EVALUATION OF THE HTA CORE MODEL FOR NATIONAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS: COMPARATIVE STUDY AND EXPERIENCES FROM EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review

Health care budgets in high-income countries are having issues coping with unsustainable growth in demand, particularly in the hospital setting. Despite this, implementing tools systematising priority setting and resource allocation decisions has been challenging. This study answers two questions: (1) what are the barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting tools in the hospital setting of high-income countries? and (2) what is their fidelity? A systematic review using the Cochrane methods was conducted including studies of hospital-related priority setting tools reporting barriers or facilitators for implementation, published after the year 2000. Barriers and facilitators were classified using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Fidelity was assessed using priority setting tool's standards. Out of thirty studies, ten reported program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA), twelve multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), six health technology assessment (HTA) related frameworks, and two, an ad hoc tool. Barriers and facilitators were outlined across all CFIR domains. Implementation factors not frequently observed, such as 'evidence of previous successful tool application', 'knowledge and beliefs about the intervention' or 'external policy and incentives' were reported. Conversely, some constructs did not yield any barrier or facilitator including 'intervention source' or 'peer pressure'. PBMA studies satisfied the fidelity criteria between 86% and 100%, for MCDA it varied between 36% and 100%, and for HTA it was between 27% and 80%. However, fidelity was not related to implementation. This study is the first to use an implementation science approach. Results represent the starting point for organisations wishing to use priority setting tools in the hospital setting by providing an overview of barriers and facilitators. These factors can be used to assess readiness for implementation or to serve as the foundation for process evaluations. Through our findings, we aim to improve the uptake of priority setting tools and support their sustainable use.

Towards compatibility of EUnetHTA JCA methodology and German HTA: a systematic comparison and recommendations from an industry perspective

OBJECTIVE

The transferability of the EU joint clinical assessment (JCA) reports for pharmaceuticals for the German benefit assessment was evaluated by systematically comparing EU JCA and German clinical assessments (CA) based on established assessment elements for HTA and assessing the potential impact of differences on Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) ability to derive the therapeutic added value.

METHODS

Identification of all pharmaceuticals undergoing both, EU JCA and German CA between January 2016-June 2020. Qualitative review and data extraction from the assessments, assessment of methodological differences using a hierarchical model. Recommendations for harmonisation were developed and consented with pharmaceutical industry stakeholders.

RESULTS

Differences with potentially major impact: (1) View on differing treatment algorithms and definition of corresponding subpopulations/respective comparators. (2) Clinical relevance of surrogate/intermediate endpoints. Inclusion of different/surrogate morbidity endpoints resulting in different relative effectiveness conclusions. (3) Tolerance of study interventions not used according to marketing authorisation. (4) Different operationalisation and/or weighting of individual safety endpoints leading to differing relative safety conclusions. Differences with potentially minor impact: (1) Disagreement in risk of bias assessment for overall survival and its robustness against study limitations. (2) Use of patient-reported outcome symptom scales as measurements for health-related quality of life instruments.

CONCLUSION

While many synergies between EU JCA and German CA exist, we identified several aspects in HTA methodology that would benefit of harmonisation and ensure the transferability of future EU JCA to the German HTA process without duplicated evaluation requirements. For those, a set of recommendations was developed.

Transforming uncertainties into legitimate regulation? NICE and CONITEC agencies' decisions on rare diseases

As a scientific and technological practice, the evaluation of health technologies (HTA) is, at the same time, a challenge to determine the value of the technologies to be incorporated. This study aimed to explore and compare the results and technical elements of the evaluations issued for rare diseases between the English (NICE) and the Brazilian agency (CONITEC). The first part of the study involved the systematic search for evaluations from 2013 to 2019. In the second stage, the reports were analyzed based on: (i) descriptive narrative review; and (ii) calculation of the absolute and relative frequency according to each domain and component (element) applied in the European HTA network model. Twenty-four medicines were distinctly assessed during the study period. Through 126 questions (elements) distributed among nine domains, the analysis revealed that 67 (53.2%) and 44 (35.0%) were described in the reports, 42 (33.3%) and 59 (47.0 %) were only considered partially, and 17 (13.5%) and 23 (18.0%) were not considered in the NICE and CONITEC reports, respectively. We identified a relatively low agreement between the Brazilian agency with the English agency in the reports issued for rare diseases. It remains to be seen whether the agencies are able to capture the various values ​​of these medicines, as well as manage uncertainties in the evaluations.

The transferability of health technology assessment: the European perspective with focus on central and Eastern European countries

INTRODUCTION

Lower-income European countries have a worse health status and less funds for health care compared to Western Europe. Despite their limited human and financial capacities for conducting Health Technology Assessment (HTA), the need for evidence-based decision-making is growing. Two main approaches emerged as potential solutions: joint clinical assessments on the European level, and simplified procedures relying on the judgments of well-established HTA agencies of Western countries.

AREAS COVERED

Based on considerations of transferability, the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) was built up to harmonize HTA methodologies across the European Union, and to develop an HTA Core Model by focusing on joint production of relative effectiveness assessment, which can be used as a basis for national value assessments. The second approach has been suggested in various forms without considering transferability issues.

EXPERT OPINION

Joint clinical assessments reduce duplication of efforts based on appropriate scientific rationale. On the other hand, recent examples show that relying on judgments of HTA agencies from wealthier countries with potentially different health-care priorities can lead to suboptimal allocation decisions. In the short term, some stakeholders may benefit from ignoring transferability, but it will ultimately lead to limited access in other disease areas.

The South African Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Submissions' Evidence Requirements Compared with Other African Countries and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England

Objectives: The South African Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Submissions (SAGPS) were compared with other African pharmacoeconomic guidelines and the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Methods Guide (NICE MG) to make recommendations for evidence generation and further development thereof.Methods: The European Network for HTA Core Model (version 3.0) (the Model) provided the comparative framework, using three criteria: completely, partly, or not completely requiring the same/similar information.Results: Of 45 African countries reviewed, only Egypt had a publicly accessible pharmacoeconomic guideline (EPG). The guidelines were different in respect to their intended audience, size, and content but for all the main focus are the economic evaluation, and health problem and current treatment domains. The SAGPS and EPG had few requirements for a medicine's safety, organizational, ethical, and legal aspects. The SAGPS completely or partly required the same/similar information as the Model for 41.2% of total issues, the EPG 33.3%, and the NICE MG 63.2%.Conclusions: The SAGPS was similar to the EPG, but not as comprehensive as the NICE MG and could be strengthened for decision-making and priority setting. Evidence generation should focus on describing the medicine's targeted disease and current treatment options, and associated cost and outcomes data.

Timely, consistent, transparent assessment of market access evidence: implementing tools based on the HTA Core Model® in a pharmaceutical company

Objectives

Evidence requirements and assessment methods access differ between health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. The HTA Core Model^® provides a standardized approach to HTA, targeting evidence sharing and collaboration between participating HTA bodies. It is fit for purpose from an industry perspective and was used by pharmaceutical company Roche to develop a framework for internal assessment of evidence required for market access and coverage/reimbursement (“access evidence”).

Methods

Tools were developed to systematically scope, assess, plan, and summarize access evidence generation. The tools were based mainly on the first four HTA Core Model^® domains and rolled-out in selected development teams in 2017. Five months after full implementation, the impact of tools was assessed in an internal survey.

Results

Systematic access evidence generation started with the Access Evidence Questionnaire, to scope evidence requirements and identify evidence gaps. Findings were summarized in the Access Evidence Metric, which assessed the alignment of available/planned evidence against HTA bodies’ requirements and developed scope mitigation strategies. The Access Evidence Plan was then used to plan and document (additional) evidence generation. Once generated, evidence was summarized in the Access Evidence Dossier. A survey of twenty-seven Roche employees involved in evidence generation showed that the tools made discussions around access strategies and evidence more efficient and transparent.

Conclusions

The HTA Core Model^® provided a useful framework around which to optimize internal evidence generation and assessment. The benefits of using a standardized HTA approach in industry mirror those expected from implementing the HTA Core Model® in HTA agencies.

IS THE EUNETHTA HTA CORE MODEL® FIT FOR PURPOSE? EVALUATION FROM AN INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE

OBJECTIVES

The HTA Core Model® was developed to improve the transferability of health technology assessment (HTA) between settings. The model has been used by HTA agencies but is also of interest to manufacturers, for improving internal evidence generation and communicating with other HTA stakeholders. To establish if the model is fit for purpose from an industry perspective, the pharmaceutical company Roche, collaborating with the European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA), conducted an assessment of the model.

METHODS

A questionnaire was developed to evaluate all assessment elements in the HTA Core Model v2.0 for their usefulness in meeting payers' evidence needs and demonstrating value. The questionnaire was completed by country affiliate teams working in evidence generation and reimbursement submissions for pharmaceuticals. Survey results were discussed in workshops to ensure consistency and alignment between teams.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by six teams. An additional team from global pricing and market access participated in workshops. Model domains pertaining to the health problem and current technology use, technology description, clinical effectiveness, and economic value were considered most important because they meet payers' evidence needs. Overall, the model was considered useful to improve the efficiency of HTA evidence generation, share evidence internally, and communicate value to payers and HTA agencies.

CONCLUSIONS

From an industry perspective, the HTA Core Model provides a useful framework and common terminology for efficient generation of transferable HTA evidence. The timeliness, efficiency, and transparency of HTA processes could be improved by a more standardized approach to HTA across settings.