Navigating the path towards successful implementation of the EU HTA Regulation: key takeaways from the 2023 Spring Convention of the European Access Academy.

BACKGROUND: The European Regulation on Health Technology Assessment (EU HTA R), effective since January 2022, aims to harmonize and improve the efficiency of common HTA across Member States (MS), with a phased implementation from January 2025. At "midterms" of the preparation phase for the implementation of the Regulation our aim was to identify and prioritize tangible action points to move forward. METHODS: During the 2023 Spring Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), participants from different nationalities and stakeholder backgrounds discussed readiness and remaining challenges for the Regulation's implementation and identified and prioritized action points. For this purpose, participants were assigned to four working groups: (i) Health Policy Challenges, (ii) Stakeholder Readiness, (iii) Approach to Uncertainty and (iv) Challenges regarding Methodology. Top four action points for each working group were identified and subsequently ranked by all participants during the final plenary session. RESULTS: Overall "readiness" for the Regulation was perceived as neutral. Prioritized action points included the following: Health Policy, i.e. assess adjustability of MS laws and health policy processes; Stakeholders, i.e. capacity building; Uncertainty, i.e. implement HTA guidelines as living documents; Methodology, i.e. clarify the Population, Intervention, Comparator(s), Outcomes (PICO) identification process. CONCLUSIONS: At "midterms" of the preparation phase, the focus for the months to come is on executing the tangible action points identified at EAA's Spring Convention. All action points centre around three overarching themes: harmonization and standardization, capacity building and collaboration, uncertainty management and robust data. These themes will ultimately determine the success of the EU HTA R in the long run.

Development and Pilot Test of the Registry Evaluation and Quality Standards Tool: An Information Technology-Based Tool to Support and Review Registries.

OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies are increasingly making use of real-world evidence and data. High-quality registries could be an asset for this; nevertheless, there is a lack of specified standards to assess the quality of data in the registry, or the registry itself. The European Network for Health Technology Assessment Joint Action 3 led the work to develop a tool for the evaluation of clinical registries: the "Registry Evaluation and Quality Standards Tool" (REQueST). METHODS: REQueST was developed in 4 steps: (1) A partnership between HTA bodies across Europe drafted the assessment criteria. (2) Multiple rounds of consultation across HTA bodies and the public domain developed an Excel version of REQueST. (3) This version was transformed into a web-based application. (4) An external pilot tested this REQueST tool with SMArtCARE and NeuroTransData registries. RESULTS: Haute Autorité de Santé, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the Croatian Institute of Public Health led the development of REQueST. Another 4 HTA bodies contributed regularly to development meetings, and all European Network for Health Technology Assessment partners were invited to contribute. Eight methodological, 12 essential, and 3 supplementary criteria were identified. Both pilot registries scored well, fulfilling the requirements for >70% of criteria, with none failed. Feedback by registry holders led to streamlining of the process and clarification of the criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The REQueST tool uses an iterative and collaborative methodology with registry holders. It has the potential to maximize the utility of registry data for decision making by regulatory and HTA bodies and provides a foundation for future research.

Intraindividual Comparisons to Determine Comparative Effectiveness: Their Relevance for G-BA's Health Technology Assessments.

OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessments (HTA) rely on head-to-head comparisons. We searched for intraindividual comparisons (IIC) qualifying as head-to-head design to develop comparative evidence. METHODS: Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) appraisals between January 2011 and April 2020 were reviewed for inclusion of IIC. Identified IIC were grouped according to disease characteristics into nonprogressive, progressive, irregular, or symmetrical conditions. Evaluation of IIC by Institut für Qualität und Wirschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWIG) and acceptance of IIC by G-BA were determined, and criteria for the usage and quality of IIC were developed. RESULTS: A total of 483 appraisals finalized between January 2011 and April 2020 were reviewed. Eleven appraisals included IIC: nonacog beta (hemophilia B), turoctocog alpha (hemophilia A), emicizumab (2 appraisals: hemophilia A), pasireotide (unresectable pituitary tumor), lomitapid (homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia), glycerol phenylbutyrate (2 appraisals: urea cycle disorders), asfotase alfa (hypophosphatasia), lumacaftor (cystic fibrosis), and larotrectinib (NTRK+ solid tumors). All those appraisals related to rare genetic conditions with hemophilia and its bleeding rate are considered mainly a nonprogressive condition. All the other diseases show progressive disease characteristics. None of the identified IIC has been accepted by G-BA. Inconsistencies of before/after study design, lack of clarity on treatments prior to the switch, and different time intervals were among the most commonly cited methodological concerns. CONCLUSIONS: IICs provide a rare opportunity to determine comparative effectiveness in distinct clinical settings that are not suitable or difficult to randomize into parallel groups. While manufacturers and researchers should aim for highest methodological standards when running an IIC, HTA bodies should accept IIC in distinct settings when determining relative effectiveness.

Effect of Crossover in Oncology Clinical Trials on Evidence Levels in Early Benefit Assessment in Germany.

BACKGROUND: In oncology clinical trials, crossover is used frequently but may lead to uncertainties regarding treatment effects. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the handling of evidence from crossover trials by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). METHODS: For oncology medicines with early benefit assessments before January 2015, presence of crossover, clinical data, EMA requests for additional data, and G-BA benefit ratings/evidence levels were analyzed from manufacturers' dossiers, G-BA appraisals, European Public Assessment Reports, and original publications. RESULTS: Eleven of 21 benefit assessments included crossover trials. Significant intergroup differences (P < 0.05) in overall survival (OS) were noted in 7 of 11 trials with and 7 of 10 without crossover. For 6 of 11 medicines with crossover, these were demonstrated before crossover. Treatment effects generally worsened with increasing proportions of crossover. The EMA requested additional data more frequently if crossover was performed, particularly if no OS data were available before crossover. The G-BA granted a considerable benefit to 73% of medicines with crossover and 40% of those without. Evidence levels were intermediate for 50% and 75%, respectively. None of the medicines received the highest evidence level. CONCLUSIONS: In G-BA appraisals, oncology medicines with crossover received better additional benefit ratings, but were assigned lower evidence levels, than those without. The five medicines with crossover after progression were assigned lower evidence levels than the six medicines with crossover after demonstration of superior OS, indicating that the way in which crossover is implemented may be one factor influencing the assignment of evidence levels by the G-BA.

IS THE EUNETHTA HTA CORE MODEL® FIT FOR PURPOSE? EVALUATION FROM AN INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE.

OBJECTIVES: The HTA Core Model® was developed to improve the transferability of health technology assessment (HTA) between settings. The model has been used by HTA agencies but is also of interest to manufacturers, for improving internal evidence generation and communicating with other HTA stakeholders. To establish if the model is fit for purpose from an industry perspective, the pharmaceutical company Roche, collaborating with the European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA), conducted an assessment of the model. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to evaluate all assessment elements in the HTA Core Model v2.0 for their usefulness in meeting payers' evidence needs and demonstrating value. The questionnaire was completed by country affiliate teams working in evidence generation and reimbursement submissions for pharmaceuticals. Survey results were discussed in workshops to ensure consistency and alignment between teams. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by six teams. An additional team from global pricing and market access participated in workshops. Model domains pertaining to the health problem and current technology use, technology description, clinical effectiveness, and economic value were considered most important because they meet payers' evidence needs. Overall, the model was considered useful to improve the efficiency of HTA evidence generation, share evidence internally, and communicate value to payers and HTA agencies. CONCLUSIONS: From an industry perspective, the HTA Core Model provides a useful framework and common terminology for efficient generation of transferable HTA evidence. The timeliness, efficiency, and transparency of HTA processes could be improved by a more standardized approach to HTA across settings.

Inconsistent approaches of the G-BA regarding acceptance of primary study endpoints as being relevant to patients - an analysis of three disease areas: oncological, metabolic, and infectious diseases.

BACKGROUND: Previous evaluations of oncological medicines in the German early benefit assessment (EBA) procedure have demonstrated inconsistent acceptance of endpoints by regulatory authorities and the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). Accepted standard endpoints for regulatory purposes are frequently not considered as patient-relevant in the German EBA system. In this study the acceptance of clinically acknowledged primary endpoints (PEPs) from regulatory trials in EBAs conducted by the G-BA was evaluated across three therapeutic areas. METHODS: Medicines for oncological, metabolic and infectious diseases with EBAs finalised before 25 January 2016 were evaluated. Respective manufacturer's dossiers, regulatory assessments, G-BA appraisals and oral hearing minutes were reviewed, and PEPs were examined to determine whether they were considered relevant to patients by the G-BA. Furthermore, the acceptance of symptomatic vs asymptomatic PEPs was also analysed. RESULTS: A total of 65 EBAs were evaluated. Mortality PEPs were widely accepted as patient-relevant but were only used in a minority of EBAs and exclusively in oncological diseases. Morbidity PEPs constituted around 72 % of assessed PEPs, but were excluded from the EBA in over half of the corresponding assessments as they were not considered patient-relevant. Symptomatic endpoints were largely deemed patient-relevant, whereas acceptance of asymptomatic endpoints varied between therapeutic areas. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation identified inconsistencies in patient relevance of morbidity-related PEPs as well as in acceptance of asymptomatic endpoints by the G-BA in all three disease areas examined. Better harmonisation between the regulatory authorities and the G-BA is still required after 5 years of AMNOG health technology assessment in Germany.

An Inclusive Civil Society Dialogue for Successful Implementation of the EU HTA Regulation: Call to Action to Ensure Appropriate Involvement of Stakeholders and Collaborators.

OBJECTIVES: Stakeholder involvement has long been considered a success factor for a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) process, and its relevance is now anchored in the EU HTA Regulation's (EU HTAR) legislative wording. Therefore, we aimed to explore the roles, challenges, and most important activities to increase the level of involvement per stakeholder group. METHODS: At the 2022 Fall Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), working groups addressed the involvement of patients, clinicians, regulators, health technology developers (HTD), and national HTA bodies and payers within the EU HTA process. Each working group revisited the pre-convention survey results, determined key role characteristics for each stakeholder, and agreed on the most important activities to fulfill the role profile. Finally, the activities suggested per group were prioritized by plenary group. RESULTS: The prioritized actions for patients included training and capacity building, the establishment of a patient involvement committee, and the establishment of a patient unit at the EC secretariat. For clinicians, it included alignment on evidence assessment from a clinical vs. HTA point of view, capacity building, and standardization of processes. The most important actions for regulators are to develop joint regulatory-HTA guidance documents, align processes and interfaces under the regulation, and share discussions on post-licensing evidence generation. HTDs prioritized scientific advice capacity and the review of the scoping process, and further development of the scope of the assessment report fact checks. The top three actions for national HTA bodies and payers included clarification on the early HTD dialogue process, political support and commitment, and clarification on financial support. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the activities identified as the most important for stakeholders/collaborators in the EU HTA process (e.g., in the implementation of the EU HTA Stakeholder Network and of the guidance documents developed by the EUnetHTA 21 consortium) will be key to starting an "inclusive civil society dialogue", as suggested by the European Commission's Pharmaceutical Strategy.

The role of stakeholder involvement in the evolving EU HTA process: Insights generated through the European Access Academy's multi-stakeholder pre-convention questionnaire.

Involvement of all relevant stakeholders will be of utmost importance for the success of the developing EU HTA harmonization process. A multi-step procedure was applied to develop a survey across stakeholders/collaborators within the EU HTA framework to assess their current level of involvement, determine their suggested future role, identify challenges to contribution, and highlight efficient ways to fulfilling their role. The 'key' stakeholder groups identified and covered by this research included: patients', clinicians', regulatory, and Health Technology Developer representatives. The survey was circulated to a wide expert audience including all relevant stakeholder groups in order to determine self-perception by the 'key' stakeholders regarding involvement in the HTA process (self-rating), and in a second, slightly modified version of the questionnaire, to determine the perception of 'key' stakeholder involvement by HTA bodies, payers, and policymakers (external rating). Predefined analyses were conducted on the submitted responses. Fifty-four responses were received (patients 9; clinicians: 8; regulators: 4; HTDs 14; HTA bodies: 7; Payers: 5; policymakers 3; others 4). The mean self-perceived involvement score was consistently lower for each of the 'key' stakeholder groups than the respective external ratings. Based on the qualitative insights generated in the survey, a RACI Chart (Responsible/Accountable/Consulted/Informed) was developed for each of the stakeholder groups to determine their roles and involvement in the current EU HTA process. Our findings suggest extensive effort and a distinct research agenda are required to ensure adequate involvement of the key stakeholder groups in the evolving EU HTA process.

How can a joint European health technology assessment provide an 'additional benefit' over the current standard of national assessments? : Insights generated from a multi-stakeholder survey in hematology/oncology.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a multi-stakeholder survey to determine key areas where a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) could provide 'additional benefit' compared to the status quo of many parallel independent national and subnational assessments. METHODS: Leveraging three iterative Delphi cycles, a semiquantitative questionnaire was developed covering evidence challenges and heterogeneity of value drivers within HTAs across Europe with a focus on hematology/oncology. The questionnaire consisted of five sections: i) background information; ii) value drivers in HTA assessments today; iii) evolving evidence challenges; iv) heterogeneity of value drivers across Europe; v) impact of Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). The questionnaire was circulated across n = 189 stakeholder institutions comprising HTA and regulatory bodies, clinical oncology associations, patient representatives, and industry associations. RESULTS: N = 30 responses were received (HTA bodies: 9; regulators: 10; patients' and physicians' associations: 3 each; industry: 5). Overall, 17 countries and EU level institutions were represented in the responses. Consistency across countries and stakeholder groups was high. Most relevant value drivers in HTAs today (scale 1, low to 5, high) were clinical trial design (mean 4.45), right endpoints (mean 4.40), and size of comparative effect (mean 4.33). Small patient numbers (mean 4.28) and innovative study designs (mean 4.1) were considered the most relevant evolving evidence challenges. Heterogeneity between regulatory and HTA evidence requirements and heterogeneity of the various national treatment standards and national HTA evidence requirements was high. All clinical and patient participants stated to have been with EBCP initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: For a European HTA to provide an 'additional benefit' over the multitude of existing national assessments key methodological and process challenges need to be addressed. These include approaches to address uncertainty in clinical development; comparator choice; consistency in approaching patient-relevant endpoints; and a transparent and consistent management of both HTA and regulatory procedures as well as their interface, including all involved stakeholder groups.

Shaping a research agenda to ensure a successful European health technology assessment: insights generated during the inaugural convention of the European access academy.

OBJECTIVES: Key challenges for a joint European Health Technology Assessment (HTA) include consolidated approaches towards the choice of adequate comparator(s), selection of endpoints that are relevant to patients with a given disease, dealing with remaining uncertainties as well as transparent and consistent management of related processes. We aimed to further crystallize related core domains within these four areas that warrant further research and scrutiny. METHODS: Building on the outcomes of a previously conducted questionnaire survey, four key areas, processes, uncertainty, comparator choice and endpoint selection, were identified. At the inaugural convention of the European Access Academy dedicated working groups were established defining and prioritizing core domains for each of the four areas. The working groups consisted of ~ 10 participants each, representing all relevant stakeholder groups (patients/ clinicians/ regulators/ HTA & payers/ academia/ industry). Story books identifying the work assignments were shared in advance. Two leads and one note taker per working group facilitated the process. All rankings were conducted on an ordinal Likert Response Scale scoring from 1 (low priority) to 7 (high priority). RESULTS: Identified key domains include for processes: i) address (resource-) challenge of multiple PICOs (Patient/ Intervention/ Comparator/ Outcomes), ii) time and capacity challenges, iii) integrating all involved stakeholders, iv) conflicts and aligning between different multi-national stakeholders, v) interaction with health technology developer; for uncertainty: i) early and inclusive collaboration, ii) agreement on feasibility of RCT and acceptance of uncertainty, iii) alignment on closing evidence gaps, iv) capacity gaps; for comparator choice: i) criteria for the choice of comparator in an increasingly fragmented treatment landscape, ii) reasonable number of comparators in PICOs, iii) shape Early Advice so that comparator fulfils both regulatory and HTA needs, iv) acceptability of Indirect Treatment Comparisons (ITC), v) ensure broad stakeholder involvement in comparator selection; for endpoint selection: i) approaching new endpoints; ii) patient preferences on endpoints; iii) position of HTA and other stakeholders; iv) long-term generation and secondary use of data; v) endpoint challenges in RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a joint European HTA assessment is a unique opportunity for a stronger European Health Union. We identified 19 domains related to the four key areas, processes, uncertainty, comparator choice and endpoint selection that urgently need to be addressed for this regulation to become a success.

Cost of illness in rheumatoid arthritis in Germany in 1997-98 and 2002: cost drivers and cost savings.

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of overall RA-related costs and of relative contribution of single-cost domains before and after the introduction of TNF-blocking agents in Germany. METHODS: Two cohorts of RA outpatients (ACR '87 criteria) with long-standing disease are assessed in terms of disease-related costs and cost composition (n = 106 patients in 1997-98 and n = 180 patients in 2002 with similar patient characteristics). Full-cost analyses are performed including direct disease-related costs (medical and non-medical) and productivity costs as collected by patient questionnaires. Absolute costs (€/patient/year) are compared and the impact of single-cost domains on overall costing in RA is estimated (relative proportions of cost components within samples). RESULTS: Overall costs are comparable (1997-98: €4280; 2002: €3830; not significant). Differences can be observed in medication (1997-98: €550; 2002: €1580; P < 0.001) and hospitalization costs (1997-98: €1240; 2002: €500; P < 0.001). Productivity costs are significantly lower (€1480 vs €850; P < 0.05) in 2002. The impact of medication costs is outstanding in the 2002 sample (42 vs 12%), the proportion of hospitalization costs is substantially lower (29 vs 13%). Costs for DMARDs in 2002 are mostly driven by TNF blockers (37%). The number of DMARDs per patient is higher in 2002 as are costs for osteoporosis medication and gastroprotective treatment. CONCLUSION: Although overall costs before and after the introduction of TNF blockers are comparable, the decrease in hospitalization and productivity costs is promising in terms of future long-term cost savings. The development of these aspects and of the increasing medication costs will have to be evaluated with longer time frames.

Leveraging EUnetHTA's conceptual framework to compare HTA decision drivers in France, Italy, and Germany from a manufacturer's point of view.

BACKGROUND: Health Technology Assessments (HTA) procedures differ substantially across the various European countries. We reviewed recent appraisals of a pharmaceutical manufacturer in three major European markets (France; Italy; Germany) and identified and categorized related decision drivers. METHODS: New marketing authorisation between January 2011 and August 2017, and Roche being the Marketing Authorization Holder, were included. Outcome of HTA appraisals by the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), and Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) were reviewed. Respective decision drivers were identified and commonalities and differences across the three countries were determined leveraging the EUnetHTA conceptual taxonomy (i.e. the 9 domains of the EUnetHTA core model). RESULTS: Within that time period Roche received European marketing authorization for eight new molecular entities (10 indications, respectively). Outcome of HTA appraisals was heterogeneous across the three countries. However, the four clinical domains of the EUnetHTA core model were driving the national HTA appraisals, with the clinical effectiveness domain being of most importance. Important drivers related to the other three clinical domains included the target patient population (subgroups, Germany), the current management of the condition (unmet need, Italy), the regulatory status (Orphan Designation, Germany), as well as safety considerations (all three countries). Average time between EMA approval and full commercial availability of new medicines was 63 (Germany), 459 (Italy), and 557 days (France). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical domains of the EUnetHTA framework are mainly driven by national HTA appraisals, providing a suitable starting point for further developing a joint European view on value and evidence. Underlying topics and issues still reveal considerable differences.

"Market withdrawals" of medicines in Germany after AMNOG: a comparison of HTA ratings and clinical guideline recommendations.

BACKGROUND: According to the AMNOG act, the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) determines the additional benefit of new medicines as a basis for subsequent price negotiations. Pharmaceutical companies may withdraw their medications from the market at any time during the process. This analysis aims to compare recommendations in clinical guidelines and HTA appraisals of medicines that were withdrawn from the German market since the introduction of AMNOG in 2011. METHODS: Medications withdrawn from the German market between January 2011 and June 2016 following benefit assessment were categorized as opt-outs (max. 2 weeks after start of price negotiations) or supply terminations (during or after further price negotiations). Related guidelines were systematically analyzed. For all withdrawals, therapeutic area, additional benefit rating and recommendation status in relevant clinical guidelines were assessed. RESULTS: Among 139 medications, 10 opt-outs and 12 supply terminations were identified. Twenty-one out of 22 withdrawn medicines (95%) received 'no additional benefit' appraisal by the G-BA (average 'no additional benefit' rating for all AMNOG products: 47%). Of the 22 medicines, 15 (68%) were recommended by at least one guideline at the time of benefit assessment and 18 (82%) on 1 June 2016. Heterogeneity among guidelines was high. Acceptance of clinical trial endpoints was different between G-BA appraisals and clinical guidelines. CONCLUSION: Our analysis revealed considerable differences across clinical guidelines as well as between clinical guidelines and HTA appraisals of the medicines that were withdrawn from the German market. Better alignment of the clinical perspective and close collaboration between all involved parties is required to achieve and maintain optimization of patient care.

Content comparison of health-related quality of life instruments for COPD.

BACKGROUND: Due to the increasing importance of quality of life assessments in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, and the increased use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) for comparative purposes it is essential to understand the relationship between health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments and the ICF. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the content of recommended COPD-specific HRQL instruments using the ICF as reference. COPD-specific instruments mentioned in widely accepted guidelines were linked to the ICF using standardized linking rules. The degree of agreement between various health professionals was assessed by calculating the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Eleven instruments were included. They varied strongly in the number of concepts contained and the number of ICF categories used to map these concepts. A total of 548 concepts were identified and linked to 60 different ICF categories. Only the single category 'dyspnea' was covered by all instruments, whilst 21 categories were unique to specific instruments. The relationships of the measures with the ICF were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study may aid researchers and clinicians to choose the most appropriate instrument for a specific purpose as well as help compare studies that have used different instruments for HRQL assessment.

Cost-efficacy comparison among three antiretroviral regimens in HIV-1 infected, treatment-experienced patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In the face of increasing antiretroviral (ARV) treatment options and costs, payers are progressively challenged with prioritising resources. The cost effectiveness of the ARV agent enfuvirtide has been shown to be comparable to that of other available HIV treatment strategies, based on Markov modeling. However, an evaluation of enfuvirtide treatment costs that considers the impact of virological and immunological responses to therapy may provide a more clinically meaningful perspective for primary HIV healthcare providers. The aim of this study was to assess the cost per unit change in efficacy (HIV RNA decreases and CD4 count increases) of three different ARV regimens for triple class-experienced HIV-1 infected patients using actual drug costs and data from randomised, controlled clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN: The analysis included three steps. First, re-analysis of 48-week clinical trial data (T-20 vs Optimized Regimen Only [TORO]) to allow for a more direct comparison of enfuvirtide versus other commonly used ARV agents. All patients included in the re-analysis received a common optimised background (COB) regimen of three drugs: two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI), lopinavir. HIV RNA levels and CD4 count changes were determined for three patient groups according to the treatment received - group 1: COB + enfuvirtide; group 2: COB + PI; group 3: COB + NRTI + PI. The second step of the analysis involved calculating the annualised regimen costs ($US wholesaler acquisition cost) for each patient group. In the third step, cost-efficacy ratios were calculated and compared between groups: (a) the annualised regimen cost ($US)/change in viral load from baseline, and (b) the annualised regimen cost ($US)/change in CD4+ cell count from baseline. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-seven patients were included in this previously unplanned secondary analysis (group 1: 79 patients; group 2: 42 patients; group 3: 36 patients). HIV RNA and CD4 count changes from baseline to week 48 were -1.80, -0.89 and -0.61 log(10) copies/mL (p < 0.001 for enfuvirtide vs each non-enfuvirtide group) and +102, +57 and +52 cells/mm(3) (p < 0.05 for enfuvirtide versus each non-enfuvirtide subgroup) for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The annualised costs of the combination therapies were $US 35,624, $US 27,549 and $US 30,624; and the costs per 0.50 log(10) copies/mL HIV RNA decrease were $US 9,872, $US 15,542 and $US 24,907 (p < 0.05 for enfuvirtide vs each non-enfuvirtide subgroup) for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The costs per 25 cells/mm(3) CD4 count increase were $US 8,722, $US 12,127 and $US 14,636 for subgroups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Similar patterns in regimen cost per unit change were achieved after adjusting for baseline prognostic variables. The incremental cost-efficacy ratios for group 1 versus the combination of groups 2 and 3 were $US 3,124 for HIV RNA reduction and $US 3,239 for CD4 count increase. CONCLUSION: Enfuvirtide-containing regimens are associated with higher cost as well as improved virological and immunological outcomes when compared with alternative four- and five-drug regimens. When costs and outcomes are considered jointly, an enfuvirtide-based regimen is more cost efficacious than alternative regimens in this patient population.

Different Weights of the Evidence-Based Medicine Triad in Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment, and Clinical Decision Making.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is defined as a systematic approach to clinical problem solving by the integration of best research evidence with real-world clinical expertise and patient values. Since those early days, decision requirements expanded from patient-centric clinical decision making to a population-based view including regulatory health technology assessments (HTAs). Regulatory bodies mainly rely on the totality of research evidence, which includes preclinical and all available clinical data. HTA bodies primarily focus on clinical data with a strong preference for comparative data from randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Conversely, bedside clinical decisions are largely driven by real-world clinical expertise, which takes into account the individual patients' preferences, as well as the availability of supportive research evidence. While the focus on research evidence is a typical feature of the early part of the adoption curve for innovative technologies, HTA decision makers need to ensure that clinical expertise is also appropriately included in their decisions, in order to avoid beneficial medications from being not available to patients.

Comparison of post-authorisation measures from regulatory authorities with additional evidence requirements from the HTA body in Germany - are additional data requirements by the Federal Joint Committee justified?

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare post-authorisation measures (PAMs) from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with data requests in fixed-termed conditional appraisals of early benefit assessments from the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). METHODS: Medicinal products with completed benefit assessments during an assessment period of 3.5 years were considered. PAMs extracted from European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) were compared with data requests issued by the G-BA in the context of conditional appraisals. RESULTS: Twenty conditional appraisals (19 products) and 34 EPARs containing PAMs (33 products) were identified. Data categories (efficacy, safety, etc.), data types (type of study required to address the request) and clarity of requests were determined. Conditional appraisals disproportionately focused on oncology products (13/19 products with conditional appraisals vs. 14/33 products with PAMs). No clear rationale for the G-BA issuing conditional appraisals could be identified in public sources. Both EMA and G-BA requested mainly efficacy and safety data (44/54 and 23/35 categories requested, respectively); however, 28/35 G-BA data requirements went beyond requests made by the EMA. Almost half of the G-BA requests (9/20), but no PAMs, were unclear, and no methodological guidance for fulfilling the data requirements was provided by the G-BA. CONCLUSIONS: Better alignment between data requests from regulatory authorities and health technology assessment bodies is strongly recommended.

[Costs of ambulatory care for RA patients in Germany]. / Arztkontaktpreise bei der ambulanten Versorgung der chronischen Polyarthritis in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: In 2000, the Regional Cooperative Center for Rheumatic Conditions in Hannover, Germany, initiated a project to introduce and evaluate a case-based clinical quality management system to enhance the quality of care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Building on that, it was possible to combine all resource uses, as paid by the sickness funds, including those in ambulatory care. METHODS: The purpose of this study was to reach average "per-visit prices" for single physician visits, not only for rheumatologists, but also for other specialists as well as generalists. Those visits all had to be connected to the rheumatic condition of the patients. All ambulatory care visits for 1 year (2001) were evaluated. RESULTS: Due to the high number of physician visits of the 338 patients with clinically assured rheumatoid arthritis included in the study (rheumatologist visits 4,488, generalist visits 3,901), statistically significant subgroups could be built. The average costs per visit associated with rheumatoid arthritis are: rheumatologist euro 22.71; generalist euro 8.02; as well as other specialties ranging from euro 5.81 to euro 19.48. The low price for generalists care is due to the selection of the cohort, as all patients are under constant specialist care. The prices were further broken down to certain subgroups of care. CONCLUSION: The prices are calculated under the premises that no budgetary constraints apply to ambulatory care. This is not the reality in Germany. Hence, looking at the average frequency of rheumatologist visits in this cohort (13.2/year), the conclusion has to be that not all rheumatologic ambulatory care is being covered by the reimbursement system within the Statutory Health Insurance in Germany.

Early Benefit Assessments in Oncology in Germany: How Can a Clinically Relevant Endpoint Not Be Relevant to Patients?

After 4 years of early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany, it is becoming evident that the Federal Joint Committee (FJC) frequently considers well-established clinical endpoints as not being relevant to patients. Focusing on assessments of oncology medicines, we analysed the FJC's view on primary endpoints and compared it with the approach used by regulatory authorities. Mortality data were accepted by both stakeholders. Whereas regulatory authorities accepted primary morbidity endpoints such as progression-free survival and response rates, the FJC mostly excluded these from its assessments. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data have been poorly reflected in the approval process; for EBAs, those data have rarely impacted on benefit ratings. We argue that agreement between regulatory authorities and the FJC is required regarding primary study endpoints that are relevant to patients, and that clarification of acceptable endpoints by the FJC, especially in the morbidity domain, has to be provided. Moreover, in order to fully acknowledge the benefit of a new medicinal product, mortality, morbidity and HRQoL should be weighted differentially, according to the condition.