Is IQWiG's 15% Threshold Universally Applicable in Assessing the Clinical Relevance of Patient-Reported Outcomes Changes? An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

This article discusses a recent methodological change to assess the additional benefit of drug intervention by the German Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss), a key stakeholder in EUnetHTA21 (European Network for Health Technology Assessment joint consortium for future EU HTA regulation), methodological workstream. The German Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) set a universal individual response threshold at ≥ 15% of the scale range of the measurement instrument, for all patient-reported outcomes, to achieve an additional benefit rating for a given pharmaceutical intervention. This approach is originally based on a corresponding recommendation from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. The merits of this approach are reviewed from various perspectives, including the evidence basis, statistical and psychometric considerations, and regulatory perspectives by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment Special Interest Group's multistakeholder group of authors (academia, contract research organizations, and industry). Particular focus is placed on the patient perspective within the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care approach. The article development incorporated feedback from ISPOR members during well-attended ISPOR US and European conference presentations and 2 formal rounds of written review. The authors concluded that the ≥ 15% response threshold is incongruent with previously defined and scientifically established thresholds and is not well-suited for universal implementation. Further scientific evidence and discussion among all stakeholders are needed, especially should this universal rule be considered in the context of future joint clinical assessments of health technologies in the European Union scheduled from 2025 onward.

Health Preference Research in Europe: A Review of Its Use in Marketing Authorization, Reimbursement, and Pricing Decisions-Report of the ISPOR Stated Preference Research Special Interest Group.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines European decision makers' consideration and use of quantitative preference data. METHODS: The study reviewed quantitative preference data usage in 31 European countries to support marketing authorization, reimbursement, or pricing decisions. Use was defined as: agency guidance on preference data use, sponsor submission of preference data, or decision-maker collection of preference data. The data could be collected from any stakeholder using any method that generated quantitative estimates of preferences. Data were collected through: (1) documentary evidence identified through a literature and regulatory websites review, and via key opinion leader outreach; and (2) a survey of staff working for agencies that support or make healthcare technology decisions. RESULTS: Preference data utilization was identified in 22 countries and at a European level. The most prevalent use (19 countries) was citizen preferences, collected using time-trade off or standard gamble methods to inform health state utility estimation. Preference data was also used to: (1) value other impact on patients, (2) incorporate non-health factors into reimbursement decisions, and (3) estimate opportunity cost. Pilot projects were identified (6 countries and at a European level), with a focus on multi-criteria decision analysis methods and choice-based methods to elicit patient preferences. CONCLUSION: While quantitative preference data support reimbursement and pricing decisions in most European countries, there was no utilization evidence in European-level marketing authorization decisions. While there are commonalities, a diversity of usage was identified between jurisdictions. Pilots suggest the potential for greater use of preference data, and for alignment between decision makers.

Medical Nutrition Terminology and Regulations in the United States and Europe-A Scoping Review: Report of the ISPOR Nutrition Economics Special Interest Group.

BACKGROUND: The term medical nutrition (MN) refers to nutritional products used under medical supervision to manage disease- or condition-related dietary needs. Standardized MN definitions, aligned with regulatory definitions, are needed to facilitate outcomes research and economic evaluation of interventions with MN. OBJECTIVES: Ascertain how MN terms are defined, relevant regulations are applied, and to what extent MN is valued. METHODS: ISPOR's Nutrition Economics Special Interest Group conducted a scoping review of scientific literature on European and US MN terminology and regulations, published between January 2000 and August 2015, and pertinent professional and regulatory Web sites. Data were extracted, reviewed, and reconciled using two-person teams in a two-step process. The literature search was updated before manuscript completion. RESULTS: Of the initial 1687 literature abstracts and 222 Web sites identified, 459 records were included in the analysis, of which 308 used MN terms and 100 provided definitions. More than 13 primary disease groups as per International Classification of Disease, Revision 10 categories were included. The most frequently mentioned and defined terms were enteral nutrition and malnutrition. Less than 5% of the records referenced any MN regulation. The health economic impact of MN was rarely and insufficiently (n = 19 [4.1%]) assessed, although an increase in economic analyses was observed. CONCLUSIONS: MN terminology is not consistently defined, relevant European and US regulations are rarely cited, and economic evaluations are infrequently conducted. We recommend adopting consensus MN terms and definitions, for example, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism consensus guideline 2017, as a foundation for developing reliable and standardized medical nutrition economic methodologies.

ISPOR Code of Ethics 2017 (4th Edition).

As the leading health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) professional society, ISPOR has a responsibility to establish a uniform, harmonized international code for ethical conduct. ISPOR has updated its 2008 Code of Ethics to reflect the current research environment. This code addresses what is acceptable and unacceptable in research, from inception to the dissemination of its results. There are nine chapters: 1 - Introduction; 2 - Ethical Principles respect, beneficence and justice with reference to a non-exhaustive compilation of international, regional, and country-specific guidelines and standards; 3 - Scope HEOR definitions and how HEOR and the Code relate to other research fields; 4 - Research Design Considerations primary and secondary data related issues, e.g., participant recruitment, population and research setting, sample size/site selection, incentive/honorarium, administration databases, registration of retrospective observational studies and modeling studies; 5 - Data Considerations privacy and data protection, combining, verification and transparency of research data, scientific misconduct, etc.; 6 - Sponsorship and Relationships with Others (roles of researchers, sponsors, key opinion leaders and advisory board members, research participants and institutional review boards (IRBs) / independent ethics committees (IECs) approval and responsibilities); 7 - Patient Centricity and Patient Engagement new addition, with explanation and guidance; 8 - Publication and Dissemination; and 9 - Conclusion and Limitations.