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.

Corrigendum to "Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2021/9996193.].

Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus rates and associated costs continue to rise across Europe enhancing health authority focus on its management. The risk of complications is enhanced by poor glycaemic control, with long-acting insulin analogues developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve patient convenience. There are concerns though with their considerably higher costs, but moderated by reductions in complications and associated costs. Biosimilars can help further reduce costs. However, to date, price reductions for biosimilar insulin glargine appear limited. In addition, the originator company has switched promotional efforts to more concentrated patented formulations to reduce the impact of biosimilars. There are also concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. As a result, there is a need to assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues and biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, among multiple European countries to provide future direction. Methodology. Health authority databases are examined to assess utilisation and expenditure patterns for insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine. Explanations for patterns seen were provided by senior-level personnel. RESULTS: Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.

Exploring the opportunities for alignment of regulatory postauthorization requirements and data required for performance-based managed entry agreements.

Performance-based managed entry agreements (PB-MEAs) might allow patient access to new medicines, but practical hurdles make competent authorities for pricing and reimbursement (CAPR) reluctant to implement PB-MEAs. We explored if the feasibility of PB-MEAs might improve by better aligning regulatory postauthorization requirements with the data generation of PB-MEAs and by active collaboration and data sharing. Reviewers from seven CAPRs provided structured assessments of the information available at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Web site on regulatory postauthorization requirements for fifteen recently authorized products. The reviewers judged to what extent regulatory postauthorization studies could help implement PB-MEAs by addressing uncertainty gaps. Study domains assessed were: patient population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, time horizon, anticipated data quality, and anticipated robustness of analysis. Reviewers shared general comments about PB-MEAs for each product and on cooperation with other CAPRs. Reviewers rated regulatory postauthorization requirements at least partly helpful for most products and across domains except the comparator domain. One quarter of responses indicated that public information provided by the EMA was insufficient to support the implementation of PB-MEAs. Few PB-MEAs were in place for these products, but the potential for implementation of PB-MEAs or collaboration across CAPRs was seen as more favorable. Responses helped delineate a set of conditions where PB-MEAs may help reduce uncertainty. In conclusion, PB-MEAs are not a preferred option for CAPRs, but we identified conditions where PB-MEAs might be worth considering. The complexities of implementing PB-MEAs remain a hurdle, but collaboration across silos and more transparency on postauthorization studies could help overcome some barriers.

Time to Review Authorisation and Funding for New Cancer Medicines in Europe? Inferences from the Case of Olaratumab.

The potential benefits of early patient access to new medicines in areas of high unmet medical need are recognised, but uncertainties concerning effectiveness, safety and added value when new medicines are authorised, and subsequently funded based on initial preliminary data only, have important implications. In 2016 olaratumab received accelerated conditional approval from both the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma, based on the claims of a substantial reduction in the risk of death with an 11.8-month improvement in median overall survival in a phase II trial in combination with doxorubicin vs. doxorubicin alone. The failure to confirm these benefits in the post-authorisation pivotal trial has highlighted key concerns regarding early access and conditional approvals for new medicines. Concerns include potentially considerable clinical and economic costs, so that patients may have received suboptimal treatment and any money spent has foregone the opportunity to improve access to effective treatments. As a result, it seems reasonable to reconsider current marketing authorisation models and approaches. Potential pathways forward include closer collaboration between regulators, pharmaceutical companies and payers to enhance the generation of rapid and comparative confirmatory trials in a safe and fair manner, with minimal patient exposure as required to achieve robust evidence. Additionally, it may be time to review early access systems, and to explore new avenues regarding who should pay or part pay for new treatments whilst information is being collected as part of any obligations for conditional marketing authorisation. Greater co-operation between countries regarding the collection of data in routine clinical care, and further research on post-marketing data analysis and interpretation, may also contribute to improved appraisal and continued access to new innovative cancer treatments.

[European Collaboration in Medical Device Assessment: One Step Towards Cross-Border Health Care]. / Europäische Zusammenarbeit in der Bewertung von Medizinprodukten ­ ein Schritt zur grenzüberschreitenden Gesundheitsversorgung.

AIM: The aim of this paper was to present the legal framework as well as previous experience in transnational collaboration regarding the assessment of medical devices for reimbursement decisions. Furthermore, the possible benefit of transnational collaboration for various stakeholders will be discussed. METHODS: Experiences gathered with the compilation of overall 6 joint rapid assessments of medical devices within the completed European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action 2 (JA2) are summarised and discussed. Benefits, aims and opportunities of the ongoing EUnetHTA Joint Action 3 (JA3) are described. RESULTS: Challenges in joint European assessment of medical devices encompass the choice of topics and the time point of assessments, the non-transparency of the medical devices market as well as the lack of European standards for systematic patient involvement. Characteristics of medical devices such as incremental changes and learning curves call for monitoring of medical devices through their whole lifecycle. The concrete benefit of European collaboration for stakeholders is manifold: uncertainties with regard to the actual added value of a technology, caused by a lack of evidence, may be reduced by Early Dialogues; harmonized and transparent assessment processes throughout Europe increase the reproducibility and quality of reports; the division of work among the health technology assessment (HTA) organisations allows a resource efficient assessment of a larger amount of technologies; patient involvement facilitates consideration of patient-relevant endpoints. The importance of cross-border collaboration in the field of HTA is shown in the continuation of the EUnetHTA project, which aims to further strengthen international collaboration even after expiration of EU funding. CONCLUSION: A sustainable transnational collaboration in the assessment of medical devices can ensure cross-border health care as well as efficient collaboration of national health systems. The focus should be on a wide implementation of jointly established methods and quality standards. The European collaboration can lead to a concrete benefit for patients, physicians, HTA organisations and national decision makers.

Biodegradable stents for the treatment of refractory or recurrent benign esophageal stenosis.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal stents are used for the treatment of refractory and recurrent dyphagias. In 2007, esophageal biodegradable stents (EBS) were authorised as an alternative to existing metal and plastic stents in Europe. The advantages claimed for EBS are fewer complications concerning tissue ingrowth, stent migration and stent removal. AREAS COVERED: We performed a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EBS compared to fully-covered self-expanding metal stents, self-expanding plastic stents, and esophageal dilation for the treatment of refractory or recurrent benign esophageal stenosis. Three comparative studies (one randomized controlled trial and two cohort studies) were assessed. The studies used different inclusion criteria, had a very small (sample) size and the quality of the evidence was very low. Expert commentary: The current evidence is insufficient to determine the relative efficacy or safety of esophageal biodegradable stents. The results of this systematic review should be updated once new evidence is available.

LOOKING BACK ON 5 YEARS OF HORIZON SCANNING IN ONCOLOGY.

OBJECTIVES: The regularly structured adaptation of health technology assessment (HTA) programs is of utmost importance to sustain the relevance of the products for stakeholders and to justify investment of scarce financial resources. This study describes internal adjustments and external measures taken to ensure the Horizon Scanning Programme in Oncology (HSO) is current. METHODS: Formal evaluation methods comprising a survey, a download, an environmental analysis, and a Web site questionnaire were used to evaluate user satisfaction. RESULTS: The evaluation showed that users were satisfied with HSO outputs in terms of timeliness, topics selected, and depth of information provided. Discussion of these findings with an expert panel led to changes such as an improved dissemination strategy and the introduction of an additional output, that is, the publication of a league table of emerging oncology drugs. The rather high level of international usage and the environmental analysis highlighted a considerable overlap in topics assessed and, thus, the potential for international collaboration. As a consequence, thirteen reports were jointly published based on eleven "calls for collaboration." To further facilitate collaboration and the usability of reports for other agencies, HSO reports will be adjusted according to tools developed at a European level. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the impact of HTA programs allows the tailoring of outputs to fit the needs of the target population. However, within a fast developing HTA community, estimates of impact will increasingly be determined by international collaborative efforts. Refined methods and a broader definition of impact are needed to ultimately capture the efficiency of national HTA programs.

DISINVESTING FROM INEFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: LESSONS LEARNED FROM CURRENT PROGRAMS.

OBJECTIVES: Many of the currently used health technologies have never been systematically assessed or are misused, overused or superseded. Therefore, they may be ineffective. Active identification of ineffectiveness in health care is gaining importance to facilitate best care for patients and optimal use of limited resources. The present research analyzed processes and experiences of programs for identifying ineffective health technologies. The goal of this study was to elucidate factors that facilitate implementation. METHODS: Based on an overview article, a systematic literature search and unsystematic hand-search were conducted. Further information was gained from international experts. RESULTS: Seven programs were identified that include identification, prioritization and assessment of ineffective health technologies and dissemination of recommendations. The programs are quite similar regarding their goals, target groups and criteria for identification and prioritization. Outputs, mainly HTA reports or lists, are mostly disseminated by means of the internet. Top-down and bottom-up programs both have benefits in terms of implementation of recommendations, either as binding guidelines and decisions or as nonbinding information for physicians and other stakeholders. Crucial facilitators of implementation are political will, transparent processes and broad stakeholder involvement focusing on physicians. CONCLUSIONS: All programs can improve the quality of health care and enable cost reduction in supportive surrounding conditions. Physicians and patients must be continuously involved in the process of evaluating health technologies. Additionally, decision makers must support programs and translate recommendations into concrete actions.

[HTA goes Europe: European collaboration on joint assessment and methodological issues becomes reality]. / HTA goes Europe: Europäische Zusammenarbeit in gemeinsamen Nutzenbewertungen und methodischen Fragen wird real.

INTRODUCTION: The standardisation of European HTA and thus the reduction of redundancies require clearly defined processes and methods. The HTA Core Model®, a tool developed by the European Network EUnetHTA, is intended to ensure the transparent production of standardised and high-quality assessments in international collaboration. METHODS: The present paper describes the experience with already published EUnetHTA assessments as well as possibilities for national/local adaptations of these assessments. The integration of jointly developed methods in routine processes of individual HTA agencies will be explained on the basis of a selected example. Further methodological initiatives in Europe will be presented. RESULTS: So far, EUnetHTA has published four rapid assessments conducted through European cooperation between 6-9 HTA institutes during Joint Action 2 (2012-2015). Two assessments dealt with pharmaceuticals and two with non-pharmaceutical interventions. The overall duration of these assessments ranged from 7 to 9 months. There is initial information about the frequency and manner in which these assessments have been used for national/local HTA reports. According to a survey, a total of 28 HTA institutes have indicated that they want to make use of these assessments in their own context. In Austria, the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment (LBI-HTA) has produced two reports based on EUnetHTA assessments. A further step towards cross-border collaboration and harmonisation is the implementation of these tools in a national and regional context. Beginning in 2015 the LBI-HTA will adjust two programme lines to the format of the HTA Core Model® in order to increase the transferability of HTAs and to reduce redundancies. DISCUSSION: Barriers to European collaboration include the relevance of topics for individual HTA institutes and the timing of joint assessments. Implementing commonly developed methods as standard practice in local/national HTA institutes is mainly impeded by legislative requirements. CONCLUSION: Despite the initial positive experiences with international collaboration on specific topics and methods, the coming years will have to prove whether existing barriers can be overcome effectively.

Health technology assessment of medical devices: What is different? An overview of three European projects.

BACKGROUND: With the growing use and importance of health technology assessment (HTA) in decision making during recent years, health technology assessors, decision makers and stakeholders are confronted with methodological challenges due to specific characteristics of health technologies (e. g., pharmaceuticals, diagnostic tests, screening programs), their developmental environment, and their regulation process. Being aware of the necessity to use HTA as a policy instrument for sustainable health care systems in a regulatory environment of decentralized Conformité Européenne (CE) marking, the European Union (EU) is increasingly supporting the development of methods for the assessment of medical devices (MD) on different levels: within the scope of European research projects and within joint assessment activities of the member states of the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). OBJECTIVE: First, this article describes three projects: MedtecHTA-Methods for Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices, a European Perspective Work Package 3 (WP3), Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Devices led by the University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology (UMIT). Second, we discuss the experiences of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute Health Technology Assessment (LBI HTA) with the joint production of rapid assessments of medical devices by several European HTA agencies within EUnetHTA. Third, a brief outline is given of the framework of joint methodological guideline elaboration by the EUnetHTA partner organizations because a guideline for therapeutic MD is also being developed here. METHODS: We will describe aims, methods and some preliminary results of MedtecHTA and EUnetHTA Joint Action 2 Work Package 5 Strand B (WP5B) applying the HTA Core Model for Rapid Assessment for national adaptation and reporting, and give an overview of the development process of methodological guidelines within WP 7 of EUnetHTA Joint Action 2. RESULTS: Based on a literature review in MedtecHTA WP3 incremental development, context dependency and the physical mode of action of MD were identified as those characteristics making therapeutic MD different from drugs with regard to evaluation methods. In addition, regulation does not stipulate clinical trials. These characteristics were also identified as challenges for the production of joint assessments of MD within the HTA network EUnetHTA. Furthermore, adequate timing of assessment production, the variety of involved manufacturers, the non-transparent regulation process of MD in Europe and the often poor evidence base pose a challenge to EUnetHTA assessors. As a consequence, processes and methods for the joint production of rapid assessments must be continuously adapted and improved. DISCUSSION: Research on HTA methods for the assessment of MD tries to provide tools to deal with rapidly developing devices during evidence generation, dependence of clinical effectiveness of MD on user experience and context factors. There are also tools to integrate evidence from different sources adjusting for different levels of validity, but these methods are not established and need high epidemiological and statistical expertise. A framework for deciding whether additional evidence is needed to reduce uncertainty regarding safety, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness will be adapted to MD. The whole process of evidence generation before and after market access has to be considered to provide an environment for conclusive HTA recommendations informing health care decision making. In Joint Action 2, EUnetHTA develops transparent processes for the early dialogue with stakeholders and fosters dissemination of appropriate HTA methods. In the case of MD, there are special accumulated needs for such efforts.

Collaboration in health technology assessment (EUnetHTA joint action, 2010-2012): four case studies.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to present the first four collaborative health technology assessment (HTA) processes on health technologies of different types and life cycles targeted toward diverse HTA users and facilitators, as well as the barriers of these collaborations. METHODS: Retrospective analysis, through four case studies, was performed on the first four collaboration experiences of agencies participating in the EUnetHTA Joint Action project (2010-12), comprising different types and life cycles of health technologies for a diverse target audience, and different types of collaboration. The methods used to initiate collaboration, partner contributions, the assessment methodology, report structure, time frame, and factors acting as possible barriers to and facilitators of this collaboration were described. RESULTS: Two ways were used to initiate collaboration in the first four collaborative HTA processes: active brokering of information, so-called "calls for collaboration," and individual contact between agencies after identifying a topic common to two agencies in the Planned and Ongoing Projects database. Several success factors are recognized: predefined project management, high degree of commitment to the project; adherence to timelines; high relevance of technology; a common understanding of the methods applied and advanced experience in HTA; finally, acceptance of English-written reports by decision makers in non-English-speaking countries. Barriers like late identification of collaborative partners, nonacceptance of English language and different methodology of assessment should be overcome. CONCLUSIONS: Timely and efficient, different collaborative HTA processes on relative efficacy/effectiveness and safety on different types and life cycles of health technologies, targeted toward diverse HTA users in Europe are possible. There are still barriers to overcome.

[HTA-Perspective: Challenges in the early assessment of new oncological drugs]. / HTA-Perspektive: Herausforderungen bei der Frühbewertung neuer Onkologika.

Oncologic drug therapies have gained wide attention in the context of health policy priority setting for serious and socially significant diseases with high human and monetary costs. Due to uncertainties and scepticism about the actual therapeutic importance of newly approved oncology products, an early assessment programme was already established in Austria in 2007. The assessment of new oncology products is thereby faced with special challenges, since study populations are frequently not representative or the study design is laid out in such a manner that a definitive assessment of patient-relevant endpoints is not possible (cross-overs after interim assessments, surrogate parameters as primary endpoints, uncontrolled studies or those with unrealistic comparators, invalidated post-hoc identified biomarkers). On account of these major uncertainties, even the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is already contemplating multi-stage, "adaptive" approvals, and national reimbursement institutions are increasingly working with outcome-oriented, conditional reimbursement. (As supplied by publisher).

Scanning the horizon: development and implementation of an early awareness system for anticancer drugs in Austria.

BACKGROUND: Due to increasing expenditures for cancer therapies, an instrument was needed in Austria to facilitate the evidence-based use of new anticancer drugs and to pre-estimate their financial implications. OBJECTIVES: To describe and analyse the development and implementation of a Horizon Scanning System (HSS) in Austria that allows for the evaluation of new anticancer drugs before their routine introduction into clinical practice in order to inform decision-makers. METHODS: Common stages involved in HSSs were identified by a literature review and in cooperation with experts. A first concept for an HSS in Oncology was developed and piloted, and further adjustments were made after several feedback rounds with experts in oncology. RESULTS: To specifically tailor the five common stages of HSSs to the needs of our HSS, a continually evolving process was required. Now, 21 information sources are regularly scanned, the information is retrieved and extracted in a standardised format, and only anticancer drugs in phase III are included and prioritised by a team of eight experts. Since the HSS in Oncology was implemented as a standard practice, 19 assessments on novel cancer therapies with likely therapeutic and/or financial impacts have been published. CONCLUSIONS: The successful implementation of an HSS necessitates a repetitive cycle of adjustments in order to meet the objectives set by the individual HSS.