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.

Multistakeholder Perceptions of Additional Value Elements for United States Value Assessment of Health Interventions.

OBJECTIVES: Limitations in conventional cost-effectiveness methods have led to calls for incorporation of additional value elements in assessments of health technologies. However, gaps remain in how additional value elements may inform decision making. This study aimed to prioritize additional value elements from the perspective of healthy individuals without a specific condition or indicated for a specific treatment in the United States among a multistakeholder panel and compare the importance of perspective-specific value elements. METHODS: Additional value elements were prioritized in 2 phases: (1) we identified and categorized additional value elements in a targeted literature review, and (2) we convened a multistakeholder group-based preference elicitation study (N = 28) to evaluate the description of each value element and rank and generate normalized weights of each value element for its significance in value assessment. The importance of additional value elements was also weighted relative to patient-centric value elements. RESULTS: The rank and weight of contextual value elements among 28 stakeholders were "severity of the disease" (26.2%), "disadvantaged and vulnerable target populations highly represented" (21.8%), "broader economic impact" (17.3%), "risk protection" (13.8%), "rarity of the disease" (11.3%), and "novel mechanism of action" (9.7%). Relative weight of the additional value elements versus patient-centric value elements was 52% and 48%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings may inform priority setting for value frameworks and emerging US government assessments. The group-based elicitation method is repeatable and useful for structured deliberative processes in value assessment and may help improve the consistency and predictability of what is important to stakeholders.

A Systematic Literature Review of Gaps and Challenges in Value Assessment of Biosimilars: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to provide an overview of the gaps and challenges in the value assessment of biosimilars and to identify potential approaches to address them. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, international team of biosimilar experts identified gaps and challenges. A systematic review was conducted of the peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; and of the gray literature. Preliminary results were presented at ISPOR conferences and this article benefited from 2 review rounds among ISPOR Biosimilar Special Interest Group members. RESULTS: Given that a biosimilar is highly similar to its reference biologic, health technology assessment agencies should accept the comparability exercise approved by regulatory authorities and, thus, conduct a price comparison when biosimilar reimbursement is requested for the same indication as the reference biologic. If the reference biologic is not reimbursed or is not the standard of care, a full economic evaluation of the biosimilar versus a relevant comparator needs to be conducted. To date, little consideration has been given to specific challenges, such as how biosimilar value assessment can account for the nocebo effect, potential differences between biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients, the availability of intravenous and subcutaneous administration forms or different administration devices for the same active compound, value-added services, and the contribution of biosimilars for generating health gain at the population level. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to gather further insights in the methodology of value assessment for biosimilars, and health technology assessment agencies need to develop more elaborate guidance on biosimilar value assessment in specific circumstances.

Corrigendum to "Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2021/9996193.].

Framework for Patient Experience Value Elements in Rare Disease: A Case Study Demonstrating the Applicability of Combined Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Several novel methods have been suggested to extend a conventional value assessment to capture a more comprehensive perspective of value from a patient perspective. The objective of this research was to demonstrate a framework for implementing a combined qualitative and quantitative method to elicit and prioritize patient experience value elements in rare diseases. Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder was used as a case study. METHODS: The method for eliciting and prioritizing patient experience value elements involved a three-step process: (1) collecting potential patient experience value elements from existing literature sources followed by deliberation by a multi-stakeholder research team; (2) a pre-workshop webinar and survey to identify additional patient-reported value elements; and (3) a workshop to discuss, prioritize the value elements using a swing weighting method. Outcomes were prioritized value elements with normalized weights for patients considering a treatment for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. RESULTS: A literature review and deliberation resulted in the following initial value elements: ability to reach important personal milestones, patient's financial burden, value of hope/balance or timing of risks and benefits, Uncertainty about long-term benefits and safety of the treatment, Patient empowerment through therapeutic advancement and technology, Caregiver/family's financial burden, patient experience related to treatment regimen, Therapeutic options, and Caregiver/family's quality of life. Eight patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder participated in the case study. In the online survey, participants found the nine proposed patient experience value elements both understandable and important with no additions. During the workshop, 'Uncertainty about long-term benefits and safety,' 'Patient experience related to treatment regimen,' and 'Patient's financial burden' were found to be the most important patient experience value elements, with a respective weight of 25%, 19.2%, and 14.4% (out of total 100%). CONCLUSIONS: This case study provides a framework for eliciting and prioritizing patient experience value elements using direct patient input. Although elements/weights may differ by disease, and even in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, additional research is needed, value frameworks, researchers, and manufacturers can use this practical method to generate patient experience value elements and evaluate their impact on treatment selection.

The Impact of Reimbursement Practices on the Pharmaceutical Market for Off-Patent Medicines in Slovakia.

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of selected legislative initiatives and their implementation for off-patent medicinal products in Slovakia compared with the rest of the Visegrád Group (V4 countries). Methods: We analyzed the development of applications for the reimbursement of generic and biosimilar drugs. Particular emphasis was placed on a) the availability and penetration of biosimilars from 2006 to 2020 in Slovakia, b) a comparative analysis of biosimilars in V4 countries based on the national reimbursement lists of medicinal products for August 2021. Data relating to the sales of generic and biosimilar medicines in Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia were based on the IQVIA MIDAS MAT July 2021. Results: The number of applications for the reimbursement of generic drugs decreased from 296 in 2016 to 165 in 2020. In financial terms, the sales of generic medicines in Slovakia increased from 21.7% in 2015 to 22.3% in 2020. Over the same period, the sales of generic drugs in Poland fell from 40.4% in 2015 to 35.0% in 2020, from 26.2 to 22.1% in Hungary, and from 29.6 to 20.4% in Czechia. When considering the 66 biosimilars registered by the European Medicines Agency 38 drugs (58%) were available on the Slovak market as of August 1, 2021; this compared to 32 drugs (48%) in Poland, 38 drugs (58%) in Hungary, and 40 drugs (61%) in Czechia. In financial terms, the sales of biosimilars in Slovakia increased from 0.94% in 2015 to 2.00% in 2020. Over the same period, the sales of biosimilars in Poland increased from 0.59% in 2015 to 1.29% in 2020, from 0.72 to 2.23% in Hungary, and from 0.76 to 2.15% in Czechia. Conclusion: To intensify the use of generic and biosimilar medicines, we suggest the comprehensive re-evaluation of combinations of the three-threshold entry, the amount of mandatory price reductions, and external reference pricing requirements (as the average of the three lowest prices among the official prices of a medicinal product in other Member States) for generic and biosimilar drugs. We also suggest cancellation of the exception from the fixed co-payment of the insured.

Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus rates and associated costs continue to rise across Europe enhancing health authority focus on its management. The risk of complications is enhanced by poor glycaemic control, with long-acting insulin analogues developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve patient convenience. There are concerns though with their considerably higher costs, but moderated by reductions in complications and associated costs. Biosimilars can help further reduce costs. However, to date, price reductions for biosimilar insulin glargine appear limited. In addition, the originator company has switched promotional efforts to more concentrated patented formulations to reduce the impact of biosimilars. There are also concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. As a result, there is a need to assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues and biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, among multiple European countries to provide future direction. Methodology. Health authority databases are examined to assess utilisation and expenditure patterns for insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine. Explanations for patterns seen were provided by senior-level personnel. RESULTS: Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.

Development of a core evaluation framework of value-added medicines: report 1 on methodology and findings.

BACKGROUND: Medicines that are based on known molecules and are further developed to address healthcare needs and deliver relevant improvement for patients, healthcare professionals and/or payers are called value-added medicines (VAMs). The evaluation process of VAMs is heterogeneous across countries, and it has been primarily designed for originator pharmaceuticals with confirmatory evidence collected alongside pivotal clinical trials. There is a mismatch between evidence requirements by public decision-makers and evidence generated by manufacturers of VAMs. Our objective was to develop a core evaluation framework for VAMs. METHODS: Potential benefits offered by VAMs were collected through a systematic literature review and allocated to separate domains in an iterative process. The draft list of domains and their applicability were validated during two consecutive virtual workshops by health policy experts representing countries with different economic statuses, geographical and decision-making contexts. RESULTS: Based on 158 extracted studies, the final consensus on the evaluation framework resulted in 11 value domains in 5 main clusters, including unmet medical needs, health gain (measured by health care professionals), patient-reported outcomes, burden on households, and burden on the health care system. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed framework could reduce the heterogeneity in value assessment processes across countries and create incentives for manufacturers to invest in incremental innovation. However, some domains may not be equally relevant or accepted in all countries, therefore the core framework needs thorough adaptation in specific jurisdictions.

Systematic review of real-world studies evaluating the impact of medication non-adherence to endocrine therapies on hard clinical endpoints in patients with non-metastatic breast cancer.

Breast cancer, one of the most common malignancies, is associated with significant economic and health burden both at the patient and societal level. Although medication non-adherence to endocrine breast cancer therapies is common, so far only limited systematic evidence has been available on its quantitative consequences, as previous systematic reviews focused mainly on factors contributing to medication non-adherence. The objective of this review was to explore the implications of medication non-adherence to endocrine therapies on hard clinical outcomes in breast cancer based on real-world studies. A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed; empirical evidence on hard clinical endpoints (i.e., survival, disease-free survival, metastasis and recurrence) were extracted from uni- or multivariate statistical analyses from retrospective or prospective cohort studies. Of the 2,360 identified records, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Two studies identified significant positive association between medication non-adherence and the risk of distant metastasis, three articles between medication non-adherence and the recurrence of breast cancer, two studies between medication non-adherence- and non-persistence and of worse disease-free survival and eight articles between medication non-adherence and mortality. There was only one study where the positive association between medication adherence and survival did not apply to all subgroups. The strong evidence on the negative health consequences of non-adherence to breast cancer treatments indicates the need for the regular monitoring of medication adherence. Furthermore, explicit inclusion of adherence enhancing interventions into health policy agenda would be warranted to improve medication adherence also at a system level.

Development of a core evaluation framework of value-added medicines: report 2 on pharmaceutical policy perspectives.

BACKGROUND: A core evaluation framework that captures the health care and societal benefits of value added medicines (VAMs, also often called repurposed medicines) was proposed in Report 1, aiming to reduce the heterogeneity in value assessment processes across countries and to create incentives for manufacturers to invest into incremental innovation. However, this can be impactful only if the framework can be adapted to heterogeneous health care financing systems in different jurisdictions, and the cost of evidence generation necessitated by the framework takes into account the anticipated benefits for the health care system and rewards for the developers. AREAS COVERED: The framework could potentially improve the pricing and reimbursement decisions of VAMs by adapting it to different country specific decision-contexts such as deliberative processes, augmented cost-effectiveness frameworks or formal multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA); alternatively, some of its domains may be added to current general evaluation frameworks of medicines. The proposed evaluation framework may provide a starting point for practices based on which VAMs can be exempted from generic pricing mechanisms or can be integrated into the reimbursement and procurement system, allowing for price differentiation according to their added value. Besides evidence from RCTs, pricing and reimbursement decision processes of VAMs should allow for ex-ante non-RCT evidence for certain domains. Alternatively, relying on ex-post evidence agreements-such as outcome guarantee or coverage with evidence development-can also reduce decision uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: The core evaluation framework for VAMs could trigger changes in the existing pricing, reimbursement and procurement practices by improving the appraisal of the added value created by incremental innovation.

Proposal for capturing patient experience through extended value frameworks of health technologies.

BACKGROUND: Inclusion of patient experience (PEx) in health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly important; however, no harmonized approach exists to help manufacturers or decision makers ensure PEx considerations are fair, consistent, and thorough within global HTA frameworks. OBJECTIVE: To develop a proposal for including PEx in the HTA frameworks of health technologies. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) on existing value frameworks (VFs) was conducted to capture how PEx-related value judgment is currently considered. Guided by the results of the SLR, a research group including HTA experts and patient representatives used an iterative process to develop potential value domains to capture PEx, in accordance with international guidelines. Subsequently, a panel of international payer experts was used to challenge the proposed PEx domains and provide recommendations for implementation. RESULTS: The SLR found 61 VFs and multi-criteria decision analyses (MCDAs) that considered PEx; however, PEx-related value elements were often referred to superficially, without clear definitions. Five potential PEx domains, with proposed measures for each, were developed and refined using expert feedback: (1) responsiveness to patient's individual needs, (2) improved health literacy and empowerment, (3) patient and caregiver reported outcomes, (4) household's financial burden, and (5) improved access for vulnerable patient populations. A flexible approach for framework implementation was proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Proposed PEx domains could be implemented at multiple levels of healthcare decision making to formalize consideration of PEx in the assessment of value, either through the extension of existing VFs or to create new PEx-focused VFs and more holistic decision making tools. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded and sponsored by UCB Pharma. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. Charokopou, Mountain, and Szegvari are employed by UCB Pharma. Inotai, Jakab, and Kalo are employed by Syreon Research Institute, which received funding from UCB Pharma for this research. Brixner has received fees from AbbVie, Elevar, Millcreek Outcomes Group, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, and Xcenda. Campbell has received grants and contracts from the PhRMA Foundation and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. During a sabbatical leave, Campbell collaborated with Syreon Research Institute on research projects that included funding from UCB Pharma. Hawkins has received consultancy fees from UCB Pharma. Kristensen has received speakers bureau fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and consultancy fees from UCB Pharma.

Potential Cost-Savings From the Use of the Biosimilars in Slovakia.

Objectives: To analyse the market shares of biosimilars in Slovakia and to calculate the potential cost-savings from the use of biosimilars in Slovakia based on two different data sources. Methods: National reimbursement lists from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia were used for analyzing the availability of biosimilars with public funding. In addition, the reimbursement dossiers of biosimilars, the justifications of reimbursement decisions by the Slovak Ministry of Health, and final reimbursement decrees, which are published on the webpage of the Slovak Ministry of Health, were utilized for this study. Reimbursement decisions regarding biosimilars by the Slovak Ministry of Health from 2006 to August 2019 were considered and the detailed utilization of biosimilars in 2018 was analyzed based on data from the State Institute for Drug Control. The study was validated based on data from the Slovak National Health Information Center. Results: Fifty four biosimilars were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in August 2019. Of the total group of licensed biosimilars on the market, 29 biosimilars (54%) were available in the Czech Republic, 28 biosimilars (52%) were available in Poland, and 27 biosimilars (50%) were available in Hungary and 24 biosimilars (44%) were available in Slovakia. Our analysis, based on the data provided by distributors of medicinal products to the State Institute for Drug Control, revealed that the health fund in Slovakia could have saved 35 to 50 million euros per year if biosimilars with marketing authorisations had been available on the Slovak market. The calculations assumed a 25-35% price decrease against the original biological medical products, and that there would be no increase in the utilization of biosimilars in Slovakia. Conclusions: To achieve significant improvement in patient access to biosimilars in Slovakia, a top-down approach establishing targets and quotas for the procurement of biosimilars should be applied.

Identifying Patient Access Barriers for Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Inhibitor Treatments in Rheumatoid Arthritis in Five Central Eastern European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Although there is a significant utilization gap of biologic medicines in the EU, many studies estimate equity in patient access to biopharmaceuticals only based on their availability on the national list of reimbursed medicines. Hidden access barriers may facilitate financial sustainability of pharmaceuticals in less affluent EU countries; however, they have rarely been documented in scientific publications. Our objective was to explore these access barriers for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in five Central and Eastern European countries. METHODS: A detailed interview guide was developed based on multi-stakeholder workshops and a targeted literature review. In each participant country 3-3-3-3 interviews with payers, rheumatologists, patients/patient representatives, and industry representatives were conducted. Responses were aggregated at a country level and validated by primary investigators in each country. RESULTS: Limited number of RA centers and consequently significant travelling time and cost for patients in distant geographical areas, uneven budget allocation among centers, limited capacity of nurses, narrowed patient population in national financial protocols compared to international clinical guidelines in initiating or continuing biologics, high administrative burden in prescribing biologics and limited health literacy of patients were the most relevant barriers to timely patient access in at least three participant countries. CONCLUSION: Assessing only the availability of TNF alpha inhibitors on the national list of reimbursed medicines provides limited information about real-world patient access to these medicines. Revealing hidden access barriers may contribute to initiate policy actions which could reduce inequity in patient access.

Barriers and facilitators of exploiting the potential of value-added medicines.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) is costly and only a minority of patients can access innovative medicines due to affordability constraints. Value-added medicines (VAMs) can offer potential benefits at significantly lower R&D costs. AREAS COVERED: VAMs may address different health care needs and problems, including off-label use of medicines, poor patient adherence, problems related to polypharmacy, need for home and/or personalized health care services. However, several barriers prevent societies from maximizing the benefits of incremental innovation related to VAMs. Generic manufacturers have limited budget and experience to demonstrate the value of new VAMs. Current market exclusivity options do not efficiently exclude freeridership and do not guarantee a return on investment for VAM innovators. Value propositions of VAMs are limitedly consistent with current HTA frameworks, consequently, incremental innovation is not acknowledged, nor rewarded with differential pricing by payers. Moreover, VAMs are often perceived solely as generic medicines by prescribers. EXPERT OPINION: Current practices may need to be reconsidered to exploit the full societal benefit of VAMs, including more efficient policies to guarantee market exclusivity for incremental innovation, acknowledgment of a fair price premium based on a specific value framework and the acceptance of low-cost evidence generation methods.

Influence of biosimilar infliximab launch on the utilization pattern of biological medicines: the case of Hungary.

Objectives: Utilization of multisource biological (off-patent originator and its biosimilar) medicines can improve the efficiency of resource allocation by 1) generating savings while maintaining health outcomes or 2) increasing the number of patients treated with more affordable treatments. This study evaluates the efficiency of the Hungarian biosimilar drug policy on the case of biosimilar infliximab. Methods: We analyzed the utilization of biologicals in all reimbursed indications of infliximab including initial therapy of new patients and switching patterns retrospectively based on patient-level payer's data between September 2012 and December 2016. Results: Despite the economic rationale, patent expiry did not manifest in increased utilization of multisource infliximab in an access-restricted environment: 1) Patients previously treated with original biologicals were switched mainly to other original biologicals instead of more affordable biosimilar alternatives. 2) Although some treatment-naive patients started on more affordable multisource infliximab with price competition, the majority of new patients started on other original biologicals with monopolistic price. Conclusion: Policy tools and measures should be developed to facilitate first-line use of multisource biologicals for treatment-naive patients and promoting the use of more affordable multisource biologicals in case of switching.

How to solve financing gap to ensure patient access to patented pharmaceuticals in CEE countries? - the good, the bad, and the ugly ways.

Introduction: There is significant difference in utilization of patented medicines in the EU, as pharmaceuticals at Western European price levels are usually not cost-effective in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. The article reviews options to solve the 'financing gap' posed by the challenge of covering patented medicines from more restricted resources in countries with greater unmet medical need.Areas covered: Hidden volume restrictions to patented pharmaceuticals implemented by payers to facilitate financial sustainability may increase European inequity in patient access. Confidential price discounts and financial risk-sharing agreements improve cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals with limited impact on the European floor price. Narrowing the eligible group of patients on the positive drug list can help to target the medicines to patients with potentially greater health benefit whilst reducing the budget impact. Pay-for-performance schemes can improve cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals with significant uncertainty or heterogeneity in the magnitude of added therapeutic value. Increased utilization of off-patent pharmaceuticals can increase patient access through re-investing the savings from generic or biosimilar price erosion.Expert opinion: Transparent and sustainable pharmaceutical policies aiming to improve the allocative efficiency of scarce resources should be implemented in CEE to reduce financing gap and improve patient access to high-cost medicines.

Health Technology Assessment Implementation in Ukraine: Current Status and Future Perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: The need for improving healthcare decision making by implementing health technology assessment (HTA) has been a top priority in Ukraine since 2016. This study sought to provide a tailor-made HTA implementation roadmap, drawing on insights from national stakeholders. METHODS: We conducted a survey using a questionnaire already applied in previous HTA research. We assessed the status of HTA when reforms were initiated in 2016 and examined perspectives on possible future developments among policy makers and representatives of pharmaceutical companies and patient organizations. RESULTS: Thirty-two respondents answered the survey. Forty-eight percent of respondents were not aware of HTA training in Ukraine, but 91 percent preferred having either a graduate or postgraduate training. Experts stated that funding for HTA research and for critical appraisal of HTA submissions was limited, but in the future, they would increase funding mainly from public sources. A public HTA agency with academic support was the most preferred organizational structure. Eighty-eight percent of respondents opted for full transparency, making the HTA agency's recommendations and the related appraisal reports publicly available. A great majority of participants preferred mandating the use of local data in certain categories and indicated the importance of evaluating the transferability of international evidence. Healthcare priority and cost-effectiveness were the most important criteria for decisions, applied with a soft explicit threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Ukraine is in the early phase of implementing HTA and our study provides a clear vision of national stakeholders about the future directions. In addition, learning from the experiences of other countries may help the implementation process.

Navigating joint HTA, procurement, and fair pricing: evidence-based insights and practical recommendations - A meeting report from ISPOR regional conference in Warsaw, 2019.

Introduction: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) organized its first Central Eastern European regional meeting in 2019 in Warsaw, Poland. Area covered: The scientific program of the two-day conference covered a broad range of topics presented from the perspective of the region. Specifically, the focus was on cross-country collaboration within different steps of health technology assessment (HTA) and the need for local HTA adaptations in decision-making. Expert commentary: Attended by approximately 200 delegates from many countries and by several high level ISPOR leaders, the conference provided a valuable opportunity to exchange knowledge and strengthen the scientific network among experts from different stakeholder groups on issues specific to the region.

Comparison of weighting methods used in multicriteria decision analysis frameworks in healthcare with focus on low- and middle-income countries.

AIM: Criteria weighting is a key element of multicriteria decision analysis that is becoming extensively used in healthcare decision-making. In our narrative review we describe the advantages and disadvantages of various weighting methods. METHODS: An assessment of the eight identified primary criteria weighting methods was compiled on domains including their resource requirements, and potential for bias. RESULTS: In general, we found more complex methods to have less potential for bias; however, resource intensity and general participant burden is greater for these methods. CONCLUSION: The selection of the most appropriate method depends on the decision-making context. The simple multiattribute rating technique (SMART) method combined with swing-weighting technique and the analytic hierarchy process methods may be the most feasible approaches for low- and middle-income countries.