's selling prices varied from 6.8% up to 47.4%. Nevertheless, the rebates for ophthalmic drugs (median 14.5%) were lower than those for all negotiated drugs (median 24%).

CONCLUSION

Over the past decade, the EBA of ophthalmic drugs was not necessarily a success story, but in most of the cases, the drugs were successful in the market.

Associations between uncertainties identified by the European Medicines Agency and national decision making on reimbursement by HTA agencies

We aimed to determine whether uncertainties identified by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were associated with negative relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and negative overall reimbursement recommendations by national health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Therefore, we identified all HTA reports from Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS; France), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE; England/Wales), Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC; Scotland), and Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN; The Netherlands) for a cohort of innovative medicines that the EMA had approved in 2009 to 2010 (excluding vaccines). Uncertainty regarding pivotal trial methodology, clinical outcomes, and their clinical relevance were combined to reflect a low, medium, or high level of uncertainty. We assessed associations by calculating risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and agreement between REA and overall reimbursement recommendation outcomes. We identified 36 medicines for which 121 reimbursement recommendations had been issued by the HTA agencies between September 2009 and July 2018. High versus low uncertainty was associated with an increased risk for negative REAs and negative overall reimbursement recommendations: RRs 1.9 (95% CI 0.9-3.9) and 1.6 (95% CI 0.7-3.5), respectively, which was supported by further sensitivity analyses. We identified a lack of agreement between 33 (27%) REA and overall reimbursement recommendation outcomes, which were mostly restricted recommendations that followed on negative REAs in case of low or medium uncertainty. In conclusion, high uncertainty identified by the EMA was associated with negative REAs and negative overall reimbursement recommendations. To reduce uncertainty and ultimately facilitate efficient patient access, regulators, HTA agencies, and other stakeholders should discuss how uncertainties should be weighed and addressed early in the drug life cycle of innovative treatments.

Companies' Health Technology Assessment Strategies and Practices in Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain: An Industry Metrics Study

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) has increased in importance in supporting payer decision making by assessing the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of new medicines. Thus, pharmaceutical companies need to address the HTA requirements early during development to improve reimbursement outcomes. Currently, there is a lack of research to assess the impact of HTA on development and jurisdictional outcome from companies’ perspectives. This study aimed to assess companies’ HTA strategy and characterise HTA practice in seven jurisdictions.

Methods: A multi-year, annual study collected information for individual products, focusing on development activities regarding inclusion of HTA requirements and selection of global comparators. The generation of local contextual information, submission strategies and predictability of HTA outcomes was examined jurisdictionally in Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The study questionnaire was built into a secure online data collection platform and data were provided annually by participating companies.

Results: Data for 169 compounds were provided by nine international companies between 2014 and 2018. HTA requirements were implemented in evidence generation plan for 63% of products during development. Global comparators were accepted by HTA bodies for more than half of studied products; Spain showed the highest acceptance rate (85%). Companies took advantages of parallel process in Australia and Canada to shorten product rollout time. Australia demonstrated general consistency in HTA review time, and England had the longest variation (interquartile range, 216 days). Requirements for additional information after submission occurred at all HTA bodies. Germany and Italy showed the highest percentage of products being reimbursed as per regulatory label (80 and 68%, respectively). Canada was the most predictable jurisdiction, with the highest proportion of review outcome (90%) that met companies’ expectations.

Conclusion: Companies are addressing HTA requirements during development for many products; however, they are challenged by varying requirements and practices and product success ultimately depends on how HTA organisations and payers assess added value in the context of the national healthcare systems. This ongoing study created a baseline to help capture fact-based changes for company HTA strategies and HTA body practices.

Economic Evaluation of Vaccines: Belgian Reflections on the Need for a Broader Perspective

OBJECTIVES

The standard framework of economic evaluation of health programs, which is increasingly used for policy funding decisions, is insufficiently equipped to reflect the full range of health and economic benefits conferred by vaccines and thus undervalues vaccination.

METHODS

In 2019, a group of Belgian health economic and clinical experts, supported by 2 senior international vaccination experts (1 American, 1 Belgian), convened 4 roundtable meetings to highlight which particular value elements of vaccination remain neglected in economic evaluations.

RESULTS

They concluded that the standard economic evaluation framework fails to reflect the full value of vaccination with respect to prevention of complications linked to some vaccine-preventable diseases, health gains for caregivers, herd effects, changes in exposure to and distribution of serotypes, the effect on antimicrobial resistance, productivity gains for caregivers and patients, and the distributive implications of vaccination programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Here, suggestions are made regarding how these shortcomings can be addressed in future economic evaluations of vaccines and how a more level playing field between vaccines and other health programs can be created.

Application of Managed Entry Agreements for Innovative Therapies in Different Settings and Combinations: A Feasibility Analysis

The reimbursement of expensive, innovative therapies poses a challenge to healthcare systems. This study investigated the feasibility of managed entry agreements (MEAs) for innovative therapies in different settings and combinations. First, a systematic literature review included studies describing used or conceptual agreements between payers and manufacturers (i.e., MEAs). Identical and similar MEAs were clustered and data were extracted on their benefits and limitations. A feasibility assessment was performed for each individual MEA based on how it could be applied (financial/outcome-based), on what level (individual patients/target population), in which payment setting (centralized pricing and reimbursement authority yes/no), for what type of therapies (one-time/chronic), within what payment structures, and whether combinations with other MEAs were feasible. The literature search ultimately included 82 papers describing 117 MEAs. After clustering, 15 unique MEAs remained, each describing one or multiple similar agreements. Four of those entailed payment structures, while eleven entailed agreements between payers and manufacturers regarding price, usage, and/or evidence generation. The feasibility assessment indicated that most agreements could be applied throughout the different settings that were assessed and could be applied in different payment structures and in combination with multiple other agreements. The potential to combine multiple agreements leads to a multitude of different reimbursement mechanisms that may manage the price, usage, payment structure, and additional conditions for an innovative therapy. This overview of the feasibility of combinations of MEAs can help decision-makers construct a reimbursement mechanism most suited to their preferences, the type of therapy under evaluation, and the applicable healthcare system.

Combining health technology assessment and health technology management to deliver cost-effective prescribing and cost containment - the Irish experience

INTRODUCTION

Health technology assessment (HTA) is a widely used process to systematically evaluate the properties, effects, and impacts of health technology, with the main purpose of informing policymaking in healthcare. However, to ensure optimal use of scarce healthcare budgets, there is a need to look beyond HTA - to post-reimbursement health technology management (HTM).

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to describe the significant impact HTA, in combination with HTM, has made to the cost-effective prescribing and cost-containment in Ireland. This review will cover a number of specific examples, such as; specific reimbursement criteria for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto®) and evolocumab (Repatha®), the introduction of a reimbursement application system for lidocaine 5% medicated plaster (Versatis®), and the introduction of 'preferred' biosimilars for patent-expired biologic medicines.

EXPERT OPINION

Healthcare payers are increasingly recognizing the benefits of HTM particularly when used in conjunction with HTA. This review highlights several examples whereby significant cost-savings can be made through HTM of not only new drugs but also drugs which are already available on the market.