Synergy between health technology assessments and clinical guidelines for multiple sclerosis.

Decision-making for reimbursement and clinical guidelines (CGs) serves different purposes although the decision-criteria and required evidence largely overlap. This study aimed to assess similarities and discrepancies between health technology assessment (HTA) reports as compared to CGs for multiple sclerosis (MS) medicines. All HTA reports and corresponding CGs for MS from the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and the European Union were assessed to identify synergies in recommendations for MS medicines (approved 1995-2020). A content analysis of HTA reports and CGs was performed to identify similarities and discrepancies in wording of treatment recommendations across documents. We assessed 132 HTA reports and 9 CGs for 16 MS treatments. Final recommendations for reimbursement and inclusion in CGs were mostly similar (90%), albeit with considerable differences in treatment lines and subindications. Since 2010, HTA reports refer to the use of CGs in 42% (55/132) and to consultations with clinicians in 43% (57/132) of cases. Six of nine CGs referred to HTA reports and two referred to HTA consultations, in one case having a formal relation to the HTA organization. CGs referenced pharmacoeconomic studies (4/9) for costs and cost-effectiveness. To date, not all new HTA recommendations for MS treatments are included in CGs. Some synergy exists between treatment recommendations in HTA reports and CGs, although discrepancies were seen in timelines and in recommended treatment lines and subindications. More stakeholder dialogue and/or consultation of each other's publications may further improve synergy, facilitate transparency, and enhance patient access.

Assessment of significant benefit for orphan medicinal products by European regulators may support subsequent relative effectiveness assessments by health technology assessment organizations.

To maintain orphan drug status at the time of market authorization, orphan medicinal products (OMPs) need to be assessed for all criteria, including significant benefit, by the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Subsequently, health technology assessment (HTA) organizations evaluate the same OMPs in their relative effectiveness assessments (REAs). This review investigates the similarities and differences between the two frameworks for six HTA organizations, including the European Network for HTA. We discuss differences between both assessment frameworks within five domains (clinical evidence used, patient population, intervention, comparators, and outcome measures) for all drugs. Five illustrative cases studies were selected for a qualitative review.

HTA IN CENTRAL-EASTERN-SOUTHERN EUROPE: FINDING ITS WAY TO HEALTH POLICY.

The number of publications on health technology assessment (HTA) from Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe (CESE countries) is still low compared with the north and west of Europe. It is not surprising, as the idea of HTA originated from high-income Western economies and was afterward adopted by the south-eastern part of Europe, which mostly consists of middle-income countries. These CESE countries, with less capacity and experience with HTA processes, must deal with even tougher decisions on financing health technologies than north-western Europe. There may even be a lack of confidence to open discussions on their specific needs for HTA.

SOME ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON FORTHCOMING AMENDMENTS TO HTA IN POLAND.

In reference to the article A Decade of Health Technology Assessment in Poland by I. Lipska et al. (1), I would like to provide you with some comments and additional information on the changes in reimbursement policies in the Polish healthcare system currently taking place, which is likely to lead to increased number of health technology assessments (HTAs) of medical devices (MDs).