Belgian population norms for the EQ-5D-5L, 2018.

PURPOSE: Health-related quality of life outcomes are increasingly used to monitor population health and health inequalities and to assess the (cost-) effectiveness of health interventions. The EQ-5D-5L has been included in the Belgian Health Interview Survey, providing a new source of population-based self-perceived health status information. This study aims to estimate Belgian population norms for the EQ-5D-5L by sex, age, and region and to analyze its association with educational attainment. METHODS: The BHIS 2018 provided EQ-5D-5L data for a nationally representative sample of the Belgian population. The dimension scores and index values were analyzed using logistic and linear regressions, respectively, accounting for the survey design. RESULTS: More than half of respondents reported problems of pain/discomfort, while over a quarter reported problems of anxiety/depression. The average index value was 0.84. Women reported more problems on all dimensions, but particularly on anxiety/depression and pain/discomfort, resulting in significantly lower index values. Problems with mobility, self-care, and usual activities showed a sharp increase after the age of 80 years. Consequently, index values decreased significantly by age. Lower education was associated with a higher prevalence of problems for all dimensions except anxiety/depression and with a significantly lower index value. CONCLUSION: This paper presents the first nationally representative Belgian population norms using the EQ-5D-5L. Inclusion of the EQ-5D in future surveys will allow monitoring over time of self-reported health, disease burden, and health inequalities.

Difficulties encountered by long COVID patients in the Belgian health system / Difficultés rencontrées par les patients COVID long dans le système de santé belge

INTRODUCTION: After contracting COVID-19, many people have continued to experience various symptoms for several weeks and months, even after a mild acute phase. These people with ‘long COVID’ faced difficulties when confronted with the healthcare system. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: In order to better understand their experience, we supplemented the information obtained in an online survey with a mixed qualitative approach based on 33 individual interviews and discussions with 101 participants in a forum in March 2021. RESULTS: Several shortcomings were identified in the contacts of ‘long’ COVID patients with the health care system, such as the lack of listening or empathy of some health care professionals, the lack of a systematic or proactive approach during the diagnostic assessment, or the lack of interdisciplinary coordination. Patients feel misunderstood and are forced to develop their own strategies, whether for diagnosis or treatment. Patients’ discomfort has led them to question the value of medicine and to resort to unconventional therapies to alleviate their symptoms, sometimes at great cost. CONCLUSIONS: Better informing the medical profession about the manifestation of the disease and the possible treatments, including the possibilities of reimbursement, would raise awareness and give them the tools to respond to the needs of ‘ long’ COVID patients. A comprehensive assessment of the patient through an “interdisciplinary assessment” seems necessary.

Introduction: Suite à une infection COVID-19, bon nombre de personnes ont ressenti divers symptômes pendant plusieurs semaines et mois, et ce, même après une phase aiguë légère. Ces personnes atteintes de « COVID long ¼ se sont trouvées confrontées au système de soins de santé, non sans difficultés. But de l'étude: Afin de mieux comprendre leurs expériences, nous avons complété les informations obtenues via une enquête en ligne par une approche qualitative mixte, comprenant 33 entretiens individuels et les discussions de 101 participants à un forum durant le mois de mars 2021. Résultats: Plusieurs lacunes ont été mises en évidence lors des contacts des patients « COVID long ¼ avec le système de santé, comme l'absence d'écoute ou d'empathie de certains professionnels de la santé, d'approche systématique ou proactive lors du bilan diagnostique, ou encore l'absence de coordination interdisciplinaire. Les patients se sentent incompris et se voient obligés de développer leurs propres stratégies afin d'établir un diagnostic ou un traitement. Le malaise des patients les ont amenés à remettre en question la valeur de la médecine et à recourir à des thérapies non conventionnelles afin de soulager leurs symptômes, parfois à un prix élevé. Conclusions: Mieux informer le corps médical quant à la manifestation de la maladie et aux prises en charge possibles, y compris les possibilités de remboursement, permettrait de le sensibiliser et de lui donner les outils pour répondre aux besoins des patients « COVID long ¼. Évaluer de manière globale le patient via un « bilan interdisciplinaire ¼ est nécessaire.

Developing an agency's position with respect to patient involvement in health technology assessment: the importance of the organizational culture.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to map the PI culture at KCE in the context of the development of organization-wide supported position statements about PI. METHODS: A nominal group technique was used to measure the PI culture at KCE. Arguments for and against PI and conditions for PI in different phases of the HTA process were collected. A literature review and interviews fed the draft position statements, for which support was assessed by means of a two-round Delphi process. RESULTS: Arguments in favor of PI in HTA related to the relevance of the scope, expertise with data collection, bringing in fresh ideas for study design, access to survey participants, validation of data analyses, adherence to recommendations. Disadvantages and risks included the lack of scientific knowledge of involved patients, resources requirements, conflicts of interest, and heterogeneity within patient populations. Conditions for meaningful PI referred to measures mitigating the identified disadvantages. Eighteen position statements supported by KCE could be formulated. CONCLUSION: The KCE culture seems predominantly positive toward PI, although attitudes vary between HTA researchers. KCE recognizes the potential value of PI in HTA, but considers the level of involvement to be contingent on the topic and phase in the HTA process.

Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward.

OBJECTIVE: Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being "entirely mechanistic," ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context. METHODS: The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 36 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds. RESULTS: We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation. CONCLUSION: MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved.

Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of patient preferences (PP) in the medical product life cycle is a topic of growing interest to stakeholders such as academics, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, reimbursement agencies, industry, patients, physicians and regulators. This review aimed to understand the potential roles, reasons for using PP and the expectations, concerns and requirements associated with PP in industry processes, regulatory benefit-risk assessment (BRA) and marketing authorization (MA), and HTA and reimbursement decision-making. METHODS: A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2011 and March 2018 was performed. Consulted databases were EconLit, Embase, Guidelines International Network, PsycINFO and PubMed. A two-step strategy was used to select literature. Literature was analyzed using NVivo (QSR international). RESULTS: From 1015 initially identified documents, 72 were included. Most were written from an academic perspective (61%) and focused on PP in BRA/MA and/or HTA/reimbursement (73%). Using PP to improve understanding of patients' valuations of treatment outcomes, patients' benefit-risk trade-offs and preference heterogeneity were roles identified in all three decision-making contexts. Reasons for using PP relate to the unique insights and position of patients and the positive effect of including PP on the quality of the decision-making process. Concerns shared across decision-making contexts included methodological questions concerning the validity, reliability and cognitive burden of preference methods. In order to use PP, general, operational and quality requirements were identified, including recognition of the importance of PP and ensuring patient understanding in PP studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the array of opportunities and added value of using PP throughout the different steps of the MPLC identified in this review, their inclusion in decision-making is hampered by methodological challenges and lack of specific guidance on how to tackle these challenges when undertaking PP studies. To support the development of such guidance, more best practice PP studies and PP studies investigating the methodological issues identified in this review are critically needed.

EXPLORING VALUES OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AGENCIES USING REFLECTIVE MULTICRITERIA AND RARE DISEASE CASE.

OBJECTIVES: Tackling ethical dilemmas faced by reimbursement decision makers requires deeper understanding of values on which health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are founded and how trade-offs are made. This was explored in this study including the case of rare disease. METHODS: Representatives from eight HTA explored values on which institutions are founded using a narrative approach and reflective multicriteria (developed from EVIDEM, criteria derived from ethical imperatives of health care). Trade-offs between criteria and the impact of incorporating defined priorities (including for rare diseases) were explored through a quantitative values elicitation exercise. RESULTS: Participants reported a diversity of substantive and procedural values with a common emphasis on scientific excellence, stakeholder involvement, independence, and transparency. Examining the ethical imperatives behind EVIDEM criteria was found to be useful to further explore substantive values. Most criteria were deemed to reflect institutions' values, while 70 percent of the criteria were reported by at least half of participants to be considered formally by their institutions. The quantitative values elicitation highlighted the difficulty to balance imperatives of "alleviating or preventing patient suffering," "serving the whole population equitably," "upholding healthcare system sustainability," and "making decisions informed by evidence and context" but may help share the ethical reasoning behind decisions. Incorporating "Priorities" (including for rare diseases) helped reveal trade-offs from other criteria and their underlying ethical imperatives. CONCLUSIONS: Reflective multicriteria are useful to explore substantive values of HTAs, reflect how these values and their ethical underpinnings can be operationalized into criteria, and explore the ethical reasoning at the heart of the healthcare debate.

Assessing cancer patients' quality of life and supportive care needs: Translation-revalidation of the CARES in Flemish and exhaustive evaluation of concurrent validity.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of cancer increases every year, leading to a growing population of patients and survivors in need for care. To achieve good quality care, a patient-centered approach is essential. Correct and timely detection of needs throughout the different stages of the care trajectory is crucial and can be supported by the use of screening and assessment in a stepped-care approach. The Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CARES) is a valuable and comprehensive quality of life and needs assessment instrument. For use in Flemish research and clinical practice, the CARES tool was translated for the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium (Flanders) from its original English format. This protocol paper describes the translation and revalidation of this Flemish CARES version. METHODS: After forward-backward translation of the CARES into Flemish we aim to recruit 150 adult cancer patients with a primary cancer diagnosis (stage I, II or III) for validation. In this study with a combination of qualitative and a quantitative approach, qualitative data will be collected through focus groups and supplemented by two phases of quantitative data collection: i) an initial patient survey containing questions on socio-demographic and medical data, the CARES and seven concurrent instruments; and ii) a second survey administered after 1 week containing the CARES and supplementary questions to explore their impressions on the content and the feasibility of the CARES. DISCUSSION: With this extensive data collection process, psychometric validity of the Flemish CARES can be tested thoroughly using classical test theory. Internal consistency of summary scales, test-retest reliability, content validity, construct validity, concurrent validity and feasibility of the instrument will be examined. If the Flemish CARES version is found reliable, valid and feasible, it will be used in future research and clinical practice. Comprehensive assessment with the CARES in a stepped-care approach can facilitate timely identification of cancer patients' psychosocial concerns and care needs so it can contribute to efficient provision of patient-centered quality care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02282696 (July 16, 2014).

Acceptability and Perceived Benefits and Risks of Public and Patient Involvement in Health Care Policy: A Delphi Survey in Belgian Stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: In systems with public health insurance, coverage decisions should reflect social values. Deliberation among stakeholders could achieve this goal, but rarely involves patients and citizens directly. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed at evaluating the acceptability, and the perceived benefits and risks, of public and patient involvement (PPI) in coverage decision making to Belgian stakeholders. METHODS: A two-round Delphi survey was conducted among all stakeholder groups. The survey was constructed on the basis of interviews with 10 key stakeholders and a review of the literature on participation models. Consensus was defined as 65% or more of the respondents agreeing with a statement and less than 15% disagreeing. Eighty stakeholders participated in both rounds. They were defined as the Delphi panel. RESULTS: Belgian stakeholders are open toward PPI in coverage decision processes. Benefits are expected to exceed risks. The preferred model for involvement is to consult citizens or patients, within the existing decision-making structures and at specific milestones in the process. Consulting citizens and patients is a higher level of involvement than merely informing them and a lower level than letting them participate actively. Consultation involves asking nonbinding advice on (parts of) the decision problem. According to the Delphi panel, the benefits of PPI could be increasing awareness among members of the general public and patients about the challenges and costs of health care, and enriched decision processes with expertise by experience from patients. Potential risks include subjectivity, insufficient resources to participate and weigh on the process, difficulties in finding effective ways to express a collective opinion, the risk of manipulation, and lobbying or power games of other stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: PPI in coverage decision-making processes is acceptable to Belgian stakeholders, be it in different ways for different types of decisions. Benefits are expected to outweigh risks.

Which quality of life measures fit your relative effectiveness assessment?

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important endpoint of many healthcare interventions. This study develops guidance on how to select appropriate HRQoL measures for inclusion in a clinical trial, given the purposes of the HRQoL measurement. METHODS: The guidance is based on a systematic literature review, discussions with members of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) and two rounds of public consultation. RESULTS: A set of twelve recommendations was developed, addressing the requirements for HRQoL data for relative effectiveness assessment, for cost-utility analyses and for informing clinical decision making. Recommendations relate to the choice of the type of measure as well as to aspects such as measurement frequency, target population and presentation. CONCLUSIONS: The purpose and context of HRQoL measurement is crucial for the relevance of the data obtained with a specific HRQoL measure. It is recommended to always include a generic HRQoL instrument in clinical trials to cover a wide range of possible future uses of the HRQoL data.

Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations: second edition.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to present the updated methodological guidelines for economic evaluations of healthcare interventions (drugs, medical devices, and other interventions) in Belgium. METHODS: The update of the guidelines was performed by three Belgian health economists following feedback from users of the former guidelines and personal experience. The updated guidelines were discussed with a multidisciplinary team consisting of other health economists, assessors of reimbursement request files, representatives of Belgian databases and representatives of the drugs and medical devices industry. The final document was validated by three external validators that were not involved in the previous discussions. RESULTS: The guidelines give methodological guidance for the following components of an economic evaluation: literature review, perspective of the evaluation, definition of the target population, choice of the comparator, analytic technique and study design, calculation of costs, valuation of outcomes, definition of the time horizon, modeling, handling uncertainty and discounting. We present a reference case that can be considered as the minimal requirement for Belgian economic evaluations of health interventions. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines will improve the methodological quality, transparency and uniformity of the economic evaluations performed in Belgium. The guidelines will also provide support to the researchers and assessors performing or evaluating economic evaluations.

Endpoints for relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical endpoints are defined as valid measures of clinical benefit or harm due to treatment, that describe the impact of treatment on how a patient feels, functions, and survives. The choice of endpoints and the manner in which they are reported have a major impact on the relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals. The aim of this article is to describe the guideline development process and the key findings that set a framework for appropriate use of endpoints in REAs in Europe. METHODS: A multi-health technology assessment (HTA)-agency collaborative process in EUnetHTA JA1 was used to scope, draft, and finalize methodological guidelines for REA in Europe. RESULTS: Patient-relevant clinical endpoints can be broadly categorized into: mortality, morbidity and health-related quality of life. A clinical endpoint is a main symptom or sign of a disease that is clinically relevant, valid, reproducible and responsive to change. Preference is for long-term or final endpoints whenever possible. Surrogate endpoints may be used when there is compelling evidence of a clear and consistent correlation of treatment effects on the surrogate and final outcome of interest. CONCLUSIONS: The relevance and hierarchy of the different types of clinical endpoints depend on the research question, disease, and the treatment investigated. Not only the primary endpoint, but also other relevant endpoints are assessed in comparison to adequate comparator(s). This simultaneous assessment of all relevant endpoints is a hallmark of REA.

Harmonization of ethics in health technology assessment: a revision of the Socratic approach.

BACKGROUND: Ethics has been part of health technology assessment (HTA) from its beginning in the 1970s, and is currently part of HTA definitions. Several methods in ethics have been used in HTA. Some approaches have been developed especially for HTA, such as the Socratic approach, which has been used for a wide range of health technologies. The Socratic approach is used in several ways, and there is a need for harmonization to promote its usability and the transferability of its results. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to stimulate experts in ethics and HTA to revise the Socratic approach. METHODS: Based on the current literature and experiences in applying methods in ethics, a panel of ethics experts involved in HTA critically analyzed the limitations of the Socratic approach during a face-to-face workshop. On the basis of this analysis a revision of the Socratic approach was agreed on after deliberation in several rounds through e-mail correspondence. RESULTS: Several limitations with the Socratic approach are identified and addressed in the revised version which consists of a procedure of six steps, 7 main questions and thirty-three explanatory and guiding questions. The revised approach has a broader scope and provides more guidance than its predecessor. Methods for information retrieval have been elaborated. CONCLUSION: The presented revision of the Socratic approach is the result of a joint effort of experts in the field of ethics and HTA. Consensus is reached in the expert panel on an approach that is considered to be more clear, comprehensive, and applicable for addressing ethical issues in HTA.

Revealing and acknowledging value judgments in health technology assessment.

BACKGROUND: Although value issues are increasingly addressed in health technology assessment (HTA) reports, HTA is still seen as a scientific endeavor and sometimes contrasted with value judgments, which are considered arbitrary and unscientific. This article aims at illustrating how numerous value judgments are at play in the HTA process, and why it is important to acknowledge and address value judgments. METHODS: A panel of experts involved in HTA, including ethicists, scrutinized the HTA process with regard to implicit value judgments. It was analyzed whether these value judgments undermine the accountability of HTA results. The final results were obtained after several rounds of deliberation. RESULTS: Value judgments are identified before the assessment when identifying and selecting health technologies to assess, and as part of assessment. They are at play in the processes of deciding on how to select, frame, present, summarize or synthesize information in systematic reviews. Also, in economic analysis, value judgments are ubiquitous. Addressing the ethical, legal, and social issues of a given health technology involves moral, legal, and social value judgments by definition. So do the appraisal and the decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: HTA by and large is a process of value judgments. However, the preponderance of value judgments does not render HTA biased or flawed. On the contrary they are basic elements of the HTA process. Acknowledging and explicitly addressing value judgments may improve the accountability of HTA.

Developing the HTA core model for the online environment.

BACKGROUND: A framework for collaborative production and sharing of HTA information, the HTA Core Model, was originally developed within EUnetHTA in 2006-08. In this paper, we describe the further development of the Model to allow implementation and utilization of the Model online. The aim was to capture a generic HTA process that would allow effective use of the HTA Core Model and resulting HTA information while at the same time not interfering with HTA agencies' internal processes. METHODS: The work was coordinated by a development team in Finland, supported by an international expert group. Two pilot testing rounds were organized among EUnetHTA agencies and two extensive core HTA projects tested the tool in a real setting. The final work was also formally validated by a group of HTA agencies. RESULTS: The HTA Core Model Online--available at http://www.corehta.info--is a web site hosting a) a tool to allow electronic utilization of the HTA Core Model and b) a database of produced HTA information. While access to the HTA information is free to all, the production features are currently available to EUnetHTA member agencies only. A policy was crafted to steer the use of the Model and produced information. CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully enabled electronic use of the HTA Core Model and agreed on a policy for its utilization. The system is already being used in subsequent HTA projects within EUnetHTA Joint Action 2. Identified shortcomings and further needs will be addressed in subsequent development.

Infection prevention and control strategies in the era of limited resources and quality improvement: a perspective paper.

This paper aims to describe, using an evidence-based approach, the importance of and the resources necessary for implementing effective infection prevention and control (IPC) programmes. The intrinsic and explicit values of such strategies are presented from a clinical, health-economic and patient safety perspective. Policy makers and hospital managers are committed to providing comprehensive, accessible, and affordable healthcare of high quality. Changes in the healthcare system over time accompanied with variations in demographics and case-mix have considerably affected the availability, quality and ultimately the safety of healthcare. The main goal of an IPC programme is to prevent and control healthcare-associated infections (HAI). Many patient-, healthcare provider-, and organizational factors are associated with an increased risk for acquiring HAIs and may impact both the quality and outcome of patient care. Evidence has been published in support of having an effective IPC programme. It has been estimated that about one-third of HAIs could be prevented if key elements of the evidence-based recommendations for IPC are adequately introduced and followed. However, several healthcare agencies from over the world have reported deficits in the essential resources and components of current IPC programmes. To meet its main goal, staffing, training, and infrastructure requirements are needed. Nevertheless, and given the economic crisis, policy makers and hospital managers may be tempted to not increase or even to reduce the budget as it consumes resources and does not generate sufficient visible revenue. IPC is a critical issue in patient safety, as HAIs are by far the most common complication affecting admitted patients. The significant clinical and health-economic burden HAIs place on the healthcare system speak to the importance of getting introduced effective IPC programmes.

Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER.

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition of the importance of patient and public stakeholder involvement (PPI) in patient preference research. However, limited evidence exists regarding the impact, barriers and enablers of PPI in preference studies. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)-PREFER project conducted a series of preference case studies which incorporated PPI. OBJECTIVE: To describe: (1) how PPI was operationalized in the PREFER case studies, (2) the impact of PPI, and (3) factors that served to impede and facilitate PPI. METHODS: We reviewed the PREFER final study reports to determine how patient partners were involved. We conducted a thematic framework analysis to characterize the impact of PPI and then administered a questionnaire to the PREFER study leads to identify barriers and facilitators to effective PPI. RESULTS: Eight PREFER case studies involved patients as research partners. Patient partners were involved in activities spanning all phases of the patient preference research process, including in study design, conduct and dissemination. However, the type and degree of patient partner involvement varied considerably. Positive impacts of PPI included improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) patient partner empowerment; (3) study transparency and dissemination of results; (4) research ethics, and (5) trust and respect between the research team and the patient community. Of the 13 barriers identified, the 3 most frequently reported were inadequate resources, insufficient time to fully involve patient partners, and uncertainty regarding how to operationalize the role of 'patient partner. Among the 12 facilitators identified, the two most frequently cited were (1) having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners; and (2) having multiple patient partners involved in the study. CONCLUSION: PPI had many positive impacts on the PREFER studies. Preference study leads with prior PPI experience reported a greater number of positive impacts than those with no such experience. In light of the numerous barriers identified, multi-faceted implementation strategies should be considered to support adoption, integration and sustainment of PPI within preference research. Additional case studies of patient partner involvement in preference research are needed as well to inform best practices in this area.

Research about patients' preferences for medicinal products and treatments is growing. Such research could be improved if patients were involved as 'research partners,' that is, as active members of the study team itself. To date, however, little is known about the actual experience of involving patients as partners in such research. This paper presents learnings from involving patients as partners in 8 case studies conducted as part of IMI-PREFER, a big, European-based project which aimed to develop recommendations about how to conduct preference research. Involving patients as partners led to improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) recruitment of participants; (3) content and design of patient-facing informational materials; and, (4) how and what study results were shared with patient communities. Our findings showed that it is important to plan for patient partners' involvement early on in the design of the preference study so as to ensure that they are fully integrated into the research team and their opportunity to contribute to all stages of the research is optimized. Such planning should address how patient partners will be paid, what their role responsibilities will include, how and when they will be trained and educated, and how they will be supported throughout the course of the study. Having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners, selecting patient partners who have had prior research experience and relationships with the researchers, and having multiple patient partners on the study team are all also helpful in supporting successful patient involvement. We need more people to share their experiences with involving patient partners in preference research so that we can continue to improve how this is done.

How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action.

Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making. Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022. Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions. Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.

Economic evaluation of the use of point-of-care devices in patients with long term oral anticoagulation.

To examine the cost and cost-effectiveness of the use of point-of-care (POC) devices by the general practitioner (GP), in anticoagulation clinic or by the patient in self-testing (PST) and self-management (PSM), compared with standard laboratory testing to realize international normalized ratio tests for patients on long term anticoagulation therapy. An economic evaluation was performed from the Belgian health care payer's perspective using a Markov model. Outcomes data were derived from a meta-analysis and cost data were derived from claims databases. Several scenarios were tested based on number of tests and GP's contacts and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to handle uncertainty. Evidence on the impact of POC on mortality was only found for PSM. Therefore, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for PSM and for other strategies, only a cost comparison was done. With an unchanged number of tests, POC is cost-saving compared to laboratory testing (probability > 70%). In scenarios where POC induces more tests, results were different: with 52 tests/year, only PSM kept a probability of remaining cost-saving superior to 50%. Except in the case of 100% of GP consultations maintained and 52 tests/year performed, PSM resulted in significantly more "life years gained" (LYG) than usual care and was on average cost-saving. The organisation of long term oral anticoagulation monitoring should be directed towards PSM and, to a lesser extent, PST for selected and trained patients.

Similarities and differences between five European drug reimbursement systems.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study is to compare five European drug reimbursement systems, describe similarities and differences, and obtain insight into their strengths and weaknesses and formulate policy recommendations. METHODS: We used the analytical Hutton Framework to assess in detail drug reimbursement systems in Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden. We investigated policy documents, explored literature, and conducted fifty-seven interviews with relevant stakeholders. RESULTS: All systems aim to balance three main objectives: system sustainability, equity and quality of care. System impact, however, is mainly assessed by drug expenditure. A national reimbursement agency evaluates reimbursement requests on a case-by-case basis. The minister has discretionary power to alter the reimbursement advice in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands. All systems make efforts to increase transparency in the decision-making process but none uses formal hierarchical reimbursement criteria nor applies a cost-effectiveness threshold value. Policies to deal with uncertainty vary: financial risk-sharing by price/volume contracts (France, Belgium) versus coverage with evidence development (Sweden, the Netherlands). Although case-by-case revisions are embedded in some systems for specific groups of drugs, systematic (group) revisions are limited. CONCLUSIONS: As shared strengths, all systems have clear objectives reflected in reimbursement criteria and all are prepared to pay for drugs with sufficient added value. However, all systems could improve the transparency of the decision-making process; especially appraisal lacks transparency. Systems could increase the use of (systematic) revisions and could make better use of HTA (among others cost-effectiveness) to obtain value for money and ensure system sustainability.