Agreement about Availability of Alternative Treatments for Innovative Drugs Assessed by the EMA and HTA Organizations.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and European national/regional health technology assessment (HTA) organizations consider the availability of existing treatments when evaluating a new drug. Since disagreement about the availability of alternative treatments may impact patient access to new drugs, this study aimed to investigate whether the EMA and HTA organizations agreed on the availability of alternative treatments and whether a lack of alternative treatments was associated with HTA organizations' added benefit assessment outcomes. For 97 innovative drugs authorized in 2019-2021 (excluding vaccines and diagnostic tools), assessments by the EMA and AEMPS (Spain), AIFA (Italy), HAS (France), IQWiG/G-BA (Germany), NICE (England and Wales), and ZIN (the Netherlands) were identified. Until 1 June 2022, 429 HTA drug-indication combinations were identified for these 97 drugs, of which 205 exactly matched the EMA's indication. For those, the overall agreement between the EMA and HTA organizations on whether alternative treatments were available was 87%. The agreement of HTA organizations with the EMA on whether available treatments were either pharmacological on-label, pharmacological off-label, or non-pharmacological was 87%, 21%, and 57%, respectively. For all 429 HTA drug-indication combinations, absence of alternative treatments as considered by HTA organizations was associated with a higher chance to provide added benefit: risk ratio 1.8 (95%-CI 1.4-2.3). In conclusion, although there was high overall agreement between the EMA and HTA organizations about whether alternative treatments exist, there were differences in the types of treatment considered. Parallel joint scientific consultations could inform drug developers about relevant alternative treatments to facilitate patient access to innovative drugs.

A literature review of quality assessment and applicability to HTA of risk prediction models of coronary heart disease in patients with diabetes.

This literature review had two objectives: to identify models for predicting the risk of coronary heart diseases in patients with diabetes (DM); and to assess model quality in terms of risk of bias (RoB) and applicability for the purpose of health technology assessment (HTA). We undertook a targeted review of journal articles published in English, Dutch, Chinese, or Spanish in 5 databases from 1st January 2016 to 18th December 2022, and searched three systematic reviews for the models published after 2012. We used PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool) to assess RoB, and used findings from Betts et al. 2019, which summarized recommendations and criticisms of HTA agencies on cardiovascular risk prediction models, to assess model applicability for the purpose of HTA. As a result, 71 % and 67 % models reporting C-index showed good discrimination abilities (C-index >= 0.7). Of the 26 model studies and 30 models identified, only one model study showed low RoB in all domains, and no model was fully applicable for HTA. Since the major cause of high RoB is inappropriate use of analysis method, we advise clinicians to carefully examine the model performance declared by model developers, and to trust a model if all PROBAST domains except analysis show low RoB and at least one validation study conducted in the same setting (e.g. country) is available. Moreover, since general model applicability is not informative for HTA, novel adapted tools may need to be developed.

Tools for assessing quality of studies investigating health interventions using real-world data: a literature review and content analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify existing appraisal tools for non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) and to compare the criteria that the tools provide at the quality-item level. DESIGN: Literature review through three approaches: systematic search of journal articles, snowballing search of reviews on appraisal tools and grey literature search on websites of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search: Medline; Snowballing: starting from three articles (D'Andrea et al, Quigley et al and Faria et al); Grey literature: websites of European HTA agencies listed by the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Appraisal tools were searched through April 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included a tool, if it addressed quality concerns of NRSIs and was published in English (unless from grey literature). A tool was excluded, if it was only for diagnostic, prognostic, qualitative or secondary studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent researchers searched, screened and reviewed all included studies and tools, summarised quality items and scored whether and to what extent a quality item was described by a tool, for either methodological quality or reporting. RESULTS: Forty-nine tools met inclusion criteria and were included for the content analysis. Concerns regarding the quality of NRSI were categorised into 4 domains and 26 items. The Research Triangle Institute Item Bank (RTI Item Bank) and STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) were the most comprehensive tools for methodological quality and reporting, respectively, as they addressed (n=20; 17) and sufficiently described (n=18; 13) the highest number of items. However, none of the tools covered all items. CONCLUSION: Most of the tools have their own strengths, but none of them could address all quality concerns relevant to NRSIs. Even the most comprehensive tools can be complemented by several items. We suggest decision-makers, researchers and tool developers consider the quality-item level heterogeneity, when selecting a tool or identifying a research gap. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF registration DOI (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KCSGX).

Importance of aligning the implementation of new payment models for innovative pharmaceuticals in European countries.

INTRODUCTION: The uptake of complex technologies and platforms has resulted in several challenges in the pricing and reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals. To address these challenges, plenty of concepts have already been described in the scientific literature about innovative value judgment or payment models, which are either (1) remaining theoretical; or (2) applied only in pilots with limited impact on patient access; or (3) applied so heterogeneously in many different countries that it prevents the health care industry from meeting expectations of HTA bodies and health care payers in the evidence requirements or offerings in different jurisdictions. AREAS COVERED: This paper provides perspectives on how to reduce the heterogeneity of pharmaceutical payment models across European countries in five areas, including 1) extended evaluation frameworks, 2) performance-based risk-sharing agreements, 3) pooled procurement for low volume or urgent technologies, 4) alternative access schemes, and 5) delayed payment models for technologies with high upfront costs. EXPERT OPINION: Whilst pricing and reimbursement decisions will remain a competence of EU member states, there is a need for alignment of European pharmaceutical payment model components in critical areas with the ultimate objective of improving the equitable access of European patients to increasingly complex pharmaceutical technologies.

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.

Systemic anticancer treatment in the Netherlands: Few hospitals treat many patients, many hospitals treat few patients.

INTRODUCTION: The correlation between patient volume and clinical outcomes is well known for various oncological treatments, especially in the surgical field. The current level of centralisation of systemic treatment of (hemato-)oncology indications in Dutch hospitals is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to gain insight in patient volumes per hospital of patients treated with systemic anticancer treatment in the Netherlands. METHODS: National claims data (Vektis) of all 73 Dutch hospitals that provide systemic anticancer medication in the Netherlands for the time period 2019 were used. The distribution of volumes of patients treated with anticancer medication for 38 different haematological or oncological indications was analysed. Hospitals were categorized into academic/specialised, general, and top clinical. Two volume cut off points (10 and 30 patients) were used to identify hospitals treating relatively few patients with anticancer medication. Four indications were investigated in more detail. RESULTS: A wide distribution in patient volumes within hospitals was observed. Top clinical hospitals generally treated the most patients per hospital, followed by general and academic/specialised oncology hospitals. The volume cut off points showed that in 19 indications (50%) the majority (>50%) of all hospitals treated less than 10 patients and in 25 indications (66%) the majority of all hospitals treated less than 30 patients with anticancer medication. Four case studies demonstrated that relatively few hospitals treat many patients while many hospitals treat few patients with anticancer medication. CONCLUSION: In the majority of oncology indications, a large proportion of Dutch hospitals treat small numbers of unique patients with anticancer medication. The high level of fragmentation gives ground for further exploration and discussion on how the organisation of care can support optimization of the efficiency and quality of care. Professional groups, policy makers, patients, and healthcare insurers should consider per indication whether centralisation is warranted.

The Beneluxa Initiative domain task force health technology assessment: a comparison of member countries' past health technology assessments.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare assessments between Beneluxa Initiative member countries' assessments and identify alignments and divergences. METHODS: A retrospective comparative analysis was performed that investigated (i) number and type of assessed indications (for Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Ireland (IE), and the Netherlands (NL)); (ii) added benefit conclusions (for BE, IE, and NL); and (iii) the main arguments underlying differences in conclusions (for BE, IE, and NL). Data were retrieved directly from agency representatives and from public HTA reports. European Medicines Agency approved indications were included for drugs assessed between 2016 and 2020, excluding veterinary drugs, generics, and biosimilars. RESULTS: Only 44 (10 percent) of the 444 included indications were assessed by all four member countries. Between any pair of two countries, the overlap was higher, from 63 (AT-NL) to 188 (BE-IE). Added benefit conclusions matched exactly in 62-74 percent of the indications, depending on the countries compared. In the remaining cases, most often a difference of one added benefit level was observed (e.g., higher vs. equal relative effect). Contradictory outcomes were very rare: only three cases were observed (lower vs. higher effect). When assessing the underlying arguments for seven cases with different outcomes, differences were attributable to slight differences in weighing of evidence and uncertainties rather than disagreement on aspects within the assessment itself. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high variability in European HTA procedures, collaboration on HTA between the Beneluxa Initiative member countries is very feasible and would likely not result in added benefit conclusions that would be very different from added benefit conclusions in national procedures.

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.

Adverse Events to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Vaccines and Policy Considerations that Inform the Funding of Safety Surveillance in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Mixed Methods Study.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: Rapid global approval of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and concurrent introduction in high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) highlights the importance of equitable safety surveillance of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs). We profiled AEFIs to COVID-19 vaccines, explored reporting differences between Africa and the rest of the world (RoW), and analyzed policy considerations that inform strengthening of safety surveillance in LMICs. METHODS: Using a convergent mixed-methods design we compared the rate and profile of COVID-19 vaccines' AEFIs reported to VigiBase by Africa versus the RoW, and interviewed policymakers to elicit considerations that inform the funding of safety surveillance in LMICs. RESULTS: With 87,351 out of 14,671,586 AEFIs, Africa had the second-lowest crude number and a reporting rate of 180 adverse events (AEs) per million administered doses. Serious AEs (SAEs) were 27.0%. Death accounted for about 10.0% of SAEs. Significant differences were found in reporting by gender, age group, and SAEs between Africa and the RoW. AstraZeneca and Pfizer BioNTech vaccines were associated with a high absolute number of AEFIs for Africa and RoW; Sputnik V contributed a considerably high rate of AEs per 1 million administered doses. Funding decisions for safety surveillance in LMICs were not based on explicit policies but on country priorities, perceived utility of data, and practical implementation issues. CONCLUSION: African countries reported fewer AEFIs relative to the RoW. To enhance Africa's contribution to the global knowledge on COVID-19 vaccine safety, governments must explicitly consider safety monitoring as a priority, and funding organizations need to systematically and continuously support these programs.

Reimbursement and payment models in Central and Eastern European as well as Middle Eastern countries: A survey of their current use and future outlook.

There is growing interest in innovative reimbursement and payment models in Central and Eastern European (CEE) and Middle Eastern (ME) countries. A questionnaire was sent to payers from CEE and ME countries regarding the current use of, future preferences for and perceived barriers with these models. Twenty-seven healthcare payers from 11 countries completed the survey. Results showed participants preferred using outcome-based reimbursement models and delayed payment models more often; however, currently they are rarely applied. Barriers hindering implementation were mostly related to IT and data infrastructure, measurement issues, transaction costs and the administrative burden. Given these barriers highlighted in our study, policymakers should focus on the development of an implementation framework with contract templates for the preferred reimbursement and payment schemes to aid the feasibility of a successful implementation.

Outcome-based reimbursement in Central-Eastern Europe and Middle-East.

Outcome-based reimbursement models can effectively reduce the financial risk to health care payers in cases when there is important uncertainty or heterogeneity regarding the clinical value of health technologies. Still, health care payers in lower income countries rely mainly on financial based agreements to manage uncertainties associated with new therapies. We performed a survey, an exploratory literature review and an iterative brainstorming in parallel about potential barriers and solutions to outcome-based agreements in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and in the Middle East (ME). A draft list of recommendations deriving from these steps was validated in a follow-up workshop with payer experts from these regions. 20 different barriers were identified in five groups, including transaction costs and administrative burden, measurement issues, information technology and data infrastructure, governance, and perverse policy outcomes. Though implementing outcome-based reimbursement models is challenging, especially in lower income countries, those challenges can be mitigated by conducting pilot agreements and preparing for predictable barriers. Our guidance paper provides an initial step in this process. The generalizability of our recommendations can be improved by monitoring experiences from pilot reimbursement models in CEE and ME countries and continuing the multistakeholder dialogue at national levels.

Regulatory reliance pathways during health emergencies: enabling timely authorizations for COVID-19 vaccines in Latin America.

Objectives: To map the timing and nature of regulatory reliance pathways used to authorize COVID-19 vaccines in Latin America. Methods: An observational study was conducted assessing the characteristics of all COVID-19 vaccine authorizations in Latin America. For every authorization it was determined whether reliance was used in the authorization process. Subgroups of reference national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and non-reference NRAs were compared. Results: 56 authorizations of 10 different COVID-19 vaccines were identified in 18 countries, of which 25 (44.6%) used reliance and 12 (21.4%) did not. For the remaining 19 (33.0%) it was not possible to determine whether reliance was used. Reference agencies used reliance less often (40% of authorizations with a known pathway) compared to non-reference agencies (100%). The median review time was just 15 days and does not meaningfully differ between reliance and non-reliance authorizations. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that for these vaccines, despite reliance pathways being associated with numerous rapid authorizations, independent authorization review times were not considerably longer than reliance reviews; reliance pathways were not a prerequisite for rapid authorization. Nevertheless, reliance pathways provided rapid authorizations in response to the COVID-19 emergency.

Delayed payment schemes in Central-Eastern Europe and Middle-East.

The need for innovative payment models for health technologies with high upfront costs has emerged due to affordability concerns across the world. Early technology adopter countries have been experimenting with delayed payment schemes. Our objective included listing potential barriers for implementing delayed payment models and recommendations on how to address these barriers in lower income countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Middle East (ME). We conducted a survey, an exploratory literature review and an iterative brainstorming about potential barriers and solutions to implement delayed payment models in these two regions. A draft list of recommendations was validated in a virtual workshop with payer experts from the two regions. Eight barriers were identified in 4 areas, including transaction costs and administrative burden, payment schedule, information technology and data infrastructure, and governance. Fifteen practical recommendations were prepared to address these barriers, including recommendations that are specific to lower income countries, and recommendations that can be applied more universally, but are more crucial in countries with severe budget constraints. Conclusions of this policy research can be considered as an initial step in a multistakeholder dialogue about implementing delayed payment schemes in CEE and ME countries.

Regulatory reliance pathways during health emergencies: enabling timely authorizations for COVID-19 vaccines in Latin America

[ABSTRACT]. Objectives. To map the timing and nature of regulatory reliance pathways used to authorize COVID-19 vaccines in Latin America. Methods. An observational study was conducted assessing the characteristics of all COVID-19 vaccine authorizations in Latin America. For every authorization it was determined whether reliance was used in the authorization process. Subgroups of reference national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and non-reference NRAs were compared. Results. 56 authorizations of 10 different COVID-19 vaccines were identified in 18 countries, of which 25 (44.6%) used reliance and 12 (21.4%) did not. For the remaining 19 (33.0%) it was not possible to determine whether reliance was used. Reference agencies used reliance less often (40% of authorizations with a known pathway) compared to non-reference agencies (100%). The median review time was just 15 days and does not meaningfully differ between reliance and non-reliance authorizations. Conclusions. This study demonstrated that for these vaccines, despite reliance pathways being associated with numerous rapid authorizations, independent authorization review times were not considerably longer than reliance reviews; reliance pathways were not a prerequisite for rapid authorization. Nevertheless, reliance pathways provided rapid authorizations in response to the COVID-19 emergency.

[RESUMEN]. Objetivos. Determinar dónde y cuándo se usaron las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones y la naturaleza de estos mecanismos para autorizar vacunas contra la COVID-19 en América Latina. Métodos. Se realizó un estudio observacional para evaluar las características de todas las autorizaciones de vacunas contra la COVID-19 en América Latina. Para cada autorización se determinó si se emplearon las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones en el proceso de autorización. Se compararon subgrupos de autoridades regulatorias nacionales (ARN) consideradas de referencia con otras ARN no usadas como referencia. Resultados. Se determinó dónde se otorgaron 56 autorizaciones de 10 vacunas diferentes contra la COVID–19 en 18 países; de estas 56 autorizaciones, 25 (44,6%) hicieron uso de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones y 12 (21,4%), no. Para las 19 restantes (33,0%) no fue posible determinar si se hizo uso de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones. Los organismos de referencia utilizaron las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones con menos frecuencia (40% de las autorizaciones con un mecanismo conocido) en comparación con los organismos no usados como referencia (100%). El plazo medio de revisión fue de tan solo 15 días y no difiere significativamente entre las autorizaciones que emplearon decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones y las que no las emplearon. Conclusiones. En este estudio se demostró que, a pesar de que los mecanismos de utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones se asocian en muchos casos con autorizaciones rápidas, para estas vacunas los plazos de revisión independiente para la autorización no fueron considerablemente mayores que los de las revisiones que emplearon decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones. También se demostró que para obtener una autorización rápida no se requería la utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones. Sin embargo, estos mecanismos proporcionaron autorizaciones rápidas en respuesta a la emergencia por la COVID–19.

[RESUMO]. Objetivos. Mapear a tempestividade e a natureza do uso de decisões regulatórias de outras autoridades (reliance regulatório) para autorização de vacinas contra a COVID-19 na América Latina. Métodos. Em um estudo observacional, foram avaliadas as características de todas as autorizações de vacinas contra COVID-19 na América Latina. Para cada autorização, foi determinado se foram utilizadas decisões de outras autoridades regulatórias para embasar o processo de autorização. Foram comparados subgrupos de autoridades reguladoras nacionais (ARN) de referência (ARNr) e ARN não consideradas de referência. Resultados. Foram identificadas 56 autorizações de 10 vacinas diferentes contra a COVID-19 em 18 países, das quais 25 (44,6%) utilizaram decisões de outras ARN como base para o registro e 12 (21,4%) não. Para as 19 (33,0%) autorizações restantes, não foi possível determinar se decisões de outras ARN foram utilizadas. As ARNr utilizaram decisões de outras autoridades com menos frequência (40% das autorizações com via regulatória conhecida) em comparação com as ARN não consideradas de referência (100%). A mediana do tempo de tramitação foi de apenas 15 dias, sem diferença significativa entre processos nos quais foram utilizadas decisões de outras agências e processos que não as utilizaram. Conclusões. Este estudo demonstrou que, para estas vacinas, apesar de o uso do reliance regulatório estar associado a várias autorizações rápidas, os tempos de tramitação não foram consideravelmente maiores em autorizações independentes do que quando foram utilizadas decisões de outras ARN; o reliance regulatório não foi um pré-requisito para autorização rápida. No entanto, o uso de tais processos viabilizou autorizações rápidas em resposta à emergência de COVID-19.

Cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel vs. ticagrelor in patients of 70 years or older with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The POPular AGE trial showed that clopidogrel significantly reduced bleeding risk compared with ticagrelor without any signs of an increase in thrombotic events. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel compared with ticagrelor in these patients aged 70 years or older with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS AND RESULTS: A 1-year decision tree based on the POPular AGE trial in combination with a lifelong Markov model was developed to compare clopidogrel with ticagrelor in terms of clinical outcomes, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in elderly patients (above 70 year) with NSTE-ACS. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a Dutch healthcare system perspective. Events rates and utility data observed in the POPular AGE trial were combined with lifetime projections to evaluate costs and effects for a fictional cohort of 1000 patients. Treatment with clopidogrel instead of ticagrelor led to a cost saving of €1484 575 (€1485 per patient) and a decrease of 10.96 QALYs (0.011 QALY per patient) in the fictional cohort. In an alternative base case with equal distribution over health states in the first year, treatment with clopidogrel led to an increase in QALYs. In all scenario analyses, treatment with clopidogrel was cost-saving. CONCLUSION: Clopidogrel is a cost-saving alternative to ticagrelor in elderly patients after NSTE-ACS, though regarding overall cost-effectiveness clopidogrel was not superior to ticagrelor, as it resulted in a small negative effect on QALYs. However, based on the results of the alternative base case and clinical outcomes of the POPular AGE trial, clopidogrel could be a reasonable alternative to ticagrelor for elderly NSTE-ACS patients with a higher bleeding risk.

Reported Challenges in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies.

OBJECTIVES: With complex health technologies entering the market, methods for health technology assessment (HTA) may require changes. This study aimed to identify challenges in HTA of complex health technologies. METHODS: A survey was sent to European HTA organizations participating in European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA). The survey contained open questions and used predefined potentially complex health technologies and 7 case studies to identify types of complex health technologies and challenges faced during HTA. The survey was validated, tested for reliability by an expert panel, and pilot tested before dissemination. RESULTS: A total of 22 HTA organizations completed the survey (67%). Advanced therapeutic medicinal products (ATMPs) and histology-independent therapies were considered most challenging based on the predefined complex health technologies and case studies. For the case studies, more than half of the reported challenges were "methodological," equal in relative effectiveness assessments as in cost-effectiveness assessments. Through the open questions, we found that most of these challenges actually rooted in data unavailability. Data were reported as "absent," "insufficient," "immature," or "low quality" by 18 of 20 organizations (90%), in particular data on quality of life. Policy and organizational challenges and challenges because of societal or political pressure were reported by 8 (40%) and 4 organizations (20%), respectively. Modeling issues were reported least often (n = 2, 4%). CONCLUSIONS: Most challenges in HTA of complex health technologies root in data insufficiencies rather than in the complexity of health technologies itself. As the number of complex technologies grows, the urgency for new methods and policies to guide HTA decision making increases.

Real World Data in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies.

The available evidence on relative effectiveness and risks of new health technologies is often limited at the time of health technology assessment (HTA). Additionally, a wide variety in real-world data (RWD) policies exist among HTA organizations. This study assessed which challenges, related to the increasingly complex nature of new health technologies, make the acceptance of RWD most likely. A questionnaire was disseminated among 33 EUnetHTA member HTA organizations. The questions focused on accepted data sources, circumstances that allowed for RWD acceptance and barriers to acceptance. The questionnaire was validated and tested for reliability by an expert panel, and pilot-tested before dissemination via LimeSurvey. Twenty-two HTA organizations completed the questionnaire (67%). All reported accepting randomized clinical trials. The most accepted RWD source were patient registries (19/22, 86%), the least accepted were editorials and expert opinions (8/22, 36%). With orphan treatments or companion diagnostics, organizations tended to be most likely to accept RWD sources, 4.3-3.2 on a 5-point Likert scale, respectively. Additional circumstances were reported to accept RWD (e.g., a high disease burden). The two most important barriers to accepting RWD were lacking necessary RWD sources and existing policy structures. European HTA organizations seem positive toward the (wider) use of RWD in HTA of complex therapies. Expanding the use of patient registries could be potentially useful, as a large share of the organizations already accepts this source. However, many barriers still exist to the widespread use of RWD. Our results can be used to prioritize circumstances in which RWD might be accepted.

Understanding innovation of health technology assessment methods: the IHTAM framework.

Adequate methods are urgently needed to guarantee the good practice of health technology assessment (HTA) for technologies with novel properties. The aim of the study was to construct a conceptual framework to help understand the innovation of HTA methods (IHTAM). The construction of the IHTAM framework was based on two scoping reviews, one on the current practice of innovating methods, that is existing HTA frameworks, and one on theoretical foundations for innovating methods outside the HTA discipline. Both aimed to identify and synthesize concepts of innovation (i.e., innovation processes and roles of stakeholders in innovation). Using these concepts, the framework was developed in iterative brainstorming sessions and subsequent discussions with representatives from various stakeholder groups. The framework was constructed based on twenty documents on innovating HTA frameworks and fourteen guidelines from three scientific disciplines. It includes a generic innovation process consisting of three phases ("Identification," "Development," and "Implementation") and nine subphases. In the framework, three roles that HTA stakeholders can play in innovation ("Developers," "Practitioners," and "Beneficiaries") are defined, and a process on how the stakeholders innovate HTA methods is included. The IHTAM framework visualizes systematically which elements and stakeholders are important to the development and implementation of novel HTA methods. The framework could be used by all stakeholders involved in HTA innovation to learn how to engage dynamically and collaborate effectively throughout the innovation process. HTA stakeholders in practice have welcomed the framework, though additional testing of its applicability and acceptance is essential.