A Systematic Review of Value Criteria for Next-Generation Sequencing/Comprehensive Genomic Profiling to Inform Value Framework Development.

OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively identify and map an exhaustive list of value criteria for the assessment of next-generation sequencing/comprehensive genomic profiling (NGS/CGP), to be used as an aid in decision making. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify existing value frameworks (VFs) applicable to any type of healthcare technology. VFs and criteria were mapped to a previously published Latin American (LA) VF to harmonize definitions and identify additional criteria and or subcriteria. Based on this analysis, we extracted a comprehensive, evidence-based list of criteria and subcriteria to be considered in the design of a NGS/CGP VF. RESULTS: A total of 42 additional VFs were compared with the LA VF, 88% were developed in high-income countries, 30% targeted genomic testing, and 16% specifically targeted oncology. A total of 242 criteria and subcriteria were extracted; 227 (94%) were fully/partially included in the LA VF; and 15 (6%) were new. Clinical benefit and economic aspects were the most common criteria. VFs oriented to genomic testing showed significant overlap with other VFs. Considering all criteria and subcriteria, a total of 18 criteria and 36 individual subcriteria were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides an evidence-based set of criteria and subcriteria for healthcare decision making useful for NGS/CGP as well as other health technologies. The resulting list can be beneficial to inform decision making and will serve as a foundation to co-create a multistakeholder NGS/CGP VF that is aligned with the needs and values of health systems and could help to improve patient access to high-value technologies.

Do Reimbursement Recommendations by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health Translate Into Coverage Decisions for Orphan Drugs in the Canadian Province of Ontario?

OBJECTIVES: Unlike other high-income countries, Canada has no national policy for drugs treating rare diseases (orphan drugs). Nevertheless, in 2022, the Canadian government committed to creating a national strategy to make access to these drugs more consistent. Our aim was to study whether recommendations made by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) translated into coverage decisions for orphan drugs in Ontario, the largest Canadian province. This study is the first to look at this question for orphan drugs, which are at the center of policy attention. METHODS: We included 155 orphan drug-indication pairs approved and marketed in Canada between October 2002 and April 2022. Cohen's kappa was used to test the agreement across health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations and coverage decisions in Ontario. Logistic regression was used to test which factors, relevant to decision-makers, might be associated with funding in Ontario. RESULTS: We found only fair agreement between CADTH's recommendations and coverage decisions in Ontario. Although a positive and statistically significant association between favorable HTA recommendations and coverage was found, more than half of the drugs with a negative HTA recommendation were available in Ontario, predominately through specialized funds. Successful pan-Canadian pricing negotiations were a strong predictor of coverage in Ontario. CONCLUSIONS: Despite efforts to harmonize access to drugs across Canada, considerable room for improvement remains. Introducing a national strategy for orphan drugs could help increase transparency, consistency, promote collaborations, and make access to orphan drugs a national priority.

A Value Framework to Assess Patient-Facing Digital Health Technologies That Aim to Improve Chronic Disease Management: A Delphi Approach.

OBJECTIVES: Digital health technologies (DHTs) can optimise healthcare costs and improve quality and efficiency of care. However, the fast-paced rate of innovation and varying evidence standards can make it difficult for decision-makers to assess these technologies in an efficient and evidence-based manner. We sought to develop a comprehensive framework to assess the value of novel patient-facing DHTs used to manage chronic diseases by eliciting stakeholder value preferences. METHODS: Literature review and primary data collection from a three-round web-Delphi exercise was utilized. 79 participants from 5 stakeholder groups (patients, physicians, industry, decision makers, and influencers) and 3 countries (United States of America, United Kingdom, and Germany) took part. Likert scale data were statistically analyzed to determine intergroup differences in both country and stakeholder groups, stability of results, and overall consensus. RESULTS: The resulting co-created framework comprised 33 stable indicators with consensus from quantitative value judgments across domains: health inequalities, data rights and governance, technical and security, economic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and user preferences. Lack of stakeholder consensus was observed on the importance of value-based care models, optimizing resources for sustainable systems, and stakeholder involvement in DHT design, development, and implementation; however, this was because of high rates of neutrality and not negative judgments. Supply-side actors and academic experts were the most unstable stakeholder groups. CONCLUSION: Stakeholder value judgments revealed a need for a coordinated regulatory and health technology assessment policy response that updates laws to meet technological innovations, offers a pragmatic approach to evidence standards to assess DHTs, and involves stakeholders to understand and meet their needs.

Launch sequencing of pharmaceuticals with multiple therapeutic indications: evidence from seven countries.

BACKGROUND: New medicines are increasingly being identified as efficacious across multiple indications. The impact of current pricing and reimbursement policies on launch decisions across these indications remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This paper, first, maps marketing authorisation and HTA coverage recommendation sequences of multi-indication medicines across Germany, France, England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and the USA, and, second, evaluates the clinical characteristics, clinical development time and coverage recommendation time of multi-indication medicines, drawing comparisons between the first and subsequent indications of an approved molecule. METHODS: Medicine approvals by the Food and Drug Administration between 2009-2019 were screened to identify multi-indication products with approved oncology indications. Data on clinical trial characteristics, clinical performance and HTA outcomes were extracted from publicly available regulatory approval and HTA reports. RESULTS: Relative to subsequent indications, first indications were more likely to receive conditional marketing authorisation, have an orphan designation, have a single arm phase II pivotal trial and lower MCBS score. Subsequent indications had faster HTA coverage recommendation times in England and Canada. While the majority of first indications received HTA coverage recommendations across all settings, the proportion of subsequent indications with HTA coverage recommendations was lower and uptake varied considerably across settings. CONCLUSIONS: Discordance in the value of first versus subsequent indications can pose major challenges in systems that define price based on the initial indication. Current pricing and reimbursement systems generate significant fragmentation in the approval and availability of multi-indication products across settings.

Initial and supplementary indication approval of new targeted cancer drugs by the FDA, EMA, Health Canada, and TGA.

BACKGROUND: Previous research focused on the clinical evidence supporting new cancer drugs' initial US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. However, targeted drugs are increasingly approved for supplementary indications of unknown evidence and benefit. OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical trial evidence supporting new targeted cancer drugs' initial and supplementary indication approval in the US, EU, Canada, and Australia. DATA AND METHODS: 25 cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with FDA approval between 2009-2019. Data on regulatory approval and clinical trials were extracted from the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA), Health Canada (HC), Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and clinicaltrials.gov. Regional variations were compared with χ2-tests. Multivariate logistic regressions compared characteristics of initial and supplementary indication approvals, reporting adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Out of 100 considered cancer indications, the FDA approved 96, the EMA 92, HC 86, and the TGA 83 (83%, p < 0.05). The FDA more frequently granted priority review, conditional approval, and orphan designations than other agencies. Initial approvals were more likely to receive conditional / accelerated approval (AOR: 2.69, 95%CI [1.07-6.77], p < 0.05), an orphan designation (AOR: 3.32, 95%CI [1.38-8.00], p < 0.01), be under priority review (AOR: 2.60, 95%CI [1.17-5.78], p < 0.05), and be monotherapies (AOR: 5.91, 95%CI [1.14-30.65], p < 0.05) than supplementary indications. Initial indications' pivotal trials tended to be shorter (AOR per month: 0.96, 95%CI [0.93-0.99], p < 0.05), of lower phase design (AOR per clinical phase: 0.28, 95%CI [0.09-0.85], p < 0.05), and enroll more patients (AOR per 100 patients: 1.19, 95%CI [1.01-1.39], p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted cancer drugs are increasingly approved for multiple indications of varying clinical benefit. Drugs are first approved as monotherapies in rare diseases with a high unmet need. Whilst expedited regulatory review incentivizes this prioritization, indication-specific safety, efficacy, and pricing policies are necessary to reflect each indication's differential clinical and economic value.

Impact of Managed Entry Agreements on availability of and timely access to medicines: an ex-post evaluation of agreements implemented for oncology therapies in four countries.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increased utilisation of Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs), empirical studies assessing their impact on achieving better access to medicines remains scarce. In this study we evaluated the role of MEAs on enhancing availability of and timely access to a sample of oncology medicines that had received at least one prior rejection from reimbursement. METHODS: Funding decisions and their respective timelines for all oncology medicines approved between 2009 and 2018 in Australia, England, Scotland and Sweden were studied. A number of binary logit models captured the probability (Odds ratio (OR)) of a previous coverage rejection being reversed to positive after resubmission with vs. without a MEA. Gamma generalised linear models were used to understand if there is any association between time to final funding decision and the presence of MEA, among other decision-making variables, and if so, the strength and direction of this association (Beta coefficient (B)). RESULTS: Of the 59 previously rejected medicine-indication pairs studied, 88.2% (n = 45) received a favourable decision after resubmission with MEA vs. 11.8% (n = 6) without. Average time from original submission to final funding decision was 404 (± 254) and 452 (± 364) days for submissions without vs. with MEA respectively. Resubmissions with a MEA had a higher likelihood of receiving a favourable funding decision compared to those without MEA (43.36 < OR < 202, p < 0.05), although approval specifically with an outcomes-based agreement was associated with an increase in the time to final funding decision (B = 0.89, p < 0.01). A statistically significant decrease in time to final funding decision was observed for resubmissions in Australia and Scotland compared to England and Sweden, and for resubmissions with a clinically relevant instead of a surrogate endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: MEAs can improve availability of medicines by increasing the likelihood of reimbursement for medicines that would have otherwise remained rejected from reimbursement due to their evidentiary uncertainties. Nevertheless, approval with a MEA can increase the time to final funding decision, while the true, added value for patients and healthcare systems of the interventions approved with MEAs in comparison to other available interventions remains unknown.

Determinants of Managed Entry Agreements in the context of Health Technology Assessment: a comparative analysis of oncology therapies in four countries.

BACKGROUND: Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) are increasingly used to address uncertainties arising in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process due to immature evidence of new, high-cost medicines on their real-world performance and cost-effectiveness. The literature remains inconclusive on the HTA decision-making factors that influence the utilization of MEAs. We aimed to assess if the uptake of MEAs differs between countries and if so, to understand which HTA decision-making criteria play a role in determining such differences. METHODS: All oncology medicines approved since 2009 in Australia, England, Scotland, and Sweden were studied. Four categories of variables were collected from publicly available HTA reports of the above drugs: (i) Social Value Judgments (SVJs), (ii) Clinical/Economic evidence submitted, (iii) Interpretation of this evidence, and (iv) Funding decision. Conditional/restricted decisions were coded as Listed With Conditions (LWC) other than an MEA or LWC including an MEA (LWCMEA). Cohen's κ-scores measured the inter-rater agreement of countries on their LWCMEA outcomes and Pearson's chi-squared tests explored the association between HTA variables and LWCMEA outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 74 drug-indication pairs were found resulting in n = 296 observations; 8 percent (n = 23) were LWC and 55 percent (n = 163) were LWCMEA. A poor-to-moderate agreement existed between countries (-.29 < κ < .33) on LWCMEA decisions. Cross-country differences within the LWCMEA sample were partly driven by economic uncertainties and largely driven by SVJs considered across agencies. CONCLUSIONS: A set of HTA-related variables driving the uptake of MEAs across countries was identified. These findings can be useful in future research aimed at informing country-specific, "best-practice" guidelines for successful MEA implementation.

ICER Value Framework 2020 Update: Recommendations on the Aggregation of Benefits and Contextual Considerations.

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in the United States recently published a 2020 update to its value assessment framework. We are commenting on the method by which the benefits of health interventions are integrated, relating to contextual considerations and other factors relevant to an intervention's value. We start by discussing the theoretical foundations of decision analysis and its extension to multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Then we provide a detailed, evidence-based response to some of the claims made by ICER with regard to the use of MCDA methods and stakeholder engagement. Finally, we provide a number of recommendations on the use of quantitative decision analysis and decision conferencing that could be of relevance to the ICER methodology. Overall, we agree that some of the proposed changes by ICER are moving in the right direction toward improving transparency in the value assessment process, but these changes are probably inadequate. We advocate that more serious attention should be paid to the use of quantitative decision analysis together with decision conferencing for the construction of value preferences via group processes for the integration of an intervention's various benefit components.

Using IMPrESS to guide policy change in multiple sclerosis.

The International MultiPlE Sclerosis Study (IMPrESS) studied the significant impact of multiple sclerosis (MS) on the health and well-being of both people with the disease and their caregivers, along with its broader socioeconomic impact. Results confirmed that there is an urgent need to achieve better outcomes for people with MS. This paper uses results from the IMPrESS to present new international evidence on the socioeconomic burden of MS and discuss the merits of a likely paradigm shift in the management of MS towards the use of better (and more accurate) diagnostic follow-up to monitor disease progression and the earlier use of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) to achieve better clinical, quality-of-life and socioeconomic results for individuals.

Insights into the hepatocellular carcinoma patient journey: results of the first global quality of life survey.

AIM: To better understand the hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patient journey, we conducted a patient survey across 13 countries. METHODS: The survey included closed- and open-ended questions developed using an iterative process to gather information on demographics, diagnosis and treatment. Patients self-selected or were directed to the online survey by their doctor. RESULTS: A total of 256 patients completed the survey. More than two-thirds (68%) felt they did not receive enough information about HCC at diagnosis. Treatments included oral anticancer therapy, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), and selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT). A total of 81% receiving sorafenib, 45% receiving SIRT and 32% receiving TACE reported impaired quality-of-life (QoL). A total of 42, 19 and 0% of patients using sorafenib rated their current QoL as 'poor', 'good' and 'excellent', respectively; compared with SIRT (22, 33 and 6%) or TACE (11, 37 and 13%). CONCLUSION: Most patients with HCC require additional accessible information. People with incurable HCC require treatments that preserve QoL.

DIFFERENTIATION OF HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES BETWEEN FIVE DISEASE AREAS: RESULTS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF PATIENTS.

OBJECTIVES: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data generated by generic, preference-based instruments (i.e., EQ-5D) are highly demanded in health policy decision making, because they allow for direct comparisons of HRQoL outcomes between disease areas. We aimed to quantify HRQoL outcomes in breast cancer (BC), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), multiple sclerosis (MS), rare cancers (RC), and rare disease (RD) patients and understand the patterns that differentiate HRQoL outcomes between these disease areas, and more specifically between rare and more common disease population groups. METHODS: An international, Web survey of patients measured HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L), self-perceived health (EQ-5D-5L Visual Analogue Scale), and additional QoL dimensions, such as patient disability level. RESULTS: We received 675 completed responses. Average utility loss was 53.5 percent, 32.5 percent, and 33.3 percent for RD, RA, and MS patients, respectively, in contrast to 18.6 percent for BC and RC patients. Statistically significant differences (p < .05) were observed between disease groups in all EQ-5D-5L domain outcomes, apart from that of "Anxiety/Depression." Severe and/or extreme problems were reported in performing usual activities for RD and RC (34 percent and 13 percent of overall problems reported respectively), mobility for MS (18 percent), pain/discomfort for RA (13 percent), and anxiety/depression for BC (7 percent) patients. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated significant differences in the dimensions that drive HRQoL outcomes between rare and more common diseases and showcased that the same EQ-5D utility may reflect very different severities depending on the patient population under investigation. Future research should examine whether outcomes in other, critical HRQoL domains not included in generic measures also highlight significant differences across disease areas.

Comparing Generic Drug Markets in Europe and the United States: Prices, Volumes, and Spending.

Policy Points: Our study indicates that there are opportunities for cost savings in generic drug markets in Europe and the United States. Regulators should make it easier for generic drugs to reach the market. Regulators and payers should apply measures to stimulate price competition among generic drugmakers and to increase generic drug use. To meaningfully evaluate policy options, it is important to analyze historical context and understand why similar initiatives failed previously. CONTEXT: Rising drug prices are putting pressure on health care budgets. Policymakers are assessing how they can save money through generic drugs. METHODS: We compared generic drug prices and market shares in 13 European countries, using data from 2013, to assess the amount of variation that exists between countries. To place these results in context, we reviewed evidence from recent studies on the prices and use of generics in Europe and the United States. We also surveyed peer-reviewed studies, gray literature, and books published since 2000 to (1) outline existing generic drug policies in European countries and the United States; (2) identify ways to increase generic drug use and to promote price competition among generic drug companies; and (3) explore barriers to implementing reform of generic drug policies, using a historical example from the United States as a case study. FINDINGS: The prices and market shares of generics vary widely across Europe. For example, prices charged by manufacturers in Switzerland are, on average, more than 2.5 times those in Germany and more than 6 times those in the United Kingdom, based on the results of a commonly used price index. The proportion of prescriptions filled with generics ranges from 17% in Switzerland to 83% in the United Kingdom. By comparison, the United States has historically had low generic drug prices and high rates of generic drug use (84% in 2013), but has in recent years experienced sharp price increases for some off-patent products. There are policy solutions to address issues in Europe and the United States, such as streamlining the generic drug approval process and requiring generic prescribing and substitution where such policies are not yet in place. The history of substitution laws in the United States provides insights into the economic, political, and cultural issues influencing the adoption of generic drug policies. CONCLUSIONS: Governments should apply coherent supply- and demand-side policies in generic drug markets. An immediate priority is to convince more physicians, pharmacists, and patients that generic drugs are bioequivalent to branded products. Special-interest groups continue to obstruct reform in Europe and the United States.

Dealing with Uncertainty and Accounting for Social Value Judgments in Assessments of Orphan Drugs: Evidence from Four European Countries.

OBJECTIVES: To better understand the reasons for differences in reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs in four European countries that were not readily apparent from health technology assessment (HTA) reports and operating procedures. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with representatives of HTA bodies in England, Scotland, Sweden, and France were conducted. An interview topic guide was developed on the basis of findings from a systematic comparison of HTA decisions for 10 orphan drugs. Qualitative thematic data analysis was applied to the interview transcripts using the framework approach. RESULTS: Eight representatives from the four HTA bodies were interviewed between March and June 2015. Evidentiary requirements and approaches to dealing with imperfect or incomplete evidence were explored, including trial design and duration, study population and subgroups, comparators, and end points. Interviewees agreed that decisions regarding orphan drugs are made in a context of lower quality evidence, and the threshold of acceptable uncertainty varied by country. Some countries imposed higher evidentiary standards for greater clinical claims, which may be more challenging for orphan diseases. The acceptability of surrogate end points was not consistent across countries nor were the validation requirements. The most common social value judgments identified related to innovation, disease severity, and unmet need. Differences were seen in the way these concepts were defined and accounted for across countries. CONCLUSIONS: Although agreement was seen in evidentiary requirements or preferences, there were subtle differences in the circumstances in which uncertain evidence may be considered acceptable, possibly explaining differences in HTA recommendations across countries.

PARS PLANA VITRECTOMY FOR DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Synthesis of Safety Literature.

PURPOSE: To assess the risk and benefit of pars plana vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic literature review using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials until September 2014. The population was patients with diabetic macular edema, intervention vitrectomy, comparator macular laser or observation, and efficacy outcome visual acuity and central retinal thickness. Safety outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications. The efficacy meta-analysis included only randomized controlled trials. The safety analysis included prospective, retrospective, controlled, and uncontrolled studies. RESULTS: Five studies were eligible for the efficacy meta-analysis (n = 127 eyes) and 40 for the safety analysis (n = 1,562 eyes). Combining follow-up intervals from 6 to 12 months, the meta-analysis found a nonsignificant 2 letter visual acuity difference favoring vitrectomy, and a significant 102 µm greater reduction in central retinal thickness favoring vitrectomy, but a post hoc subgroup analysis found that a 6-month central retinal thickness benefit reversed by 12 months. The most frequent complications were retinal break (7.1%), elevated intraocular pressure (5.2%), epiretinal membrane (3.3%), and vitreous hemorrhage (2.4%). Cataract developed in 68.6% of 121 phakic eyes. CONCLUSION: Vitrectomy produces structural and functional improvements in select eyes with diabetic macular edema, but the visual gains are not significantly better than with laser or observation. No major safety concerns were identified.

A comparison of generic drug prices in seven European countries: a methodological analysis.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers and researchers frequently compare the prices of medicines between countries. Such comparisons often serve as barometers of how pricing and reimbursement policies are performing. The aim of this study was to examine methodological challenges to comparing generic drug prices. METHODS: We calculated all commonly used price indices based on 2013 IMS Health data on sales of 3156 generic drugs in seven European countries. RESULTS: There were large differences in generic drug prices between countries. However, the results varied depending on the choice of index, base country, unit of volume, method of currency conversion, and therapeutic category. The results also differed depending on whether one looked at the prices charged by manufacturers or those charged by pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: Price indices are a useful statistical approach for comparing drug prices across countries, but researchers and policymakers should interpret price indices with caution given their limitations. Price-index results are highly sensitive to the choice of method and sample. More research is needed to determine the drivers of price differences between countries. The data suggest that some governments should aim to reduce distribution costs for generic drugs.

Multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment: a simulation exercise on metastatic colorectal cancer with multiple stakeholders in the English setting.

BACKGROUND: Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has appeared as a methodology to address limitations of economic evaluation in health technology assessment (HTA), however there are limited empirical evidence from real world applications. The aim of this study is to test in practice a recently developed MCDA methodological framework known as Advance Value Framework (AVF) through a proof-of-concept case study engaging multiple stakeholders. METHODS: A multi-attribute value theory methodological process was adopted involving problem structuring, model building, model assessment and model appraisal phases. A facilitated decision analysis modelling approach was used as part of a decision conference with thirteen participants. An expanded scope of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) remit acted as the study setting with the use of supplementary value concerns. Second-line biological treatments were evaluated for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients having received prior chemotherapy, including cetuximab monotherapy, panitumumab monotherapy and aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI chemotherapy. Initially 18 criteria attributes were considered spanning four value domains relating to therapeutic impact, safety profile, innovation level and socioeconomic impact. RESULTS: Nine criteria attributes were finally included. Cetuximab scored the highest overall weighted preference value score of 45.7 out of 100, followed by panitumumab with 42.3, and aflibercept plus FOLFIRI with 14.4. The relative weights of the two most important criteria (overall survival and Grade 4 adverse events) added up to more than the relative weight of all other criteria together (52.1%). Main methodological limitation was the lack of comparative clinical effects across treatments and challenges included the selection of "lower" and "higher" reference levels on criteria attributes, eliciting preferences across attributes where participants had less experience, and ensuring that all attributes possess the right decision theory properties. CONCLUSIONS: This first application of AVF produced transparent rankings for three mCRC treatments based on their value, by assessing an explicit set of evaluation criteria while allowing for the elicitation and construction of participants' value preferences and their trade-offs. It proved it can aid the evaluation process and value communication of the alternative treatments for the group participants. Further research is needed to optimise its use as part of policy-making.

SCIENTIFIC AND SOCIAL VALUE JUDGMENTS FOR ORPHAN DRUGS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT.

OBJECTIVES: We explore how broader aspects of a treatment's value and the impact of the condition on patients not captured by routine health technology assessment (HTA) methods using clinical and economic evidence, defined as "other considerations," may influence HTA processes in different settings. METHODS: Countries included were England, Scotland, Sweden, and France. Data sources were the publicly available reports on HTA recommendations. Ten drugs with European Medicines Agency orphan designation and appraised in England were selected. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to systematically identify and code all "other considerations" based on a previously developed methodological framework, which also coded whether it was provided by stakeholders, and how it influenced the decision. RESULTS: A classification framework of scientific and social value judgments was developed and used throughout the study. A total of 125 "other considerations" were identified and grouped into ten subcategories based on the information provided. Eighteen to 100 percent of these, depending on the agency, were put forward as one of the main reasons for the final decision potentially contributing to accepting a higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or uncertain evidence. Some of these were nonquantified or nonelicited and pertained to the assessor's judgment. A taxonomy of these value judgments was created to be used in future cases. Results also contributed to better defining the determinants of social value and improving accountability for reasonableness. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic identification of the scientific and social value judgments enables to better understanding the dimensions of value, which can be used to improve their transparency and consistent use across decisions and settings.

Socioeconomic costs and health-related quality of life in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a cost-of-illness study in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) refers to a number of rare chronic inflammatory diseases. Although JIA imposes a significant societal burden, limited data are available on the cost of JIA. The study's objective is to quantify the socioeconomic burden of JIA patients in the United Kingdom (UK), along with their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: A bottom-up, cross-sectional, cost-of-illness analysis of 23 patients was carried out. To collect data on demographic characteristics, health resource utilization, informal care, productivity losses and HRQoL, questionnaires were administered to and completed by patients or their caregivers. The EuroQol five dimensions (EQ-5D) instrument was used to measure HRQoL. RESULTS: This study found that the average annual cost for a JIA patient was €31,546, with direct health care costs equalling €14,509 (46.0 % of total costs), direct non-health care costs amounting to €8,323 (26.4 %) and productivity losses being €8,715 (27.6 %). This was calculated using unit costs for 2012. The largest expenditures on average were accounted for by early retirement (27.0 %), followed by informal care (24.1 %), medications (21.1 %), outpatient and primary health care visits (13.2 %) and diagnostic tests (7.9 %). Important differences existed between JIA patients in need of caregiver assistance and those with no need (€39,469 vs. €25,452 respectively). Among adult JIA patients, mean EQ-5D index scores and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were found to be 0.26 and 49.00 respectively; the same scores among caregivers were 0.66 and 67.14 respectively. CONCLUSION: JIA poses a significant cost burden on the UK society. Over half of the total average costs (54 %) are related to non-health care and productivity losses. HRQoL of JIA patients is considerably worse than the UK general population.

Mapping research activity on mental health disorders in Europe: study protocol for the Mapping_NCD project.

BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders (MHDs) constitute a large and growing disease burden in Europe, although they typically receive less attention and research funding than other non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study protocol describes a methodology for the mapping of MHD research in Europe as part of Mapping_NCD, a 2-year project funded by the European Commission which seeks to map European research funding and impact for five NCDs in order to identify potential gaps, overlaps, synergies and opportunities, and to develop evidence-based policies for future research. METHODS: The project aims to develop a multi-focal view of the MHD research landscape across the 28 European Union Member States, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, through a survey of European funding entities, analysis of research initiatives undertaken in the public, voluntary/not-for-profit and commercial sectors, and expert interviews to contextualize the gathered data. The impact of MHD research will be explored using bibliometric analyses of scientific publications, clinical guidelines and newspaper stories reporting on research initiatives. Finally, these research inputs and outputs will be considered in light of various metrics that have been proposed to inform priorities for the allocation of research funds, including burden of disease, treatment gaps and cost of illness. DISCUSSION: Given the growing burden of MHDs, a clear and broad view of the current state of MHD research is needed to ensure that limited resources are directed to evidence-based priority areas. MHDs pose a particular challenge in mapping the research landscape due to their complex nature, high co-morbidity and varying diagnostic criteria. Undertaking such an effort across 31 countries is further challenged by differences in data collection, healthcare systems, reimbursement rates and clinical practices, as well as cultural and socioeconomic diversity. Using multiple methods to explore the spectrum of MHD research funding activity across Europe, this project aims to develop a broad, high-level perspective to inform priority setting for future research.

Transitioning to a national health system in Cyprus: a stakeholder analysis of pharmaceutical policy reform.

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmaceutical sector in Cyprus in terms of the availability and affordability of medicines and to explore pharmaceutical policy options for the national health system finance reform expected to be introduced in 2016. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews in April 2014 with senior representatives from seven key national organizations involved in pharmaceutical care. The captured data were coded and analysed using the predetermined themes of pricing, reimbursement, prescribing, dispensing and cost sharing. We also examined secondary data provided by the Cypriot Ministry of Health; these data included the prices and volumes of prescription medicines in 2013. FINDINGS: We identified several key issues, including high medicine prices, underuse of generic medicines and high out-of-pocket drug spending. Most stakeholders recommended that the national government review existing pricing policies to ensure medicines within the forthcoming national health system are affordable and available, introduce a national reimbursement system and incentivize the prescribing and dispensing of generic medicines. There were disagreements over how to (i) allocate responsibilities to governmental agencies in the national health system, (ii) reconcile differences in opinion between stakeholders and (iii) raise awareness among patients, physicians and pharmacists about the benefits of greater generic drug use. CONCLUSION: In Cyprus, if the national health system is going to provide universal health coverage in a sustainable fashion, then the national government must address the current issues in the pharmaceutical sector. Importantly, the country will need to increase the market share of generic medicines to contain drug spending.