Unravelling drug reimbursement outcomes: a comparative study of the role of pharmacoeconomic evidence in Dutch and Swedish reimbursement decision making

Were economic evaluations well reported for the newly listed oncology drugs in China's national reimbursement drug list

PURPOSE

To assess the reporting quality of published economic evaluations of the negotiated oncology drugs listed for China's 2020 National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted to identify economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in China's 2020 NRDL using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, and WanFang Database up to March 31, 2021. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist scored the reporting quality between 0 and 100. A linear regression analysis was employed to examine the influence of various characteristics on the reporting quality scores.

RESULTS

Eighty papers were included in the study, with the majority published during the past decade. Furthermore, more than half of the articles (57.5%, or 46 out of 80) were written in English. The average CHEERS score was 74.63 ± 12.75 and ranged from 43.48 to 93.75. The most inadequately reported items included choice of model, characterization of heterogeneity, and discussion, as well as currency, price date and conversion. Higher scores were associated with articles published from 2019 to 2021 and English publications.

CONCLUSION

The economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in 2020 NRDL had moderate reporting quality. The Chinese economic evaluation publications could improve the reporting quality if the CHEERS checklist is consistently implemented. Also, the Chinese journals maybe explore introducing a reporting standard for economic evaluations.

Coverage and Pricing Recommendations of the French National Health Authority for Innovative Drugs: A Retrospective Analysis From 2014 to 2020

OBJECTIVES

This study provides a retrospective analysis of the recommendations of the French National Health Authority on the reimbursement and pricing of innovative drugs.

METHODS

The analysis includes drugs subjected to both economic and clinical evaluations in France from 2014 to 2020. Ordered logistic and quantile regressions are used to estimate the factors associated with the clinical value (SMR), the clinical added value (ASMR), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of innovative drugs. All variables used in the regression analyses are extracted from the Clinical and Economic Opinions for the 146 observations.

RESULTS

Regression analyses indicate that 2 of the 5 official criteria, the efficacy-adverse events balance of the drug and its function, are significantly associated with the SMR rating. The ASMR is positively associated with the disease severity, the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain provided by the drug, and the validation of the ICUR in the Economic Opinion. At the first quartile of the ICUR distribution (approximately €50 000/QALY), higher ICUR levels are observed for drugs with a smaller target population and for drugs claimed as more innovative. Higher ICUR levels are also observed for pediatric drugs and for drugs with no therapeutic alternative at the third quartile of the distribution (approximately €240 000/QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Not all official criteria of the SMR are associated with actual ratings obtained. Regarding the ASMR, the results support the idea of a convergence between the 2 independent clinical and economic appraisal processes. Finally, the factors influencing the ICUR level vary across the distribution of ICUR.

Disagreement on cancer drug decisions in Europe

OBJECTIVES

Despite the efforts of the European Union (EU) to promote voluntary cooperation among Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, different reimbursement decisions for the same drug are made across European countries. The aim of this paper is to compare the agreement of cancer drug reimbursement decisions using inter-rater reliability measures.

METHODS

This study is based on primary data on 161 cancer drug reimbursement decisions from nine European countries from 2002 to 2014. To achieve our goal, we use two measures to analyze agreement, in other words, congruency: (i) percentage of agreement and (ii) the κ score.

RESULTS

One main conclusion can be drawn from the analysis. There is a weak to medium agreement among cancer drug decisions in the European countries analyzed (based on the percentage of agreement and the κ score). England and Scotland show the highest consistency between the two measures, showing a medium agreement. These results are in line with previous literature on the congruency of HTA decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper contributes to the HTA literature, by highlighting the extent of weak to medium agreement among cancer decisions in Europe.

What is driving HTA decision-making? Evidence from cancer drug reimbursement decisions from 6 European countries

BACKGROUND

Decisions on the reimbursement of the same cancer drugs are different across European countries, but empirical work on the reasons behind these differences has been scarce. The main objective of this paper is to make a methodological contribution to existing research, specifically by outlining the systematic process of analysis to address such questions and determining the factors that might lead to different drug reimbursement decisions, and to explore its application in the field of oncology.

METHODS

Reimbursement decisions on cancer drugs in six European countries (Belgium, England, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, and Sweden) between 2006 and 2014 were included in the study. A taxonomy was developed, comprising two groups of variables (system-level and product-specific) and an econometric model was specified (multilevel mixed-effects ordered probit).

RESULTS

Only one in six evaluations in the sample reach the same reimbursement recommendation. Most health system variables were not determinants of a higher or lower probability of a positive reimbursement recommendation. However, the probability of reimbursement was higher when a drug was considered cost-effective by NICE/SMC and when there was a financial Managed Entry Agreement. This work also demonstrated a possible econometric approach for analysing differences in reimbursement decisions and contributes a structured approach for collecting and preparing data for such analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug reimbursement decisions can be analysed in detail along a set of factors that are related to each decision. This information is essential, not only for understanding why a particular drug is accepted in one country and not in another but also when trying to implement a new HTA system or reform an existing one. This analysis provides policy makers and stakeholders with a model that enables a better understanding of the factors that drive HTA decisions and is adaptable to answer similar questions. Moreover, the data collection limitations encountered and described in this work shed light on the need for greater accessibility and transparency in HTA systems and regarding HTA outcomes.

Role of economic evidence in coverage decision-making in South Korea

OBJECTIVES

The South Korean government required the submission of economic evidence when it implemented the Positive-List System in December 2006. This study investigates the key factors that influenced actual public insurance reimbursement decisions, including the role of economic evidence, after 10 years of decision practice under compulsory health technology assessment (HTA) for new drugs.

METHOD

Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the impact of the variables involved, including cost-effectiveness ratio as a key variable, on reimbursement decisions. The latter were defined as "yes" or "no" at a submitted price and indication. Only cases (n = 91) that present a cost-effectiveness ratio, and that have been reviewed based on this ratio from January 2007 to December 2016, were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Cases with higher cost-effectiveness ratios were less likely to be accepted. In addition, drugs that were used to treat severe diseases and drugs with no substitute were more likely to be recommended. The probability of acceptance declined along with the level of uncertainty in the submitted evidence. The acceptance rate for severe-disease drugs has increased since 2013, when the government introduced several policies that lowered the existing barriers to positive reimbursement. However, such an increase was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness is one of the most influential factors in drug-reimbursement decisions. However, inclusion of other explanatory variables, in addition to the cost-effectiveness ratio, predicted the results of decisions more accurately.

Who should receive treatment? An empirical enquiry into the relationship between societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting

INTRODUCTION

Policy makers increasingly need to prioritise between competing health technologies or patient populations. When aiming to align allocation decisions with societal preferences, knowledge and operationalisation of such preferences is indispensable. This study examines the distribution of three views on healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands, labelled "Equal right to healthcare", "Limits to healthcare", and "Effective and efficient healthcare", and their relationship with preferences in willingness to trade-off (WTT) exercises.

METHODS

A survey including four reimbursement scenarios was conducted in a representative sample of the adult population in the Netherlands (n = 261). Respondents were matched to one of the three views based on their agreement with 14 statements on principles for resource allocation. We tested for WTT differences between respondents with different views and applied logit regression models for examining the relationship between preferences and background characteristics, including views.

RESULTS

Nearly 65% of respondents held the view "Equal right to healthcare", followed by "Limits to healthcare" (22.5%), and "Effective and efficient healthcare" (7.1%). Most respondents (75.9%) expressed WTT in at least one scenario and preferred gains in quality of life over life expectancy, maximising gains over limiting inequality, treating children over elderly, and those with adversity over those with an unhealthy lifestyle. Various background characteristics, including the views, were associated with respondents' preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents held an egalitarian view on priority setting, yet the majority was willing to prioritise regardless of their view. Societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting are related. However, respondents' views influence preferences differently in different reimbursement scenarios. As societal views and preferences are heterogeneous and may conflict, aligning allocation decisions with societal preferences remains challenging and any decision may be expected to receive opposition from some group in society.

Cost-consequence analysis of salvianolate injection for the treatment of coronary heart disease

Background

Complicated with the impact of aging population and urbanization, coronary heart disease (CHD) incurs more and more disease burdens in China. Salvianolate injection is a Chinese patent drug widely used for treating CHD in China. A series of studies have verified the efficacy of salvianolate injection , but the high drug cost has raised concerns. It is, therefore, important to conduct cost-consequence analysis to demonstrate whether salvianolate injection is associated with outcome improvement and cost containment. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the cost-consequence of salvianolate injection for the treatment of coronary heart disease by combining salvianolate injection with conventional treatment from a societal perspective.

Methods

We retrospectively studied hospitalized patients with CHD from August 2011 to December 2015 by using electronic medical record database. Patients who received salvianolate injection combined with conventional treatment were selected as exposed group, while those who received conventional treatment alone were selected as unexposed group. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to balance the characteristics of patients. After PSM, we evaluated hospital stay, total nitrates dosage, total medical costs, and subcategories costs. Patients with chronic ischemic heart disease were analyzed as a highly selected subcohort.

Results

For the overall group, hospital stay was significantly decreased by 2.9 days (P < 0.05) and total nitrates dosage was significantly decreased by 172.4 mg (P < 0.05) in exposed group; cost savings of pharmacy cost, examination cost, laboratory cost, operation cost and treatment was observed as significant (at P < 0.05); and the additional expenditure of Chinese patent drug (1174.9 CNY) was less than the saving of total medical costs (2636.4 CNY). For chronic ischemic heart disease subcohort, compared with unexposed group, significant decreases were also found in hospital stay and total nitrates dosage (P < 0.05); cost savings were significant (P < 0.05) for exposed group in terms of total medical costs (4339.5 CNY) and subcategories costs (including pharmacy cost, examination cost, operation cost and treatment cost); and the additional expenditure of Chinese patent drug (1189.3 CNY) was less than the saving of total medical costs.

Conclusion

Compared with conventional treatment for the treatment of CHD, combination of salvianolate injection and conventional treatment was associated with a reduction in hospital stay and total nitrates dosage. The acquisition cost of Chinese patent drug (including salvianolate injection) was offset by a higher reduction in total medical costs, especially for chronic ischemic heart disease.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13020-018-0185-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review 2011-2017

BACKGROUND

Most Canadian provinces and territories rely on the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) to provide recommendations regarding public reimbursement of cancer drugs. The pCODR review process considers four dimensions of value-clinical benefit, economic evaluation, patient-based values and adoption feasibility-but they do not define weights for individual decision criteria or an acceptable threshold for any of the criteria. Given this implicit review process, it is of interest to understand which factors appear to carry the most weight in pCODR recommendations using a revealed preferences approach.

METHODS

Using publicly available decision summaries (n = 91) describing submissions and resulting recommendations 2011-2017, we extracted ten attributes that characterized each submission. Using logistic regression, we identified statistically significant attributes and estimated their relative impact in final recommendations.

RESULTS

Clinical aspects appear to carry the greatest weight in the decision to reject or not reject, along with aspects of patient value (treatments with no alternatives were less likely to be rejected). Cost effectiveness does not appear to play a role in the initial decision to reject or not reject but is critical in full versus conditional approvals. There is evidence of a maximum acceptable threshold of around $Can140,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

CONCLUSION

A set of factors driving pCODR recommendations is identifiable, supporting the consistency of the review process. However, the implicit nature of the review process and the difficulty of extracting and interpreting some of the attribute levels used in the analysis suggests that the process may still lack full transparency.

Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries

BACKGROUND

Although health technology assessment (HTA) systems base their decision making process either on economic evaluations or comparative clinical benefit assessment, a central aim of recent approaches to value measurement, including value based assessment and pricing, points towards the incorporation of supplementary evidence and criteria that capture additional dimensions of value.

OBJECTIVE

To study the practices, processes and policies of value-assessment for new medicines across eight European countries and the role of HTA beyond economic evaluation and clinical benefit assessment.

METHODS

A systematic (peer review and grey) literature review was conducted using an analytical framework examining: (1) 'Responsibilities and structure of HTA agencies'; (2) 'Evidence and evaluation criteria considered in HTAs'; (3) 'Methods and techniques applied in HTAs'; and (4) 'Outcomes and implementation of HTAs'. Study countries were France, Germany, England, Sweden, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Evidence from the literature was validated and updated through two rounds of feedback involving primary data collection from national experts.

RESULTS

All countries assess similar types of evidence; however, the specific criteria/endpoints used, their level of provision and requirement, and the way they are incorporated (e.g. explicitly vs. implicitly) varies across countries, with their relative importance remaining generally unknown. Incorporation of additional 'social value judgements' (beyond clinical benefit assessment) and economic evaluation could help explain heterogeneity in coverage recommendations and decision-making.

CONCLUSION

More comprehensive and systematic assessment procedures characterised by increased transparency, in terms of selection of evaluation criteria, their importance and intensity of use, could lead to more rational evidence-based decision-making, possibly improving efficiency in resource allocation, while also raising public confidence and fairness.

Methodological Issues in Economic Evaluations Submitted to the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR)

BACKGROUND

Public drug plans are faced with increasingly difficult funding decisions. In Canada, the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) makes funding recommendations to the provincial and territorial drug plans responsible for cancer drugs. Assessments of the economic models submitted by pharmaceutical manufacturers are publicly reported.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this research was to identify recurring methodological issues in economic models submitted to pCODR for funding reviews. The secondary objective was to explore whether there exists any observed relationships between reported methodological issues and funding recommendations made by pCODR's expert review committee.

METHODS

Publicly available Economic Guidance Reports from July 2011 (inception) until June 2014 for drug reviews with a final funding recommendation (N = 34) were independently examined by two authors. Major methodological issues from each review were abstracted and grouped into nine main categories. Each issue was also categorized based on perception of the reviewer's actions to manage it.

RESULTS

The most commonly reported issues involved costing (59% of reviews), time horizon (56%), and model structure (36%). Several types of issues were identified that usually could not be resolved, such as quality of clinical data or uncertainty with indirect comparisons. Issues with costing or choice of utility estimates could usually be addressed or explored by reviewers. No statistically significant relationship was found between any methodological issue and funding recommendations from the expert review committee.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide insights that can be used by parties who submit or review economic evidence for continuous improvement and consistency in economic modeling, reporting, and decision making.

A New Statistical Method to Determine the Degree of Validity of Health Economic Model Outcomes against Empirical Data

BACKGROUND

The validation of health economic (HE) model outcomes against empirical data is of key importance. Although statistical testing seems applicable, guidelines for the validation of HE models lack guidance on statistical validation, and actual validation efforts often present subjective judgment of graphs and point estimates.

OBJECTIVES

To discuss the applicability of existing validation techniques and to present a new method for quantifying the degrees of validity statistically, which is useful for decision makers.

METHODS

A new Bayesian method is proposed to determine how well HE model outcomes compare with empirical data. Validity is based on a pre-established accuracy interval in which the model outcomes should fall. The method uses the outcomes of a probabilistic sensitivity analysis and results in a posterior distribution around the probability that HE model outcomes can be regarded as valid.

RESULTS

We use a published diabetes model (Modelling Integrated Care for Diabetes based on Observational data) to validate the outcome "number of patients who are on dialysis or with end-stage renal disease." Results indicate that a high probability of a valid outcome is associated with relatively wide accuracy intervals. In particular, 25% deviation from the observed outcome implied approximately 60% expected validity.

CONCLUSIONS

Current practice in HE model validation can be improved by using an alternative method based on assessing whether the model outcomes fit to empirical data at a predefined level of accuracy. This method has the advantage of assessing both model bias and parameter uncertainty and resulting in a quantitative measure of the degree of validity that penalizes models predicting the mean of an outcome correctly but with overly wide credible intervals.

The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: Can centralization improve the use of economic evaluation?

Public reimbursement of drugs is a costly proposition for health care systems. Decisions to add drugs to the public formulary are often guided by review processes and committees. The evolution of the formulary review process in Canada's publicly funded health system is characterized by increased centralization and systematization. In the past, the review of evidence and recommendation was conducted at the regional level, but was replaced with the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review in 2011. We assess the extent to which centralization and systematization of the review process have responded to past challenges, focusing on the use of economic evaluation in the process. Past challenges with economic evaluation experienced by regionalized review committees were identified from literature and qualitative data collected in the province of Nova Scotia. We categorize these using a typology with a macro-, meso, and micro-level hierarchy, which provides a useful framework for understanding at which level change is required, and who has the authority to influence change. Using grounded theory methods, we identify approaches used by Nova Scotia past committee members to compensate for perceived shortcomings of the process. These include an undue reliance on other committee members, on the multidisciplinarity of the committee, and on past decisions. Using a policy analysis approach, we argue that centralization and systematization of the review process only partially address the shortcomings of the previous regionalized process. Lessons from Canada can inform policy discussions across all health systems, where similar challenges with the formulary review process have been identified. © 2016 The Authors. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Variation in Health Technology Assessment and Reimbursement Processes in Europe

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that differences in health technology assessment (HTA) processes among countries, particularly within Europe, have led to inequity in patient access to new medicines.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an up-to-date snapshot analysis of the present status of HTA and reimbursement systems in select European countries, and to investigate the implications of these processes, especially with regard to delays in market and patient access.

METHODS

HTA and reimbursement processes were assessed through a review of published and gray literature, and through a series of interviews with HTA experts. To quantify the impact of differences among countries, we conducted case studies of 12 products introduced since 2009, including 10 cancer drugs.

RESULTS

In addition to the differences in HTA and reimbursement processes among countries, the influence of particular sources of information differs among HTA bodies. The variation in the time from the authorization by the European Medicines Agency to the publication of HTA decisions was considerable, both within and among countries, with a general lack of transparency as to why some assessments take longer than others. In most countries, market access for oncology products can occur outside the HTA process, with sales often preceding HTA decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

It is challenging even for those with considerable personal experience in European HTA processes to establish what is really happening in market access for new drugs. We recommend that efforts should be directed toward improving transparency in HTA, which should, in turn, lead to more effective processes.

Health Economics as Rhetoric: The Limited Impact of Health Economics on Funding Decisions in Four European Countries

BACKGROUND

A response to the challenge of high-cost treatments in health care has been economic evaluation. Cost-effectiveness analysis presented as cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained has been controversial, raising heated support and opposition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of economic evaluation in decisions on what to fund in four European countries and discuss the implications of our findings.

METHODS

We used a protocol to review the key features of the application of economic evaluation in reimbursement decision making in England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, reporting country-specific highlights.

RESULTS

Although the institutions and processes vary by country, health economic evaluation has had limited impact on restricting access of controversial high-cost drugs. Even in those countries that have gone the furthest, ways have been found to avoid refusing to fund high-cost drugs for particular diseases including cancer, multiple sclerosis, and orphan diseases. Economic evaluation may, however, have helped some countries to negotiate price reductions for some drugs. It has also extended to the discussion of clinical effectiveness to include cost.

CONCLUSIONS

The differences in approaches but similarities in outcomes suggest that health economic evaluation be viewed largely as rhetoric (in D.N. McCloskey's terms in The Rhetoric of Economics, 1985). This is not to imply that economics had no impact: rather that it usually contributed to the discourse in ways that differed by country. The reasons for this no doubt vary by perspective, from political science to ethics. Economic evaluation may have less to do with rationing or denial of medical treatments than to do with expanding the discourse used to discuss such issues.

A comparative study of drug listing recommendations and the decision-making process in Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK

Drug listing recommendations from health technology assessment (HTA) agencies often fail to coincide with one another. We conducted a comparative analysis of listing recommendations in Australia (PBAC), the Netherlands (CVZ), Sweden (TLV) and the UK (NICE) over time, examined interagency agreement, and explored how process-related factors-including time delay between HTA evaluations, therapeutic indication and orphan drug status, measure of health economic value, and comparator-impacted decision-making in drug coverage. Agreement was poor to moderate across HTA agency listing recommendations, yet it increased as the delay between HTA agency appraisals decreased, when orphan drugs were assessed, and when medicines deemed to provide low value (immunosuppressants, antineoplastics) were removed from the sample. International differences in drug listing recommendations seem to occur in part due to inconsistencies in how the supporting evidence informs assessment, but also to differences in how domestic priorities shape the value-based decision-making process.

The Use of Economic Evidence to Inform Drug Pricing Decisions in Jordan

BACKGROUND

Drug pricing is an example of a priority setting in a developing country with official requirements for the use of cost-effectiveness (CE) evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the role of economic evidence in drug pricing decisions in Jordan.

METHODS

A prospective review of all applications submitted between November 2013 and May 2015 to the Jordan Food and Drug Association's drug pricing committee was carried out. All applications that involved requests for CE evidence were reviewed. Details on the type of study, the extent, and whether the evidence submitted was part of the formal deliberations were extracted and summarized.

RESULTS

The committee reviewed a total of 1608 drug pricing applications over the period of the study. CE evidence was requested in only 11 applications. The submitted evidence was of limited use to the committee due to concerns about quality, relevance of studies, and lack of pharmacoeconomic expertise. There were also no clear rules describing how CE would inform pricing decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited local data and health economic experience were the main barriers to the use of economic evidence in drug pricing decisions in Jordan. In addition, there are no official rules describing the elements and process by which the CE evidence would inform drug pricing decisions. This study summarized accumulated observations for the current use of economic evaluations and evidence-based decision making in Jordan. Recommendations have been proposed to applicants and key decision makers to enhance the role of economic evidence in influencing health policies and evidence-based decision making across priority settings.

Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: The Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness

OBJECTIVE

The Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV) is the government body responsible for deciding whether outpatient drugs are to be included in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This paper analyzes the impact of cost effectiveness and severity of disease on reimbursement decisions for new pharmaceuticals.

METHODS

Data has been extracted from all decisions made by the TLV between 2005 and 2011. Cost effectiveness is measured as the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, whereas disease severity is a binary variable (severe-not severe). In total, the dataset consists of 102 decisions, with 86 approved and 16 declined reimbursements.

RESULTS

The lowest cost per QALY of declined reimbursements is Swedish kronor (SEK) 700,000 (€ 79,100), while the highest cost per QALY of approved reimbursements is SEK1,220,000 (€ 135,600). At a cost per QALY of SEK702,000 Swedish kronor (non-severe diseases) and SEK988,000 (severe diseases), the likelihood of approval is estimated to be 50/50 (€ 79,400 and € 111,700).

CONCLUSIONS

The TLV places substantial weight on both the cost effectiveness and the severity of disease in reimbursement decisions, and the implied willingness to pay for a QALY is higher than the often cited 'rule of thumb' in Swedish policy debates.

Can a Joint Assessment Provide Relevant Information for National/Local Relative Effectiveness Assessments? An In-Depth Comparison of Pazopanib Assessments

BACKGROUND

In many European jurisdictions, relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of pharmaceuticals are performed during the reimbursement decision-making process. International collaboration in the production of these assessments may prevent the duplication of information in various jurisdictions. A first pilot of a joint REA (pazopanib for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma) was published in 2011.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to investigate how well the methods used in the joint REA match the methods used in the national/local assessments on the same topic.

METHODS

National/local assessments from European jurisdictions, available in English language, were identified through a literature search and an e-mail request to health technology assessment organizations. Data were abstracted from joint and national/local assessments using a structured data abstraction form. Results were compared for differences and similarities.

RESULTS

In total, five national/local reports were included (Belgium, England/Wales, France, The Netherlands, and Scotland). The general methods (indication, main comparator, main end points, main trial) were similar. The details of the assessment (e.g., exact wording of indication, additional comparators, additional trials included, and method of indirect comparison), however, varied. Despite these differences, the joint REA included nearly all comparators, end points, trials, and methods of analysis that were used in national/local REA reports.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown overlap in the methods national/local REA bodies in Europe have chosen for a pazopanib REA for renal cell carcinoma, except for the use and methods of indirect comparisons. Although some additional comparators and outcomes differed between national/local REAs, they can be captured in a comprehensive joint REA.

STANDARDIZED REPORTING FOR RAPID RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENTS OF PHARMACEUTICALS

Objectives:Many European countries perform rapid assessments of the relative effectiveness (RE) of pharmaceuticals as part of the reimbursement decision making process. Increased sharing of information on RE across countries may save costs and reduce duplication of work. The objective of this article is to describe the development of a tool for rapid assessment of RE of new pharmaceuticals that enter the market, the HTA Core Model® for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment (REA) of Pharmaceuticals.

Methods:Eighteen member organisations of the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) participated in the development of the model. Different versions of the model were developed and piloted in this collaboration and adjusted accordingly based on feedback on the content and feasibility of the model.

Results:The final model deviates from the traditional HTA Core Model® used for assessing other types of technologies. This is due to the limited scope (strong focus on RE), the timing of the assessment (just after market authorisation), and strict timelines (e.g. 90 days) required for performing the assessment. The number of domains and assessment elements was limited and it was decided that the primary information sources should preferably be a submission file provided by the marketing authorisation holder and the European Public Assessment Report.

Conclusions:The HTA Core Model® for Rapid REA (version 3.0) was developed to produce standardised transparent RE information of pharmaceuticals. Further piloting can provide input for possible improvements, such as further refining the assessment elements and new methodological guidance on relevant areas.

European collaboration on relative effectiveness assessments: What is needed to be successful?

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to identify the possible barriers and critical success factors for the implementation of European collaboration in the field of relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of drugs.

METHODS

Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with representatives from eight European health technology assessment (HTA) organisations involved in assessment of drugs for coverage decision-making (AAZ, AIFA, AHTAPol, HAS, HVB, IQWIG, NICE and ZiN).

RESULTS

Potential barriers identified mainly relate to methodology, resources and challenges with implementation in the respective national processes (e.g. legal restrictions). The most critical success factors for production of cross-border assessments were the continuous cooperation of competent partners, and the quality and timely availability of the assessment.

CONCLUSION

Further adaptation of the process and methods is required for optimal collaboration. In the near future it can be expected that cross-border assessments will meet in particular the needs of smaller/middle-sized European countries and also European countries with less developed HTA systems as the potential efficiency/quality gains are the highest for these countries. Therefore, national implementation of cross-border assessments is especially likely in these countries in the coming years. Once more experience is gained with cross-border assessments, and successes become more evident, efficiency/quality gains may also be likely for some larger countries with well established processes.

A comparative study of the role of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in four European countries

Considerations beyond cost-effectiveness are important in reimbursement decision making. We assessed the importance of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in Belgium, France, The Netherlands and Sweden. We investigated scientific literature and policy documents and conducted three interviews in each country (four in The Netherlands) with persons involved in drug reimbursement. Disease severity is an important consideration, especially where the level is high. The Netherlands operationalizes disease severity using the proportional shortfall approach. Sweden uses categories to give an indication of the level of severity. In The Netherlands and Sweden, severity only implicitly plays a role in the decision whether to reimburse a drug, whereas in Belgium and France it also explicitly plays a role in determining the willingness to use public resources. Interviewees acknowledged that as well as a qualitative description of the disease, quantitative information may also be useful as input for decision making. None of them, however, considered this to be of decisive importance. Although disease severity is important in drug reimbursement decision making in all four countries, all seem to struggle in explicitly specifying its actual role. Belgium and France are the most explicit by using levels of severity in setting reimbursement levels; all four countries could, however, improve the transparency of its actual importance relative to the other criteria in the decision-making process.