EXPLORING VALUES OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AGENCIES USING REFLECTIVE MULTICRITERIA AND RARE DISEASE CASE.

OBJECTIVES: Tackling ethical dilemmas faced by reimbursement decision makers requires deeper understanding of values on which health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are founded and how trade-offs are made. This was explored in this study including the case of rare disease. METHODS: Representatives from eight HTA explored values on which institutions are founded using a narrative approach and reflective multicriteria (developed from EVIDEM, criteria derived from ethical imperatives of health care). Trade-offs between criteria and the impact of incorporating defined priorities (including for rare diseases) were explored through a quantitative values elicitation exercise. RESULTS: Participants reported a diversity of substantive and procedural values with a common emphasis on scientific excellence, stakeholder involvement, independence, and transparency. Examining the ethical imperatives behind EVIDEM criteria was found to be useful to further explore substantive values. Most criteria were deemed to reflect institutions' values, while 70 percent of the criteria were reported by at least half of participants to be considered formally by their institutions. The quantitative values elicitation highlighted the difficulty to balance imperatives of "alleviating or preventing patient suffering," "serving the whole population equitably," "upholding healthcare system sustainability," and "making decisions informed by evidence and context" but may help share the ethical reasoning behind decisions. Incorporating "Priorities" (including for rare diseases) helped reveal trade-offs from other criteria and their underlying ethical imperatives. CONCLUSIONS: Reflective multicriteria are useful to explore substantive values of HTAs, reflect how these values and their ethical underpinnings can be operationalized into criteria, and explore the ethical reasoning at the heart of the healthcare debate.

Systematic literature review of neutralizing antibody immune responses to non-vaccine targeted high-risk HPV types induced by the bivalent and the quadrivalent vaccines.

INTRODUCTION: Studies on the cross-protective effect of HPV bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines demonstrated inconsistent findings against additional HPV types covered by the nonavalent vaccine. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review to assess the consistency and durability of the cross-protective neutralizing antibody immune responses of the currently licensed bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines to non-vaccine HPV types targeted by the nonavalent vaccine (HPV 6, 11, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58). METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched from 2008 to 2019 to identify studies reporting antibody/immune response after vaccination with either the bivalent, quadrivalent, or nonavalent vaccine. Key outcomes were seroconversion, seropositivity or geometric mean titers against HPV types 6, 11, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. RESULTS: Eighteen publications met inclusion criteria, reporting on 14 interventional and five observational studies. Across all studies, immune responses to non-vaccine high-risk HPV types after bivalent vaccination were higher than baseline or quadrivalent vaccine. Nonavalent vaccine elicited near total seroconversion to HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, with seropositivity remaining near 100% up to 24 months post-dose 1. In contrast, bivalent and quadrivalent vaccination resulted in lower seroconversion levels for non-vaccine types, which waned over time. CONCLUSIONS: The cross-protection antibody/immune response among participants having received all three doses of bivalent or quadrivalent vaccine is not comparable to the specific response elicited by HPV vaccine types. Even in cases where a statistically significant cross-reactive immunological response is reported, long-term data on the duration of the response beyond two years are very limited. Further, the lack of a standard for assays limits comparability of results between studies.

Systematic literature review of cross-protective effect of HPV vaccines based on data from randomized clinical trials and real-world evidence.

BACKGROUND: The extent of cross-protection provided by currently licensed bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines versus direct protection against HPV 31-, 33-, 45-, 52-, and 58-related disease is debated. A systematic literature review was conducted to establish the duration and magnitude of cross-protection in interventional and observational studies. METHODS: PubMed and Embase databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies published between 2008 and 2019 reporting on efficacy and effectiveness of HPV vaccines in women against non-vaccine types 31, 33, 45, 52, 58, and 6 and 11 (non-bivalent types). Key outcomes of interest were vaccine efficacy against 6- and 12-month persistent infection or genital lesions, and type-specific genital HPV prevalence or incidence. RCT data were analyzed for the according-to-protocol (bivalent vaccine) or negative-for-14-HPV-types (quadrivalent vaccine) efficacy cohorts. RESULTS: Data from 23 RCTs and 33 observational studies evaluating cross-protection were extracted. RCTs assessed cross-protection in post-hoc analyses of small size subgroups. Among fully vaccinated, baseline HPV-naïve women, the bivalent vaccine showed statistically significant cross-protective efficacy, although with wide confidence intervals, against 6-month and 12-month persistent cervical infections and CIN2+ only consistently for HPV 31 and 45, with the highest effect observed for HPV 31 (range 64.6% [95% CI: 27.6 to 83.9] to 79.1% [97.7% CI: 27.6 to 95.9] for 6-month persistent infection; maximal follow-up 4.7 years). No cross-protection was shown in extended follow-up. The quadrivalent vaccine efficacy reached statistical significance for HPV 31 (46.2% [15.3-66.4]; follow-up: 3.6 years). Similarly, observational studies found consistently significant effectiveness only against HPV 31 and 45 with both vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: RCTs and observational studies show that cross-protection is inconsistent across non-vaccine HPV types and is largely driven by HPV 31 and 45. Furthermore, existing data suggest that it wanes over time; its long-term durability has not been established.

Development of a Framework Based on Reflective MCDA to Support Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making: The Case of the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Well- or moderately differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are often slow-growing, and some patients with unresectable, asymptomatic, non-functioning tumors may face the choice between watchful waiting (WW), or somatostatin analogues (SSA) to delay progression. We developed a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to help patients and physicians clarify their values and preferences, consider each decision criterion, and support communication and shared decision-making. METHODS: The framework was adapted from a generic MCDA framework (EVIDEM) with patient and clinician input. During a workshop, patients and clinicians expressed their individual values and preferences (criteria weights) and, on the basis of two scenarios (treatment vs WW; SSA-1 [lanreotide] vs SSA-2 [octreotide]) with evidence from a literature review, expressed how consideration of each criterion would impact their decision in favor of either option (score), and shared their knowledge and insights verbally and in writing. RESULTS: The framework included benefit-risk criteria and modulating factors, such as disease severity, quality of evidence, costs, and constraints. Overall and progression-free survival being most important, criteria weights ranged widely, highlighting variations in individual values and the need to share them. Scoring and considering each criterion prompted a rich exchange of perspectives and uncovered individual assumptions and interpretations. At the group level, type of benefit, disease severity, effectiveness, and quality of evidence favored treatment; cost aspects favored WW (scenario 1). For scenario 2, most criteria did not favor either option. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and clinicians consider many aspects in decision-making. The MCDA framework provided a common interpretive frame to structure this complexity, support individual reflection, and share perspectives. FUNDING: Ipsen Pharma.