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.

Health Care Use and Costs in Individuals With Diabetes With and Without Comorbid Depression in Germany: Results of the Cross-sectional DiaDec Study

OBJECTIVE

Increased health care use and costs have been reported in individuals with diabetes with comorbid depression. Knowledge regarding cost differences between individuals with diabetes alone and those with diabetes and diagnosed/undiagnosed depression is, however, scarce. We therefore compared use and costs for patients with diabetes and no depression and patients with diabetes and documented depression diagnosis or self-reported depression symptoms for several cost components, including mental health care costs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data from a 2013 cross-sectional survey of randomly sampled members of a nationwide German statutory health insurance (SHI) provider with diabetes (n = 1,634) were linked individually with SHI data covering four quarters before and after the survey. Self-reported depression symptoms were assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, with depression diagnosis taken from SHI data. We analyzed health care use and costs, using regression analysis to calculate cost ratios (CRs) with adjustment for sociodemographic/socioeconomic factors and comorbidities for two groups: 1) those with no symptoms and no diagnosis and 2) those with symptoms or diagnosis. In our explorative subanalysis we analyzed subgroups with either symptoms or diagnosis separately.

RESULTS

Annual mean total health care costs were higher for patients with comorbid depression (EUR 5,629 [95% CI 4,987-6,407]) than without (EUR 3,252 [2,976-3,675], the CR being 1.25 [1.14-1.36]). Regression analysis showed that excess costs were highly associated with comorbidities. Mental health care costs were very low for patients without depression (psychotherapy EUR 2; antidepressants EUR 4) and still relatively low for those with depression (psychotherapy EUR 111; antidepressants EUR 76).

CONCLUSIONS

Costs were significantly higher when comorbid depression was present either as symptoms or diagnosed. Excess costs for mental health services were rather low.

Predictors of negotiated prices for new drugs in Germany

INTRODUCTION

In Germany, all new, innovative medicines are subject to an early benefit assessment by the German Federal Joint Committee with subsequent price negotiation and optional arbitration. The purpose of this study was to identify drivers of negotiated (including arbitrated) prices of new, non-orphan innovative medicines in Germany.

METHODS

The analysis considered all non-orphan drugs that underwent a benefit appraisal between January 2011 and June 2016, and displayed a reimbursement price in the German Drug Directory (Lauer-Taxe^®) in November 2017. Negotiated annual treatment costs were analyzed with respect to 11 explanatory variables in regression models.

RESULTS

The total sample included 106 non-orphan drugs. The analysis showed a significant and positive association of log-transformed negotiated annual treatment cost of new medicines with log-transformed annual treatment cost of its comparator(s), extent of added benefit, and log-transformed size of the target population. Analyzing the effects of specific endpoints instead of the overall added benefit revealed that the single endpoint with the largest impact on price is adverse events (AEs). Surprisingly, an increase in AEs significantly increased the price. Various subgroup and sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results. The adjusted R squared for all models was above 80%.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis was able to confirm that variables whose consideration is mandated by law are, in fact, the key drivers of negotiated prices. Somewhat puzzling, the analysis also found an increase in AEs to move prices significantly upward.

Determinants of Orphan Drug Prices in Germany

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Legislation introduced in 2011 in Germany has instituted an early benefit assessment of newly licensed pharmaceuticals with a subsequent price negotiation. For orphan drugs (ODs) a special legal framework applies, which accounts for the fact that ODs do not have to prove an added benefit over an appropriate comparative therapy previously determined by the decision maker. As, in addition, the content of negotiations between pharmaceutical companies and the payer is confidential, the aim of this study was to identify factors influencing the negotiated prices of ODs.

METHODS

Twelve hypotheses on factors influencing the negotiated OD price were derived based on the existing literature and framework agreement between payers and pharmaceutical unions according to German social legislation. Univariate analyses were applied to detect statistically significant correlations between annual therapeutic costs of ODs and the hypothesized factors. Bivariate analyses were used to determine confounding factors. In addition, a multiple ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with backward selection was conducted. Finally, sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Thirty-five ODs were included in the analysis. The univariate analyses and subsequent sensitivity analyses validated five of the 12 hypotheses formulated. Univariate analyses suggest a statistically significant association between the OD price and the (i) therapeutic area; (ii) approval for pediatric care; (iii) treatment population size; (iv) cost of comparative therapies; and (v) European prices. The OLS regression identified European prices as the variable with the strongest association with the negotiated prices.

CONCLUSION

We show that German OD pricing is a multivariate phenomenon. However, due to interdependencies, these results must be treated with caution.

Methodological problems in the method used by IQWiG within early benefit assessment of new pharmaceuticals in Germany

BACKGROUND

The decision matrix applied by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) for the quantification of added benefit within the early benefit assessment of new pharmaceuticals in Germany with its nine fields is quite complex and could be simplified. Furthermore, the method used by IQWiG is subject to manifold criticism: (1) it is implicitly weighting endpoints differently in its assessments favoring overall survival and, thereby, drug interventions in fatal diseases, (2) it is assuming that two pivotal trials are available when assessing the dossiers submitted by the pharmaceutical manufacturers, leading to far-reaching implications with respect to the quantification of added benefit, and, (3) it is basing the evaluation primarily on dichotomous endpoints and consequently leading to an information loss of usable evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if criticism is justified and to propose methodological adaptations.

METHODS

Analysis of the available dossiers up to the end of 2016 using statistical tests and multinomial logistic regression and simulations.

RESULTS

It was shown that due to power losses, the method does not ensure that results are statistically valid and outcomes of the early benefit assessment may be compromised, though evidence on favoring overall survival remains unclear. Modifications, however, of the IQWiG method are possible to address the identified problems.

CONCLUSION

By converging with the approach of approval authorities for confirmatory endpoints, the decision matrix could be simplified and the analysis method could be improved, to put the results on a more valid statistical basis.

Quantified patient preferences for lifestyle intervention programs for diabetes prevention-a protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The 20-70% participation of diabetes patients in lifestyle interventions (LSI) worldwide seems to be rather sub-optimal, in spite of all intents of such interventions to delay further progress of the disease. Positive effects through LSI are expected in particular for patients who suffer less from diabetes-related limitations or other chronic diseases. Seeing that diabetes prevalence and with it mortality are increasing, LSI have become an inherent part of diabetes treatment standards. Various qualitative studies have been carried out to identify participation barriers for LSI. However, these have not resulted in more detailed knowledge about the relative importance of factors with an inhibiting impact on participation. Since it cannot be assumed that all of the influencing factors have equivalent values, it is necessary to investigate their individual importance with regard to a positive or negative decision about participating. There are no systematic reviews on patient preferences for LSI programs in diabetes prevention. As a result, the main objectives of this systematic review are to (i) identify existing patient preference elicitation studies related to LSI for diabetic patients, (ii) summarize the methods applied and findings, and (iii) appraise the reporting and methodological quality of such studies.

METHODS

We will perform systematic literature searches to identify suitable studies from 14 electronic databases. Retrieved study records will be included based on predefined eligibility criteria as defined in this protocol. We will run abstract and full-text screenings and then extract data from all selected studies by filling in a predefined data extraction spreadsheet. We will undertake a descriptive, narrative synthesis of findings to address the study objectives, since no pooling for quantified preferences is for methodological reasons implementable. We will pay special attention to aspects of methodological quality of preference elicitation by applying established evaluation criteria of the ISPOR and some own developed criteria for different elicitation techniques. All critical stages within the screening, data extraction, and synthesis processes will be conducted by two pairs of authors. This protocol adheres to PRISMA and PRISMA-P standards.

DISCUSSION

The proposed systematic review will provide an overview of the methods used and current practice in the elicitation and quantification of patients' preferences for diabetes prevention lifestyle interventions. Furthermore, the methodological quality of the identified studies will be appraised as well.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018086988.

"Market withdrawals" of medicines in Germany after AMNOG: a comparison of HTA ratings and clinical guideline recommendations

BACKGROUND

According to the AMNOG act, the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) determines the additional benefit of new medicines as a basis for subsequent price negotiations. Pharmaceutical companies may withdraw their medications from the market at any time during the process. This analysis aims to compare recommendations in clinical guidelines and HTA appraisals of medicines that were withdrawn from the German market since the introduction of AMNOG in 2011.

METHODS

Medications withdrawn from the German market between January 2011 and June 2016 following benefit assessment were categorized as opt-outs (max. 2 weeks after start of price negotiations) or supply terminations (during or after further price negotiations). Related guidelines were systematically analyzed. For all withdrawals, therapeutic area, additional benefit rating and recommendation status in relevant clinical guidelines were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 139 medications, 10 opt-outs and 12 supply terminations were identified. Twenty-one out of 22 withdrawn medicines (95%) received 'no additional benefit' appraisal by the G-BA (average 'no additional benefit' rating for all AMNOG products: 47%). Of the 22 medicines, 15 (68%) were recommended by at least one guideline at the time of benefit assessment and 18 (82%) on 1 June 2016. Heterogeneity among guidelines was high. Acceptance of clinical trial endpoints was different between G-BA appraisals and clinical guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis revealed considerable differences across clinical guidelines as well as between clinical guidelines and HTA appraisals of the medicines that were withdrawn from the German market. Better alignment of the clinical perspective and close collaboration between all involved parties is required to achieve and maintain optimization of patient care.

Effect of Crossover in Oncology Clinical Trials on Evidence Levels in Early Benefit Assessment in Germany

BACKGROUND

In oncology clinical trials, crossover is used frequently but may lead to uncertainties regarding treatment effects.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the handling of evidence from crossover trials by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA).

METHODS

For oncology medicines with early benefit assessments before January 2015, presence of crossover, clinical data, EMA requests for additional data, and G-BA benefit ratings/evidence levels were analyzed from manufacturers' dossiers, G-BA appraisals, European Public Assessment Reports, and original publications.

RESULTS

Eleven of 21 benefit assessments included crossover trials. Significant intergroup differences (P < 0.05) in overall survival (OS) were noted in 7 of 11 trials with and 7 of 10 without crossover. For 6 of 11 medicines with crossover, these were demonstrated before crossover. Treatment effects generally worsened with increasing proportions of crossover. The EMA requested additional data more frequently if crossover was performed, particularly if no OS data were available before crossover. The G-BA granted a considerable benefit to 73% of medicines with crossover and 40% of those without. Evidence levels were intermediate for 50% and 75%, respectively. None of the medicines received the highest evidence level.

CONCLUSIONS

In G-BA appraisals, oncology medicines with crossover received better additional benefit ratings, but were assigned lower evidence levels, than those without. The five medicines with crossover after progression were assigned lower evidence levels than the six medicines with crossover after demonstration of superior OS, indicating that the way in which crossover is implemented may be one factor influencing the assignment of evidence levels by the G-BA.

Budgetary Impact and Cost Drivers of Drugs for Rare and Ultrarare Diseases

OBJECTIVES

To review recent studies reporting health care expenditures (budgetary impact) for orphan medicinal products (OMPs) in Europe and to contribute to our understanding of the cost drivers of nononcological OMPs by means of an empirical analysis in Germany.

METHODS

A systematic search for relevant studies on rare diseases was conducted in PubMed and Embase (until December 2016). In addition, annual treatment costs of nononcological OMPs in Germany were analyzed with respect to five explanatory variables: total prevalence of disease, prevalence with added benefit, availability of alternative treatments for the same indication, extent/probability of treatment benefit, and evidence for a treatment effect on mortality.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies with specific estimates of the budget impact of OMPs for a total of 11 countries were identified; one study addressed specifically ultrarare diseases. Annual per-capita spending for OMPs ranges from €1.32 in Latvia to €16 in France. Per-patient annual treatment costs vary between €27,811 and €1,647,627 in Germany. On the basis of the German data set, the regression analysis shows that log prevalence has a significant inverse relationship with log annual treatment cost. In this model, doubling the prevalence leads to a 43% decrease in annual treatment cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite per-patient annual treatment costs ranging up to several hundreds of thousands of euros for some OMPs, per-capita spending for OMPs is relatively small. In this study an inverse relationship between prevalence and annual treatment costs was found.

Confirmatory versus explorative endpoint analysis: Decision-making on the basis of evidence available from market authorization and early benefit assessment for oncology drugs

The early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany and their preceding market authorization pursue different objectives. This is reflected by the inclusion of varying confirmatory endpoints within the evaluation of oncology drugs in early benefit assessment versus market authorization, with both relying on the same evidence. Data from assessments up to July 2015 are used to estimate the impact of explorative in comparison to confirmatory endpoints on market authorization and early benefit assessment by contrasting the benefit-risk ratio of EMA and the benefit-harm balance of the HTA jurisdiction. Agreement between market authorization and early benefit assessment is examined by Cohen's kappa (k). 21 of 41 assessments were considered in the analysis. Market authorization is more confirmatory than early benefit assessment because it includes a higher proportion of primary endpoints. The latter implies a primary endpoint to be relevant for the benefit-harm balance in only 67% of cases (0.078). Explorative mortality endpoints reached the highest agreement regarding the mutual consideration for the risk-benefit ratio and the benefit-harm balance (0.000). For explorative morbidity endpoints (-0.600), quality of life (-0.600) and side effects (-0.949) no agreement is ascertainable. To warrant a broader confirmatory basis for decisions supported by HTA, closer inter-institutional cooperation of approval authorities and HTA jurisdictions by means of reliable joint advice for manufacturers regarding endpoint definition would be favorable.

External validation of type 2 diabetes computer simulation models: definitions, approaches, implications and room for improvement-a protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a highly prevalent chronic disease, puts a large burden on individual health and health care systems. Computer simulation models, used to evaluate the clinical and economic effectiveness of various interventions to handle T2DM, have become a well-established tool in diabetes research. Despite the broad consensus about the general importance of validation, especially external validation, as a crucial instrument of assessing and controlling for the quality of these models, there are no systematic reviews comparing such validation of diabetes models. As a result, the main objectives of this systematic review are to identify and appraise the different approaches used for the external validation of existing models covering the development and progression of T2DM.

METHODS

We will perform adapted searches by applying respective search strategies to identify suitable studies from 14 electronic databases. Retrieved study records will be included or excluded based on predefined eligibility criteria as defined in this protocol. Among others, a publication filter will exclude studies published before 1995. We will run abstract and full text screenings and then extract data from all selected studies by filling in a predefined data extraction spreadsheet. We will undertake a descriptive, narrative synthesis of findings to address the study objectives. We will pay special attention to aspects of quality of these models in regard to the external validation based upon ISPOR and ADA recommendations as well as Mount Hood Challenge reports. All critical stages within the screening, data extraction and synthesis processes will be conducted by at least two authors. This protocol adheres to PRISMA and PRISMA-P standards.

DISCUSSION

The proposed systematic review will provide a broad overview of the current practice in the external validation of models with respect to T2DM incidence and progression in humans built on simulation techniques.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017069983 .

[Checklist for the Development and Assessment of Cost-of-Illness Studies]

BACKGROUND

Cost-of-illness (CoI) studies are important instruments for estimating the socioeconomic burden of specified diseases. CoI studies provide important information about the cost structure of a disease, the resulting research need, approaches to improve aspects of care and, monetary consequences from different perspectives. This information can be useful for healthcare research and health policy. Due to heterogeneity of available Cost-of-Illness studies, the working group 'Health Economics' of the German Network for Healthcare Research (DNVF) in accordance with the German Society for Health Economics (DGGÖ) developed an instrument for the planning, conduct and assessment of CoI studies.

METHODS

The checklist was developed based on a systematic literature search of published national and international checklists as well as guidelines and recommendations for development and assessment of CoI studies and health economic evaluations. Structure and subject matter of the generic checklist was designed, approved and, finally, examined in a pretest by the working group.

RESULTS

Based on the results of the literature search (n=2 454), 58 articles were used for the identification of relevant criteria for the checklist. With respect to the results of the pretest, 6 dimensions were included in the checklist: (i) general aspects, (ii) identification of resources, (iii) description and quantification of resource consumption, (iv) valuation of resources (v) analysis and presentation of results and (vi) discussion and conclusion. In total, the 6 dimensions were operationalized through 37 items.

CONCLUSION

This checklist is an initial approach to improve transparency and understanding of CoI studies in terms of the extent, structure and development of the socioeconomic burden of diseases. The checklist supports the comparability of different studies and facilitates study conception.

Arbitration Board Setting Reimbursement Amounts for Pharmaceutical Innovations in Germany When Price Negations between Payers and Manufacturers Fail: An Empirical Analysis of 5 Years' Experience

BACKGROUND

In Germany, an arbitration board is setting reimbursement amounts for drug innovations when price negations between payers and manufacturers fail.

OBJECTIVE

To empirically analyze all arbitrations since the reform of Germany's Act to Reorganize the Pharmaceuticals' Market in the Statutory Health Insurance System came into effect.

METHODS

All available relevant documents up to January 2016 were screened and the identified contentious issues between the negotiation parties extracted. Reimbursement requests of both the negotiating parties and the arbitrations were transformed into a comparable format on the basis of defined daily doses and then contrasted among each other.

RESULTS

In the given period, 16 arbitrations took place. The arbitration board is implementing the same criteria used in the negotiations between manufacturers and payers. Almost all arbitrations dealt with generic appropriate comparative therapies. Reimbursement amounts set by arbitration were on average 38.4% less than the mean of negotiation parties' requests (69.2% less than the manufacturers' requests). The corresponding prescription volumes were arranged rather centrally. All but one arbitration refer to a 1-year contract period. The arbitration board rarely decided on further technical contentious points. Hence, no heuristics referring to them were derivable.

CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence for a quasi-algorithmic approach of the arbitration board, even though it is legally determined that it has to decide while taking the peculiar conditions of each case into due consideration, including the characteristics of the respective therapeutic area. The balance of interests proved to be within a very narrow space albeit it concerns in principle discretionary decisions. Thus, the purpose of arbitration seems not to be achieved sufficiently.

Comparison of post-authorisation measures from regulatory authorities with additional evidence requirements from the HTA body in Germany - are additional data requirements by the Federal Joint Committee justified?

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare post-authorisation measures (PAMs) from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with data requests in fixed-termed conditional appraisals of early benefit assessments from the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA).

METHODS

Medicinal products with completed benefit assessments during an assessment period of 3.5 years were considered. PAMs extracted from European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) were compared with data requests issued by the G-BA in the context of conditional appraisals.

RESULTS

Twenty conditional appraisals (19 products) and 34 EPARs containing PAMs (33 products) were identified. Data categories (efficacy, safety, etc.), data types (type of study required to address the request) and clarity of requests were determined. Conditional appraisals disproportionately focused on oncology products (13/19 products with conditional appraisals vs. 14/33 products with PAMs). No clear rationale for the G-BA issuing conditional appraisals could be identified in public sources. Both EMA and G-BA requested mainly efficacy and safety data (44/54 and 23/35 categories requested, respectively); however, 28/35 G-BA data requirements went beyond requests made by the EMA. Almost half of the G-BA requests (9/20), but no PAMs, were unclear, and no methodological guidance for fulfilling the data requirements was provided by the G-BA.

CONCLUSIONS

Better alignment between data requests from regulatory authorities and health technology assessment bodies is strongly recommended.

Comparison of post-authorisation measures from regulatory authorities with additional evidence requirements from the HTA body in Germany - are additional data requirements by the Federal Joint Committee justified?

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare post-authorisation measures (PAMs) from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with data requests in fixed-termed conditional appraisals of early benefit assessments from the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA).

METHODS

Medicinal products with completed benefit assessments during an assessment period of 3.5 years were considered. PAMs extracted from European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) were compared with data requests issued by the G-BA in the context of conditional appraisals.

RESULTS

Twenty conditional appraisals (19 products) and 34 EPARs containing PAMs (33 products) were identified. Data categories (efficacy, safety, etc.), data types (type of study required to address the request) and clarity of requests were determined. Conditional appraisals disproportionately focused on oncology products (13/19 products with conditional appraisals vs. 14/33 products with PAMs). No clear rationale for the G-BA issuing conditional appraisals could be identified in public sources. Both EMA and G-BA requested mainly efficacy and safety data (44/54 and 23/35 categories requested, respectively); however, 28/35 G-BA data requirements went beyond requests made by the EMA. Almost half of the G-BA requests (9/20), but no PAMs, were unclear, and no methodological guidance for fulfilling the data requirements was provided by the G-BA.

CONCLUSIONS

Better alignment between data requests from regulatory authorities and health technology assessment bodies is strongly recommended.

Promoting physical activity in low back pain patients: six months follow-up of a randomised controlled trial comparing a multicomponent intervention with a low intensity intervention

OBJECTIVE

To assess a comprehensive multicomponent intervention against a low intensity intervention for promoting physical activity in chronic low back pain patients.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Inpatient rehabilitation and aftercare.

SUBJECTS

A total of 412 patients with chronic low back pain.

INTERVENTIONS

A multicomponent intervention (Movement Coaching) comprising of small group intervention (twice during inpatient rehabilitation), tailored telephone aftercare (twice after rehabilitation) and internet-based aftercare (web 2.0 platform) versus a low level intensity intervention (two general presentations on physical activity, download of the presentations).

MAIN MEASURES

Physical activity was measured using a questionnaire. Primary outcome was total physical activity; secondary outcomes were setting specific physical activity (transport, workplace, leisure time) and pain. Comparative group differences were evaluated six months after inpatient rehabilitation.

RESULTS

At six months follow-up, 92 participants in Movement Coaching (46 %) and 100 participants in the control group (47 %) completed the postal follow-up questionnaire. No significant differences between the two groups could be shown in total physical activity (P = 0.30). In addition to this, workplace (P = 0.53), transport (P = 0.68) and leisure time physical activity (P = 0.21) and pain (P = 0.43) did not differ significantly between the two groups. In both groups, physical activity decreased during the six months follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The multicomponent intervention was no more effective than the low intensity intervention in promoting physical activity at six months follow-up. The decrease in physical activity in both groups is an unexpected outcome of the study and indicates the need for further research.

Direct costs in impaired glucose regulation: results from the population-based Heinz Nixdorf Recall study

OBJECTIVE

For the first time, this population-based study sought to analyze healthcare utilization and associated costs in people with normal fasting glycemia (NFG), impaired fasting glycemia (IFG), as well as previously undetected diabetes and previously diagnosed diabetes linking data from the prospective German Heinz Nixdorf Recall (HNR) study with individual claims data from German statutory health insurances.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 1709 participants of the HNR 5-year follow-up (mean age (SD) 64.9 (7.5) years, 44.5% men) were included in the study. Age-standardized and sex-standardized healthcare utilization and associated costs (reported as € for the year 2008, perspective of the statutory health insurance) were stratified by diabetes stage defined by the participants' self-report and fasting plasma glucose values. Cost ratios (CRs) were estimated using two-part regression models, adjusting for age, sex, sociodemographic variables and comorbidity.

RESULTS

The mean total direct healthcare costs for previously diagnosed diabetes, previously undetected diabetes, IFG, and NFG were €2761 (95% CI 2378 to 3268), €2210 (1483 to 4279), €2035 (1732 to 2486) and €1810 (1634 to 2035), respectively. Corresponding age-adjusted and sex-adjusted CRs were 1.53 (1.30 to 1.80), 1.16 (0.91 to 1.47), and 1.09 (0.95 to 1.25) (reference: NFG). Inpatient, outpatient and medication costs varied in order between people with IFG and those with previously undetected diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides claims-based detailed cost data in well-defined glucose metabolism subgroups. CRs of individuals with IFG and previously undetected diabetes were surprisingly low. Data are important for the model-based evaluation of screening programs and interventions that are aimed either to prevent diabetes onset or to improve diabetes therapy as well.

Implementation of a Multicomponent intervention to Prevent Physical Restraints In Nursing home residenTs (IMPRINT): study protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Physical restraints such as bedrails and belts are regularly applied in German nursing homes despite clear evidence showing their lack of effectiveness and safety. In a cluster-randomised controlled trial, the efficacy and safety of a guideline-based multicomponent intervention programme has been proven. The present study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of two different versions of the original intervention in nursing home residents in four different regions throughout Germany.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study is a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial comparing two intervention groups, i.e. (1) the updated original multicomponent intervention programme and (2) the concise version of the updated programme, with a control group receiving optimised usual care. The first intervention group receives an educational programme for all nurses, additional training and structured support for nominated key nurses, printed study material and other supportive material. In the second intervention group, nurses do not receive education as part of the intervention, but may be trained by nominated key nurses who have received a short train-the-trainer module. All other components are similar to the first intervention group. The control group receives the printed study material only. Overall, 120 nursing homes including approximately 10,800 residents will be recruited and randomly assigned to one of the three groups. The primary outcome is defined as the proportion of residents with at least one physical restraint after 12 months follow-up. The use of physical restraints will be assessed by direct observation. Secondary outcomes are the residents' quality of life and safety parameters, e.g. falls and fall-related fractures. In addition, comprehensive process and economic evaluations will be performed.

CONCLUSIONS

We expect a clinically relevant reduction in the proportion of residents with physical restraints. It is also expected that the process outcomes of this trial will enrich the knowledge about facilitators and barriers for the implementation of the multicomponent intervention programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02341898.

Effect of person-centred care on antipsychotic drug use in nursing homes (EPCentCare): study protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial

Background

The majority of nursing home residents with dementia experience behavioural and psychological symptoms like apathy, agitation, and anxiety. According to analyses of prescription prevalence in Germany, antipsychotic drugs are regularly prescribed as first-line treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms in persons with dementia, although guidelines clearly prioritise non-pharmacological interventions. Frequently, antipsychotic drugs are prescribed for inappropriate reasons and for too long without regular reviewing. The use of antipsychotics is associated with adverse events like increased risk of falling, stroke, and mortality. The aim of the study is to investigate whether a person-centred care approach, successfully evaluated in nursing homes in the United Kingdom, can be implemented in German nursing homes and, in comparison with a control group, can result in a clinically relevant reduction of the proportion of residents with antipsychotic prescriptions.

Methods/design

The study is a cluster-randomised controlled trial comparing an intervention group (two-day initial training on person-centred care and ongoing training and support programme) with a control group. Both study groups will receive, as optimised usual care, a medication review by an experienced psychiatrist/geriatrician providing feedback to the prescribing physician. Overall, 36 nursing homes in East, North, and West Germany will be randomised. The primary outcome is the proportion of residents receiving at least one antipsychotic prescription (long-term medication) after 12 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes are residents’ quality of life, agitated behaviour, as well as safety parameters like falls and fall-related medical attention. A health economic evaluation and a process evaluation will be performed alongside the study.

Discussion

To improve care, a reduction of the current high prescription rate of antipsychotics in nursing homes by the intervention programme is expected.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02295462

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0268-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Subgroups in the early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: a methodical review]

Benefit assessments according to Sect. 35a of the Social Code Book V are frequently divided into subsets of populations. This division of therapeutic indications is evident in almost every other of the completed appraisals by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). The subsets can be deduced from the wording of the approved therapeutic indication (subpopulations) or from potential effect modification (subgroups). Methodological challenges are illustrated on the basis of current scientific knowledge of how to tackle subgroups. Practical assessment examples are used to explain the methods implemented by IQWiG and the G-BA and reveal major problem areas concerning subgroup analyses, subpopulations as well as mismatches between the requirements of early benefit assessment and approval. Overall, it appears there is a need for establishing a more comprehensive discussion regarding the validity of subgroup analyses and their associated limitations.

Analysis of endpoints used in marketing authorisations versus value assessments of oncology medicines in Germany

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In Germany, a mandatory early benefit assessment (EBA) by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) is required for reimbursement of new marketing-authorised medicines. Additional benefit is based on patient-relevant endpoints in mortality, morbidity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We aimed to compare endpoints and related benefit categories used in marketing authorisation to those considered by G-BA in the field of oncology.

METHODS

We evaluated EBAs in oncology commencing prior to 31 December 2013. Endpoints for the appropriate medicines, derived from European Medicines Agency's (EMA) Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC), manufacturers' value dossiers and G-BA decisions, were grouped into the three benefit categories.

RESULTS

Of 23 oncology medicines evaluated, primary clinical trial endpoints were included in only 12 G-BA value decisions. Mortality endpoints were generally accepted by EMA and G-BA. However, G-BA excluded 80% of (co-)primary morbidity endpoints. Only 5 SPCs reported HRQoL instruments. G-BA accepted applied instruments in 15 medicines, but the manufacturers' analyses only in 5 medicines, of which 2 indicated an additional benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality endpoints are accepted by EMA and G-BA. EMA accepted well established and clinically relevant morbidity endpoints (e.g. progression-free survival and response rate), which were mostly excluded by G-BA from their value decisions. The applicability of methods used for benefit assessments to HRQoL differs from the mortality and morbidity categories, and requires further clarification.

Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation

OBJECTIVES

Since the introduction of the German health care reform in January 2011, an early benefit assessment (EBA) is required for all new medicines. Pharmaceutical manufacturers have to submit a benefit dossier for evaluation by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). A final decision is made by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). The aim of this investigation was to analyse the outcomes 18 months after introduction of the new legislation and to identify critical areas requiring further discussion and development.

METHODS

All EBAs commenced prior to June 2012 were included. The G-BA website was used to obtain manufacturers' benefit dossiers, IQWiG assessments, and G-BA decisions. Four areas of interest were analysed: levels of additional benefit, appropriate comparative therapy (ACT), patient-relevant endpoints, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven EBAs were analysed. IQWiG stated a benefit in 50% of EBAs, whereas G-BA stated a benefit in 63%, but only in 50% of identified subgroups and 40% of patients involved. In 12 EBAs, the ACT suggested by G-BA differed from the comparator used in phase III trials. The G-BA reported no benefits on health-related quality of life. Discrepancies arose in morbidity outcomes such as 'progression-free survival' and 'sustained virological response'. Categorisation and balancing of adverse events was conducted within various assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable variance was observed in the levels of additional benefit reported by pharmaceutical manufacturers, IQWiG and G-BA. The areas of disagreement included ACT selection, definition of subgroups and patient-relevant endpoints, and classification and balancing of adverse events.

Patient relevant endpoints in oncology: current issues in the context of early benefit assessment in Germany

The German AMNOG healthcare reform includes a mandatory early-benefit-assessment (EBA) at launch. As per German social code, EBA is based on registration trials and includes evaluation of the patient-relevant effect of the new medicines compared to an appropriate comparator as defined by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). Current EBA decisions released have unveiled issues regarding the acceptance of some patient-relevant endpoints as G-BA and IQWiG are grading the endpoints, focusing on overall survival as the preferred endpoint in oncology.A taskforce of experienced German outcomes research, medical, health-technology assessment and biostatistics researchers in industry was appointed. After agreement on core assumptions, a draft position was prepared. Input on iterative versions was solicited from a panel of reviewers from industry and external stakeholders.Distinctive features of registration trials in oncology need to be considered when these studies form basis for EBA, especially in cancer-indications with long post-progression survival; and with several consecutive therapeutic options available post-progression. Ethical committees, caregivers and patients often demand cross-over-designs diluting the treatment-effect on overall survival. Regulatory authorities require evaluation of morbidity-related study endpoints including survival of patients without their disease getting worse (i.e., progression-free survival). Also, progression requires treatment-changes, another strong indicator for its relevance to patients.Based on specific guidelines and clinical trial programs that were developed to be consistent with regulatory guidance, endpoints in oncology are thoroughly evaluated in terms of their patient-relevance. This extensive knowledge and experience should be fully acknowledged during EBA when assessing the patient-relevant benefit of innovative medicines in oncology.

JEL CODES

D61; H51; I18.

[IQWiG's methods for the cost-benefit assessment : Comparison with an international reference scenario]

Standardization of international health economic guidelines has been repeatedly requested. In this context, an international reference case was proposed, which constitutes an agreed approach for the key elements of health economic evaluation including study perspective, comparators, source of effectiveness data, role of modeling, main (economic) outcome, source of utilities, characterizing uncertainty. It is, however, questionable whether such a reference scenario can reasonably be applied across all health care systems. Our analysis pursues the question to which degree the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care's (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, IQWiG) "General methods for evaluating the relation between cost and benefit" comply with the key elements of the reference case. In case of divergences, they will be described and discussed in light of the German social legislation and in consideration of current scientific evidence. In conclusion, the analysis revealed that IQWiG complied with the reference case in almost all aspects. Differences were found only with respect to the choice of main (economic) outcome and the source of utilities. These differences seem justified and well explained in the context of the German social legislation as well as in view of the weaknesses of the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) concept.

[Intravascular brachytherapy for peripheral arterial occlusive disease: systematic review of medical efficacy and health economic modelling]

CONTEXT

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasties (PTA) using balloon dilatation with or without stenting are performed to treat peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD). Intravascular brachytherapy (IB) after PTA promises to reduce the restenosis rates. The present article addresses questions concerning medical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of IB in PAOD patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for randomized controlled studies evaluating IB in PAOD was conducted in August 2007. Information synthesis was conducted using meta-analysis. Health economic modelling was performed on the basis of clinical assumptions derived from the meta-analysis and economical assumptions derived from the German Diagnosis Related Groups (G-DRG) 2007.

RESULTS

Twelve publications covering seven studies about IB vs. no IB were included in the evaluation. IB after successful balloon dilatation showed a significant reduction in the rate of restenosis at six and/or twelve months (relative risk 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 0.84) and a significant delay in the time to recurrence of restenosis (17.5 vs. 7.4 months, p < 0.01). IB after stenting did not lead to significant results regarding the restenosis rates, but was more often associated with early and late occlusive thromboses. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per restenosis avoided for IB vs. no IB after successful balloon dilatation was--depending on the G-DRG used-Euro 8,484 and Euro 9,058, respectively. In the comparison of IB vs. no IB after stenting IB was demonstrated to be inferior to no IB.

CONCLUSIONS

IB after successful balloon dilatation in PAOD can be recommended from a medical point of view. From the health economic perspective the answer is not yet clear. IB after stenting in PAOD cannot be recommended.

Drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass-grafting in coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous revascularisations with implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) are important treatment methods in coronary heart disease (CHD).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The evaluation addresses questions on medical efficacy, health economic parameters as well as ethic, social and legal implications in the use of DES vs. CABG in CHD patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in December 2006 in the most important electronic databases beginning from 2004. Register data and controlled clinical studies were included in the evaluation. Additionally, a health economic modelling was conducted.

RESULTS

MEDICAL EVALUATION : The literature search yielded 2,312 hits. 14 publications about six controlled clinical studies and five publications about two registers were included into the evaluation. Register data showed low mortality (0.2% to 0.7%) and low rates of myocardial infarction (0.5% to 1.4%) during hospital stay. In patients with stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery one study showed in several analyses a significantly higher rate of reinterventions and a significantly higher rate of repeated angina pectoris for DES up to two years after the implantation (16.8% vs. 3.6% and 35% vs. 8%). In patients with left main coronary artery stenosis two studies revealed a significantly higher survival without myocardial infarction and stroke for DES up to one year (96% vs. 79% and 95% vs. 91%) and two studies a significantly higher rate of revascularisations up to two years (20% vs. 4% and 25% vs. 5%) after the primary intervention. In patients with multivessel disease, one study found a significantly higher mortality and myocardial infarction rate for CABG at one year (2.7% vs. 1.0% and 4.2% vs. 1.3%). The rate of revascularisations was significantly higher in two studies up to two years after DES implantation (8.5% vs. 4.2% and 14.2% vs. 5.3%). The rate at repeated angina pectoris was significantly higher in one study in DES patients during two-years follow-up (28% vs. 12%). HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION: The one-year total costs per patient after CABG were calculated to be 13,373 euro and after DES 10,443 euro, leading to a difference of 2,930 euro in favour of DES implantation. The three-year total costs per patient after CABG were estimated to be 13,675 euro and after DES 10,989 euro, showing a cost difference of 2,686 euro in favour of DES implantation. In the performed sensitivity analyses no break even point was reached.

DISCUSSION

Existing data should be viewed only as limited evidence for possible medical and health economic effects.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence for the possible advantage of DES vs. CABG with respect to mortality and the rate of myocardial infarction in some indications as well as disadvantages with regard to the rate of revascularisations and the rate of repeated angina pectoris. Moreover there is also a limited evidence for possible economic advantage of DES vs. CABG in multivessel disease. Existing data should be proven in long-term follow-up and in randomised studies.

Intravascular brachytherapy for peripheral vascular disease

SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasties (PTA) through balloon dilatation with or without stenting, i.e. vessel expansion through balloons with or without of implantation of small tubes, called stents, are used in the treatment of peripheral artery occlusive disease (PAOD). The intravascular vessel irradiation, called intravascular brachytherapy, promises a reduction in the rate of repeated stenosis (rate of restenosis) after PTA.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The evaluation addresses questions on medical efficacy, cost-effectiveness as well as ethic, social and legal implications in the use of brachytherapy in PAOD patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in August 2007 in the most important medical electronic databases for publications beginning from 2002. The medical evaluation included randomized controlled trials (RCT). The information synthesis was performed using meta-analysis. Health economic modeling was performed with clinical assumptions derived from the meta-analysis and economical assumptions derived from the German Diagnosis Related Groups (G-DRG-2007).

RESULTS

MEDICAL EVALUATION : Twelve publications about seven RCT on brachytherapy vs. no brachytherapy were included in the medical evaluation. Two RCT showed a significant reduction in the rate of restenosis at six and/or twelve months for brachytherapy vs. no brachytherapy after successful balloon dilatation, the relative risk in the meta-analysis was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.46 to 0.84). At five years, time to recurrence of restenosis was significantly delayed after brachytherapy. One RCT showed a significant reduction in the rate of restenosis at six months for brachytherapy vs. no brachytherapy after PTA with optional stenting, the relative risk in the meta-analysis was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.61 to 0.95). One RCT observed a significantly higher rate of late thrombotic occlusions after brachytherapy in the subgroup of stented patients. A single RCT for brachytherapy vs. no brachytherapy after stenting did not show significant results for the rate of restenosis at six months. Both, early and late thrombotic occlusions appeared more frequently in the brachytherapy group. HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION : Additional costs of brachytherapy were estimated to be 1,655 or 1,767 Euro according to the used G-DRG. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per avoided restenosis was calculated to be 8,484 Euro or 9,058 Euro for brachytherapy use after successful balloon dilatation, 19,027 Euro or 20,314 Euro for brachytherapy after PTA with optional stenting and -39,646 Euro or -48,330 Euro for brachytherapy after stenting.

DISCUSSION

Partially poor performing and reporting quality of the RCT exacerbate the interpretation and the transferability of the study results. The used methodical approach enables the highest evidence level for the determined results and presents a good approximation of the current brachytherapy related costs for the German health care system.

CONCLUSIONS

Brachytherapy after successful balloon dilatation in PAOD can be recommended from a medical point of view for the reduction of the rate of restenosis at one year. However from a health economic view the answer is not yet clear. Based on the current data the use of brachytherapy after stenting in PAOD cannot be recommended neither from a medical nor from a health economic point of view. The informed consent of the patients is an important ethical aspect in the use of brachytherapy.

Laparoscopic vs. open appendectomy: systematic review of medical efficacy and health economic analysis

SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is an inflammation of the appendix of the blind intestine. Appendicitis remains the most frequent cause for an acute abdomen. Both interventions, the open surgical (through opening of the abdominal cavity) as well as the laparoscopic approach (via insertion of an optic system and instruments into the abdominal cavity through three small incisions), are used for the excision of the inflamed appendix (appendectomy).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The performed evaluation addresses questions on the medical effectiveness of the use of laparoscopic appendectomy in comparison with the classical open appendix excision as well as on its cost-effectiveness based on the German health system.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in October 2005 in the most important medical electronic databases. The medical analysis was performed on the basis of the most up to date systematic review (basic review) of randomized controlled studies (RCT), newly published RCT and on our own quantitative information synthesis of all studies as well as of selected methodologically high-value RCT. In the health economic analysis, relevant publications were evaluated and cost differences of both interventions were calculated.

RESULTS

One systematic review and 56 primary studies were included in the medical evaluation, 24 of these studies were included in the conducted subanalysis on the basis of methodologically high-value studies. In total, a relation of three avoided wound infections per one additional intraabdominal abscess has to be expected by the use of laparoscopic appendectomy in com-parison with the open operation. Diagnostic laparoscopy reduces the rate of unclear diagnoses within the scope of planned appendectomy in fertile women. By routine, leaving the macroscopically bland appendix in situ, the rate of negative appendectomy is reduced significantly and profound. The results speak for a small advantage of the laparoscopic appendec-tomy with regard to pain intensity, the time until reintroduction of liquid and solid diet, time until first stool as well as for a slightly better cosmetic result and slightly better quality of life. In the contemporary practice in Germany, a longer operation time, a reduced length of hospital stay and a similar time to return to work have to be expected by the use of laparoscopic appendectomy in comparison with open appendectomy. In the current health care situation in Germany, the use of laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with additional operation costs of approximately 150 to 200 Euro compared with the open appendectomy. By approximately 200 Euro costs savings due to the shorter length of hospital stay, the total (direct and indirect) costs of in-patient care of both interventions seem to be similar. Due to similar indirect costs, the total costs of both interventions lie also in the same range and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of both technologies are driven to zero.

DISCUSSION

The use of the results of the performed medical analysis in the cost calculations supports the conclusions of the health-economic evaluation on the same evidence level as in the medical analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy shows both small advantages (diagnostics, wound infections, pain intensity, cosmetic result and quality of life) and disadvantages (intraabdominal abscesses) when compared with open appendectomy. From a health-economic view, laparoscopic and open appendectomies are generally similar with respect to the direct in-patient and indirect costs. Therefore, the decision between the two alternatives should be made by the physicians individually.

Coated stents to prevent restenosis in coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

In-stent-restenosis (ISR) is considered to be an essential limiting factor of stenting in coronary heart disease (CHD). The development of coated stents has raised expectations on substantial lowering restenosis after stenting with decreasing the rate of restenosis and a reduction in the rate of clinical events.

OBJECTIVES

The present analysis addresses the questions on medical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the use of various coated stent types in CHD.

METHODS

The literature was searched in December 2004 in the most relevant medical and economic databases. The medical evaluation was conducted on the basis of published RCT. The data from the studies regarding various angiographic, sonographic and clinical endpoints were checked for methodical quality and summarised in meta-analyses. Within the scope of economic evaluation the primary studies were analysed and modelling was performed, applying clinical effect estimates from the meta-analyses of the medical evaluation and current estimates of German costs.

RESULTS

MEDICAL EVALUATION: Ten different stenttypes were used in the included 26 RCT. The results for heparin, silicon-carbide, carbon and PTFE coated stenttypes could not reveal any significant differences between the medical effectiveness of coated and uncoated stents. The application of sirolimus, paclitaxel, everolimus and 7-hexanoyltaxol eluting stents showed a significant lower restenosis at 6-9 months with decrease in the rate of restenosis for polymer-based sirolimus, paclitaxel and 7-hexanoyltaxol eluting stents. In contrast, the use of gold-coated and actinomycin-D eluting stents was associated with a significantly higher restenosis. The polymer-based sirolimus and paclitaxel eluting stents also showed a significant and considerable reduction in the rate of repeated percutaneous revascularisations at 6-12 months (3.5% vs. 19.7%; p<0.0001, RR=0.19 [95%CI: 0.11; 0.33] and 3.5% vs. 12.2%; p<0.0001, RR=0.30 [95%CI: 0.20; 0.43]) and an equivalent reduction in the rate of combined events. The 7-hexanoyltaxol-eluting stents caused, however, a significant increase of stent thrombosis as well as of myocardial infarctions. ECONOMIC EVALUATION: The allocation to polymer-based sirolimus and paclitaxel eluting stents resulted in incremental costs (compared with uncoated stents) of approximately 1,421 € and 1,234 € per patient, taking in account expected revascularisations during the first year after implantation. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness-ratios per avoided revascularisation was 8,881 € and 13,711 €, respectively. The "break-even"-prices for these stenttypes in the used model were 707 € and 551 €, and the "break-even"-risks for ISR after stenting with uncoated stent, was 76% and 65%, respectively. The use of the other evaluated coated stents seems not to be cost-effective.

DISCUSSION

The absolute effects and cost savings for patient groups with a higher risk of restenosis could be considerably higher than for patient groups with a lower risk of restenosis. The transferability of the results from the present analysis to other (sub)-populations and technology modifications is limited. The direct comparability of the results for sirolimus and paclitaxel eluting stents is also restricted.

CONCLUSIONS

From a medical point of view the use of polymer-based sirolimus or paclitaxel eluting stents can be recommended. The use of gold coated, 7-hexanoyltaxol and actinomycin-D eluting stents is in contrast not recommendable. From an economical point of view and on the basis of current stent prices the polymer-based eluting sirolimus and paclitaxel stents should primarily be recommended for patients with a higher risk of restenosis.

The impact of HTA reports on health policy: a systematic review

RESEARCH QUESTION

The objective of health technology assessment (HTA) is to support decision-making in the health sector by assessing health technologies systematically under medical, economic, social, and ethical aspects. The present study aims at identifying ways of enabling the impact of HTA on decision-making processes in the German health sector. The authors formulate three research questions: (1) Can methods be identified that allow a valid assessment of the impact of HTA reports on the decision-making processes? (2) Has been shown an impact of HTA reports on decision-making processes in the health sector? (3) Which are the factors responsible for a high or a low impact of HTA?

METHODS

The authors include studies that present a methodology to assess the impact of HTA, that investigate the impact of HTA on decision-making processes, or study the factors that might enhance or hinder the impact of HTA. Medical and social science electronic databases, lists of publications and projects of the European, North American, Canadian, and Australian HTA agencies, as well as the bibliography of the identified articles and documents are looked through. The writers do a handsearch of the International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care and contact 64 HTA agencies by a letter, requesting information on investigations that might not have been published.

RESULTS

Abstracts from about 5,000 articles are read. 57 articles are ordered as full-text, 43 are finally included and 14 excluded. (1) In eight studies interviews with decision-makers are used to elicit the information, in three studies document analysis is employed, and in six surveys the results rely only on the observations and interpretations of the authors. One study analyses service data and in nine examinations more than one of the methods listed above are employed. Only in two studies pre-defined indicators were used and only in one clinical trial a prospective design is chosen. (2) In nine studies the impact of a population of HTA reports is analysed: Among these, seven find that more than 70% of the reports have an impact on the decision-making process, in one study 50% of the reports have none or only a minimal impact. In one study on the impact of 50 short HTA reports, it is found that they contribute valuable information but do not influence decisions. However, because of methodological flaws the evidence base for these results is rather limited. Most of the conclusions presented in the publications are based on the appraisal of the authors who are often related to the program of which the impact has been "evaluated". (3) The writers divide the factors that are identified as modifying the degree of impact of the HTA reports in two groups: context factors and factors that are connected to the developing process, the subject, the format, the content, or the quality of the reports. However, the relevance of these factors has to be assessed with caution: none of the publications has the relevance for a primary research question and in none of the studies is the relevance of the factors investigated in a prospective and systematic manner.

CONCLUSION

There is little experience with study designs or methods that allow a valid assessment of the impact of HTA reports on the decision-making process in the health sector. However, some approaches, such as the use of pre-defined indicators, were identified that should be pursued and elaborated in further studies. Due to the lack of a developed methodology only limited conclusions related to the impact of HTA reports can be drawn. Among the studies that show a relevant impact, most are methodological. However, results from qualitative studies caution against assuming a causal relationship where a mere coincidence between the recommendations of an HTA report and health policy is identified. In order to produce evidence-based conclusions regarding the impact of HTA reports, validated indicators should be used. Study design should also aim at controlling for other influencing factors. None of the studies explicitly aim at examining the role of the factors that might be responsible for a low or high impact of the HTA reports. The non-systematic retrospective analyses do not allow reliable conclusions regarding the relevance of these factors. Therefore the factors identified here should only serve for hypothesis formation. On the basis of these studies it is not possible to give evidence-based recommendations on the way how to increase the impact of HTA on decision-making in Germany. Instead a concept for evaluation should be developed that combines quantitative and qualitative methods and considers the following questions:(1) What kind of impact should be measured? (2) Which are the target groups and at which level of the health system are they located? (3) Which are the outcome parameters and how can they be measured? (4) Which are the potential impact enhancing or limiting factors?