Treatment effect waning assumptions: A review of NICE Technology Appraisals

OBJECTIVES

Review National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology assessments to gain insights into the implementation of treatment effect waning, whereby the hazard or survival in an assessed technology converges to that of the comparator. This analysis aims to contribute to inform future guidance in this area.

METHODS

Technology appraisals published 20/10/2021- 20/09/2023 were reviewed and data extracted on treatment effect waning circumstances, methods and rationale to compile a database based on three research questions: When are treatment effect waning assumptions used? What methods are used? Why have the company/Evidence Assessment Group/Committee preferred these methods?

RESULTS

Both the EAG/company and the Committee included treatment effect waning assumptions in 28 appraisals. There was no pattern of waning assumptions between shorter (<20 years) and longer (>20 years) time horizons. The most prominent time point for applying waning assumptions was at 5 years, with 30/59 (50.8%) of the methods applied used 5 years. Stopping rules were used in 21/30 (70.1%) of the appraisals where Committee included waning, and waning assumptions were used more in oncology. The most common reason given for including treatment effect waning assumptions was precedent from prior appraisals.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable heterogeneity existed in both the methods used and justifications given for treatment effect waning assumptions. This variability poses a risk of inconsistent decision-making. Reliance on past appraisals emphasises the necessity to advocate for evidence-driven approaches and underscores the demand for guidance on suitable methods for incorporating assumptions.

Can Generalized Cost-effectiveness Analysis (GCEA) Leverage Meaningful Use of Novel Value Elements in Pharmacoeconomics to Inform Medicare Drug Price Negotiation?

OBJECTIVES

Decision-makers considering using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to inform health-technology assessment (HTA) must contend with documented and controversial shortfalls of CEA, including its assumption of disease severity independence and static pricing. ISPOR has recently introduced novel value elements besides direct healthcare cost and effectiveness for the patient, and these should be captured in CEA . While novel value elements advance our understanding of "what" should be measured (e.g. value of hope, severity of disease, health equity, etc.), there is limited direction on "how" to measure them in conventional CEA. Furthermore, with Medicare empowered to set drug prices under the Inflation Reduction Act, it is not clear what role CEA might have on where prices are set given objections to the QALY in conventional approaches.

METHODS

We critically reviewed the evidence for expanding conventional CEA methods to a more generalized approach of generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA).

RESULTS

GCEA accounts for methods that address objections to the QALY and incorporate novel value elements. While GCEA offers advantages, it also require further research to develop "off-the-shelf" resources to help inform, for example, maximum fair price in the context of Medicare drug price negotiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Should a shift towards GCEA reveal that the societal value of novel medicines exceeds their market-based costs, that will raise the key question of what market failure Medicare negotiation is meant to solve, if any, and therefore what the appropriate role of such negotiation might be to maximize the value society might garner from the development of novel medicines.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in German early benefit assessment: The importance of disease-specific instruments

INTRODUCTION

Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) data is frequently requested in early benefit assessment in Germany. To test the hypothesis that the importance of HRQoL in general and the significance of disease-specific instruments in particular has increased since the introduction of AMNOG in Germany, we analysed all early benefit assessments between 2011 and 2022.

METHODS

All 793 early benefit assessments completed between 01/01/2011 and 03/11/2022 were systematically analysed. The HRQoL instruments featured in the dossier submissions were extracted for all assessments and categorized into generic and specific instruments. All G-BA resolutions were likewise assessed for consideration and acceptance of generic and specific HRQoL instruments. In addition, it was examined whether there was an association between HRQoL data and the extent of additional benefit.

RESULTS

Since 2014 HRQoL data have continuously been submitted in 70% to 80% of assessments per year with the exception of 2022 (63%). Generally, disease-specific instruments are favoured, regarding submissions by industry but especially with higher acceptance by the G-BA in the resolution. Subgroup analyses revealed oncology as a major contributor to the submission and acceptance rates of disease-specific instruments. Disease-specific instruments were submitted in 81% of all oncology assessments and accepted in 53% of assessments. Overall, assessments with accepted HRQoL data tend to reach a higher overall benefit. Procedures with accepted HRQoL were most likely to receive a considerable benefit (31%), while for procedures in which HRQoL data were not accepted, a benefit was most often (65%) not proven.

DISCUSSION

Industry has followed the request for submission of specific HRQoL instruments early on. Higher submission rates of specific instruments over time which at the same time meet the methodological requirements indicate that industry has learned from early assessments. A potential reason for the high submission- and acceptance rates of specific HRQoL instruments in oncology might be the particularly high relevance of HRQoL in this indication. Possible effects of changes in legislature on the future development of submission and acceptance of HRQoL data need to be monitored.

CONCLUSION

In Germany, HRQoL has gained a relevant position in early benefit assessment over time. Overall specific instruments are favoured, regarding submissions by industry but especially through consideration by the G-BA in the resolution. Furthermore, HRQoL data can be supportive for benefit assessments, in particular to show that advantages in morbidity and/or mortality are reflected in HRQoL and not at the expense of HRQoL.

Rewiring care delivery through Digital Therapeutics (DTx): a machine learning-enhanced assessment and development (M-LEAD) framework

BACKGROUND

Digital transformation has sparked profound change in the healthcare sector through the development of innovative digital technologies. Digital Therapeutics offer an innovative approach to disease management and treatment. Care delivery is increasingly patient-centered, data-driven, and based on real-time information. These technological innovations can lead to better patient outcomes and support for healthcare professionals, also considering resource scarcity. As these digital technologies continue to evolve, the healthcare field must be ready to integrate them into processes to take advantage of their benefits. This study aims to develop a framework for the development and assessment of Digital Therapeutics.

METHODS

The study was conducted relying on a mixed methodology. 338 studies about Digital Therapeutics resulting from a systematic literature review were analyzed using descriptive statistics through RStudio. Machine learning algorithms were applied to analyze variables and find patterns in the data. The results of these analytical analyses were summarized in a framework qualitatively tested and validated through expert opinion elicitation.

RESULTS

The research provides M-LEAD, a Machine Learning-Enhanced Assessment and Development framework that recommends best practices for developing and assessing Digital Therapeutics. The framework takes as input Digital Therapeutics characteristics, regulatory aspects, study purpose, and assessment domains. The framework produces as outputs recommendations to design the Digital Therapeutics study characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

The framework constitutes the first step toward standardized guidelines for the development and assessment of Digital Therapeutics. The results may support manufacturers and inform decision-makers of the relevant results of the Digital Therapeutics assessment.

The impact of level of documentation on the accessibility and affordability of new drugs in Norway

Introduction: Over the preceding decade, an increasing number of drugs have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with limited knowledge of their relative efficacy. This is due to the utilization of non-randomized, single-arm studies, surrogate endpoints, and shorter follow-up time. The impact of this trend on the accessibility and affordability of newly approved drugs in Europe remains uncertain. The primary objective of this study is to provide insights into the issues of accessibility and affordability of new drugs in the Norwegian healthcare system. Method: The presented study entails an analysis of all reimbursement decisions for hospital drugs in Norway spanning 2021-2022. The included drugs were approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2022, with the majority (91%) receiving approval between 2018 and 2022. The drugs were categorized based on the level of documentation of relative efficacy. Approval rates and costs (confidential net-prices) were compared. Results: A total of 35% (70/199) of the reimbursement decisions were characterized by limited certainty regarding relative efficacy and as a consequence the Norwegian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body did not present an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the HTA report. Within this category, a lower percentage of drugs (47%) gained reimbursement approval compared to those with a higher certainty level, which were presented with an ICER (58%). On average, drugs with an established relative efficacy were accepted with a 4.4-fold higher cost (confidential net-prices). These trends persisted when specifically examining oncology drugs. Conclusion: Our study underscores that a substantial number of recently introduced drugs receive reimbursement regardless of the level of certainty concerning relative efficacy. However, the results suggest that payers prioritize documented over potential efficacy. Given that updated information on relative efficacy may emerge post-market access, a potential solution to address challenges related to accessibility and affordability in Europe could involve an increased adoption of market entry agreements. These agreements could allow for price adjustments after the presentation of new knowledge regarding relative efficacy, potentially resolving some of the current challenges.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Lessons Learned from Europe

This paper reviews the main pricing policies in Latin American countries, discussing their shortcomings. It also gives an overview of the most common pricing and reimbursement policies in Europe and describes in detail three well-established approaches - international price referencing, value-based pricing, including setting up of health technology assessment, and generic and biosimilar policies - building on country examples.

[Patient-reported outcomes in head and neck cancer treatment: relevance, challenges, and benefit]

Next to overall survival, quality of life is becoming more and more pivotal for cancer patients. The various domains of quality of life are complex and have different value to each patient. However, not only patients but also health care professionals, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory bodies ask: How can quality of life be reliably ascertained in clinical trials? For this purpose, carefully developed and validated specific questionnaires are needed: the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). A key challenge is to define how results based on PROMs can be used for shared decision-making. Next to clinical factors such as health and nutritional status, quality of life acts as a prognostic factor for overall survival in cancer. Thus, it is crucial to take quality of life into account in daily clinical practice.

What, Where, and How to Collect Real-World Data and Generate Real-World Evidence to Support Drug Reimbursement Decision-Making in Asia: A reflection Into the Past and A Way Forward

BACKGROUND

Globally, there is increasing interest in the use of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) to inform health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement decision-making. Using current practices and case studies shared by eleven health systems in Asia, a non-binding guidance that seeks to align practices for generating and using RWD/RWE for decision-making in Asia was developed by the REAL World Data In ASia for HEalth Technology Assessment in Reimbursement (REALISE) Working Group, addressing a current gap and needs among HTA users and generators.

METHODS

The guidance document was developed over two face-to-face workshops, in addition to an online survey, a face-to-face interview and pragmatic search of literature. The specific focus was on what, where and how to collect RWD/ RWE.

RESULTS

All 11 REALISE member jurisdictions participated in the online survey and the first in-person workshop, 10 participated in the second in-person workshop, and 8 participated in the in-depth face-to-face interviews. The guidance document was iteratively reviewed by all working group members and the International Advisory Panel. There was substantial variation in: (a) sources and types of RWD being used in HTA, and (b) the relative importance and prioritization of RWE being used for policy-making. A list of national-level databases and other sources of RWD available in each country was compiled. A list of useful guidance on data collection, quality assurance and study design were also compiled.

CONCLUSION

The REALISE guidance document serves to align the collection of better quality RWD and generation of reliable RWE to ultimately inform HTA in Asia.

How Least Developed to Lower-Middle Income Countries Use Health Technology Assessment: A Scoping Review

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary tool to inform healthcare decision-making. HTA has been implemented in high-income countries (HIC) for several decades but has only recently seen a growing investment in low- and middle-income countries. A scoping review was undertaken to define and compare the role of HTA in least developed and lower middle-income countries (LLMIC). MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from January 2015 to August 2021. A matrix comprising categories on HTA objectives, methods, geographies, and partnerships was used for data extraction and synthesis to present our findings. The review identified 50 relevant articles. The matrix was populated and sub-divided into further categories as appropriate. We highlight topical aspects of HTA, including initiatives to overcome well-documented challenges around data and capacity development, and identify gaps in the research for consideration. Those areas we found to be under-studied or under-utilized included disinvestment, early HTA/implementation, system-level interventions, and cross-sectoral partnerships. We consider broad practical implications for decision-makers and researchers aiming to achieve greater interconnectedness between HTA and health systems and generate recommendations that LLMIC can use for HTA implementation. Whilst HIC may have led the way, LLMIC are increasingly beginning to develop HTA processes to assist in their healthcare decision-making. This review provides a forward-looking model that LLMIC can point to as a reference for their own implementation. We hope this can be seen as timely and useful contributions to optimize the impact of HTA in an era of investment and expansion and to encourage debate and implementation.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for UHC: Progress, Potential and Prudence Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

In their recent article on evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) for health benefit package decisions, Oortwijn et al examine how the different steps of EDP play out in eight countries with relatively mature institutions for using health technology assessment (HTA). This commentary examines how EDP addresses stakeholder involvement in decision-making for equitable progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). It focuses on the value of inclusiveness, the need to pay attention to trade-offs between desirable features of EDP and the need to broaden the scope of processes examined beyond those specifically tied to producing and using HTAs . It concludes that EDPs have contributed to significant progress for health benefit design decisions worldwide and holds much potential in further application. At the same time, this commentary calls for prudence: investments in EDPs should be efficiently deployed to enhance the pre-existing legislative, institutional and political framework that exist to promote fair and legitimate healthcare decisions.

Scaling up health technology assessment capacities in selected African countries - A conceivable route ahead

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to provide a structured description of the commonalities and differences in healthcare structures across Africa to establish a reliable basis for the health technology assessment (HTA) of nutrition and nutrition interventions. A ranking of current nutrition conditions in the general population of the participating countries was included to gain a better understanding of the factors influencing hospital malnutrition (HMN), which will inform future multi-country research.

METHOD

A questionnaire on the structure of the health systems was distributed among ten African countries. Subsections were included that inquired about the drivers or barriers to using principles of HTA to assess nutritional care. Analysis and ranking of malnutrition data were based on data from the Global Hunger Index report and two poverty indicators used by the World Bank.

RESULTS

The health system structure of each country was identified and described, whereas questions about HTA could not always be analyzed due to a lack of adequate in-depth knowledge and skills in most countries. Early experience from some countries demonstrates a conceivable route ahead for African countries in strengthening the capacity for and implementing HTA in accordance with distinct national healthcare contexts and social determinants of health.

CONCLUSION

Problems related to nutritional care represent one of the major priorities in the surveyed countries. A future HMN multi-country study will provide valuable insight into the potential of low-cost primary prevention orientations.

Moral and Social Values in Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

An evidence-informed deliberative process (EDP) is defined as "a practical and stepwise approach for health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values." In this commentary, I discuss some considerations for EDPs that arise from acknowledging the difference between social and moral values. First, the best practices for implementing EDPs may differ depending on whether the approach is grounded in moral versus social values. Second, the goals of deliberation may differ when focused on moral versus social values. I conclude by offering some considerations for future research to support the use of EDPs in practice, including the need to assess how different approaches to appraisal (eg, more quantitative versus qualitative) impact perceptions of the value of deliberation itself.

[How robust are studies of currently permanently included digital health applications (DiGA)? Methodological quality of studies demonstrating positive health care effects of DiGA]

INTRODUCTION

Since September 2020 digital health applications (DiGA) can be prescribed by physicians and psychotherapists and are reimbursed within the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) system for the first time worldwide. For full reimbursement, the manufacturers have to provide evidence based on scientific studies that the DiGA can provide 'positive health care effects'. This study aims to analyze and evaluate the methodological quality of efficacy studies of DiGA in the categories 'Nervensystem' and 'Psyche' of the DiGA register that are permanently accepted.

METHODS

The methodological quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). The risk of bias was assessed for the primary endpoint of each study according to an intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Six DiGA were assessed for their methodological quality. Randomized controlled trials were conducted for all 6 DiGA that showed a high risk of bias, which was, in particular, due to a lack of blinding of the studies. In addition, drop-outs were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group in most studies. For most of the DiGA no published study protocol was available in advance so an analysis of a potential selective choice of the evaluation methodology was not possible.

DISCUSSION

For reasons of transparency, verifiability, and comprehensibility of the study results, registration in a study registry and, more importantly, the publication of study protocols should be mandatory before the start of the studies. In addition, studies should be blinded by comparing the DiGA with a 'sham application' to reduce the high risk of bias. Differences in the drop-out rates of the investigated studies could indicate a lack of efficacy of the treatment in the intervention group, (technical) problems in the application of the DiGA, or a lack of motivation of the participants.

CONCLUSION

The interim results 18 months after the introduction of DiGA in the German SHI system show that the studies on the evidence of the benefits of DiGA have a high potential for bias in certain areas. However, it should be positively emphasized that the manufacturers submitted randomized controlled trials to prove the medical benefit of the DiGAs investigated.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Legitimate Health Benefit Package Design - Part I: Conceptual Framework

BACKGROUND

Countries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit packages to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies support governments in these decisions, but employ value frameworks that do not sufficiently account for the intrinsically complex and value-laden political reality of benefit package design.

METHODS

Several years ago, evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were developed to address this issue. An EDP is a practical and stepwise approach for HTA bodies to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, and to interpret available evidence on these values. We further developed the conceptual framework and initial 2019 guidance based on academic knowledge exchange, analysing practices of HTA bodies, surveying HTA bodies and experts around the globe, and implementation of EDPs in several countries around the world.

RESULTS

EDPs stem from the general concept of legitimacy, which is translated into four elements - stakeholder involvement ideally operationalised through stakeholder participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal. The 2021 practical guidance distinguishes six practical steps of a HTA process and provides recommendations on how these elements can be implemented in each of these steps.

CONCLUSION

There is an increased attention for legitimacy, deliberative processes for HTA and health benefit package design, but the development of theories and methods for such processes remain behind. The added value of EDPs lies in the operationalisation of the general concept of legitimacy into practical guidance for HTA bodies.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide

BACKGROUND

Countries around the world are using health technology assessment (HTA) for health benefit package design. Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) are a practical and stepwise approach to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. This paper reports on the development of practical guidance on EDPs, while the conceptual framework of EDPs is described in a companion paper.

METHODS

The first guide on EDPs (2019) is further developed based on academic knowledge exchange, surveying 27 HTA bodies and 66 experts around the globe, and the implementation of EDPs in several countries. We present the revised steps of EDPs and how selected HTA bodies (in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Scotland, Thailand and the United Kingdom) organize key issues of legitimacy in their processes. This is based on a review of literature via PubMed and HTA bodies' websites.

RESULTS

HTA bodies around the globe vary considerable in how they address legitimacy (stakeholder involvement ideally through participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal) in their processes. While there is increased attention for improving legitimacy in decision-making processes, we found that the selected HTA bodies are still lacking or just starting to develop activities in this area. We provide recommendations on how HTA bodies can improve on this.

CONCLUSION

The design and implementation of EDPs is in its infancy. We call for a systematic analysis of experiences of a variety of countries, from which general principles on EDPs might subsequently be inferred.

Comprehensive league table of cost-utility ratios: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness evidence for health policy decisions in India

Background and objectives

Although a relatively recent concept for developing countries, the developed world has been using League Tables as a policy guiding tool for a comprehensive assessment of health expenditures; country-specific "League tables" can be a very useful tool for national healthcare planning and budgeting. Presented herewith is a comprehensive league table of cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) or Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) ratios derived from Health Technology Assessment (HTA) or economic evaluation studies reported from India through a systematic review.

Methods

Economic evaluations and HTAs published from January 2003 to October 2019 were searched from various databases. We only included the studies reporting common outcomes (QALY/DALY) and methodology to increase the generalizability of league table findings. To opt for a uniform criterion, a reference case approach developed by Health Technology Assessment in India (HTAIn) was used for the reporting of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. However, as, most of the articles expressed the outcome as DALY, both (QALY and DALY) were used as outcome indicators for this review.

Results

After the initial screening of 9,823 articles, 79 articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected for the League table preparation. The spectrum of intervention was dominated by innovations for infectious diseases (33%), closely followed by maternal and child health (29%), and non-communicable diseases (20%). The remaining 18% of the interventions were on other groups of health issues, such as injuries, snake bites, and epilepsy. Most of the interventions (70%) reported DALY as an outcome indicator, and the rest (30%) reported QALY. Outcome and cost were discounted at the rate of 3 by 73% of the studies, at 5 by 4% of the studies, whereas 23% of the studies did not discount it. Budget impact and sensitivity analysis were reported by 18 and 73% of the studies, respectively.

Interpretation and conclusions

The present review offers a reasonably coherent league table that reflects ICER values of a range of health conditions in India. It presents an update for decision-makers for making decisions about resource allocation.

Do Health Technology Assessment organisations consider manufacturers' costs in relation to drug price? A study of reimbursement reports

Introduction

Drug reimbursement decisions are often made based on a price set by the manufacturer. In some cases, this price leads to public and scientific debates about whether its level can be justified in relation to its costs, including those related to research and development (R&D) and manufacturing. Such considerations could enter the decision process in collectively financed health care systems. This paper investigates whether manufacturers’ costs in relation to drug prices, or profit margins, are explicitly mentioned and considered by health technology assessment (HTA) organisations.

Method

An analysis of reimbursement reports for cancer drugs was performed. All relevant Dutch HTA-reports, published between 2017 and 2019, were selected and matched with HTA-reports from three other jurisdictions (England, Canada, Australia). Information was extracted. Additionally, reimbursement reports for three cases of expensive non-oncolytic orphan drugs prominent in pricing debates in the Netherlands were investigated in depth to examine consideration of profit margins.

Results

A total of 66 HTA-reports concerning 15 cancer drugs were included. None of these reports contained information on manufacturer’s costs or profit margins. Some reports contained general considerations of the HTA organisation which related prices to manufacturers’ costs: six contained a statement on the lack of price setting transparency, one mentioned recouping R&D costs as a potential argument to justify a high price. For the case studies, 21 HTA-reports were selected. One contained a cost-based price justification provided by the manufacturer. None of the other reports contained information on manufacturer’s costs or profit margins. Six reports contained a discussion about lack of transparency. Reports from two jurisdictions contained invitations to justify high prices by demonstrating high costs.

Conclusion

Despite the attention given to manufacturers’ costs in relation to price in public debates and in the literature, this issue does not seem to get explicit systematic consideration in the reimbursement reports of expensive drugs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-022-00383-y.

Three Approaches to Improve a Practical Guide on Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

As countries around the world seek to deliver universal health coverage, they must prioritize which services to pay for with public funds, to whom, and at what cost. Countries are increasingly using health technology assessment (HTA) to identify which interventions provide the best value for money and merit inclusion in their health benefit packages (HBPs)-the explicit lists of health services provided using public funds. Oortwijn et al understand the importance of providing practical guidance on the foundation of HBP design, and their article, "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide," provides recommendations for HTA bodies to improve the legitimacy of their decision-making by incorporating four elements in their HBP procedures: stakeholder involvement, evidence-informed evaluation, transparency, and appeal. This article proposes three approaches to enhance the value of the guide: moving from structure to compliance and performance, prioritizing key issues of legitimacy within HBP processes, and acknowledging potential the costs and risks associated with the use of this framework.

Challenges and Opportunities for Deliberative Processes for Healthcare Decision-Making Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

The second edition of the practical guide for evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) is an important addition to the growing guidance on deliberative processes supporting priority setting in healthcare. While the practical guide draws on an extensive amount of information collected on established and developing processes within a range of countries, EDPs present health technology assessment (HTA) bodies with several challenges. (1) Basing recommendations on current processes that have not been well-evaluated and that have changed over time may lead to weaker legitimacy than desired. (2) The requirement for social learning among stakeholders may require increased resourcing and blur the boundary between moral deliberation and political negotiation. (3) Robust evaluation should be based on an explicit theory of change, and some process outcomes may be poor guides to overall improvement of EDPs. This comment clarifies and reinforces the recommendations provided in the practical guide.

Informing the Product Development of an mHealth Solution for People with Multiple Sclerosis Through Early Health Technology Assessment

The potential of mHealth is enormous for chronic conditions, yet the integration of these technologies into the clinical infrastructures and healthcare pathways remains an ongoing challenge. Digi-HTA has been developed to support health technology assessment activities for novel digital healthcare technologies. The use of Early Health Technology Assessment (EHTA) can help product development. The present study describes the way in which EHTA can guide the development of a product to anticipate future needs and market access.

The New Quadrivalent Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine for the Italian Elderly: A Health Technology Assessment

Background. The elderly, commonly defined as subjects aged ≥65 years, are among the at-risk subjects recommended for annual influenza vaccination in European countries. Currently, two new vaccines are available for this population: the MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aQIV) and the high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (hdQIV). Their multidimensional assessment might maximize the results in terms of achievable health benefits. Therefore, we carried out a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of the aQIV by adopting a multidisciplinary policy-oriented approach to evaluate clinical, economic, organizational, and ethical implications for the Italian elderly. Methods. A HTA was conducted in 2020 to analyze influenza burden; characteristics, efficacy, and safety of aQIV and other available vaccines for the elderly; cost-effectiveness of aQIV; and related organizational and ethical implications. Comprehensive literature reviews/analyses were performed, and a transmission model was developed in order to address the above issues. Results. In Italy, the influenza burden on the elderly is high and from 77.7% to 96.1% of influenza-related deaths occur in the elderly. All available vaccines are effective and safe; however, aQIV, such as the adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV), has proved more immunogenic and effective in the elderly. From the third payer’s perspective, but also from the societal one, the use of aQIV in comparison with egg-based standard QIV (eQIV) in the elderly population is cost-effective. The appropriateness of the use of available vaccines as well as citizens’ knowledge and attitudes remain a challenge for a successful vaccination campaign. Conclusions. The results of this project provide decision-makers with important evidence on the aQIV and support with scientific evidence on the appropriate use of vaccines in the elderly.

Time to Align: A Call for Consensus on the Assessment of Genetic Testing

In this paper, we updated our 2018 systematic review aimed to identify and compare ad hoc designed frameworks for genetic testing evaluation. Overall, we identified 30 frameworks (29 in the first systematic review and one in the update): they were mainly based on the ACCE model, whereas a minority were adjustments of the more traditional Health Technology Assessment (HTA) approach. After discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the retrieved frameworks, this perspective calls for consensus on the assessment of genetic testing. In line with the recent European recommendations that encouraged the generation of comparable evidence across Member States, we believe that the time has come to align all the ideas that have emerged over the last few decades and find a sustainable and sharable tool for the evaluation of genetic and genomic applications. Therefore, we suggest stopping the evaluation of such technologies using ad hoc strategies-affected by validation, implementation, and adoption issues-and we propose to use a general HTA approach, particularly the European reference tool for the assessment of health technologies, the EUnetHTA HTA core model, that is built on solid theoretical and methodological principles and provides a comprehensive assessment of the technologies value.

Access and pricing of medicines for patients with rare diseases in the European Union: an industry perspective

INTRODUCTION

The EU Orphan Regulation has successfully stimulated R&D of medicines for rare diseases, resulting in substantial increase of orphan designations and authorized orphan medicinal products in the EU during the last decade. Despite such important advances, access to treatment across the 27 EU Member States is still highly variable.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an overview of the current situation of patient access to orphan drugs in the EU. We discuss the EU policy landscape regarding joint assessment and pricing & reimbursement negotiations of medicinal products, price and sustainability of orphan drugs for health care systems and the importance of Real-World Data and registry infrastructures for rare diseases. Additionally, we provide recommendations for areas of improvement throughout the lifecycle of orphan drugs, aiming to preserve a positive R&D climate for rare diseases in the EU and accelerate patient access.

EXPERT OPINION

The EU needs to maintain a strong patient-centric pharmaceutical ecosystem that encourages long-term investments and rewards innovation in areas of high unmet medical need. Areas of potential improvement range from enhanced alignment of regulatory and HTA evidence requirements and use of specific value frameworks for the assessment of orphan drugs to the development of registry infrastructures and innovative performance-based pricing agreements.

Building HTA insights into the drug development plan: Current approaches to seeking early scientific advice from HTA agencies

There is a growing trend for pharmaceutical companies to seek scientific advice on drug development from a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) perspective, to improve the efficiency of their studies, enable better trial design, and support the goals of positive HTA recommendation for reimbursement. This study uses information collected directly from companies on individual products to assess their strategies and practices for seeking HTA-related scientific advice in terms of which stakeholders to engage and for what purpose, when to seek scientific advice, and whether to implement that advice within global clinical development.

Estimating the Theoretical Cost Implications of Funding New Drugs Considered Not to Be Cost-Effective

This study aims to estimate the theoretical excess expenditure that would be incurred by the Irish state-payer, should drugs be reimbursed at their original asking ("list") price rather than at a price at which the drug is considered cost-effective. In Ireland, all new drugs are evaluated by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics. For this study, drugs that were submitted by pharmaceutical companies from 2012 to 2017 and considered not cost-effective at list price were reviewed. A total of 43 such drugs met our inclusion criteria, and their pharmacoeconomic evaluations were further assessed. The price at which the drug could be considered cost-effective (cost-effective price) at the upper cost-effectiveness threshold used in Ireland (€ 45 000/quality adjusted life-year) was estimated for 18 drugs with an available cost-effectiveness model. Then, for each drug, the list price and cost-effective price (both per unit) were both individually applied to 1 year of national real-world drug utilization data. This allowed the estimation of the expected expenditures under the assumptions of list price paid and cost-effective price paid. The resulting theoretical excess expenditure, the expenditure at list price minus the expenditure at the cost-effective price, was estimated to be €108.2 million. This estimate is theoretical because of the confidentiality of actual drug prices. The estimation is calculated using the list price and likely overestimates the actual excess expenditure, which would reduce to zero if cost-effective prices are agreed. Nevertheless, this estimate illustrates the importance of a process to assess the value of new drugs so that potential excess drug expenditure is identified.

Health Economics in the Field of Prosthetics and Orthotics: A Global Perspective

The rapid advancement of prosthetic and orthotic (P&O) technology raises the question how the industry can ensure that patients have access to the benefits and providers get paid properly and fairly by healthcare payers. This is a challenge that not only P&O but all areas of health technology face. In many areas of medicine and health products, such as drugs and medical devices, health-technology assessments (HTA) have become a standard procedure in the coverage and reimbursement process. In most countries, P&O is lagging behind that development, although some countries have already formalized HTA for prosthetic and orthotic products and may even use cost-effectiveness analyses to determine pricing and payment amounts. This article gives an overview on the coverage and reimbursement processes in the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Poland, Japan, and China. This selection reflects the variety and diversity of coverage and reimbursement processes that the P&O industry faces globally. The paper continues with an overview on the necessary research and investment efforts that manufacturers will have to make in the future, and contemplates the likely consequences for the manufacturer community in the market place. Health economics may help support the transition from price-based to value-based coverage and reimbursement but will come at considerable costs to the industry.

Trends and Opportunities in Health Economic Evaluations of Prosthetic Care Innovations

Overcoming obstacles to prosthetic fittings requires frequent tryouts of sockets and components. Repetitions of interventions are upsetting for users and place substantial economic burden on healthcare systems. Encouraging prosthetic care innovations capable of alleviating clinical and financial shortcomings of socket-based solutions is essential. Nonetheless, evidence of socio-economic benefits of an innovation are required to facilitate access to markets. Unfortunately, complex decisions must be made when allocating resources toward the most relevant health economic evaluation (HEE) at a given stage of development of an innovation. This paper first, aimed to show the importance and challenges of HEEs of intervention facilitating prosthetic fittings. Next, the main trends in HEEs at various phases of product development and clinical acceptance of prosthetic care innovations were outlined. Then, opportunities for a basic framework of a preliminary cost-utility analysis (CUA) during the mid-stage of development of prosthetic care innovations were highlighted. To do this, fundamental and applied health economic literature and prosthetic-specific publications were reviewed to extract and analyse the trends in HEEs of new medical and prosthetic technologies, respectively. The findings show there is consensus around the weaknesses of full CUAs (e.g., lack of timeliness, resource-intensive) and strengths of preliminary CUAs (e.g., identify evidence gaps, educate design of full CUA, fast-track approval). However, several obstacles must be overcome before preliminary CUA of prosthetic care innovations will be routinely carried out. Disparities of methods and constructs of usual preliminary CUA are barriers that could be alleviated by a more standardized framework. The paper concludes by identifying that there are opportunities for the development of a basic framework of preliminary CUA of prosthetic care innovations. Ultimately, the collaborative design of a framework could simplify selection of the methods, standardise outcomes, ease comparisons between innovations and streamline pathways for adoption. This might facilitate access to economical solutions that could improve the life of individuals suffering from limb loss.

A Preliminary Cost-Utility Analysis of the Prosthetic Care Innovations: Basic Framework

A preliminary cost-utility analysis (CUA) of prosthetic care innovations can provide timely information during the early stage of product development and clinical usage. Concepts of preliminary CUAs are emerging. However, several obstacles must be overcome before these analyses are performed routinely. Disparities of methods and high uncertainty make the outcomes of usual preliminary CUAs challenging to interpret, appraise and share. These shortcomings create opportunities for a basic framework of preliminary CUAs. First, I introduced a basic framework of a preliminary CUA built around a series of constructs and hands-on recommendations. Then, I appraised this framework considering the strengths and weaknesses, barriers and facilitators, and return on investment. The design of the basic framework was determined through the review of health economic and prosthetic-specific literature. A preliminary CUA comparing the costs and utilities between usual intervention and an innovation could be achieved through a 15-step iterative process focusing on feasibility, constructs, analysis, and interpretation of outcomes. This CUA provides sufficient evidence to identify knowledge gaps and improvement areas, educate about the design of subsequent full CUAs, and obtain fast-track approval from governing bodies. Like previous CUAs, the main limitations were inherent to the constructs (e.g., narrow perspective, plausible scenarios, mid-term time horizon, substantial assumptions, data mismatch, high uncertainty). Key facilitators potentially transferable across preliminary CUAs of prosthetic care innovations included choosing abided constructs, capitalizing on prior schedules of expenses, and benchmarking baseline or incremental utilities. This new approach with preliminary CUA can simplify the selection of methods, standardize outcomes, ease comparisons between innovations, and streamline pathways for adoption. Further collegial efforts toward validating standard preliminary CUAs will facilitate access to economic prosthetic care innovations, improving the lives of individuals suffering from limb loss worldwide.

"Same same but different"? On the questionable but crucial differentiation between ethical and social aspects in health technology assessment

INTRODUCTION

Within health technology assessment (HTA), the demarcation of ethical and social aspects in two separate domains is a given fact. While an overlapping of ethical and social aspects is possible, this also raises theoretical and methodological questions, such as why overlaps happen (on the basis of which understanding of ethical and social aspects), or whether they are legitimate from a methodological point of view.

METHODS

We analyzed, on a basis of purposive sampling, a) two well-known HTA frameworks (HTA Core Model, INTEGRATE-HTA), b) methodological literature about ethical and/or social aspects in HTA, and c) published HTA reports from the German DAHTA database and the international CRD database regarding statements on the understanding (definition/characterization) and relationship between ethical and social aspects.

RESULTS

The frameworks used identical definitions for ethical aspects but deviated when it comes to social aspects. Methodological papers do not always provide a definition of social and ethical aspects. In the context of ethical aspects, they often refer back to ethics as a base discipline that deals with the motives and consequences of good and bad actions for ethical aspects, while for social aspects, there is orientation towards already existing checklists and methods, without reference to a base discipline such as sociology. The analyzed HTA reports barely offered details on their understanding of ethical or social aspects (7% of n = 33).

DISCUSSION

The problem of defining/characterizing and differentiating ethical and social aspects exists in both theory and practice. The impression is that little attention is paid to demarcations and overlaps, and that also the methodological literature has not yet thoroughly addressed the issue. While there are also pragmatic reasons for the possible ambiguity between the ethical and the social domains, deeper epistemological issues related to the multi-/interdisciplinarity nature of HTA will have to be considered, too, such as the danger of "disciplinary capture" (pressure on some domains and their basic disciplines, e.g., ethics, to adopt the concepts and standards of other domains that are more dominant in HTA, e.g., efficacy assessment/evidenced-based medicine).

CONCLUSION

The domains in HTA reports should be better described epistemologically and brought into a coherent relationship with each other. This is important to avoid unreasonable overlapping and possible problematic redundancy. Further, this could help with questions of adequate expertise and methods for the processing of all relevant information for solid technology assessment.

Coding Public Health Interventions for Health Technology Assessments: A Pilot Experience With WHO's International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI)

Introduction: An important requirement for successful public health interventions is a standardized classification in order to make these health technologies comparable in all contexts and recognized by all parties. The WHO International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI), including an integrated public health component, has been developed to propose such an international standard.

Methods: To test (a) the translation of public health interventions to ICHI codes and (b) the technical handling and general coding in public health, we used a set of public health interventions from a recent cross-sectional survey among Health Technology Assessment professionals.

Results: Our study showed that handling of the ICHI interface is stable, that there is a need for specificity and adequate detail of intervention descriptions and desired outcomes to code adequately with ICHI and that the professional background of the coder, as well as his/her sex might influence the selection of codes.

Conclusion: International Classification of Health Interventions provides a good coverage of public health interventions. However, the broader character of system wide interventions, often involving a variety of institutions and stakeholders, may present a challenge to the application of ICHI coding. Based on this experience, we would tailor future surveys more specifically to the needs of the classification and we advise training for health professionals before coding with ICHI. Standards of reporting will likely strengthen insights about the efficiency of primary prevention interventions and thus benefit long-term health of populations and structured HTA reporting process.

Glycated Albumin for Glycemic Control in T2DM Population: A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation

Purpose

To investigate the glycated albumin (GA) introduction implications, as an add-on strategy to traditional glycemic control (Hb1Ac and fasting plasma glucose – FPG) instruments, considering insulin-naïve individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), treated with oral therapies.

Methods

A Health Technology Assessment was conducted in Italy, as a multi-dimensional approach useful to validate any innovative technology. The HTA dimensions, derived from the EUnetHTA Core Model, were deployed by means of literature evidence, health economics tools and qualitative questionnaires, filled-in by 15 professionals.

Results

Literature stated that the GA introduction could lead to a higher number of individuals achieving therapeutic success after 3 months of therapy (97.0% vs 71.6% without GA). From an economic point of view, considering a projection of 1,955,447 T2DM insulin-naïve individuals, potentially treated with oral therapy, GA introduction would imply fewer individuals requiring a therapy switch (−89.44%), with a 1.06% in costs reduction, on annual basis, thus being also the preferable solution from a cost-effectiveness perspective (cost-effectiveness value: 237.74 vs 325.53). According to experts opinions, lower perceptions on GA emerged with regard to equity aspects (0.13 vs 0.72, p-value>0.05), whereas it would improve both individuals (2.17 vs 1.33, p-value=0.000) and caregivers quality of life (1.50 vs 0.83, p-value=0.000). Even if in the short term, GA required additional investments in training courses (−0.80 vs 0.10, p-value = 0.036), in the long run, GA could become the preferable technology (0.30 vs 0.01, p-value=0.018) from an organisational perspective.

Conclusion

Adding GA to traditional glycaemic control instruments could improve the clinical pathway of individuals with T2DM, leading to economic and organisational advantages for both hospitals and National Healthcare Systems.

Budget impact analysis of medicines: estimated values versus real-world evidence and the implications

Objectives: Budget Impact Analyses (BIA) of medicines helps managers in promoting health systems' sustainability when assessing the role and value of new medicines. However, it is not clear whether BIAs typically underestimate or overestimate the impact on real-world budgets. This retroactive analysis seeks to compare estimated values obtained by a BIA and Real-World Evidence (RWE) to guide discussions.Methods: The estimated values were obtained through a BIA concerning the incorporation of adalimumab for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis into the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) carried out retroactively and per international guidelines. RWE data was extracted from SUS computerized systems. We subsequently compared the number of treatments, costs, and Incremental Budget Impact (IBI).Results - The total number of treatments was underestimated by 10% (6,243) and the total expenditure was overestimated by 463% (US$ 4.7 billion). In five years, the total difference between the estimated values and real IBI reached US$ 1.1 billion. A current expenditure of US$ 1.0 was observed for every US$ 5.60 of estimated expenditure.Conclusion - The higher estimates from the BIA might cause decision makers to be more cautious with the introduction of a new medicine to reduce the opportunity costs for other interventions.

The hospital telemedicine TELEMED database: Providing information on evidence-based telemedicine services to hospital managers and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Increased use of telemedicine in the healthcare system is a political goal in Denmark. Although the number of hospital patients using interventions such as the video consultation has increased in recent years only a small proportion of the outpatient and inpatient visits involve telemedicine. The TELEMED database (https://telemedicine.cimt.dk/) has been launched at the Center for Innovative Medical Technology in Denmark to ensure that hospital managers and healthcare professionals have access to information about telemedicine services and their effectiveness. This article describes the development and the content of the TELEMED database.

METHODS

A structured literature search was made in the PubMed Database for randomised controlled trials or observational studies with a control group that investigated the effect of telemedicine interventions for hospital patients. Data were extracted from each article on the clinical effectiveness, patient perceptions, economic effects and implementation challenges. As the database should only provide inspiration to healthcare professionals regarding possibilities for use of telemedicine, the risk of bias in the studies was not assessed.

RESULTS

The literature search resulted in 2825 hits. Based on full text assessment, 331 articles were included for data extraction and assessment. These articles present telemedicine services used in 22 different medical specialities. Forty-eight percent of the studies found a positive, statistically significant clinical effect, while 47% showed no statistically significant difference. In 48% of the studies, patients' experiences were examined and of these 68% found positive patient experiences. Fifty-four percent of the articles included information on the economic effects and, of these, 51% found reduction in healthcare utilization. In the majority of studies between two and four types of implementation challenges were found.Conclusions and recommendations: The TELEMED database provides an easily accessible overview of existing evidence-based telemedicine services for use by hospital managers and health professionals, who whish to to implement telemedicine. The database is freely available and expected to be continuously improved and broadened over time.

Adapting health technology assessment for drugs, medical devices, and health programs: Methodological considerations from the Indian experience

INTRODUCTION

Heterogeneity in methods of economic evaluation makes the use of health technology assessment (HTA) evidence difficult. Thereby, several countries including India have developed their own standard guidelines for conducting HTAs. However, diverse HTA studies involving drugs, medical devices, health programs, and platforms require an adaptation of the standard methods.

AREAS COVERED

This review presents the specific characteristics of HTAs involving medical devices and health programs requiring adaptation of the standard guidelines. We use recent HTA studies in India to illustrate specific issues. These considerations involve the nature of decision-making problems, multiple scenarios in case of health programs, and specific attention to costing and the valuation of consequences. In case of medical devices, we discuss the issue of costing application of devices, multiple usage, learning curve for achieving effects, long causal path for health outcomes, and the issue of valuing false positives.

EXPERT OPINION

While standard guidelines are essential, specific features of health programs and medical devices need to be considered while undertaking HTAs. Additionally, the context in which the HTA is being undertaken, characteristics of the health system, methods of financing healthcare, and demand-side characteristics of healthcare utilization should be reflected in the HTA for health programs and medical devices.

Developing a quality management system for the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA): toward European HTA collaboration

OBJECTIVES

The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) was established in 2006 and comprises over eighty organizations from thirty European countries. In its fifth project phase (Joint Action 3), EUnetHTA set up a quality management system (QMS) to improve the efficiency and standardization of joint work. This article presents EUnetHTA's new QMS and outlines experiences and challenges during its implementation.

METHODS

Several working groups defined processes and methods to support assessment teams in creating high-quality assessment reports. Existing guidelines, templates, and tools were refined and missing parts were newly created and integrated into the new QMS framework. EUnetHTA has contributed to Health Technology Assessment (HTA) capacity building through training and knowledge sharing. Continuous evaluation helped to identify gaps and shortcomings in processes and structures.

RESULTS

Based on a common quality management concept and defined development and revision procedures, twenty-seven partner organizations jointly developed and maintained around forty standard operating procedures and other components of the QMS. All outputs were incorporated into a web-based platform, the EUnetHTA Companion Guide, which was launched in May 2018. Concerted efforts of working groups were required to ensure consistency and avoid duplication.

CONCLUSIONS

With the establishment of a QMS for jointly produced assessment reports, EUnetHTA has taken a significant step toward a sustainable model for scientific and technical collaboration within European HTA. However, the definition of processes and methods meeting the numerous requirements of healthcare systems across Europe remains an ongoing and challenging task.

Do existing real-world data sources generate suitable evidence for the HTA of medical devices in Europe? Mapping and critical appraisal

AIM

Technological and computational advancements offer new tools for the collection and analysis of real-world data (RWD). Considering the substantial effort and resources devoted to collecting RWD, a greater return would be achieved if real-world evidence (RWE) was effectively used to support Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and decision making on medical technologies. A useful question is: To what extent are RWD suitable for generating RWE?

METHODS

We mapped existing RWD sources in Europe for three case studies: hip and knee arthroplasty, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and mitral valve repair (TMVR), and robotic surgery procedures. We provided a comprehensive assessment of their content and appropriateness for conducting the HTA of medical devices. The identification of RWD sources was performed combining a systematic search on PubMed with gray literature scoping, covering fifteen European countries.

RESULTS

We identified seventy-one RWD sources on arthroplasties; ninety-five on TAVI and TMVR; and seventy-seven on robotic procedures. The number, content, and integrity of the sources varied dramatically across countries. Most sources included at least one health outcome (97.5%), with mortality and rehospitalization/reoperation the most common; 80% of sources included resource outcomes, with length of stay the most common, and comparators were available in almost 70% of sources.

CONCLUSIONS

RWD sources bear the potential for the HTA of medical devices. The main challenges are data accessibility, a lack of standardization of health and economic outcomes, and inadequate comparators. These findings are crucial to enabling the incorporation of RWD into decision making and represent a readily available tool for getting acquainted with existing information sources.

Realising the broader value of vaccines in the UK

Many health technology assessment (HTA) agencies limit their assessments of vaccines to the health benefits for the vaccinated individual, the costs associated with vaccine administration and the disease avoided. However, because the value of vaccines tends to accrue to a large extent beyond the vaccinated individual, they are systematically undervalued in many current HTA processes. This is also the case in the UK, where the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is in charge of assessing preventative vaccines, while therapeutic vaccines fall in the realm of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

To contribute to a forward-looking perspective, we designed a framework to capture the broader value of vaccination. We reviewed the current state of the global vaccines pipeline and selected seven preventative and three therapeutic vaccines that are likely to enter the UK market within five years. We assessed on which value elements the selected vaccines would potentially generate value, and compared those against the novel broader value framework. A review of the current value elements considered by the JCVI and NICE allowed identifying the critical gaps between potential value generation and value recognition.

To our knowledge, this is the first time that the broader value of vaccination has been pro-actively assessed for pipeline vaccinations. Our findings show that the existing narrow evaluation frameworks are likely to systematically undervalue the value of potential future vaccines coming to the UK market. This is particularly relevant, where their impact on AMR and other health interventions, and on the productivity of the workforce is of concern. Recommendations to overcome this include an explicit and more consistent inclusion of, and data collection on, the impact of vaccines on AMR and other health interventions by JCVI and NICE; the consideration of a societal perspective and the fiscal impact of vaccines to societies.

Topic selection for health technology assessment: An approach combining multiple attribute decision making and decision rules

Background: Various studies have used multiple attribute decision making (MADM) techniques to assess and rank health technologies. The goal of the present study was to prioritize health technologies using various techniques of MADMs in combination with decision rules.

Methods: The study is an applied research using multi-attribute decision making (MADM) methods. This study extracted the attributes related to health technology assessment from global literature and experts’ opinions. In this study, two different types of experts were consulted: the first type, including three experts in the field of the decision-making techniques, on the subject of setting priority on health focusing on MADM; and the second one consists of seven experts in the field of HTA, asked about the selection of attributes and determination their importance. Candidate health technologies were individually weighted and ranked using TOPSIS, SAW and VIKOR by the weight and decision matrix. The results obtained from various techniques were combined and ranked using Copeland’s technique to obtain the final ranking of health technologies. To determine HTA type reports, decision rules were defined. All models were designed via MS Excel.

Results: This study chose eight technologies according to six tradeoff attributes. These attributes included health benefits at the population level, vulnerable population size, availability of alternative technologies, budget impact, financial protection, and quality of evidence. Their exact weights were 0.25, 0.121, 0.146, 0.132, 0.167 and 0.181, respectively. Also, safety and uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness were considered as the veto and decision rules respectively. Copeland’s method was therefore used to combine the methods: Whereas HT2 (The technology for treating patients suffering from varicose) was ranked the highest priority and HT3 (The palliative method for patients who suffer from various cancers) was ranked the lowest (for preventing from any ethical issue, the exact name of each technology wasn’t mentioned).

Conclusion: Finally, in accordance with decision rules which are based on various conditions of "uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness", it is recommended that full health technology assessment report be performed on three technologies, rapid health technology assessment report be performed on four others, and, finally no prioritizing for health technology assessment be made on one of them.

Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies: A Reflection on Legitimacy, Values and Patient and Public Involvement Comment on "Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe"

Legitimacy of deliberation processes leading to recommendations for public financing or clinical practice depends on the data considered, stakeholders involved and the process by which both of these are selected and organised. Oortwijn et al provides an interesting exploration of processes currently in place in health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. However, agencies are struggling with core issues central to their legitimacy that goes beyond the procedural exploration of Oortwijn et al, such as: how processes reflect the mission and values of the agencies? How they ensure that recommendations are fair and reasonable? Which role should be given to public and patient involvement? Do agencies have a positive impact on the healthcare system and the populations served? What are the drivers of their evolution? We concur with Culyer commentary on the need of learning from doing what works best and that a reflection is indeed needed to "enhance the fairness and legitimacy of HTA."

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for HTA Around the Globe: Exploring the Next Frontiers of HTA and Best Practices Comment on "Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe"

This comment reflects on an article by Oortwijn, Jansen, and Baltussen about the use and features of ‘evidence-informed deliberative processes’ (EDPs) among health technology assessment (HTA) agencies around the world and the need for more guidance. First, we highlight procedural aspects that are relevant across key steps of EDP, focusing on conflict of interest, the different roles of stakeholders throughout a HTA and public justification of decisions. Second, we discuss new knowledge and models needed to maximize the value of deliberative processes at the expanding frontiers of HTA, paying special attention to when HTA is applied in primary care, employed for public health interventions, and is produced through international collaboration.

The Potential for Early Health Economic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment and Reimbursement Decision-Making Comment on "Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modeling"

Grutters et al recently investigated the role of early health economic modelling of health technologies by undertaking a secondary analysis of health economic modelling assessments performed by their group. Our commentary offers a broad perspective on the potential utility of early health economic modelling to inform health technology assessment (HTA) and decision-making around reimbursement of new health technologies. Further we provide several examples to compliment Grutters and colleagues’ observations.

Expanding the Role of Early Health Economic Modelling in Evaluation of Health Technologies Comment on "Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modeling"

In this commentary, we discuss early stage assessments of innovative medical technologies both in terms of methods applied as well as their use in healthcare decision-making. We argue that cost-effectiveness alone may be too reductive if taken as the only decision rule, and it would benefit from being used within a broader evaluation framework. We discuss innovative methods which may contribute to better estimate the potential costs and consequences of a technology in the absence of solid clinical data, as frequently the case in early assessments. Finally, we comment on the potential synergies which may take place should early economic models be used not only by technology developers alone but as a negotiating base during early dialogues with health technology assessment (HTA) bodies.

The most important facilitators and barriers to the use of Health Technology Assessment in Canada: a best-worst scaling approach

BACKGROUND

Health Technology Assessment (HTA), which can support public drug reimbursement decisions will play a core function in the planned national Pharmacare program in Canada. To address existing barriers to the use of HTA, these must be ranked in order of priority. The goal of this study was to access the relative importance of known facilitators and barriers to the use of HTA in the context of the Canadian health care system, with attention to differences between regions and stakeholder groups.

METHODS

We used the best-worst scaling object case approach to elicit a quantitative ranking of a list of 20 facilitators and 22 barriers. A sample of 68 Canadian HTA stakeholders, including members of expert committees, decision/policymakers, researchers/academics, and others participated in the study. Their task was to identify the most important and the least important item in 12 sub-sets of five facilitators and 14 sub-sets of five barriers.

FINDINGS

Relative Importance Scores derived via hierarchical Bayes analysis revealed relations, engagement, and contact between stakeholders as most important on both the barrier and facilitator sides. Other top-ranked facilitators included the availably of credible and relevant research. Other top-ranked barriers included inconsistencies in the evidence and limited generalizability. The availability of HTA guidelines did not rank highly on either side. The main limitation of the study was the challenge with reaching the relevant respondents; this was mitigated by involving the national HTA agency in the research.

CONCLUSION

Canadian stakeholders consider the relationships within the HTA network among the most important. Policies should focus on strengthening these relationships. Future research should focus on the connectivity and distribution of knowledge and power within the HTA network.

Uncertainty tolerance among experts involved in drug reimbursement recommendations: Qualitative evidence from HTA committees in Canada and Poland

OBJECTIVES

Drug reimbursement decisions often rely on health technology assessment (HTA). Increasingly, new drugs have limited clinical evidence and uncertain clinical benefit. Our goal was to describe how members of drug advisory committees and other stakeholders conceptualize and tolerate uncertainty and how they rationalize uncertainty tolerance.

METHODS

Our triangulated parallel design applied two qualitative methods. We interviewed 31 members of drug advisory committees in Canada and Poland about their information needs and included hypothetical scenarios with uncertain clinical benefits. Respondents speculated about their likely reimbursement recommendation. We analyzed written recommendations of the pan Canadian Oncology Drug Review for drugs with uncertain benefit and compared initial recommendations to the responses from patient and clinician groups.

RESULTS

Uncertainty tolerance varied among committee members and across jurisdictions. In the scenario analysis, 7 Canadian and 11 Polish respondents leaned against recommending a hypothetical drug with uncertain clinical benefit, whereas 5 Canadian and 5 Polish respondents leaned in favour. Those against rationalized that uncertainty increases potential harm; those in favour rationalized that patients often have no alternatives. The document analysis revealed that patients had higher uncertainty tolerance in general.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty tolerance varies among committee members and other stakeholders depending on their backgrounds and on the decision contexts. We argue that policy guidance around uncertainty management could improve the transparency and consistency of recommendations.

HTA methodology and value frameworks for evaluation and policy making for cell and gene therapies

This last decade has been marked by significant advances in the development of cell and gene (C&G) therapies, such as gene targeting or stem cell-based therapies. C&G therapies offer transformative benefits to patients but present a challenge to current health technology decision-making systems because they are typically reviewed when clinical efficacy data are very limited and when there is uncertainty about the long-term durability of outcomes. These challenges are not unique to C&G therapies, but they face more of these barriers, reflecting the need for adapting existing value assessment frameworks. Still, C&G therapies have the potential to be cost-effective even at very high price points. The impact on healthcare budgets will depend on the success rate of pipeline assets and on the extent to which C&G therapies will expand to wider pathologies beyond rare or ultra-rare diseases. Getting pricing and reimbursement models right is important for incentivising research and development investment while not jeopardising the sustainability of healthcare systems. Payers and manufacturers therefore need to acknowledge each other's constraints-limitations in the evidence generation on the manufacturer side, budget considerations on the payer side-and embrace innovative thinking and approaches to ensure timely delivery of therapies to patients. Several experts in health technology assessment and clinical experts have worked together to produce this publication and identify methodological and policy options to improve the assessment of C&G therapies, and make it happen better, faster and sustainably in the coming years.

Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Priority Setting in the Indian Health System: An International Collaborative Experience

India's rapid economic growth has been accompanied by slower improvements in population health. Given the need to reconcile the ambitious goal of achieving Universal Coverage with limited resources, a robust priority-setting mechanism is required to ensure that the right trade-offs are made and the impact on health is maximised. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is endorsed by the World Health Assembly as the gold standard approach to synthesizing evidence systematically for evidence-informed priority setting (EIPS). India is formally committed to institutionalising HTA as an integral component of the EIPS process. The effective conduct and uptake of HTA depends on a well-functioning ecosystem of stakeholders adept at commissioning and generating policy-relevant HTA research, developing and utilising rigorous technical, transparent, and inclusive methods and processes, and a strong multisectoral and transnational appetite for the use of evidence to inform policy. These all require myriad complex and complementary capacities to be built at each level of the health system . In this paper we describe how a framework for targeted and locally-tailored capacity building for EIPS, and specifically HTA, was collaboratively developed and implemented by an international network of priority-setting expertise, and the Government of India.

The Role of Regulator-Imposed Post-Approval Studies in Health Technology Assessments for Conditionally Approved Drugs

Background: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) aims to resolve uncertainties associated with conditionally approved drugs by imposing post-approval studies. Results from these studies may be relevant for health technology assessment (HTA) organizations. This study investigated the role of regulator-imposed post-approval studies within HTA.

Methods: For all conditionally approved drugs up to December 2018, regulator-imposed post-approval studies were identified from EMA’s public assessment reports. The availability for and inclusion of study results in relative effectiveness (re)assessments were analyzed for 4 European HTA organizations: NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, England/Wales), HAS (Haute Autorité de Santé, France), ZIN (Zorginstituut Nederland, the Netherlands) and the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA, Europe). When study results became available between an HTA organization’s initial assessment and reassessment, it was evaluated whether and how they affected the assessment and its outcome.

Results: For 36 conditionally approved drugs, 98 post-approval studies were imposed. In total, 81 initial relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and 13 reassessments were available, with numbers of drugs (re)assessed varying greatly between jurisdictions. Study results were available for 16 initial REAs (20%) and included in 14 (88%), and available for 10 reassessments (77%) and included in all (100%). Five reassessments had an outcome different from the initial REA, with 4 (2 positive and 2 negative changes) relating directly to the new study results. Reassessments often cited the inability of post-approval studies to resolve the concerns reported in the initial REA.

Conclusion: Results from regulator-imposed post-approval studies for conditionally approved drugs were not often used in REAs by HTA organizations, because they were often not yet available at the time of initial assessment and because reassessments were scarce. When available, results from post-approval studies were almost always used within HTA, and they have led to changes in conclusions about drugs’ relative effectiveness. Post-approval studies can be relevant within HTA but the current lack of alignment between regulators and HTA organizations limits their potential.