Pricing and reimbursement mechanisms for advanced therapy medicinal products in 20 countries.

Introduction: Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products are a type of therapies that, in some cases, hold great potential for patients without an effective current therapeutic approach but they also present multiple challenges to payers. While there are many theoretical papers on pricing and reimbursement (P&R) options, original empirical research is very scarce. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive international review of regulatory and P&R decisions taken for all ATMPs with centralized European marketing authorization in March 2022. Methods: A survey was distributed in July 2022 to representatives of 46 countries. Results: Responses were received from 20 countries out of 46 (43.5%). 14 countries reimbursed at least one ATMP. Six countries in this survey reimbursed no ATMPs. Conclusion: Access to ATMPs is uneven across the countries included in this study. This arises from regulatory differences, commercial decisions by marketing authorization holders, and the divergent assessment processes and criteria applied by payers. Moving towards greater equality of access will require cooperation between countries and stakeholders, for example, through the WHO Regional Office for Europe's Access to Novel Medicines Platform.

The EQ-HWB: Overview of the Development of a Measure of Health and Wellbeing and Key Results.

OBJECTIVES: Existing measures for estimating quality-adjusted life-years are mostly limited to health-related quality of life. This article presents an overview of the development the EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing), which is a measure that encompasses health and wellbeing. METHODS: Stages: (1) Establishing domains through reviews of the qualitative literature informed by a conceptual framework. (2) Generation and selection of items to cover the domains. (3) Face validation of these items through qualitative interviews with 168 patients, social care users, general population, and carers across 6 countries (Argentina, Australia, China, Germany, United Kingdom, United States). (4) Extensive psychometric testing of candidate items (using classical, factor analysis, and item response theory methods) on > 4000 respondents in the 6 countries. Stakeholders were consulted throughout. RESULTS: A total of 32 subdomains grouped into 7 high-level domains were identified from the qualitative literature and 97 items generated to cover them. Face validation eliminated 36 items, modified 14, and added 3. Psychometric testing of 64 items found little difference in missing data or problems with response distribution, the conceptual model was confirmed except in China, and most items performed well in the item response theory in all countries. Evidence was presented to stakeholders in 2 rounds of consultation to inform the final selection of items for the EQ-HWB (25-item) and the short version of EQ-HWB (9-items). CONCLUSIONS: EQ-HWB measures have been developed internationally for evaluating interventions in health, public health, and social care including the impact on patients, social care users, and carers.

How innovation can be defined, evaluated and rewarded in health technology assessment.

BACKGROUND: What constitutes innovation in health technologies can be defined and measured in a number of ways and it has been widely researched and published about. However, while many countries mention it as a criterion for pricing or reimbursement of health technologies, countries differ widely in how they define and operationalise it. METHODS: We performed a literature review, using a snowballing search. In this paper, we explore how innovation has been defined in the literature in relation to health technology assessment. We also describe how a selection of countries (England, France, Italy, Spain and Japan) take account of innovation in their health technology assessment frameworks and explore the key methodologies that can capture it as a dimension of value in a new health technology. We propose a way of coming to, and incorporating into health technology assessment systems, a definition of innovation for health technologies that is independent of other dimensions of value that they already account for in their systems, such as clinical benefit. We use Spain as an illustrative example of how innovation might be operationalised as a criterion for decision making in health technology assessment. RESULTS: The countries analysed here can be divided into 2 groups with respect to how they define innovation. France, Japan and Italy use features such as severity, unmet need and therapeutic added value as indicators of the degree of innovation of a health technology, while England, Spain consider the degree of innovation as a separate and additional criterion from others. In the case of Spain, a notion of innovation might be constructed around concepts of `step-change', `convenience', `strength of evidence base' and `impact on future research & development'. CONCLUSIONS: If innovation is to be used as operational criteria for adoption, pricing and reimbursement of health technologies, the concept must be clearly defined, and it ought to be independent from other value dimensions already captured in their health technology assessment systems.

The use of nonrandomized evidence to estimate treatment effects in health technology assessment.

Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly informed by nonrandomized studies, but there is limited guidance from HTA bodies on expectations around evidence quality and study conduct. We developed recommendations to support the appropriate use of such evidence based on a pragmatic literature review and a workshop involving 16 experts from eight countries as part of the EU's Horizon-2020 IMPACT-HTA program (work package six). To ensure HTA processes remain rigorous and robust, HTA bodies should demand clear, extensive and structured reporting of nonrandomized studies, including an in-depth assessment of the risk of bias. In recognition of the additional uncertainty imparted by nonrandomized designs in estimates of treatment effects, HTA bodies should strengthen early scientific advice and engage in collaborative efforts to improve use of real-world data.

What is the best approach to adopt for identifying the domains for a new measure of health, social care and carer-related quality of life to measure quality-adjusted life years? Application to the development of the EQ-HWB?

Economic evaluation combines costs and benefits to support decision-making when assessing new interventions using preference-based measures to measure and value benefits in health or health-related quality of life. These health-focused instruments have limited ability to capture wider impacts on informal carers or outcomes in other sectors such as social care. Sector-specific instruments can be used but this is problematic when the impact of an intervention straddles different sectors.An alternative approach is to develop a generic preference-based measure that is sufficiently broad to capture important cross-sector outcomes. We consider the options for the selection of domains for a cross-sector generic measure including how to identify domains, who should provide information on the domains and how this should be framed. Beyond domain identification, considerations of criteria and stakeholder needs are also identified.This paper sets out the case for an approach that relies on the voice of patients, social care users and informal carers as the main source of domains and describes how the approach was operationalised in the 'Extending the QALY' project which developed the new measure, the EQ-HWB (EQ health and wellbeing instrument). We conclude by discussing the strengths and limitations of this approach. The new measure should be sufficiently generic to be used to consistently evaluate health and social care interventions, yet also sensitive enough to pick up important changes in quality of life in patients, social care users and carers.

Key enablers and barriers to implementing adaptive pathways in the European setting.

In 2016, the European Medicines Agency published the conclusions of its pilot on adaptive pathways, with products in early stages of development still building up to their marketing authorisation. Adaptive pathways rests on three principles: iterative development; gathering evidence through real-life use to supplement clinical trial data; and early engagement of patients, payers and health technology assessment bodies in discussions on a medicine's development. While the pilot has now finished, the practical system-wide implications of employing the adaptive pathways approach are not known and further consideration of these three principles is required. In this paper we used the three principles that underpin adaptive pathways to discuss main scientific and European policy developments likely to determine progress on further implementing adaptive pathways in the European setting.

Correction to: Use of Expert Judgement Across NICE Guidance­Making Programmes: A Review of Current Processes and Suitability of Existing Tools to Support the Use of Expert Elicitation.

In Sect. 3.3.1, the second sentence of the second paragraph.

Correction to: The Future of Precision Medicine: Potential Impacts for Health Technology Assessment.

The article The Future of Precision Medicine: Potential Impacts for Health Technology Assessment written by James Love­Koh, Alison Peel Juan, Carlos Rejon­Parrilla, KateAnastasia Chalkidou, Hannah Wood, Matthew Taylor was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently Springer Link) on [13th July, 2018] with incorrect spelling of the co-author "Juan Carlos Rejon-Parilla". The correct spelling is "Juan Carlos Rejon-Parrilla".

Use of Expert Judgement Across NICE Guidance-Making Programmes: A Review of Current Processes and Suitability of Existing Tools to Support the Use of Expert Elicitation.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to review current use of experts within National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance-making programmes, identify improvements in use of expert judgement, and to assess tools and protocols to support the elicitation of information from experts for use by NICE. METHODS: The study comprised a review of NICE process guides; semi-structured interviews with individuals representing each NICE guidance-making programme and a comparison of the suitability of currently available tools and protocols for expert elicitation to the requirements of NICE programmes. RESULTS: Information elicited from experts and the way in which it is used varies across NICE guidance-making programmes. Experts' involvement can be as intensive as being a member of a committee and thus having direct influence on recommendations or limited one-off consultations on specific parameters. We identified 16 tools for expert elicitation that were potentially relevant. None fully met the requirements of NICE, although an existing tool could be potentially adapted. Ongoing research to develop a reference protocol for expert elicitation in healthcare decision making may be of use in future. CONCLUSIONS: NICE uses expert judgement across all its guidance-making programmes, but its uses vary considerably. There is no currently available tool for expert elicitation suitable for use by NICE. However, adaptation of an existing tool or ongoing research in the area could address this in the future.

The Future of Precision Medicine: Potential Impacts for Health Technology Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Precision medicine allows healthcare interventions to be tailored to groups of patients based on their disease susceptibility, diagnostic or prognostic information, or treatment response. We analysed what developments are expected in precision medicine over the next decade and considered the implications for health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic literature search to account for the large size and wide scope of the precision medicine literature. We refined and enriched these results with a series of expert interviews up to 1 h in length, including representatives from HTA agencies, research councils and researchers designed to cover a wide spectrum of precision medicine applications and research. RESULTS: We identified 31 relevant papers and interviewed 13 experts. We found that three types of precision medicine are expected to emerge in clinical practice: complex algorithms, digital health applications and 'omics'-based tests. These are expected to impact upon each stage of the HTA process, from scoping and modelling through to decision-making and review. The complex and uncertain treatment pathways associated with patient stratification and fast-paced technological innovation are central to these effects. DISCUSSION: Innovation in precision medicine promises substantial benefits but will change the way in which some health services are delivered and evaluated. The shelf life of guidance may decrease, structural uncertainty may increase and new equity considerations will emerge. As biomarker discovery accelerates and artificial intelligence-based technologies emerge, refinements to the methods and processes of evidence assessments will help to adapt and maintain the objective of investing in healthcare that is value for money.

Using HTA and guideline development as a tool for research priority setting the NICE way: reducing research waste by identifying the right research to fund.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) was established in 1999 and provides national guidance and advice to improve health and social care. Several steps in the research cycle have been identified that can support the reduction of waste that occurs in biomedical research. The first step in the process is ensuring appropriate research priority setting occurs so only the questions that are needed to fill existing gaps in the evidence are funded. This paper summarises the research priority setting processes at NICE. METHODS: NICE uses its guidance production processes to identify and prioritise research questions through systematic reviews, economic analyses and stakeholder consultations and then highlights those priorities by engagement with the research community. NICE also highlights its methodological areas for research to ensure the appropriate development and growth of the evidence landscape. RESULTS: NICE has prioritised research questions through its guidance production and methodological work and has successfully had several research products funded through the National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council. This paper summarises those activities and results. CONCLUSIONS: This activity of NICE therefore reduces research waste by ensuring that the research it recommends has been systematically prioritised through evidence reviews and stakeholder input.