Clinical benefit, reimbursement outcomes, and prices of FDA-approved cancer drugs reviewed through Project Orbis in the USA, Canada, England, and Scotland: a retrospective, comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Project Orbis is a global initiative that aims to streamline regulatory review processes across international regulators in the USA, Canada, Australia, UK, Israel, Brazil, Singapore, and Switzerland to bring promising cancer drugs to patients earlier. We explored the clinical benefit, time to regulatory approval and health technology assessment recommendations, reimbursement outcomes, and monthly treatment prices of cancer drugs reviewed through this initiative. METHODS: For this retrospective, comparative analysis, we identified cancer drug approvals reviewed through Project Orbis in the USA, Canada, and the UK between May 1, 2019, and Nov 1, 2023. Approvals of cancer drugs reviewed Project Orbis were extracted from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncology Centre of Excellence and all other FDA approvals from the Drugs@FDA database. The co-primary outcomes were time of regulatory review, time from regulatory approval to health technology assessment recommendation (England, Scotland, and Canada), reimbursement outcomes, clinical benefit (defined as median gains in progression-free survival and overall survival) between cancer drug approvals reviewed by Project Orbis and other FDA approval processes, and monthly treatment prices. The Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's Exact tests were used to examine statistical significance between approvals reviewed through Project Orbis and other FDA approvals during the same period. FINDINGS: Between May 1, 2019 and Nov 1, 2023, 81 (33%) of 244 cancer drugs approved by the FDA were reviewed through Project Orbis. The median overall survival gains were 4·1 months (IQR 3·3-5·1) compared with 2·7 months (2·1-3·9) for other FDA approvals. Similarly, progression-free survival gains were 2·6 months (IQR 1·7-4·9) for Project Orbis compared with 2·6 months (0·6-5·1) for other FDA approvals. Neither overall survival (p=0·11) nor progression-free survival (p=0·44) gains were significantly different between the two cohorts of approvals. Of the 14 UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approvals reviewed by the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), the agency gave positive recommendations for all 14 (100%). Of the 15 MHRA approvals reviewed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the agency gave positive recommendations for six (40%). Of the 49 approvals reviewed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), the agency conditionally recommended 44 (90%). The time between regulatory approval to NICE recommendation increased from a median of 137 days (IQR 102-172) in 2021 to 302 days (184-483) in 2023, SMC recommendation increased from 185 days (in 2021 for one drug only) to 368 days (IQR 313-476) in 2023, and CADTH decision increased from 97 days (in 2020 for one drug only) to 202 days (IQR 153-304) in 2023. The median monthly price of approvals reviewed through Project Orbis was US$20 000 per month (IQR 13 000-37 000). INTERPRETATION: Clinical outcomes of Project Orbis were no different than other FDA approvals during the same time, and access, after a successful health technology assessment, was considerably delayed or absent, raising questions about whether Project Orbis participation translates into faster patient access to medicines with high clinical benefit and sustainable costs. Although future challenges might benefit from regulatory harmonisation, the advantages are currently unclear. FUNDING: None.

Effectiveness of Conventional Digital Fundus Photography-Based Teleretinal Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: This American Academy of Ophthalmology Ophthalmic Technology Assessment aims to assess the effectiveness of conventional teleretinal screening (TS) in detecting diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed database was conducted most recently in July 2023 to identify data published between 2006 and 2023 on any of the following elements related to TS effectiveness: (1) the accuracy of TS in detecting DR or DME compared with traditional ophthalmic screening with dilated fundus examination or 7-standard field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study photography, (2) the impact of TS on DR screening compliance rates or other patient behaviors, and (3) cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction of TS compared with traditional DR screening. Identified studies then were rated based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine grading system. RESULTS: Eight level I studies, 14 level II studies, and 2 level III studies were identified in total. Although cross-study comparison is challenging because of differences in reference standards and grading methods, TS demonstrated acceptable sensitivity and good specificity in detecting DR; moderate to good agreement between TS and reference-standard DR grading was observed. Performance of TS was not as robust in detecting DME, although the number of studies evaluating DME specifically was limited. Two level I studies, 5 level II studies, and 1 level III study supported that TS had a positive impact on overall DR screening compliance, even increasing it by more than 2-fold in one study. Studies assessing cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction were not graded formally, but they generally showed that TS was cost-effective and preferred by patients over traditional surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional TS is an effective approach to DR screening not only for its accuracy in detecting referable-level disease, but also for improving screening compliance in a cost-effective manner that may be preferred by patients. Further research is needed to elucidate the ideal approach of TS that may involve integration of artificial intelligence or other imaging technologies in the future. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Artificial intelligence support in MR imaging of incidental renal masses: an early health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzes the potential cost-effectiveness of integrating an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted system into the differentiation of incidental renal lesions as benign or malignant on MR images during follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For estimation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime costs, a decision model was created, including the MRI strategy and MRI + AI strategy. Model input parameters were derived from recent literature. Willingness to pay (WTP) was set to $100,000/QALY. Costs of $0 for the AI were assumed in the base-case scenario. Model uncertainty and costs of the AI system were assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Average total costs were at $8054 for the MRI strategy and $7939 for additional use of an AI-based algorithm. The model yielded a cumulative effectiveness of 8.76 QALYs for the MRI strategy and of 8.77 for the MRI + AI strategy. The economically dominant strategy was MRI + AI. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed high robustness of the model with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which represents the incremental cost associated with one additional QALY gained, remaining below the WTP for variation of the input parameters. If increasing costs for the algorithm, the ICER of $0/QALY was exceeded at $115, and the defined WTP was exceeded at $667 for the use of the AI. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis, rooted in assumptions, suggests that the additional use of an AI-based algorithm may be a potentially cost-effective alternative in the differentiation of incidental renal lesions using MRI and needs to be confirmed in the future. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: These results hint at AI's the potential impact on diagnosing renal masses. While the current study urges careful interpretation, ongoing research is essential to confirm and seamlessly integrate AI into clinical practice, ensuring its efficacy in routine diagnostics. KEY POINTS: • This is a model-based study using data from literature where AI has been applied in the diagnostic workup of incidental renal lesions. • MRI + AI has the potential to be a cost-effective alternative in the differentiation of incidental renal lesions. • The additional use of AI can reduce costs in the diagnostic workup of incidental renal lesions.

Uncertainty in Long-Term Relative Effectiveness of Medicines in Health Technology Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Uncertainty regarding the long-term relative effectiveness is an important factor in health technology assessment (HTA) of medicines. This study investigated how different HTA bodies address this uncertainty in their assessments. METHODS: A total of 49 HTA reports from 6 national HTA bodies, assessing 9 medicines for spinal muscular atrophy, cystic fibrosis, and hypercholesterolemia, were included. In these reports, 81 relative effectiveness assessments and 45 cost-effectiveness assessments were performed on an indication level. We collected information on included trials, assessment outcomes, uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness, proposed managed entry agreements, and reassessments. RESULTS: Uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness was an important consideration in almost all cost-effectiveness assessments (91%) and three-quarters of relative effectiveness assessments (74%), despite differences in methodologies among HTA bodies. There were considerable differences in the amount and type of long-term effectiveness data included by HTA bodies due to timing and inclusion criteria. In total 23 managed entry agreements were proposed of which 14 were linked to uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness. In addition, 13 reassessments were performed of which 4 led to an increase in patient access because of more available long-term effectiveness data. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness is an important challenge for HTA bodies. There are large differences in the acceptance of evidence among HTA bodies, which leads to heterogeneity in the inclusion of available long-term effectiveness data for decision making. In cases with large uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness, outcome-based agreements and reassessments are used by HTA bodies, but differently between HTA bodies and indications.

Guiding Principles for Evaluating Vaccines in Joint Health Technology Assessment in the European Union: Preparing for the European Union's Regulation on Health Technology Assessment for Vaccines.

OBJECTIVES: The appraisal of vaccines in the European Union (EU) currently involves many different decision-making bodies and processes. The objective of this study was to help inform the development of standardized methodology and vaccine-specific processes for use in the EU Regulation on health technology assessment (HTA). METHODS: Literature reviews and expert consultation were conducted to identify current practices and gaps related to vaccine appraisals and to develop guiding principles for the joint clinical assessment of vaccines. RESULTS: We found that significant variation exists across the EU member states in the decision-making processes when clinically evaluating vaccines. Three guiding principles consisting of 13 recommendations were developed to help inform the development of decision-making frameworks for the joint clinical assessment of vaccines in the EU: (1) support the creation of appropriate terminology and measurements for clinical appraisals of vaccines; (2) develop inclusive, timely, and transparent vaccine appraisal processes to support stronger evidence generation for vaccine decision making and appraisal; and (3) improve the collection and interoperability of real-world data, including robust surveillance, to foster evidence generation and support the standardization of vaccine clinical appraisals. CONCLUSIONS: Given the significance of vaccines for public health, there is an urgency to develop standardized and vaccine-specific methodologies and processes for use in the EU joint HTA framework. The proposed guiding principles could support the effective implementation of the EU Regulation on HTA for vaccines and have the potential to ensure consistent, transparent, and timely access to new vaccines in the EU.

Opportunities and Challenges for Decentralized Clinical Trial Approaches: European Health Technology Assessment Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Decentralized clinical trial (DCT) approaches are clinical trials in which some or all trial activities take place closer to participants' proximities instead of a traditional investigative site. Data from DCTs may be used for clinical and economic evaluations by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to support reimbursement decision making. This study aimed to explore the opportunities and challenges for DCT approaches from an HTA perspective by interviewing representatives from European HTA bodies. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 25 European HTA representatives between September 2022 and February 2023, and transcripts were analyzed after thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two main themes were identified from the data relating to (1) DCT approaches in HTA and (2) trial-level acceptance and relevance. Experience with assessing DCTs was limited and a variety of knowledge about DCTs was observed. The respondents recognized the opportunity of DCTs to reduce recall bias when participant-reported outcome data can be collected more frequently and conveniently from home. Concerns were expressed about the data quality when participants become responsible for data collection. Despite this challenge, the respondents recognized the potential of DCTs to increase the generalizability of results because data can be collected in a setting reflective of the everyday situation potentially from a more diverse participant group. CONCLUSIONS: DCTs could generate relevant results for HTA decision making when data are collected in a real-world setting from a diverse participant group. Increased awareness of the opportunities and challenges could help HTA assessors in their appraisal of DCT approaches.

It Is Time to Reconsider the 3% Discount Rate.

OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessment (HTA) guidance often recommends a 3% real annual discount rate, the appropriateness of which has received limited attention. This article seeks to identify an appropriate rate for high-income countries because it can influence projected cost-effectiveness and hence resource allocation recommendations. METHODS: The author conducted 2 Pubmed.gov searches. The first sought articles on the theory for selecting a rate. The second sought HTA guidance documents. RESULTS: The first search yielded 21 articles describing 2 approaches. The "Ramsey Equation" sums contributions by 4 factors: pure time preference, catastrophic risk, wealth effect, and macroeconomic risk. The first 3 factors increase the discount rate because they indicate future impacts are less important, whereas the last, suggesting greater future need, decreases the discount rate. A fifth factor-project-specific risk-increases the discount rate but does not appear in the Ramsey Equation. Market interest rates represent a second approach for identifying a discount rate because they represent competing investment returns and hence opportunity costs. The second search identified HTA guidelines for 32 high-income countries. Twenty-two provide no explicit rationale for their recommended rates, 8 appeal to market interest rates, 3 to consistency, and 3 to Ramsey Equation factors. CONCLUSIONS: Declining consumption growth and real interest rates imply HTA guidance should reduce recommended discount rates to 1.5 to 2+%. This change will improve projected cost-effectiveness for therapies with long-term benefits and increase the impact of accounting for long-term drug price dynamics, including reduced prices attending loss of market exclusivity.

Treatment Effect Waning Assumptions: A Review of National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to review the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology assessments to gain insights into the implementation of treatment effect (TE) 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 October 20, 2021 to September 20, 2023 were reviewed and data extracted on TE waning circumstances, methods, and rationale to compile a database based on 3 research questions: When are TE waning assumptions used? What methods are used? Why have the company/Evidence Assessment Group/committee preferred these methods? RESULTS: Both the evidence assessment group/company and the committee included TE 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 out of 59 (50.8%) of the methods applied used 5 years. Stopping rules were used in 21 out of 30 (70.1%) of the appraisals for which the committee included waning, and waning assumptions were used more in oncology. The most common reason given for including TE waning assumptions was precedent from prior appraisals. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable heterogeneity existed in both the methods used and justifications given for TE waning assumptions. This variability poses a risk of inconsistent decision making. Reliance on past appraisals emphasizes the necessity to advocate for evidence-driven approaches and underscores the demand for guidance on suitable methods for incorporating assumptions.

How Do the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's Assessments of Comparative Effectiveness Compare With the German Federal Joint Committee's Assessments of Added Benefit? A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's (ICER) ratings of comparative clinical effectiveness with the German Federal Joint Committee's (G-BA) added benefit ratings, and explored what factors may explain the disagreement between the 2 organizations. METHODS: We included drugs if they were assessed by ICER under its 2020 to 2023 Value Assessment Framework and had a corresponding assessment by G-BA as of January 2024 for the same indication, patient population, and comparator drug. To compare assessments, we modified ICER's proposed crosswalk between G-BA and ICER benefit ratings to account for G-BA's certainty ratings. We also determined whether each pair was based on similar evidence. Assessment pairs exhibiting disagreement based on the modified crosswalk despite a similar evidence base were qualitatively analyzed to identify reasons for disagreement. RESULTS: Out of 15 drug assessment pairs matched on indication, patient subgroup, and comparator, none showed agreement in their assessments when based on similar evidence. Disagreement was attributed to differences in evidence evaluation, including evaluations of safety, generalizability, and study design, as well as G-BA's rejection of the available evidence in 4 cases as unsuitable. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate that even under conditions where populations and comparators are identical and the evidence base is consistent, different assessors may arrive at divergent conclusions about comparative effectiveness, thus underscoring the presence of value judgments within assessments of clinical effectiveness. To support initiatives that seek to facilitate the exchange of value assessments between countries, these value judgments should always be transparently presented and justified in assessment summaries.

Acceptability of Using Real-World Data to Estimate Relative Treatment Effects in Health Technology Assessments: Barriers and Future Steps.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence about the comparative effects of new treatments is typically collected in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In some instances, RCTs are not possible, or their value is limited by an inability to capture treatment effects over the longer term or in all relevant population subgroups. In these cases, nonrandomized studies (NRS) using real-world data (RWD) are increasingly used to complement trial evidence on treatment effects for health technology assessment (HTA). However, there have been concerns over a lack of acceptability of this evidence by HTA agencies. This article aims to identify the barriers to the acceptance of NRS and steps that may facilitate increases in the acceptability of NRS in the future. METHODS: Opinions of the authorship team based on their experience in real-world evidence research in academic, HTA, and industry settings, supported by a critical assessment of existing studies. RESULTS: Barriers were identified that are applicable to key stakeholder groups, including HTA agencies (eg, the lack of comprehensive methodological guidelines for using RWD), evidence generators (eg, avoidable deviations from best practices), and external stakeholders (eg, data controllers providing timely access to high-quality RWD). Future steps that may facilitate future acceptability of NRS include improvements in the quality, integration, and accessibility of RWD, wider use of demonstration projects to highlight the value and applicability of nonrandomized designs, living, and more detailed HTA guidelines, and improvements in HTA infrastructure relating to RWD. CONCLUSION: NRS can represent a crucial source of evidence on treatment effects for use in HTA when RCT evidence is limited.

A Tutorial on Value-Based Adaptive Designs: Could a Value-Based Sequential 2-Arm Design Have Created More Health Economic Value for the Big CACTUS Trial?

OBJECTIVES: Value-based trials aim to maximize the expected net benefit by balancing technology adoption decisions and clinical trial costs. Adaptive trials offer additional efficiency. This article provides guidance on determining whether a value-based sequential design is the best option for an adaptive 2-arm trial, illustrated through a case study. METHODS: We outlined 4 steps for the value-based sequential approach. The case study re-evaluates the Big CACTUS trial design using pilot trial data and a model-based health economic analysis. Expected net benefit is computed for (1) original fixed design, (2) value-based design with fixed sample size, and (3) optimal value-based sequential design with adaptive stopping. We compare pretrial modeling with the actual Big CACTUS trial results. RESULTS: Over 10 years, the adoption decision would affect approximately 215 378 patients. Pretrial modeling shows that the expected net benefit minus costs are (1) £102 million for the original fixed design, (2) £107 million (+5.3% higher) for the value-based design with optimal fixed sample size, and (3) £109 million (+6.7% higher) for the optimal value-based sequential design with maximum sample size of 435 per arm. Post hoc analysis using actual Big CACTUS trial data indicates that the value-adaptive trial with a maximum sample size of 95 participant pairs would not have stopped early. Bootstrap simulations reveal a 9.76% probability of early completion with n = 95 pairs compared with 31.50% with n = 435 pairs. CONCLUSIONS: The 4-step approach to value-based sequential 2-arm design with adaptive stopping was successfully implemented. Further application of value-based adaptive approaches could be useful to assess the efficiency of alternative study designs.

The Inflation Reduction Act: An Opportunity to Accelerate Confidence in Real-World Evidence in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), enacted in 2022, brings substantial reforms to the US healthcare system, particularly regarding Medicare. A key aspect includes the introduction of Medicare price negotiation. The objective of this commentary is to explore the implications of the IRA for US pharmaceutical companies, with a specific focus on the role of real-world evidence (RWE) in the context of Medicare reforms. METHODS: This commentary uses a qualitative analysis of the IRA's provisions related to healthcare and pharmaceutical regulation, focusing on how these reforms change the evidence requirements for pharmaceutical companies. It discusses the methodological aspects of generating and using RWE, including techniques such as target trial emulation and quantitative bias analysis methods to address biases inherent in RWE. RESULTS: This commentary highlights that the IRA introduces a unique approach to value assessment in the United States by evaluating drug value several years after launch, as opposed to at launch, similar to health technology assessments in other regions. It underscores the central role of RWE in comparing drug effectiveness across diverse clinical scenarios to improve the accuracy of real-world data comparisons. Furthermore, this article identifies key methodologies for managing the inherent biases in RWE, which are crucial for generating credible evidence for IRA price negotiations. CONCLUSIONS: This article underscores the importance of these methodologies in ensuring credible evidence for IRA price negotiations. It advocates for an integrated approach in evidence generation, positioning RWE as pivotal for informed pricing discussions in the US healthcare landscape.

Toward the Implementation of a Value Framework for Diagnostic Technologies: Operationalization, Piloting, and Validation in Latin America.

OBJECTIVES: In 2020, a group of 30 stakeholders from Latin America established 15 criteria for a diagnostic technologies value framework (D-VF) to help assess and inform decisions on diagnostic technologies. This article aims to present the operationalization, piloting, and initial validation of the framework for its implementation. METHODS: This work was carried out collaboratively with a variety of stakeholders. Three sequential phases were undertaken: (1) operationalization of the D-VF through a literature search for conceptual definitions and assessment tools, (2) piloting of the D-VF through a rapid health technology assessment document applying the methodology of the framework, and (3) a face validation process conducted through a virtual workshop, where usefulness and implementation aspects of the framework were assessed. RESULTS: The operationalization of the framework was conducted, and a methodological user guide was published. The D-VF criteria were applied in a health technology assessment document on human papilloma virus testing in cervical cancer screening. Also, an open-access training program was developed. Stakeholders agreed on the usefulness of the D-VF for assessment and decision-making stages of diagnostic technologies. However, they highlighted the need to improve technical capacities and the potential for added complexity when applying a D-VF with many criteria. The absence of an established value framework for diagnostic technologies in Latin America and the potential for strengthening technical capacities made the project valuable to those involved. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic technologies value framework was shown to be fit for implementation in real-life decision-making settings after the operationalization, piloting, and initial validation phases. Further experiences are important to support its implementation.

Mapping Health Technology Assessment Agency Approaches for Biosimilar Value Assessment: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic literature review undertaken by the ISPOR Biosimilar Special Interest Group highlighted that limited guidance exists on how to assess biosimilars value and on appropriate economic evaluation techniques. This study described current health technology assessment (HTA) agency approaches for biosimilar value assessment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (n = 16) were carried out with HTA experts in Africa, America, Asia, Australia, and Europe to investigate current HTA practices for biosimilars. Data categorization was based on a thematic analysis approach. Findings from the qualitative data analysis were interpreted in view of relevant published literature. RESULTS: Our research suggests that in systems in which frameworks for biosimilar regulatory approval are well established, HTA agencies can accept the regulators' comparability exercise, and reimbursement decisions can generally be based on price comparisons. This approach is accepted in practice and allows streamlining of biosimilars value assessment. Nevertheless, conducting HTAs for biosimilars can be relevant when (1) the originator is not reimbursed, (2) the biosimilar marketing authorization holder seeks reimbursement for indications/populations, pharmaceutical forms, methods and routes of administration that differ with respect to the originator, and (3) a price premium is sought for a biosimilar based on an added-value claim. Further, HTA agencies' role conducting class-review updates following biosimilar availability can support greater patients' access to biologics. CONCLUSIONS: Internationally, there are differences in how national competent authorities on pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals perceive HTA's role for biosimilars. Therefore, HTA agencies are encouraged to issue clear guidance on when and how to conduct HTAs for biosimilars, and on which economic techniques to apply.

Development of a Value Assessment Framework for Pediatric Health Technologies Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis: Expanding the Value Lens for Funding Decision Making.

OBJECTIVES: A health technology assessment (HTA) does not systematically account for the circumstances and needs of children and youth. To supplement HTA processes, we aimed to develop a child-tailored value assessment framework using a multicriteria decision analysis approach. METHODS: We constructed a multicriteria-decision-analysis-based model in multiple phases to create the Comprehensive Assessment of Technologies for Child Health (CATCH) framework. Using a modified Delphi process with stakeholders having broad disciplinary and geographic variation (N = 23), we refined previously generated criteria and developed rank-based weights. We established a criterion-pertinent scoring rubric for assessing incremental benefits of new drugs. Three clinicians independently assessed comprehension by pilotscoring 9 drugs. We then validated CATCH for 2 childhood cancer therapies through structured deliberation with an expert panel (N = 10), obtaining individual scores, consensus scores, and verbal feedback. Analyses included descriptive statistics, thematic analysis, exploratory disagreement indices, and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The modified Delphi process yielded 10 criteria, based on absolute importance/relevance and agreed importance (median disagreement indices = 0.34): Effectiveness, Child-specific Health-related Quality of Life, Disease Severity, Unmet Need, Therapeutic Safety, Equity, Family Impacts, Life-course Development, Rarity, and Fair Share of Life. Pilot scoring resulted in adjusted criteria definitions and more precise score-scaling guidelines. Validation panelists endorsed the framework's key modifiers of value. Modes of their individual prescores aligned closely with deliberative consensus scores. CONCLUSIONS: We iteratively developed a value assessment framework that captures dimensions of child-specific health and nonhealth gains. CATCH could improve the richness and relevance of HTA decision making for children in Canada and comparable health systems.

Methods to Include Environmental Impacts in Health Economic Evaluations and Health Technology Assessments: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: The environmental impacts of healthcare are important factors that should be considered during health technology assessments. This study aims to summarize the evidence that exists about methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments. METHODS: We identified records for screening using an existing scoping review and a systematic search of academic databases and gray literature up to September 2023. We screened the identified records for eligibility and extracted data using a narrative synthesis approach. The review was conducted following the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. RESULTS: We identified 2898 records and assessed the full text of 114, of which 54 were included in this review. Ten methods were identified to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments. Methods included converting environmental impacts to dollars or disability-adjusted life years and including them in a cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-benefit analysis, calculating an incremental carbon footprint effectiveness ratio or incremental carbon footprint cost ratio, incorporating impacts as one criteria of a multi-criteria decision analysis, and freely considering impacts during health technology assessment deliberation processes. CONCLUSIONS: Methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments exist but have not been tested for widespread use by health technology assessment agencies. Further research and implementation work is needed to determine which method can best aid decision makers to choose low environmental impact healthcare interventions.

Illustrating the Financial Consequences of Outcome-Based Payment Models From a Payers Perspective: The Case of Autologous Gene Therapy Atidarsagene Autotemcel (Libmeldy®).

OBJECTIVES: To illustrate the financial consequences of implementing different managed entry agreements (managed entry agreements for the Dutch healthcare system for autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel [Libmeldy]), while also providing a first systematic guidance on how to construct managed entry agreements to aid future reimbursement decision making and create patient access to high-cost, one-off potentially curative therapies. METHODS: Three payment models were compared: (1) an arbitrary 60% price discount, (2) an outcome-based spread payment with discounts, and (3) an outcome-based spread payment linked to a willingness to pay model with discounts. Financial consequences were estimated for full responders (A), patients responding according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (B), and unstable responders (C). The associated costs for an average patient during the time frame of the payment agreement, the total budget impact, and associated benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life-years of the patient population were calculated. RESULTS: When patients responded according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (scenario B), implementing outcome-based reimbursement models (models 2 and 3) had lower associated budget impacts while gaining similar benefits compared with the discount (scenario 1, €8.9 million to €6.6 million vs €9.2 million). In the case of unstable responders (scenario C), costs for payers are lower in the outcome-based scenarios (€4.1 million and €3.0 million, scenario 2C and 3C, respectively) compared with implementing the discount (€9.2 million, scenario 1C). CONCLUSIONS: Outcome-based models can mitigate the financial risk of reimbursing atidarsagene autotemcel. This can be considerably beneficial over simple discounts when clinical performance was similar to or worse than predicted.

Can Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 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 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. Although novel value elements advance our understanding of "what" should be measured (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 quality-adjusted life year in conventional approaches. METHODS: We critically reviewed the evidence for expanding conventional CEA methods to a more generalized approach of generalized CEA (GCEA). RESULTS: GCEA accounts for methods that address objections to the quality-adjusted life year and incorporate novel value elements. Although GCEA offers advantages, it also requires 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 toward GCEA reveal that the societal value of novel medicines exceeds their market-based costs, which 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.

A New and Improved Experimental Design for the Discrete Choice Experiment Module of the EuroQol Valuation Technology Protocol.

OBJECTIVES: The EuroQol Valuation Technology (EQ-VT) protocol, which is used to value the EQ-5D-5L instrument, comprises a composite time trade-off and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) module. Despite significant limitations, the DCE module has not been updated since its inception in 2012. This study aimed to update the EQ-VT DCE design using state-of-the-art methods. METHODS: DCE data from 19 EQ-5D-5L valuation studies were summarized using a Bayesian hierarchical meta-analysis model, which created the priors for our Bayesian efficient DCE design. This design comprised 20 subdesigns, each with 12 choice tasks, and included 2 levels that overlapped to reduce the complexity of the choice tasks. The relative efficiency and robustness of the new design were established by comparing the D-errors and minimal sample size requirements for the 19 within-sample and 7 out-of-sample countries with the previous DCE design. RESULTS: The updated DCE design shows large reductions in the D-error: by 20% and 22% for the 19 within-sample and 7 out-of-sample countries, respectively. Sample size requirements were also reduced, resulting in an average reduction of 45% for both the within and out-of-sample countries. CONCLUSIONS: The updated DCE design outperforms the current EQ-VT design. Given its enhanced performance and reduced complexity, it is set to replace the existing DCE design in future EQ-5D-5L valuation studies using the EQ-VT protocol.

Methods for Including Adverse Events in Economic Evaluations: Suggestions for Improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Inclusion of relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes in economic evaluation of health technologies is required to aid efficient healthcare decisions. Our objective was to identify the key issues related to the inclusion of adverse events (AEs) in economic evaluation and explore perspectives for good practice recommendations to handle these issues. METHODS: We focused on the frequently encountered methodological issues related to the integration of AEs in economic evaluations of health technologies. We distinguished the following elements: the incorporation of AEs in decision models, the terminology of AEs, the estimation of AEs consequences in terms of quality of life (QoL) and costs, and the exploration of the uncertainty related to the impact of AEs on the economic results. RESULTS: We illustrated and discussed each of the identified issues by giving health technology assessment examples. We focused on the extent to which the integration of AEs in decision models can be improved by dealing with the lack of relevant real-world safety data, estimating the consequences of AEs (eg, for costs and QoL loss), exploring the impacts of AEs that are not adequately captured in current measurement of health-related QoL, and identifying the need for development of a good terminology of relevant types of AEs to be incorporated in economic evaluation. CONCLUSION: Based on a reflection the key methodological issues related to the incorporation of adverse drug events in economic evaluations, we suggested several recommendations to serve a starting point for health technology assessment agencies and researchers to develop good research practices in this field.