Uncertainty In Long-term Relative Effectiveness Of Medicines In Health Technology Assessment: Comparing Assessments Of Medicines For Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Cystic Fibrosis, And Hypercholesterolemia.

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: 49 HTA reports from six national HTA bodies, assessing nine medicines for spinal muscular atrophy, cystic fibrosis, and hypercholesterolemia, were included. In these reports, 81 relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and 45 cost-effectiveness assessments (CEAs) were performed on an indication level. We collected information on included trials, assessment outcomes, uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness, proposed managed entry agreements (MEAs), and reassessments. RESULTS: Uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness was an important consideration in almost all CEAs (91%) and three quarters of REAs (74%), despite differences in methodologies between 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 MEAs were proposed of which 14 were linked to uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness. Additionally, 13 reassessments were performed of which four 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 between 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.

Healthcare decision-making for tumour-agnostic therapies in Europe: lessons learned.

The tumour-agnostic authorisations of larotrectinib and entrectinib shifted the paradigm for indication setting. European healthcare decision-makers agreed on their therapeutic potential but diverged primarily in identified uncertainties concerning basket trial designs and endpoints, prognostic value of neurotrophic tropomyosin receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions, and resistance mechanisms. In addition, assessments of relevant comparators, unmet medical needs (UMNs), and implementation of NTRK-testing strategies diverged. In particular, the tumour-specific reimbursement recommendations and guidelines do not reflect tumour-agnostic thinking. These differences indicate difficulties experienced in these assessments and provide valuable lessons for future disruptive therapies. As we discuss here, early multistakeholder dialogues concerning minimum evidence requirements and involving clinicians are essential.

Added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 1995 and 2020: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs, explore their association, and investigate potential discrepancies between added benefit and revenues across different approval pathways of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Oncology drugs and their indications approved by the EMA between 1995 and 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Added benefit was evaluated using ratings published by seven organisations: health technology assessment agencies from the United States, France, Germany, and Italy, two medical oncology societies, and a drug bulletin. All retrieved ratings were recategorised using a four point ranking scale to indicate negative or non-quantifiable, minor, substantial, or major added benefit. Revenue data were extracted from publicly available financial reports and compared with published estimates of research and development (R&D) costs. Finally, the association between added benefit and revenue was evaluated. All analyses were performed within the overall study cohort, and within subgroups based on the EMA approval pathway: standard marketing authorisation, conditional marketing authorisation, and authorisation under exceptional circumstances. RESULTS: 131 oncology drugs with 166 indications were evaluated for their added benefit by at least one organisation within the required timeframe, yielding a total of 458 added benefit ratings; 189 (41%) were negative or non-quantifiable. The median time to offset the median R&D costs ($684m, £535m, €602m, adjusted to 2020 values) was three years; 50 of 55 (91%) drugs recovered these costs within eight years. Drugs with higher added benefit ratings generally had greater revenues. Negative or non-quantifiable added benefit ratings were more frequent for conditional marketing authorisations and authorisations under exceptional circumstances than for standard marketing authorisations (relative risk 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.89). Conditional marketing authorisations generated lower revenues and took longer to offset R&D costs than standard marketing authorisations (four years compared with three years). CONCLUSIONS: While revenues seem to align with added benefit, most oncology drugs recover R&D costs within a few years despite providing little added benefit. This is particularly true for drugs approved through conditional marketing authorisations, which inherently appear to lack comprehensive evidence. Policy makers should evaluate whether current regulatory and reimbursement incentives effectively promote development of the most effective drugs for patients with the greatest needs.

Perspectives on how to build bridges between regulation, health technology assessment and clinical guideline development: a qualitative focus group study with European experts.

OBJECTIVE: Improving synergy among regulation, health technology assessment (HTA) and clinical guideline development is relevant as these independent processes are building on shared evidence-based grounds. The two objectives were first to assess how convergence of evidentiary needs among stakeholders may be achieved, and second, to determine to what extent convergence can be achieved. DESIGN: Qualitative study using eight online dual-moderator focus groups. SETTING: Discussions had a European focus and were contextualised in four case studies on head and neck cancer, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis and myelodysplastic syndromes. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two experienced (over 10 years) European regulators, HTA representatives and clinicians participated in the discussion. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received information on the case study and research topic in advance. An introductory background presentation and interview guide for the moderators were used to steer the discussion. RESULTS: Convergence may be achieved through improved communication institutionalised in multistakeholder early dialogues, shared definitions and shared methods. Required data sets should be inclusive rather than aligned. Deliberation and decision-making should remain independent. Alignment could be sought for pragmatic clinical trial designs and patient registries. Smaller and lower-income countries should be included in these efforts. CONCLUSION: Actors in the field expressed that improving synergy among stakeholders always involves trade-offs. A balance needs to be found between the convergence of processes and the institutional remits or geographical independence. A similar tension exists between the involvement of more actors, for example, patients or additional countries, and the level of collaboration that may be achieved. Communication is key to establishing this balance.

Information Patients With Melanoma Spontaneously Report About Health-Related Quality of Life on Web-Based Forums: Case Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a general agreement on the importance of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This type of information is becoming increasingly important for the value assessment of health technology assessment agencies in evaluating the benefits of new health technologies, including medicines. However, HRQoL data are often limited, and additional sources that provide this type of information may be helpful. OBJECTIVE: We aim to identify the HRQoL topics important to patients with melanoma based on web-based discussions on public social media forums. METHODS: We identified 3 public web-based forums from the United States and the United Kingdom, namely the Melanoma Patient Information Page, the Melanoma International Forum, and MacMillan. Their posts were randomly selected and coded using qualitative methods until saturation was reached. RESULTS: Of the posts assessed, 36.7% (150/409) of posts on Melanoma International Forum, 45.1% (198/439) on MacMillan, and 35.4% (128/362) on Melanoma Patient Information Page focused on HRQoL. The 2 themes most frequently mentioned were mental health and (un)certainty. The themes were constructed based on underlying and more detailed codes. Codes related to fear, worry and anxiety, uncertainty, and unfavorable effects were the most-often discussed ones. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based forums are a valuable source for identifying relevant HRQoL aspects in patients with a given disease. These aspects could be cross-referenced with existing tools and they might improve the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures, including HRQoL questionnaires. In addition, web-based forums may provide health technology assessment agencies with a more holistic understanding of the external aspects affecting patient HRQoL. These aspects might support the value assessment of new health technologies and could therefore help inform topic prioritization as well as the scoping phase before any value assessment.

Bridging the gap: Can International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement standard sets align outcomes accepted for regulatory and health technology assessment decision-making of oncology medicines.

Standard outcome sets developed by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) facilitate value-based health care in healthcare practice and have gained traction from regulators and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies that regularly assess the value of new medicines. We aimed to assess the extent to which the outcomes used by regulators and HTA agencies are patient-relevant, by comparing these to ICHOM standard sets. We conducted a cross-sectional comparative analysis of ICHOM standard sets, and publicly available regulatory and HTA assessment guidelines. We focused on oncology due to many new medicines being developed, which are accompanied by substantial uncertainty regarding the relevance of these treatments for patients. A comparison of regulatory and HTA assessment guidelines, and ICHOM standard sets showed that both ICHOM and regulators stress the importance of disease-specific outcomes. On the other hand, HTA agencies have a stronger focus on generic outcomes in order to allow comparisons across disease areas. Overall, similar outcomes are relevant for market access, reimbursement, and in ICHOM standard sets. However, some differences are apparent, such as the acceptability of intermediate outcomes. These are recommended in ICHOM standard sets, but regulators are more likely to accept intermediate outcomes than HTA agencies. A greater level of alignment in outcomes accepted may enhance the efficiency of regulatory and HTA processes, and increase timely access to new medicines. ICHOM standard sets may help align these outcomes. However, some differences in outcomes used may remain due to the different purposes of regulatory and HTA decision-making.

Bridging health technology assessment and healthcare quality improvement using international consortium of health outcomes measurement standard sets.

OBJECTIVE: Although health technology assessment (HTA) and healthcare quality improvement are distinct processes, a greater level of alignment in outcome measures used may increase the quality and efficiency of data collection. This study evaluates the agreement in outcome measures used in oncology for healthcare quality improvement and HTAs, and how these align to the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) standard sets. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional comparative analysis of ICHOM sets focusing on oncological indications and publicly available measures for healthcare quality and HTA reports published by the National Health Care Institute from the Netherlands and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence from the United Kingdom. RESULTS: All ICHOM sets and HTAs used overall survival, whereas quality improvement used different survival estimates. Different progression estimates for cancer were used in HTAs, ICHOM sets, and quality improvement. Data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was recommended in all ICHOM sets and all HTAs, but selectively for quality improvement. In HTAs, generic HRQoL questionnaires were preferred, whereas, in quality improvement and ICHOM sets, disease-specific questionnaires were recommended. Unfavorable outcomes were included in all HTAs and all ICHOM sets, but not always for quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Although HTA and quality improvement use outcome measures from the same domains, a greater level of alignment seems possible. ICHOM may provide input on standardized outcome measures to support this alignment. However, residual discrepancies will remain due to the different objectives of HTA and quality improvement.

Improving Transparency to Build Trust in Real-World Secondary Data Studies for Hypothesis Testing-Why, What, and How: Recommendations and a Road Map from the Real-World Evidence Transparency Initiative.

Real-world data (RWD) and the derivations of these data into real-world evidence (RWE) are rapidly expanding from informing healthcare decisions at the patient and health system level to influencing major health policy decisions, including regulatory approvals and coverage. Recent examples include the approval of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for male breast cancer and the inclusion of RWE in the label of paliperidone palmitate for schizophrenia. This interest has created an urgency to develop processes that promote trust in the evidence-generation process. Key stakeholders and decision-makers include patients and their healthcare providers; learning health systems; health technology assessment bodies and payers; pharmacoepidemiologists and other clinical reseachers, and policy makers interested in bioethical and regulatory issues. A key to optimal uptake of RWE is transparency of the research process to enable decision-makers to evaluate the quality of the methods used and the applicability of the evidence that results from the RWE studies. Registration of RWE studies-particularly for hypothesis evaluating treatment effectiveness (HETE) studies-has been proposed to improve transparency, trust, and research replicability. Although registration would not guarantee better RWE studies would be conducted, it would encourage the prospective disclosure of study plans, timing, and rationale for modifications. A joint task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) recommended that investigators preregister their RWE studies and post their study protocols in a publicly available forum before starting studies to reduce publication bias and improve the transparency of research methods. Recognizing that published recommendations alone are insufficient, especially without accessible registration options and with no incentives, a group of experts gathered on February 25 and 26, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to explore the structural and practical challenges to the successful implementation of the recommendations of the ISPOR/ISPE task force for preregistration. This positioning article describes a plan for making registration of HETE RWE studies routine. The plan includes specifying the rationale for registering HETE RWE studies, the studies that should be registered, where and when these studies should be registered, how and when analytic deviations from protocols should be reported, how and when to publish results, and incentives to encourage registration. Table 1 summarizes the rationale, goals, and potential solutions that increase transparency, in addition to unique concerns about secondary data studies. Definitions of terms used throughout this report are provided in Table 2.

Improving transparency to build trust in real-world secondary data studies for hypothesis testing-Why, what, and how: recommendations and a road map from the real-world evidence transparency initiative.

Real-world data (RWD) and the derivations of these data into real-world evidence (RWE) are rapidly expanding from informing healthcare decisions at the patient and health system level to influencing major health policy decisions, including regulatory approvals and coverage. Recent examples include the approval of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for male breast cancer and the inclusion of RWE in the label of paliperidone palmitate for schizophrenia. This interest has created an urgency to develop processes that promote trust in the evidence-generation process. Key stakeholders and decision-makers include patients and their healthcare providers; learning health systems; health technology assessment bodies and payers; pharmacoepidemiologists and other clinical reseachers, and policy makers interested in bioethical and regulatory issues. A key to optimal uptake of RWE is transparency of the research process to enable decision-makers to evaluate the quality of the methods used and the applicability of the evidence that results from the RWE studies. Registration of RWE studies-particularly for hypothesis evaluating treatment effectiveness (HETE) studies-has been proposed to improve transparency, trust, and research replicability. Although registration would not guarantee better RWE studies would be conducted, it would encourage the prospective disclosure of study plans, timing, and rationale for modifications. A joint task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) recommended that investigators preregister their RWE studies and post their study protocols in a publicly available forum before starting studies to reduce publication bias and improve the transparency of research methods. Recognizing that published recommendations alone are insufficient, especially without accessible registration options and with no incentives, a group of experts gathered on February 25 and 26, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to explore the structural and practical challenges to the successful implementation of the recommendations of the ISPOR/ISPE task force for preregistration. This positioning article describes a plan for making registration of HETE RWE studies routine. The plan includes specifying the rationale for registering HETE RWE studies, the studies that should be registered, where and when these studies should be registered, how and when analytic deviations from protocols should be reported, how and when to publish results, and incentives to encourage registration. Table 1 summarizes the rationale, goals, and potential solutions that increase transparency, in addition to unique concerns about secondary data studies. Definitions of terms used throughout this report are provided in Table 2.

Efficacy gap between phase II and subsequent phase III studies in oncology.

AIMS: There is a trend for more flexibility in timing of evidence generation in relation to marketing authorization, including the option to complete phase III trials after authorization or not at all. This paper investigated the relation between phase II and III clinical trial efficacy in oncology. METHODS: All oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (2007-2016) were included. Phase II and phase III trials were matched based on indication and treatment and patient characteristics. Reported objective response rates (ORR), median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were analysed through weighted mixed-effects regression with previous treatment, treatment regimen, blinding, randomization, marketing authorization type and cancer type as covariates. RESULTS: A total of 81 phase II-III matches were identified including 252 trials. Mean (standard deviation) weighted difference (phase III minus II) was -4.2% (17.4) for ORR, 2.1 (6.7) months for PFS and -0.3 (5.1) months for OS, indicating very small average differences between phases. Differences varied substantially between individual indications: from -46.6% to 47.3% for ORR, from -5.3 to 35.9 months for PFS and from -13.3 to 10.8 months for OS. All covariates except blinding were associated with differences in effect sizes for at least 1 outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of marked average differences between phases may encourage decision-makers to regard the quality of design and total body of evidence instead of differentiating between phases of clinical development. The large variability emphasizes that replication of study findings remains essential to confirm efficacy of oncology drugs and discern variables associated with demonstrated effects.

Phase I/II Clinical Trial-Based Early Economic Evaluation of Acalabrutinib for Relapsed Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to construct an early economic evaluation for acalabrutinib for relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) to assist early reimbursement decision making. Scenarios were assessed to find the relative impact of critical parameters on incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: A partitioned survival model was constructed comparing acalabrutinib and ibrutinib from a UK national health service perspective. This model included states for progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS) and death. PFS and overall survival (OS) were parametrically extrapolated from ibrutinib publications and a preliminary hazard ratio based on phase I/II data was applied for acalabrutinib. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, and 1296 scenarios were assessed. RESULTS: The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £61,941/QALY, with 3.44 incremental QALYs and incremental costs of £213,339. Deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that survival estimates, utilities and treatment costs of ibrutinib and acalabrutinib and resource use during PFS have the greatest influence on the ICER. Probabilistic results under different development scenarios indicated that greater efficacy of acalabrutinib would decrease the likelihood of cost effectiveness (from 63% at no effect to 2% at maximum efficacy). Scenario analyses showed that a reduction in PFS did not lead to great QALY differences (- 8 to - 14% incremental QALYs) although it did greatly affect costs (- 47 to - 122% incremental pounds). For OS, the opposite was true (- 89 to - 93% QALYs and - 7 to - 39% pounds). CONCLUSIONS: Acalabrutinib is not likely to be cost effective compared with ibrutinib under current development scenarios. The conflicting effects of OS, PFS, drug costs and utility during PFS show that determining the cost effectiveness of acalabrutinib without insight into all parameters complicates health technology assessment decision making. Early assessment of the cost effectiveness of new products can support development choices and reimbursement processes through effective early dialogues between stakeholders.

Social media as a tool for assessing patient perspectives on quality of life in metastatic melanoma: a feasibility study.

PURPOSE: Development of innovative drugs for melanoma is occurring rapidly. Incremental gains in overall survival amongst innovative products may be difficult to measure in clinical trials, and their use may be associated with increased toxicity profiles. Therefore, HTA agencies increasingly require information on HRQoL for the assessment of such drugs. This study explored the feasibility of social media to assess patient perspectives on HRQoL in melanoma, and whether current cancer- and melanoma-specific HRQoL questionnaires represent these perspectives. METHODS: A survey was distributed on the social media channels of Melanoma Patient Network Europe to assess melanoma patients' perspectives regarding HRQoL. Two researchers independently conducted content analysis to identify key themes, which were subsequently compared to questions from one current cancer-specific and two melanoma-specific HRQoL questionnaires (i.e. EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-MEL38, FACT-M). RESULTS: In total, 72 patients and 17 carers completed the survey. Patients indicated that family, having a normal life, and enjoying life were the three most important aspects of HRQoL for them. Carers indicated that being capable, having manageable adverse events, and being pain-free were the three most important aspects of HRQoL for patients. Respondents seem to find some questions from HRQoL questionnaires relevant (e.g. 'Have you felt able to carry on with things as normal?') and others less relevant (e.g. 'Have you had swelling near your melanoma site?'). Additionally, wording may differ between patients and HRQoL questionnaires, whereby patients generally use a more positive tone. CONCLUSIONS: Social media may provide a valuable tool in assessing patient perspectives regarding HRQoL. However, differences seem to emerge between patient and carer perspectives. Additionally, patient perspectives did not seem to fully correlate to questions posed in cancer- (i.e. EORTC QLQ-C30) and melanoma-specific (i.e. EORTC QLQ-MEL38, FACT-M) HRQoL questionnaires examined.

Use of Social Media in the Assessment of Relative Effectiveness: Explorative Review With Examples From Oncology.

BACKGROUND: An element of health technology assessment constitutes assessing the clinical effectiveness of drugs, generally called relative effectiveness assessment. Little real-world evidence is available directly after market access, therefore randomized controlled trials are used to obtain information for relative effectiveness assessment. However, there is growing interest in using real-world data for relative effectiveness assessment. Social media may provide a source of real-world data. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the extent to which social media-generated health data has provided insights for relative effectiveness assessment. METHODS: An explorative literature review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify examples in oncology where health data were collected using social media. Scientific and grey literature published between January 2010 and June 2016 was identified by four reviewers, who independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data. A descriptive qualitative analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 1032 articles identified, eight were included: four articles identified adverse events in response to cancer treatment, three articles disseminated quality of life surveys, and one study assessed the occurrence of disease-specific symptoms. Several strengths of social media-generated health data were highlighted in the articles, such as efficient collection of patient experiences and recruiting patients with rare diseases. Conversely, limitations included validation of authenticity and presence of information and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Social media may provide a potential source of real-world data for relative effectiveness assessment, particularly on aspects such as adverse events, symptom occurrence, quality of life, and adherence behavior. This potential has not yet been fully realized and the degree of usefulness for relative effectiveness assessment should be further explored.

Using Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Practice: A Comparative Study of Five HTA Agencies.

BACKGROUND: Reimbursement decisions are conventionally based on evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which often have high internal validity but low external validity. Real-world data (RWD) may provide complimentary evidence for relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and cost-effectiveness assessments (CEAs). This study examines whether RWD is incorporated in health technology assessment (HTA) of melanoma drugs by European HTA agencies, as well as differences in RWD use between agencies and across time. METHODS: HTA reports published between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2016 were retrieved from websites of agencies representing five jurisdictions: England [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)], Scotland [Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC)], France [Haute Autorité de santé (HAS)], Germany [Institute for Quality and Efficacy in Healthcare (IQWiG)] and The Netherlands [Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN)]. A standardized data extraction form was used to extract information on RWD inclusion for both REAs and CEAs. RESULTS: Overall, 52 reports were retrieved, all of which contained REAs; CEAs were present in 25 of the reports. RWD was included in 28 of the 52 REAs (54%), mainly to estimate melanoma prevalence, and in 22 of the 25 (88%) CEAs, mainly to extrapolate long-term effectiveness and/or identify drug-related costs. Differences emerged between agencies regarding RWD use in REAs; the ZIN and IQWiG cited RWD for evidence on prevalence, whereas the NICE, SMC and HAS additionally cited RWD use for drug effectiveness. No visible trend for RWD use in REAs and CEAs over time was observed. CONCLUSION: In general, RWD inclusion was higher in CEAs than REAs, and was mostly used to estimate melanoma prevalence in REAs or to predict long-term effectiveness in CEAs. Differences emerged between agencies' use of RWD; however, no visible trends for RWD use over time were observed.

The impact of quality-of-life data in relative effectiveness assessments of new anti-cancer drugs in European countries.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to investigate the role of health-related quality-of-life (QoL) data in relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of new anti-cancer drugs across European jurisdictions, during health technology assessment procedures. METHODS: Comparative analysis of guidelines and publicly available REAs in six European jurisdictions of anti-cancer drugs approved by EMA between 2011 and 2013. RESULTS: Fourteen anti-cancer drugs were included, adding up to 79 REAs. Whilst all guidelines state that QoL is a relevant endpoint to determine the relative effectiveness of new cancer drugs, QoL data were included in only 54% of the 79 reports and their impact on the recommendations was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst national guidelines recognize the relevance of QoL to determine the relative effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs, this is not well-reflected in current assessments. Developing and implementing into REAs specific evidence requirements for QoL data would improve the use of this patient-centred outcome in future reimbursement and pricing decisions.

Can a Joint Assessment Provide Relevant Information for National/Local Relative Effectiveness Assessments? An In-Depth Comparison of Pazopanib Assessments.

BACKGROUND: In many European jurisdictions, relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of pharmaceuticals are performed during the reimbursement decision-making process. International collaboration in the production of these assessments may prevent the duplication of information in various jurisdictions. A first pilot of a joint REA (pazopanib for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma) was published in 2011. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to investigate how well the methods used in the joint REA match the methods used in the national/local assessments on the same topic. METHODS: National/local assessments from European jurisdictions, available in English language, were identified through a literature search and an e-mail request to health technology assessment organizations. Data were abstracted from joint and national/local assessments using a structured data abstraction form. Results were compared for differences and similarities. RESULTS: In total, five national/local reports were included (Belgium, England/Wales, France, The Netherlands, and Scotland). The general methods (indication, main comparator, main end points, main trial) were similar. The details of the assessment (e.g., exact wording of indication, additional comparators, additional trials included, and method of indirect comparison), however, varied. Despite these differences, the joint REA included nearly all comparators, end points, trials, and methods of analysis that were used in national/local REA reports. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown overlap in the methods national/local REA bodies in Europe have chosen for a pazopanib REA for renal cell carcinoma, except for the use and methods of indirect comparisons. Although some additional comparators and outcomes differed between national/local REAs, they can be captured in a comprehensive joint REA.

Piloting international production of rapid relative effectiveness assessments of pharmaceuticals.

BACKGROUND: This article describes the lessons learned from an international pilot assessment using the first version of the HTA Core Model® and Guidelines for rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals based on input from three different perspectives: the assessors, the users (health technology assessment organisations) and the marketing authorisation holder. METHODS: A pilot assessment was performed of pazopanib for the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma for which 54 individuals from 22 EUnetHTA member organisations from 16 European countries gave their contribution. The work was divided in eight domain teams. Subsequently, results of these domain teams were synthesised in one pilot report. Feedback on the outcomes of the pilot was gathered throughout the project and through structured surveys. RESULTS: The first version of the assessment was produced in six months and consisted of 55 question and answer pairs, 8 domain reports and a synthesis section that combined the results from the different domains. The organisation of the pilot required intense coordination. Main points of criticism on the assessment were the lengthiness of the document and overlap of information throughout the assessment. CONCLUSIONS: A reduction in the number of authoring organisations and individuals participating is necessary to avoid information overlap and increase efficiency in undertaking the assessment. Involving several organisations (e.g. five) in an in-depth review could still ensure the benefit of broad participation from various countries. The focus of a rapid REA should be on the first four domains of the Model.

Practical feasibility of outcomes research in oncology: lessons learned in assessing drug use and cost-effectiveness in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the practical feasibility to develop evidence on drug use and cost-effectiveness in oncology practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Feasibility was examined using three Dutch case studies. Each case study investigated the degree of appropriate drug use and its incremental cost-effectiveness. Detailed data were retrospectively collected from hospital records. In total, 391, 316 and 139 patients with stage III colon cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer and multiple myeloma were included in 19, 29 and 42 hospitals, respectively. RESULTS: The methods used in the case studies were feasible to develop evidence on some aspects of drug use including types of treatments used, dosages, dose modifications and healthcare costs. Aspects such as baseline patient characteristics, reasons to start or stop a treatment and treatment effects were less feasible because of missing values. Despite difficulties to correct for confounding by indication, it was possible to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness by synthesising evidence in two of the three case studies. CONCLUSION: It is possible to generate evidence about drug use and cost-effectiveness in oncology practice to facilitate informed decision-making by both payers and physicians. This can improve quality of care and enhance the efficient allocation of resources. However, the optimal approach differs between drugs and their indications. Generating high-quality evidence requires active interdisciplinary collaboration. Patient registries can facilitate data collection but cannot resolve all issues. In most circumstances it is inevitable to use data-synthesis to obtain valid incremental cost-effectiveness estimates, but for some indications it will not be feasible to derive a valid and precise estimate.

Bridging trial and decision: a checklist to frame health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions.

OBJECTIVE: Health technology assessments (HTAs) intend to inform real-world decisions. They often draw on data from explanatory trials and hence are not always applicable to the decision problem. HTAs may therefore not meet the needs of decision makers. Our objective was to develop and apply a checklist to: 1) systematically frame HTAs in a way that they are applicable to the decision problem; and 2) assess if a decision problem can be informed by an available HTA. METHODS: We reviewed published literature to identify factors that should be considered when framing HTAs for resource allocation decisions. The checklist was finalized in collaboration with clinicians and policy makers. We applied the checklist to the economic evaluation of trastuzumab in early breast cancer. We defined a reference case and for each study, retrieved through a systematic review, we examined if each factor was explicitly considered. RESULTS: A checklist was developed with 11 factors (e.g., clinical practice, consequences, and patient use). In the case of trastuzumab, most factors were considered by the 11 retrieved economic evaluations. Two factors, being the inclusion of all relevant comparators and professional use, were considered by none of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a comprehensive checklist with 11 factors to frame HTAs and to assess the applicability of HTAs to resource allocation decisions. Economic evaluations on trastuzumab considered some of these factors, but overlooked others. The proposed checklist assists in systematically considering all factors in developing the conceptual model of an HTA, to make HTAs better reflect the decision problem.