The Evolving Nature of Health Technology Assessment: A Critical Appraisal of NICE's New Methods Manual

OBJECTIVES

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently completed a review of its methods for health technology assessment, involving a 2-stage public consultation. We appraise proposed methodological changes and analyze key decisions.

METHODS

We categorize all changes proposed in the first consultation as "critical," "moderate" or "limited" updates, considering the importance of the topic and the degree of change or the level of reinforcement. Proposals were followed through the review process, for their inclusion, exclusion, or amendment in the second consultation and the new manual.

RESULTS

The end-of-life value modifier was replaced with a new "disease severity" modifier and other potential modifiers were rejected. The usefulness of a comprehensive evidence base was emphasized, clarifying when nonrandomized studies can be used, with further guidance on "real-world" evidence developed separately. A greater degree of uncertainty was accepted in circumstances when evidence generation raised challenges, in particular for children, rare diseases, and innovative technologies. For some topics, such as health inequality, discounting, unrelated healthcare costs, and value of information, significant changes were possibly warranted, but NICE decided not to make any revisions at present.

CONCLUSION

Most of the changes to NICE's health technology assessment methods are appropriate and modest in impact. Nevertheless, some decisions were not well justified and further research is needed on several topics, including investigation of societal preferences. Ultimately, NICE's role of protecting National Health Services resources for valuable interventions that can contribute toward improving overall population health must be safeguarded, without accepting weaker evidence.

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.

Comprehensive taxonomy and worldwide trends in pharmaceutical policies in relation to country income status

Background

Rapidly evolving socioeconomic and technological trends make it challenging to improve access, effectiveness and efficiency in the use of pharmaceuticals. This paper identifies and systematically classifies the prevailing pharmaceutical policies worldwide in relation to a country’s income status.

Methods

A literature search was undertaken to identify and taxonomize prevailing policies worldwide. Countries that apply those policies and those that do not were then grouped by income status.

Results

Pharmaceutical policies are linked to a country’s socioeconomics. Developed countries have universal coverage and control pharmaceuticals with external and internal price referencing systems, and indirect price–cost controls; they carry out health technology assessments and demand utilization controls. Price-volume and risk-sharing agreements are also evolving. Developing countries are underperforming in terms of coverage and they rely mostly on restrictive state controls to regulate prices and expenditure.

Conclusions

There are significant disparities worldwide in the access to pharmaceuticals, their use, and the reimbursement of costs. The challenge in high-income countries is to maintain access to care whilst dealing with trends in technology and aging. Essential drugs should be available to all; however, many low- and middle-income countries still provide most of their population with only poor access to medicines. As economies grow, there should be greater investment in pharmaceutical care, looking to the policies of high-income countries to increase efficiency. Pharmaceutical companies could also develop special access schemes with low prices to facilitate coverage in low-income countries.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2304-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy of Jian'ganle () versus Hugan Pian (), glucuronolactone and reduced glutathione in prevention of antituberculosis drug-induced liver injury

Evidence-based medicine is advocated by WHO and adopted by developed countries for many years. In China, however, the selection of essential medicine and various medical insurance reimbursement schemes medicine is usually based on experts' experience of prescription practice which is under heavy critics resulting from the lack of related comparative efficacy and evidence-based research. The efficacy of Jian'ganle in prevention of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) caused by antituberculotics was evaluated in this study by comparison with Hugan Pian, glucuronolactone and reduced glutathione. Evidence was provided for relevant sectors such as Ministry for Human Resources and Social Security of the People's Republic of China and National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People's Republic of China to select and renew the Essential Medicine List (EML), the new rural cooperative medical scheme in China (NRCMS) list or the reimbursement list of industrial injury insurance. A total of 189 patients with initial pulmonary tuberculosis were divided into four groups who took antituberculotics combined with Jian'ganle, Hugan Pian, glucuronolactone and reduced glutathione respectively. Their liver function profile including alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total bilirubin (TBIL), direct bilirubin (DBIL), total protein (TP), albumin (A) and globulin (G) were detected at admission as baseline and after treatment. The Jian'ganle group was compared with the three others by chi-square tests. In an aspect of maintaining bilirubin indexes normal, Jian'ganle was more efficacious than glucuronolactone. And Jian'ganle had a little more efficacy than reduced glutathione to maintain protein indexes normal as well. And the therapeutic regimen of antituberculotics combined with Jian'ganle was the best in treating tuberculosis and preventing DILI at the same time. The study showed that among the four hepatinicas which demonstrated similar prevention of DILI caused by antituberculotics, Jian'ganle has more advantages over the three others to some extent, which provides a reliable basis for health sectors to select and renew the EML, NRCMS List or the reimbursement list of industrial injury insurance.

When does NICE recommend the use of health technologies within a programme of evidence development? : a systematic review of NICE guidance

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest internationally in linking reimbursement decisions with recommendations for further research. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) can issue guidance to approve the routine use of a health intervention, reject routine use or recommend use within a research programme. These latter recommendations have restricted use to 'only in research' (OIR) or have recommended further research alongside routine use ('approval with research' or AWR). However, it is not currently clear when such recommendations are likely to be made.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify NICE technology appraisals where OIR or AWR recommendations were made and to examine the key considerations that led to those decisions.

METHODS

Draft and final guidance including OIR/AWR recommendations were identified. The documents were reviewed to establish the characteristics of the technology appraisal, the cost effectiveness of the technologies, the key considerations that led to the recommendations and the types of research required.

RESULTS

In total, 29 final and 31 draft guidance documents included OIR/AWR recommendations up to January 2010. Overall, 86 % of final guidance included OIR recommendations. Of these, the majority were for technologies considered to be cost ineffective (83 %) and the majority of final guidance (66 %) specified the need for further evidence on relative effectiveness. The use of OIR/AWR recommendations is decreasing over time and they have rarely been used in appraisals conducted through the single technology appraisal process.

CONCLUSION

NICE has used its ability to recommend technologies within research programmes, although predominantly within the multiple technology appraisal process. OIR recommendations have been most frequently issued for technologies considered cost ineffective and the most frequently cited consideration is uncertainty related to relative effectiveness. Key considerations cited for most AWR recommendations and some OIR recommendations included a need for further evidence on long-term outcomes and adverse effects of treatment.

The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research

There is a growing appreciation that our current approach to clinical research leaves important gaps in evidence from the perspective of patients, clinicians, and payers wishing to make evidence-based clinical and health policy decisions. This has been a major driver in the rapid increase in interest in comparative effectiveness research (CER), which aims to compare the benefits, risks, and sometimes costs of alternative health-care interventions in 'the real world'. While a broad range of experimental and nonexperimental methods will be used in conducting CER studies, many important questions are likely to require experimental approaches - that is, randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Concerns about the generalizability, feasibility, and cost of RCTs have been frequently articulated in CER method discussions. Pragmatic RCTs (or 'pRCTs') are intended to maintain the internal validity of RCTs while being designed and implemented in ways that would better address the demand for evidence about real-world risks and benefits for informing clinical and health policy decisions. While the level of interest and activity in conducting pRCTs is increasing, many challenges remain for their routine use. This article discusses those challenges and offers some potential ways forward.

Mind the gap: Understanding utilisation of evidence and policy in health care management practice

PURPOSE

The paper aims to take a reflective stance on the relationship between policy/evidence and practice, which, the authors argue, is conceptually under-developed. The paper aims to show that current research perspectives fail to frame evidence and policy in relation to practice.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A qualitative study was conducted in the English NHS in four Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). Seventy-five observations of meetings and 52 semi-structured interviews were completed. The approach to data analysis was to explore and reconstruct narratives of PCT managers' real practices.

FINDINGS

The exploratory findings are presented through two kinds of narratives. The first narrative vividly illustrates the significance of the active involvement, skills and creativity of health care practitioners for policy implementation. The second narrative elucidates how problems of collaboration among different experts in PCTs might emerge and affect evidence utilisation in practice.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The findings exemplify that policies are made workable in practice and, hence, policy makers may also need to be mindful of practical intricacies and conceive policy implementation as an iterative process.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

The contribution of this paper lies in offering an alternative and important perspective to the debate of utilisation of policy/evidence in health care management and in advancing existing understanding of health care management practice. The paper's rich empirical examples demonstrate some important dimensions of the complexity of practice.

Validity of British Thoracic Society guidance (the CRB-65 rule) for predicting the severity of pneumonia in general practice: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The CRB-65 score is a clinical prediction rule that grades the severity of community-acquired pneumonia in terms of 30-day mortality.

AIM

The study sought to validate CRB-65 and assess its clinical value in community and hospital settings.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Systematic review and meta-analysis of validation studies of CRB-65.

METHOD

Medline (1966 to June 2009), Embase (1988 to November 2008), British Nursing Index (BNI) and PsychINFO were searched, using a diagnostic accuracy search filter combined with subject-specific terms. The derived (index) rule was used as a predictive model and applied to all validation studies. Comparison was made between the observed and predicted number of deaths stratified by risk group (low, intermediate, and high) and setting of care (community or hospital). Pooled results are presented as risk ratios (RRs) in terms of over-prediction (RR>1) or under-prediction (RR<1) of 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Fourteen validation studies totalling 397 875 patients are included. CRB-65 performs well in hospitalised patients, particularly in those classified as intermediate (RR 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71 to 1.17) or high risk (RR 1.01, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.16). In community settings, CRB-65 over-predicts the probability of 30-day mortality across all strata of predicted risk, low (RR 9.41, 95% CI = 1.75 to 50.66), intermediate (RR 4.84, 95% CI = 2.61 to 8.69), and high (RR 1.58, 95% CI = 0.59 to 4.19).

CONCLUSION

CRB-65 performs well in stratifying severity of pneumonia and resultant 30-day mortality in hospital settings. In community settings, CRB-65 appears to over-predict the probability of 30-day mortality across all strata of predicted risk. Caution is needed when applying CRB-65 to patients in general practice.

NICE at 10 years: new challenges ahead

NICE has existed for 10 years. During this period, its methodological approach to developing guidance and assessing the value (cost-effectiveness) of healthcare interventions has received considerable national and international interest. At the same time, individual decisions have generated enormous controversy. This 10th anniversary provides an opportunity to look back at how the institute has responded and adapted to the various challenges and controversies. Following Lord Darzi's review of the National Health Service (UK) in 2008, the institute took on further responsibilities for setting clinical standards for the National Health Service. This article explores these developments and speculates on future trends.

Perspectives on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's recommendations to use health technologies only in research

Background:The concept of using public funds to pay for healthcare interventions only when provided in the context of ongoing research is receiving increasing attention worldwide. Nevertheless, these decisions are often controversial and implementation can be problematic.

Objectives:The aim of this study was to investigate the views of United Kingdom stakeholders on the current arrangements for implementing “only in research” (OIR) decisions and to investigate how improvements might be made.

Methods:After an internal review of previous OIR decisions issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), deliberations by NICE's Citizens Council, and an international workshop convened by NICE and the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, thirteen key stakeholders and experts from academia, industry, government, and the National Health Service (NHS) were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide. Interview transcripts were subjected to a framework-based analysis using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software.

Results:All interviewees endorsed the use of the OIR option. There was a high degree of consensus for several suggestions regarding how the use of the OIR option might be improved. For example, there was universal agreement that a formal process should be established to prioritize research needs arising from OIR decisions and that funds for publicly funded research projects should be channeled in a manner that would better motivate healthcare providers to participate in OIR-related research.

Conclusions:The findings of this study suggest several potential modifications of the OIR pathway in the United Kingdom and may also be helpful to health technology assessment agencies in other countries that already use or are considering using an OIR-like option to reduce the uncertainty inherent in health technology assessment.

Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries

CONTEXT

The discussion about improving the efficiency, quality, and long-term sustainability of the U.S. health care system is increasingly focusing on the need to provide better evidence for decision making through comparative effectiveness research (CER). In recent years, several other countries have established agencies to evaluate health technologies and broader management strategies to inform health care policy decisions. This article reviews experiences from Britain, France, Australia, and Germany.

METHODS

This article draws on the experience of senior technical and administrative staff in setting up and running the CER entities studied. Besides reviewing the agencies' websites, legal framework documents, and informal interviews with key stakeholders, this analysis was informed by a workshop bringing together U.S. and international experts.

FINDINGS

This article builds a matrix of features identified from the international models studied that offer insights into near-term decisions about the location, design, and function of a U.S.-based CER entity. While each country has developed a CER capacity unique to its health system, elements such as the inclusiveness of relevant stakeholders, transparency in operation, independence of the central government and other interests, and adaptability to a changing environment are prerequisites for these entities' successful operation.

CONCLUSIONS

While the CER entities evolved separately and have different responsibilities, they have adopted a set of core structural, technical, and procedural principles, including mechanisms for engaging with stakeholders, governance and oversight arrangements, and explicit methodologies for analyzing evidence, to ensure a high-quality product that is relevant to their system.