How to strengthen the presence of patients in health technology assessments conducted by the health authorities.

The constant development of health technologies, combined with the increase in the cost of treatment, means that States must continually make choices about the introduction of new technologies into their healthcare system and how they are to be funded. In France, the systematic participation of patients in these processes is one of the targets to be met in terms of healthcare democracy. Although, on an international level, patient involvement in these assessments is constantly growing, it is difficult to define due to the presence of unstabilised elements in terms of both terminology and assessment methods. As a result, patient and public involvement in health technology assessments varies considerably from one country to the next, from one field to the next and even from one type of technology to the next. Several types of involvement exist, ranging from studies conducted to collect patient "insight" (experience, perception, needs, preferences, attitudes to treatment and health, etc.) to processes aimed at including patients in assessments (as individuals, as representatives of associations, etc.). Given the scope and complexity of the subject, and the difficulty involved in understanding all the different aspects of health technologies and innovations, the members of the Round Table chose to concentrate on health technology assessments (medicinal products and medical devices) to develop national recommendations on all possible types of patient involvement in the health technology assessment processes conducted by the health authorities in France.

From single-arm studies to externally controlled studies. Methodological considerations and guidelines.

Single-arm studies are sometimes used as pivotal studies but they have methodological limitations which prevent them from obtaining the high level of reliability as for a randomised controlled study which remains the gold standard in the evaluation of new treatments. The objective of this roundtable was to discuss the limitations of these single-arm studies, to analyse available and acceptable solutions in order to propose guidelines for their conduct and assessment. Single-arm studies themselves are intrinsically inappropriate for demonstrating the benefit of a new treatment because it is impossible to infer the benefit from a value obtained under treatment without knowing what it would have been in the absence of the new treatment. The implication is that comparison with other data is necessary. However this comparison has limitations due to (1) the post hoc choice of the reference used for comparison, (2) the confusion bias for which an adjustment approach is imperative and, (3) the other biases, measure and attrition among others. When these limitations are taken into account this should, first and foremost, lead to the conduct of externally controlled trials instead of single-arm trials as is proposed by the latest version of ICH E10. Moreover, the external control must be formalised in the study protocol with a priori selection of both the reference control and the formal method of comparison: test in relation to a standard, adjustment on individual data, a synthetic control group or matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC). Lastly, externally controlled studies must be restricted to situations where randomisation is infeasible. To be acceptable, these studies must be able to guarantee freedom from residual confusion bias, which is only truly acceptable if the observed effect is dramatic and the usual course of the disease is highly predicable.

Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonists for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a French payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is the main cause of stroke, but the risk can be reduced, usually with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin. The RE-LY atrial fibrillation study demonstrated that the rates of stroke and systemic embolism with dabigatran (an oral direct thrombin inhibitor) were similar to or lower than those with warfarin. AIMS: To estimate the cost-effectiveness, from a French payer perspective, of dabigatran (150 or 110mg bid for patients