A Framework to Prioritise Health Research Proposals for Funding: Integrating Value for Money

Reporting reimbursement price decisions for onco-hematology drugs in Spain

Introduction

Even using well-established technology assessment processes, the basis of the decisions on drug price and reimbursement are sometimes perceived as poorly informed and sometimes may be seen as disconnected from value. The literature remains inconclusive about how Health Technology Assessment Bodies (HTAb) should report the determinants of their decisions. This study evaluates the relationship between oncology and hematology drug list prices and structured value parameters at the time of reimbursement decision in Spain.

Methods

The study includes all new onco-hematological products (22), with a first indication authorized between January 2017 and December 2019 in Spain and pricing decisions published up until October 2022. For each product, 56 contextual and non-contextual indicators reflecting the structured multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) - Evidence-based Decision-Making (EVIDEM) framework were measured. The relationship between prices and the MCDA-EVIDEM framework was explored using univariate statistical analyses.

Results

Higher prices were observed when the standard of care included for combinations, if there were references to long-lasting responses, for fixed-duration treatment compared to treatment until progression and treatment with lower frequencies of administration; lower prices were observed for oral administration compared to other routes of administration. Statistically significant associations were observed between prices and the median duration of treatment, the impact on patient autonomy, the ease of use of the drug, and the recommendations of experts.

Discussion

The study suggests that indicators related to the type of standard of care, references to long-lasting responders, the convenience of the use of the drug, and the impact of treatment on patient autonomy, as well as contextual indicators such as the existence of previous clinical consensus, are factors in setting oncology drug prices in Spain. The implementation of MCDA-EVIDEM methodologies may be useful to capture the influence on pricing decisions of additional factors not included in legislation or consolidated assessment frameworks such as the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EunetHTA) core model. It may be opportune to consider this in the upcoming revision of the Spanish regulation for health technology assessments and pricing and reimbursement procedures.

A decision-support tool for funding health innovations at a tertiary academic medical center

OBJECTIVES

To report the processes used to design and implement an assessment tool to inform funding decisions for competing health innovations in a tertiary hospital.

METHODS

We designed an assessment tool for health innovation proposals with three components: "value to the institution," "novelty," and "potential for adoption and scaling." The "value to the institution" component consisted of twelve weighted value attributes identified from the host institution's annual report; weights were allocated based on a survey of the hospital's leaders. The second and third components consisted of open-ended questions on "novelty" and "barriers to implementation" to support further dialogue. Purposive literature review was performed independently by two researchers for each assessment. The assessment tool was piloted during an institutional health innovation funding cycle.

RESULTS

We used 17 days to evaluate ten proposals. The completed assessments were shared with an independent group of panellists, who selected five projects for funding. Proposals with the lowest scores for "value to the institution" had less perceived impact on the patient-related value attributes of "access," "patient centeredness," "health outcomes," "prevention," and "safety." Similar innovations were reported in literature in seven proposals; potential barriers to implementation were identified in six proposals. We included a worked example to illustrate the assessment process.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed an assessment tool that is aligned with local institutional priorities. Our tool can augment the decision-making process when funding health innovation projects. The tool can be adapted by others facing similar challenges of trying to choose the best health innovations to fund.

Mapping Chilean clinical research: a protocol for a scoping review and multiple evidence gap maps

INTRODUCTION

Clinical research broadly aims to influence decision-making in order to promote appropriate healthcare. Funding agencies should prioritise research projects according to needed research topics, methodological and cost-effectiveness considerations, and expected social value. In Chile, there is no local diagnosis regarding recent clinical research that might inform prioritisation for future research funding. This research aims to comprehensively identify and classify Chilean health research studies, elaborating evidence gap maps for the most burdensome local conditions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search in electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS and WoS) and perform hand searches to retrieve, identify and classify health research studies conducted in Chile or by authors whose affiliations are based in Chile, from 2000 onwards. We will elaborate evidence matrices for the 20 conditions with the highest burden in Chile (according to the Global Burden of Disease 2019) selected from those defined under the General Regime of the Health Guarantees Act. To elaborate the evidence gap maps, we will consider prioritised interventions and core outcome sets. To identify knowledge gaps and estimate redundant research, we will contrast these gap maps with the available international evidence of high or moderate certainty of evidence, for each specific clinical question. For this purpose, we will search systematic reviews using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval is required to conduct this project. We will submit our results in both peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. We will aim to disseminate our findings through different academic platforms, social media, local press, among others. The final results will be communicated to local funding agencies and government stakeholders.

DISCUSSION

We aim to provide an accurate and up-to-date picture of the research gaps-to be filled by new future findings-and the identification of redundant research, which will constitute relevant information for local decision-makers.

Is Post-Burn Scarring a Research Priority?

National and international research budgets are insufficient to approve all requests for funding, even if a methodology is of high quality and the outputs are likely to have an impact on improving patient outcomes [...].

A Review of Web-Based Tools for Value-of-Information Analysis

Value-of-information analysis (VOI) is a decision-theoretic approach that is used to inform reimbursement decisions, optimise trial design and set research priorities. The application of VOI analysis for informing policy decisions in practice has been limited due, in part, to the perceived complexity associated with the calculation of VOI measures. Recent efforts have resulted in the development of efficient methods to estimate VOI measures and the development of user-friendly web-based tools to facilitate VOI calculations. We review the existing web-based tools including Sheffield Accelerated Value of Information (SAVI), the web interface to the BCEA (Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis) R package (BCEAweb), Rapid Assessment of Need for Evidence (RANE), and Value of Information for Cardiovascular Trials and Other Comparative Research (VICTOR). We describe what each tool is designed to do, the inputs they require, and the outputs they produce. Finally, we discuss how tools for VOI calculations might be improved in the future to facilitate the use of VOI analysis in practice.

Description of the use of multicriteria to support pricing and reimbursement decisions by European health technology assessment bodies

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity in drug access throughout Europe may be influenced by differences in drug-assessment strategies. The EUnetHTA's assessment core model (EUnetHTA-core) and the EVIDEM's multicriteria framework are reference methodologies in this context, the latter including a wider compromise between non-contextual and contextual criteria. Compliance of 37 European Health Technology Assessment bodies (HTAb) with EUnetHTA-core has been reported, but the use of EVIDEM by this HTAb is still unknown.

METHODS

To describe the uptake and use of multicriteria approaches to evaluate drug value by European HTAb using EVIDEM as reference framework, a multicriteria framework was obtained based on EVIDEM model. The criteria used for drug appraisal by HTAb was extracted from the EUnetHTA report, and completed through search of websites, publications and HTAb reports. Use of EVIDEM assessment model in 37 European HTAb has been described semi-quantitatively and summarized using an alignment heatmap.

RESULTS

Aligned, medium or misaligned profiles were seen for 24,3%, 51,4% and 24,3% of HTAb when matching to EVIDEM dimensions and criteria was considered. HTAb with explicit responsibilities in providing specific advice on reimbursement showed more aligned profiles on contextual and non-contextual dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

EUnetHTA's core model is limited in assessing medicines while EVIDEM's framework provides contextual dimension used by some HTAb in Europe that can be escalated to other agencies. Most of the 37 European HTAb have room to broaden their contextual assessment tools, especially when social and medical perception of need requires to be explicit to support payer's decision on reimbursement.

Priorities for paediatric critical care research: a modified Delphi study by the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Paediatric Study Group

Objective: Most interventions in paediatric critical care lack high grade evidence. We aimed to identify the key research priorities and key clinical outcome measures pertinent to research in paediatric intensive care patients. Design: Modified three-stage Delphi study combining staged online surveys, followed by a face-to-face discussion and final voting. Setting: Paediatric intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Participants: Medical and nursing staff working in intensive care. Main outcome measurements: Self-reported priorities for research. Results: 193 respondents provided a total of 267 research questions and 234 outcomes. In Stage 3, the top 56 research questions and 50 outcomes were discussed face to face, which allowed the identification of the top 20 research questions with the Hanlon prioritisation score and the top 20 outcomes. Topics centred on the use of intravenous fluids (restrictive v liberal fluids, use of fluid resuscitation bolus, early inotrope use, type of intravenous fluid, and assessment of fluid responsiveness), and patient- and family-centred outcomes (health-related quality of life, liberation) emerged as priorities. While mortality, length of stay, and organ support/organ dysfunction were considered important and the most feasible outcomes, long term quality of life and neurodevelopmental measures were rated highly in terms of their importance. Conclusions: Using a modified Delphi method, this study provides guidance towards prioritisation of research topics in paediatric critical care in Australia and New Zealand, and identifies study outcomes of key relevance to clinicians and experts in the field.

Creating a priority list of non-communicable diseases to support health research funding decision-making

OBJECTIVE

To develop and pilot a framework based on multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to prioritize non-communicable diseases (NCDs) to support health research funding decision-making.

METHODS

The framework involves identifying NCDs to be prioritized, specifying prioritization criteria and determining their weights from a survey of stakeholders. The mean weights from the survey are applied to the NCDs' ratings on the criteria to generate a 'total score' for each NCD, by which the NCDs are prioritized.

RESULTS

Nineteen NCDs and five criteria were included. The criteria, in decreasing order of importance (mean weights in parentheses), are: deaths across the population (27.7 %), loss of quality-of-life across the population (23.0 %), cost to patients and families (18.6 %), cost to the health system (17.2 %), and whether vulnerable groups are disproportionately affected (13.4 %). The priority list of NCDs, stratified into four tiers of importance, is: 'Very critical' priority: coronary heart disease, back and neck pain, diabetes mellitus; 'Critical' priority: dementia and Alzheimer's disease, stroke; 'High' priority: colon and rectum cancer, depressive disorders, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, breast cancer, prostate cancer, arthritis, lung cancer; and 'Medium' priority: asthma, hearing loss, melanoma skin cancer, addictive disorders, non-melanoma skin cancer, headaches.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate the framework for prioritizing NCDs for research funding is feasible and effective. The framework could also be used for other health conditions.

Novel trial strategies to enhance the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of nephrology research

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. However, criticisms of traditional designs are that they can be inefficient, inflexible, expensive, and conducted in a manner disconnected from real-life clinical practice. Novel strategies and approaches are being utilized to overcome these limitations, including comprehensive consumer engagement, core outcome sets, novel trial designs, streamlined data collection, cost-effectiveness and return on investment evaluations, knowledge dissemination plans, and impact evaluation. These strategies can be implemented at the design, conduct, implementation, and dissemination stages of the trial process. This review aims to provide an overview of these strategies and approaches to improve the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of nephrology research.