Evolving Endpoint Strategies: Navigating New Therapies and Regulatory Acceptance

PMU108 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN HEALTH-TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Global Access to Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-Cell Therapies: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of CAR T in G7 Countries and Australia

INTRODUCTION:Historically, many Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies were developed with a focus on addressing rapidly rising drug costs and the unique need to evaluate each drug as a de novo entity. The degree to which the unique needs for evaluating technologies vis a vis drugs are reflected in distinct HTA methods and activity is to date understudied.METHODS:We examined HTA's reviews of two technologies: WATCHMAN™, a device to reduce the risk of stroke in certain patients and Alair™, a procedure-based treatment for severe asthma. Both technologies have been extensively reviewed by HTA bodies and payers in many countries. These HTA reviews are compared to a convenience sample of these HTA's bodies reviews of drugs and qualitative differentiators between these two categories explored.RESULTS:The differences and similarities (for example, in rigor and necessity of evidence) between US Section 510(k) clearances, US premarket approval (PMA), and US new drug application (NDA) regulatory pathways have not been clearly understood by HTA or reflected in their methodologies employed. Additionally, emergent methodologies such as Bayesian statistical analyses may encounter challenges within technologies reviews. HTA bodies may not be cognizant of development timelines or the timelines of comparators. Finally, HTA bodies may overestimate device adoption rates.CONCLUSIONS:The differences in evidence requirements for regulatory approval between US 510(k), US PMA, and US NDA pathways have not been reflected in different methodological approaches within HTA bodies reviews. Opportunities and novel methods are needed for HTA bodies to derive imputed comparisons between technologies that may have inherently incongruent timelines. Finally, HTA bodies could benefit from methods to more accurately estimate projected adoption curves. Challenges exist using frameworks, paradigms, and methodologies initially established for, and commonly used for, pharmaceuticals on device evaluations; leaders of HTA methods can improve the situation by providing guidance and recommendations for more appropriate HTA methods to evaluate devices.

IntroductionThe National Institute For Health And Care Excellence (NICE) is widely acknowledged as a seminal health technology assessment (HTA) body, known for its transparent and accountable approach to decision-making. This research aimed to investigate the impact of NICE methodology and decisions on international HTA bodies. We sought to identify direct and indirect factors that may influence an international HTA body’s methods or outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first research to use a qualitative approach to understand the influence of NICE on other HTA bodies.MethodsWe conducted 13 semi-structured qualitative interviews with HTA and market access experts from industry and academia from nine countries (Brazil, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates). The interview script was organized into three main sections: comparing NICE methods and processes with other HTA bodies; the impact of specific NICE decisions; and Likert scale questions (to allow for comparability of opinions).ResultsMost interviewees believed their local HTA body would consider NICE’s decision when evaluating a medicine. However, the way and extent to which NICE influences HTA varied across countries. The most common means of considering a NICE decision was as background information or context for an HTA evaluation. Generally, interviewees suggested that negative NICE decisions had more impact on local decision-making than positive decisions. Nine of the 13 interviewees agreed or strongly agreed that their country’s HTA body considers the decisions of other HTA bodies in their decision-making process. Eleven of the 13 interviewees agreed or strongly agreed that the development of their country’s HTA body methods and processes was influenced by NICE.ConclusionsNICE is perceived to be a seminal HTA body, with continued influence on HTA agencies in other countries. However, the mechanisms and extent of this influence varies considerably between countries. We suggest that implicit factors are likely to contribute more to NICE’s influence than individual decisions. Nevertheless, further research is needed to reveal these factors and increase efficiency in international HTA decision-making processes.

Lymphoma is a haematologic malignancy affecting cells of the immune system. With numerous treatment options available, clinicians and patients frequently face difficulty in selecting the most appropriate therapy. Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) offers valuable patients' insight that may support treatment differentiation. A PRO measure (PROM) is a questionnaire or survey measuring a PRO. Despite many efforts to guide the selection of PROMs in clinical trials, choosing the appropriate ones remains a challenge. This study aims to develop a pragmatic paradigm for selecting PROMs in clinical trials involving adult patients with lymphoma through the collaboration and communication between clinical investigators involved in trials and Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) scientists specialised in research methodologies. A rapid review was conducted to identify existing PROMs for adult patients with lymphoma in clinical trials and guidelines supporting PROM selection. PubMed, Google Scholar and websites for regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies in eight countries of interest were searched from 2009 to July 2024. Publications with PROMs were identified for adult patients in lymphoma trials. The most relevant guidelines supporting the development of the pragmatic paradigm were selected. The initial search and data extraction were conducted by one author. All authors participated in an in-depth review process. We categorise 31 applicable PROMs for lymphoma into four distinct groups, streamlining the PROM selection process to facilitate effective communication among clinical investigators, HEOR scientists, patients and others. Additionally, a five-step pragmatic paradigm is developed for identifying appropriate PROM(s). The pragmatic paradigm presents a practical approach for selecting PROM(s) in lymphoma clinical trials. An appropriate PROM should conceptually align with the treatment goals and be acceptable to regulatory and HTA bodies. Thus, lymphoma clinical trials can generate more patient-focused data, contributing to improving patients' quality of life and advancing lymphoma care.

IntroductionDue to different timing of drug launches across countries, published health technology assessment (HTA) findings from one country may impact HTA outcomes in other countries. The aim of our work was to identify the most influential HTA bodies by analyzing to what extent HTA bodies cross-reference each other in their HTA reports.MethodsWe analyzed the HTA reports on single drug assessments (SDA) published by 46 HTA bodies from 28 countries (and cross-country collaborations) with decision dates between January 2011 and November 2023. We searched the identified HTA reports by using natural language processing and a predefined set of keywords to identify whether, and to what extent, HTA bodies reference each other in their HTA reports. Additionally, we assessed if there is a trend over time in the cross-referencing, and whether any clusters could be identified.ResultsBased on the analysis of 24,793 SDAs, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) was referenced the most (in 4,198 HTA reports across 39 HTA bodies), followed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (in 2,034 reports across 35 HTA bodies), and the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) (in 1,960 reports across 31 HTA bodies). The HTA bodies that most often referenced other HTAs were the Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Tariff System, the Haute Autorité de santé, and NICE. Seven HTA bodies were not referenced in any HTA report, while four did not reference any other HTA body.ConclusionsOur research shows that most of the analyzed HTA agencies not only referenced other HTA bodies in their HTA reports but were also referenced by other HTA bodies. The most often referenced HTA agencies were mostly from English-speaking countries, were well recognized, and had well defined methodologies.

PHP276 - Understanding Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Bodies in Major European Markets: Systematic Evaluation in 10 EU Countries

PHP293 - Understanding Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Bodies in Major Latin-American (LATAM) Markets: Systematic Evaluation in 5 Latam Countries

RS3 Evidence, Process or Context? Examining The Factors That Drive Coverage Decisions Of Pharmaceuticals By Health Technology Assessment Bodies In Europe

e18615 Background: It is recommended to include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer trials to ensure clinical benefit based on patients’ perceptions. For multiple myeloma patients, PRO measurement is essential to understand the impact of treatment on their physical and psychosocial functional behaviour. However, it is unclear which PRO instruments are utilized in multiple myeloma trials, how often they are used and whether results are consistently reported. The aim of this project was to explore the use and frequency of PRO instruments in randomized controlled trials for multiple myeloma and to assess the consistency of their reporting. Methods: Within the European Hematology Association (EHA) project to develop guidelines for the use of PROs in adult patients with hematological malignancies, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials investigating multiple myeloma between 2015 and 2020. Study design, disease and treatment characteristics, the primary outcome and used PRO instrument(s) were extracted using a pre-defined template. To assess the consistency of PRO reporting, study registries were compared with publications, study protocol and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports where available. Results: Overall, 10,707 records were found. Following screening for randomized-controlled trials, 283 ongoing, completed or published studies were included for review. 118 studies planned the use of PROs. The most frequently used PRO instrument (92 studies) was the EORTC QLQ-30, an instrument that measures health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) in cancer patients. The disease-specific questionnaire EORTC-MY20 was also frequently used (50 studies). Likewise, the HRQoL instrument EQ-5D was used in 50 studies. Overall, 38 different PRO instruments were reported. In 39 studies for which a study protocol was found, only 19 reported PRO instruments consistently with the trial registry for the study. In addition, in 30 studies, for which a publication reported PRO results (58 overall), the information on PRO instruments differed between publication and the trial registry. For example, PRO instruments mentioned in the registry were omitted in the respective publications. Additionally, information on PRO in HTA reports was available for 26 studies, of which 18 reports were consistent with the trial registries. Conclusions: The results show that measurement of PROs still remain under-utilized in multiple myeloma research. While most PRO instruments identified in this review comply with the recommendations for incorporating PROs into clinical research in adult oncology, they are often inconsistently reported. Thus, reporting standards for the use of PROs are needed to ensure consistency in the use and reporting of PROs.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are increasingly being included in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) submissions for oncology drugs. This study aims to provide differences in PRO evidence requirements in oncology across key HTA bodies and calls for its harmonization. Method guidance provided by HTA bodies in Germany, France and the UK, and analysis of HTA reports of 20 oncology case studies were evaluated in this review. Differences exist between HTA bodies regarding guidance on how PRO data should be collected, reportedand analyzed as well as how the data are reviewed and considered in oncology HTAs. HTA bodies can play a key role to harmonize PRO method guidance in collaboration with regulators and sponsors.

PDG33 Awareness and Consideration of Confidential Listing Agreements in Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation By Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Bodies

As more health technology assessment (HTA) bodies seek to implement patient involvement, there is a desire to learn from other HTA bodies about their experiences and understand what approaches can be used and which ones make a real difference to HTA. This is difficult, as the impact of patient involvement in HTA is not well documented. This study aims to promote further discussion about the ways in which patient involvement can impact HTAs by studying stories of impact. In a multi-stakeholder workshop, experts leading patient involvement in four HTA bodies shared examples of HTAs where they believed patient involvement made a difference, then they reflected on these impact stories within the wider context of impact evaluation. The HTA bodies drew on patient input and patient-based evidence to inform their HTAs. The patient involvement was observed to elucidate patients' experiences, needs and preferences which, in turn, was observed to influence the HTA recommendations about optimal use of technologies, including taking account of issues for sub-groups, outcomes that matter to patients and educational needs. Personal stories of patient involvement may enable a wider understanding of different approaches to and impact of patient involvement. The examples relate to both patient input and patient-based evidence and highlight the role that patient involvement can play in reducing uncertainties and complementing the clinical and economic evidence in HTA. They suggest that impact can be seen in recommendations about how and when a technology is used.

IntroductionGuidance on appropriate methods to obtain a comparator arm for the cost-effectiveness analysis of tumor-agnostic drugs is needed. In recent years, multiple tumor-agnostic drugs have been submitted to health technology assessment (HTA) bodies based on data from single-arm basket trials. These target a specific genetic mutation, as opposed to targeting a specific tumor type. Since HTA bodies are interested in the comparative effectiveness of a treatment, manufacturers have used several methods to obtain a synthetic control arm in their submissions. This study provides an overview of the recommendations by HTA bodies on the methodology to obtain comparator efficacy.MethodsA targeted literature review will be conducted focusing on the methodology used to obtain a comparator arm in the context of tumor-agnostic drugs. The search will cover key HTA organizations; including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) and the Canadian Agency for Drugs & Technologies in Health (CADTH). Methodologies used in entrectinib and larotrectinib submissions will be extracted. Particular focus will be given on the impact of the applied methodology to the reimbursement decision, as well as key critiques by the HTA bodies. Key search terms will include the following: ‘tumor-agnostic’, ‘histology independent’, ‘HIT’, ‘entrectinib’, ‘larotrectinib’.ResultsAn overview of the results will be presented. These will include the applied methodology for obtaining a comparator arm, critiques and recommendations from HTA bodies, and the impact these methodologies had on the overall reimbursement decision. This will enable comparison of HTA decision-making across regions, and key evidence gaps that need to be further explored.ConclusionsThe results of this study could be useful in the future assessment of tumor-agnostic drug submissions, focusing on the methodology used to obtain comparator efficacy.

Health technology assessment (HTA) is intended to determine the value of health technologies and, once a technology is recommended for funding, bridge clinical research and practice. Understanding the values and beliefs expressed by patients and health professionals can help guide this knowledge transfer and work toward managing the expectations of end users. We gathered patient and patient group leader experiences to gain insights into the roles that patients and patient advocacy groups are playing. We argue that through partnerships and co-creation between HTA professionals, researchers and patient advocates we can strengthen the HTA process and better align with service delivery where person-centered care and shared decision making are key elements. Patient experiences and knowledge are important to the democratization of evidence and the legitimacy of HTAs. Patient preference studies are used to balance benefits with potential harms of technologies, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can measure what matters to patients over time. A change in culture in HTA bodies is occurring and with further transformative thinking patients can be involved in every step of the HTA process. Patients have a right to be involved in HTAs, with patients' values central to HTA deliberations on a technology and where patients can provide valuable insights to inform HTA decision-making; and in ensuring that HTA methodologies evolve. By evaluating the implementation of HTA recommendations we can determine how HTA benefits patients and their communities. Our shared commitment can positively effect the common good and provide benefits to individual patients and their communities.