The feasibility of harmonizing health technology assessments across jurisdictions: a case study of drug eluting stents

Critical Review of European Health-Economic Guidelines for the Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices

Background: Health-technology assessment (HTA) is a recognized mechanism to determine the relative benefits of innovative medical technologies. One aspect is their health-economic impact. While the process and methodology for pharmaceuticals is well-established, guidance for medical devices is sparse.

Aim: To provide an overview of the health-economic aspect in current European HTA guidelines concerning medical devices and identifying issues raised and potential improvements proposed in recent literature.

Methodology: Available guidelines by European agencies were each reviewed and summarized. To complement this, a full systematic review of current literature concerning potential improvements to existing HTA practices for medical devices, from PubMed and EMBASE, was conducted; the focus was on health economics. Authors could only review documents in English, French, or German. The systematic review yielded 518 unique articles concerning HTA for medical devices, 32 of which were considered for full-text review after screening of all abstracts.

Results: There is very limited consensus in—and mostly a complete lack of—guidance specific to medical devices in official HTA guidelines, for both clinical and economic analyses. Twenty two of 41 European countries had published official HTA guidance in English, French, or German. Among these only 4 (England, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden) dedicated a chapter or separate document to medical devices. In the literature, there is sufficient evidence to suggest medical devices need to be addressed separately from pharmaceuticals. However, mostly challenges are discussed rather than implementable solutions offered. We present the following set of frequently discussed issues and summarize any solutions that pertain to them: a weak evidence base, learning-curve effects, organizational impact, incremental innovation, diversity of devices, dynamic pricing, and transferability. We further combine reviewed information to suggest a set of possible best practices for health-economic assessment of medical devices.

Conclusion: For greater efficiency in medical-device innovation, European agencies should look to (re-)address the specific requirements of medical devices in their HTA guidelines. When both the health-economic and data requirements for the HTA of medical devices are defined, the development of practical solutions will likely follow.

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.

WHAT’S IN A NAME? DEVELOPING DEFINITIONS FOR COMMON HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PRODUCT TYPES OF THE INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF AGENCIES FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (INAHTA)

Objectives: A mapping exercise was undertaken to determine how HTA is being described and conducted across the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), with the aim of harmonizing terminologies and approaches.

Methods: Three progressive surveys were undertaken. In 2010, INAHTA agencies were asked to provide details on all of their HTA products. In 2013, additional information was sought on key methodological characteristics of five of the most common HTA product types. Subsequently, final agreement was sought on three proposed product types.

Results: Forty-five HTA agencies responded to at least one of the surveys. In 2010, twenty-one agencies reported publishing over seventy named HTA products. Core domains associated with full HTA reports were reported by a third of agencies but were labeled differently, so products were classified according to product type (n = 17). Agencies producing short, tailored products increased between 2010 and 2013, with the publication of rapid reviews doubling from 33 percent to 66 percent. In 2013, half of the agencies adapted their common HTA products from documents produced by other agencies. A consensus (>70 percent) was achieved on definitions for HTA reports, mini-HTAs, and rapid reviews.

Conclusions: The product label for an HTA is not always indicative of its content. Terminology has, therefore, been agreed to make explicit the trade-off between rigor and timeliness in three common HTA product types. An INAHTA Product Type (IPT) Mark has been created to identify each of these. It is hoped this will further facilitate HTA adaptation between agencies and reduce duplication of effort.

Probiotics, prebiotics, and the host microbiome: the science of translation

Recent advances in our understanding of the community structure and function of the human microbiome have implications for the potential role of probiotics and prebiotics in promoting human health. A group of experts recently met to review the latest advances in microbiota/microbiome research and discuss the implications for development of probiotics and prebiotics, primarily as they relate to effects mediated via the intestine. The goals of the meeting were to share recent advances in research on the microbiota, microbiome, probiotics, and prebiotics, and to discuss these findings in the contexts of regulatory barriers, evolving healthcare environments, and potential effects on a variety of health topics, including the development of obesity and diabetes; the long-term consequences of exposure to antibiotics early in life to the gastrointestinal (GI) microbiota; lactose intolerance; and the relationship between the GI microbiota and the central nervous system, with implications for depression, cognition, satiety, and mental health for people living in developed and developing countries. This report provides an overview of these discussions.

Do different clinical evidence bases lead to discordant health-technology assessment decisions? An in-depth case series across three jurisdictions

BACKGROUND

Health-technology assessment (HTA) plays an important role in informing drug-reimbursement decision-making in many countries. HTA processes for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in Australia, the Common Drug Review (CDR) in Canada, and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales are among the most established in the world. In this study, we performed nine in-depth case studies to assess whether different clinical evidence bases may have influenced listing recommendations made by PBAC, CDR, and NICE.

METHODS

Nine drugs were selected for which the three agencies had provided listing recommendations for the same indication between 2007 and 2010. We reviewed the evidence considered for each listing recommendation, identified the similarities and differences among the clinical evidence bases considered, and evaluated the extent to which different clinical evidence bases could have contributed to different decisions based on HTA body comments and public assessment of the evidence.

RESULTS

HTA agencies reached the same recommendation for reimbursement (recommended for listing) for four drugs and different recommendations for five drugs. In all cases, each agency used different evidence bases in their recommendations. The agencies considered overlapping sets of clinical comparators and trials when evaluating the same drug. While PBAC and NICE considered indirect and/or mixed-treatment comparisons, CDR did not. In some cases, CDR and/or NICE excluded trials from review if the drug and/or the comparator were not administered according to the relevant marketing authorization.

CONCLUSIONS

In the listing recommendations reviewed, considerable variability exists in the clinical evidence considered by PBAC, CDR, and NICE for drug-listing recommendations. Differences in evidence resulted from differences in the consideration of indirect and mixed-treatment comparison data and differences in medical practice in each jurisdiction.

Harmonizing HTA

Paul Trueman and colleagues (3) have reported on an important issue. Several HTAs on the same topic have been published recently. They have examined four recent HTA reports on drug-eluting stents (DES), demonstrating varying methods and conclusions. All four HTAs included local registry data and economic evaluations in addition to analyses of published research. The authors concluded that the published evidence considered by most of the agencies had “only limited influence on the resulting recommendations.”