Search

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

Objectives. To map the timing and nature of regulatory reliance pathways used to authorize COVID-19 vaccines in Latin America. Methods. An observational study was conducted assessing the characteristics of all COVID-19 vaccine authorizations in Latin America. For every authorization it was determined whether reliance was used in the authorization process. Subgroups of reference national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and non-reference NRAs were compared. Results. 56 authorizations of 10 different COVID-19 vaccines were identified in 18 countries, of which 25 (44.6%) used reliance and 12 (21.4%) did not. For the remaining 19 (33.0%) it was not possible to determine whether reliance was used. Reference agencies used reliance less often (40% of authorizations with a known pathway) compared to non-reference agencies (100%). The median review time was just 15 days and does not meaningfully differ between reliance and non-reliance authorizations. Conclusions. This study demonstrated that for these vaccines, despite reliance pathways being associated with numerous rapid authorizations, independent authorization review times were not considerably longer than reliance reviews; reliance pathways were not a prerequisite for rapid authorization. Nevertheless, reliance pathways provided rapid authorizations in response to the COVID-19 emergency.

BackgroundThe 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. MethodsFor 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. ResultsFor 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. ConclusionResults 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.

Outcome-based reimbursement models can effectively reduce the financial risk to health care payers in cases when there is important uncertainty or heterogeneity regarding the clinical value of health technologies. Still, health care payers in lower income countries rely mainly on financial based agreements to manage uncertainties associated with new therapies. We performed a survey, an exploratory literature review and an iterative brainstorming in parallel about potential barriers and solutions to outcome-based agreements in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and in the Middle East (ME). A draft list of recommendations deriving from these steps was validated in a follow-up workshop with payer experts from these regions. 20 different barriers were identified in five groups, including transaction costs and administrative burden, measurement issues, information technology and data infrastructure, governance, and perverse policy outcomes. Though implementing outcome-based reimbursement models is challenging, especially in lower income countries, those challenges can be mitigated by conducting pilot agreements and preparing for predictable barriers. Our guidance paper provides an initial step in this process. The generalizability of our recommendations can be improved by monitoring experiences from pilot reimbursement models in CEE and ME countries and continuing the multistakeholder dialogue at national levels.

The need for innovative payment models for health technologies with high upfront costs has emerged due to affordability concerns across the world. Early technology adopter countries have been experimenting with delayed payment schemes. Our objective included listing potential barriers for implementing delayed payment models and recommendations on how to address these barriers in lower income countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Middle East (ME). We conducted a survey, an exploratory literature review and an iterative brainstorming about potential barriers and solutions to implement delayed payment models in these two regions. A draft list of recommendations was validated in a virtual workshop with payer experts from the two regions. Eight barriers were identified in 4 areas, including transaction costs and administrative burden, payment schedule, information technology and data infrastructure, and governance. Fifteen practical recommendations were prepared to address these barriers, including recommendations that are specific to lower income countries, and recommendations that can be applied more universally, but are more crucial in countries with severe budget constraints. Conclusions of this policy research can be considered as an initial step in a multistakeholder dialogue about implementing delayed payment schemes in CEE and ME countries.

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

Abstract Background Results of probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) are frequently visualized as a scatterplot, which is limited through overdrawing and a lack of insight in relative density. To overcome these limitations, we have developed the Relative Density plot (PSA-ReD). Methods The PSA-ReD combines a density plot and a contour plot to visualize and quantify PSA results. Relative density, depicted using a color gradient, is transformed to a cumulative probability. Contours are then plotted over regions with a specific cumulative probability. We use two real-world case studies to demonstrate the value of the PSA-ReD plot. Results The PSA-ReD method demonstrates proof-of-concept and feasibility. In the real-world case-studies, PSA-ReD provided additional visual information that could not be understood from the traditional scatterplot. High density areas were identified by color-coding and the contour plot allowed for quantification of PSA iterations within areas of the cost-effectiveness plane, diminishing overdrawing and putting infrequent iterations in perspective. Critically, the PSA-ReD plot informs modellers about non-linearities within their model. Conclusions The PSA-ReD plot is easy to implement, presents more of the information enclosed in PSA data, and prevents inappropriate interpretation of PSA results. It gives modelers additional insight in model functioning and the distribution of uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimate.

The available evidence on relative effectiveness and risks of new health technologies is often limited at the time of health technology assessment (HTA). Additionally, a wide variety in real-world data (RWD) policies exist among HTA organizations. This study assessed which challenges, related to the increasingly complex nature of new health technologies, make the acceptance of RWD most likely. A questionnaire was disseminated among 33 EUnetHTA member HTA organizations. The questions focused on accepted data sources, circumstances that allowed for RWD acceptance and barriers to acceptance. The questionnaire was validated and tested for reliability by an expert panel, and pilot-tested before dissemination via LimeSurvey. Twenty-two HTA organizations completed the questionnaire (67%). All reported accepting randomized clinical trials. The most accepted RWD source were patient registries (19/22, 86%), the least accepted were editorials and expert opinions (8/22, 36%). With orphan treatments or companion diagnostics, organizations tended to be most likely to accept RWD sources, 4.3–3.2 on a 5-point Likert scale, respectively. Additional circumstances were reported to accept RWD (e.g., a high disease burden). The two most important barriers to accepting RWD were lacking necessary RWD sources and existing policy structures. European HTA organizations seem positive toward the (wider) use of RWD in HTA of complex therapies. Expanding the use of patient registries could be potentially useful, as a large share of the organizations already accepts this source. However, many barriers still exist to the widespread use of RWD. Our results can be used to prioritize circumstances in which RWD might be accepted.

Abstract Standard outcome sets developed by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) facilitate value‐based health care in healthcare practice and have gained traction from regulators and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies that regularly assess the value of new medicines. We aimed to assess the extent to which the outcomes used by regulators and HTA agencies are patient‐relevant, by comparing these to ICHOM standard sets. We conducted a cross‐sectional comparative analysis of ICHOM standard sets, and publicly available regulatory and HTA assessment guidelines. We focused on oncology due to many new medicines being developed, which are accompanied by substantial uncertainty regarding the relevance of these treatments for patients. A comparison of regulatory and HTA assessment guidelines, and ICHOM standard sets showed that both ICHOM and regulators stress the importance of disease‐specific outcomes. On the other hand, HTA agencies have a stronger focus on generic outcomes in order to allow comparisons across disease areas. Overall, similar outcomes are relevant for market access, reimbursement, and in ICHOM standard sets. However, some differences are apparent, such as the acceptability of intermediate outcomes. These are recommended in ICHOM standard sets, but regulators are more likely to accept intermediate outcomes than HTA agencies. A greater level of alignment in outcomes accepted may enhance the efficiency of regulatory and HTA processes, and increase timely access to new medicines. ICHOM standard sets may help align these outcomes. However, some differences in outcomes used may remain due to the different purposes of regulatory and HTA decision‐making.

To generate comparative evidence in a timely fashion for drugs without restricting or delaying access, value-based pricing and reimbursement could be conditioned on a prospective, post-approval evidence generation plan.

Objectives We aimed to identify existing appraisal tools for non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) and to compare the criteria that the tools provide at the quality-item level.Design Literature review through three approaches: systematic search of journal articles, snowballing search of reviews on appraisal tools and grey literature search on websites of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies.Data sources Systematic search: Medline; Snowballing: starting from three articles (D’Andrea et al, Quigley et al and Faria et al); Grey literature: websites of European HTA agencies listed by the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Appraisal tools were searched through April 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included a tool, if it addressed quality concerns of NRSIs and was published in English (unless from grey literature). A tool was excluded, if it was only for diagnostic, prognostic, qualitative or secondary studies.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent researchers searched, screened and reviewed all included studies and tools, summarised quality items and scored whether and to what extent a quality item was described by a tool, for either methodological quality or reporting.Results Forty-nine tools met inclusion criteria and were included for the content analysis. Concerns regarding the quality of NRSI were categorised into 4 domains and 26 items. The Research Triangle Institute Item Bank (RTI Item Bank) and STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) were the most comprehensive tools for methodological quality and reporting, respectively, as they addressed (n=20; 17) and sufficiently described (n=18; 13) the highest number of items. However, none of the tools covered all items.Conclusion Most of the tools have their own strengths, but none of them could address all quality concerns relevant to NRSIs. Even the most comprehensive tools can be complemented by several items. We suggest decision-makers, researchers and tool developers consider the quality-item level heterogeneity, when selecting a tool or identifying a research gap.OSF registration number OSF registration DOI (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KCSGX).

Objective Improving synergy among regulation, health technology assessment (HTA) and clinical guideline development is relevant as these independent processes are building on shared evidence-based grounds. The two objectives were first to assess how convergence of evidentiary needs among stakeholders may be achieved, and second, to determine to what extent convergence can be achieved.Design Qualitative study using eight online dual-moderator focus groups.Setting Discussions had a European focus and were contextualised in four case studies on head and neck cancer, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis and myelodysplastic syndromes.Participants Forty-two experienced (over 10 years) European regulators, HTA representatives and clinicians participated in the discussion.Interventions Participants received information on the case study and research topic in advance. An introductory background presentation and interview guide for the moderators were used to steer the discussion.Results Convergence may be achieved through improved communication institutionalised in multistakeholder early dialogues, shared definitions and shared methods. Required data sets should be inclusive rather than aligned. Deliberation and decision-making should remain independent. Alignment could be sought for pragmatic clinical trial designs and patient registries. Smaller and lower-income countries should be included in these efforts.Conclusion Actors in the field expressed that improving synergy among stakeholders always involves trade-offs. A balance needs to be found between the convergence of processes and the institutional remits or geographical independence. A similar tension exists between the involvement of more actors, for example, patients or additional countries, and the level of collaboration that may be achieved. Communication is key to establishing this balance.