Health Technology Assessment Bodies Research Articles

Unlocking the full potential of digital endpoints for decision making: a novel modular evidence concept enabling re-use and advancing collaboration.

Over the last decade increasing examples indicate opportunities to measure patient functioning and its relevance for clinical and regulatory decision making via endpoints collected through digital health technologies. More recently, we have seen such measures support primary study endpoints and enable smaller trials. The field is advancing fast: validation requirements have been proposed in the literature and regulators are releasing new guidances to review these endpoints. Pharmaceutical companies are embracing collaborations to develop them and working with academia and patient organizations in their development. However, the road to validation and regulatory acceptance is lengthy. The full value of digital endpoints cannot be unlocked until better collaboration and modular evidence frameworks are developed enabling re-use of evidence and repurposing of digital endpoints. This paper proposes a solution by presenting a novel modular evidence framework -the Digital Evidence Ecosystem and Protocols (DEEP)- enabling repurposing of measurement solutions, re-use of evidence, application of standards and also facilitates collaboration with health technology assessment bodies. The integration of digital endpoints in healthcare, essential for personalized and remote care, requires harmonization and transparency. The proposed novel stack model offers a modular approach, fostering collaboration and expediting the adoption in patient care.

Project SATURN– a real-world evidence data collaboration with existing European datasets in Osteogenesis Imperfecta to support future therapies

Regulatory marketing authorisation is not enough to ensure patient access to new medicinal products. Health Technology Assessment bodies may require data on effectiveness, relative effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Healthcare systems may require data on clinical utility, savings, and budget impact. Furthermore, the exact requirements of these bodies vary country by country and sometimes even region to region, resulting in a patchwork of different data requirements to achieve effective, reimbursed patient access to new therapies. In addition, clinicians require data to make informed clinical management decisions. This requirement is of key importance in rare diseases where there is often limited data and clinical experience at the time of regulatory approval.This paper describes an innovative initiative that is called Project SATURN: Systematic Accumulation of Treatment practices and Utilization, Real world evidence, and Natural history data for the rare disease Osteogenesis Imperfecta. The objective of this project is to generate a common core dataset by utilising existing data sources to meet the needs of the various stakeholders and avoiding fragmentation through multiple approaches (e.g., a series of individual national requests/approaches, and unconnected with the regulators’ potential requirements). It is expected that such an approach will reduce the time for patient access to life-changing medications. Whilst Project SATURN applies to Osteogenesis Imperfecta, it is anticipated that the principles could also be applied to other rare diseases and reduce the time for patient access to new medications.

Composite event-free-survival as an endpoint in oncology drug evaluation: Review and guidance perspectives from the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS)

BackgroundThe use of right-censored composite endpoints, such as progression-free survival, has been questioned in haemato-oncology trials due to potential bias in estimated treatment effect. This may impact the accuracy of health technology evaluations. We hypothesized that there is heterogeneity and potential sources of bias in the reporting of composite endpoints to health technology assessment (HTA) bodies. MethodsWe reviewed the submissions for reimbursement of oncology drugs in 2021 and 2022 that used a composite endpoint in the pivotal trial, after appraisal by the French HTA body. The retrieved information included the clinical study report, protocol, and statistical analysis plan submitted by the industry. All events of the composite endpoint and all causes of censored observations were measured. The design characteristics and treatment effect estimates were recorded. FindingsSeventy-six submissions were selected, including seven without a right-censored endpoint and four evaluating associations, resulting in 65 analysed records: 17 for haematological and 48 for solid tumours. Out these 65 submissions, 47 (72·3%) used a randomized controlled design, and 18 (27·7%) a non-comparative design. The most frequently used composite endpoint was progression-free survival, used in 54 (83·1%) of the submissions. Censoring was possibly informative in 51 (92·7%) cases, mostly due to the onset of new treatment (44/51, 86·3%) and/or discontinuation of follow-up (33/51, 64·7%). In contrast, 38 (58·5%) trials reported a quantification of censored observations, with only 12/51 (23·5%) quantifying the informative ones. The estimated treatment effect on the composite outcome increased with the amount of censoring, suggesting a higher benefit of the drug, but remained below that on survival with poor evidence of surrogacy (R-squared=0·23). InterpretationClinical study reports should be improved in terms of reporting censoring, while stakeholders should be aware of this potential source of bias. At a minimum, sensitivity analysis that ignores intercurrent events should be requested.

Implementing the EU HTA regulation: Insights from semi-structured interviews on patient expectations, Belgian and European institutional perspectives, and industry outlooks.

Introduction: The goal of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Regulation 2021/2282 is to establish a more harmonized HTA framework, fostering member states cooperation and enabling equal patient access to innovative health technologies in Europe. This research aimed to assess the impact of the regulation on national HTAs, the strategic implications for health technology developers, and its influence on price and reimbursement negotiations. Methods: A scoping literature review encompassing peer-reviewed literature as well as grey literature was conducted. Between February and March 2023, semi-structured interviews (n = 20) were performed with stakeholders from Belgian governmental institutions, European institutions, advanced therapy medicinal product developers, academics, and sickness funds. The interviews were analyzed using the framework analysis method. Results: Numerous steps, such as the development of implementing acts and procedural guidelines remain to be taken. At member state level, national/regional HTA bodies and payers must act to adopt the new concepts of Joint Scientific Consultations (JSC) and Joint Clinical Assessments (JCA) within their national legislation, as well as revise their timelines and prepare for interactions at a European level. Compiling a harmonized PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome), adapting local procedures, and increasing capacity to actively take part in the JSC and JCA are seen as primary barriers by several stakeholders. Training and education will help HTA bodies, payers, and health technology developers to participate in the European processes. Conclusion: While practical and legal challenges were identified, recommendations (such as actively preparing for the upcoming changes and increasing capacity while providing training) were provided to adapt national and European procedures to the needs of the HTA Regulation 2021/2282. The importance of fostering collaborations and aligning local HTA procedures with the new way of working set out by the Regulation was demonstrated with this study.

Advancing unanchored simulated treatment comparisons: A novel implementation and simulation study.

Population-adjusted indirect comparisons, developed in the 2010s, enable comparisons between two treatments in different studies by balancing patient characteristics in the case where individual patient-level data (IPD) are available for only one study. Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies increasingly rely on these methods to inform funding decisions, typically using unanchored indirect comparisons (i.e., without a common comparator), due to the need to evaluate comparative efficacy and safety for single-arm trials. Unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and unanchored simulated treatment comparison (STC) are currently the only two approaches available for population-adjusted indirect comparisons based on single-arm trials. However, there is a notable underutilisation of unanchored STC in HTA, largely due to a lack of understanding of its implementation. We therefore develop a novel way to implement unanchored STC by incorporating standardisation/marginalisation and the NORmal To Anything (NORTA) algorithm for sampling covariates. This methodology aims to derive a suitable marginal treatment effect without aggregation bias for HTA evaluations. We use a non-parametric bootstrap and propose separately calculating the standard error for the IPD study and the comparator study to ensure the appropriate quantification of the uncertainty associated with the estimated treatment effect. The performance of our proposed unanchored STC approach is evaluated through a comprehensive simulation study focused on binary outcomes. Our findings demonstrate that the proposed approach is asymptotically unbiased. We argue that unanchored STC should be considered when conducting unanchored indirect comparisons with single-arm studies, presenting a robust approach for HTA decision-making.

Regulatory Issues of Platform Trials: Learnings from EU-PEARL.

Although platform trials have many benefits, the complexity of these designs may result not only in increased methodological but also regulatory and ethical challenges. These aspects were addressed as part of the IMI project EU Patient-Centric Clinical Trial Platforms (EU-PEARL). We reviewed the available guidelines on platform trials in the European Union and the United States. This is supported and complemented by feedback received from regulatory interactions with the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Throughout the project we collected the needs of all relevant stakeholders including ethics committees, regulators, and health technology assessment bodies through active dialog and dedicated stakeholder workshops. Furthermore, we focused on methodological aspects and where applicable identified the corresponding guidance. Learnings from the guideline review, regulatory interactions, and workshops are provided. Based on these, a master protocol template was developed. Issues that still need harmonization or clarification in guidelines or where further methodological research is needed are also presented. These include questions around clinical trial submissions in Europe, the need for multiplicity control across the whole master protocol, the use of non-concurrent controls, and the impact of different randomization schemes. Master protocols are an efficient and patient-centered clinical trial design that can expedite drug development. However, they can also introduce additional operational and regulatory complexities. It is important to understand the different requirements of stakeholders upfront and address them in the trial. While relevant guidance is increasing, early dialog with relevant stakeholders can help to further support such designs.

An Inclusive Civil Society Dialogue for Successful Implementation of the EU HTA Regulation: Call to Action to Ensure Appropriate Involvement of Stakeholders and Collaborators.

Stakeholder involvement has long been considered a success factor for a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) process, and its relevance is now anchored in the EU HTA Regulation's (EU HTAR) legislative wording. Therefore, we aimed to explore the roles, challenges, and most important activities to increase the level of involvement per stakeholder group. At the 2022 Fall Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), working groups addressed the involvement of patients, clinicians, regulators, health technology developers (HTD), and national HTA bodies and payers within the EU HTA process. Each working group revisited the pre-convention survey results, determined key role characteristics for each stakeholder, and agreed on the most important activities to fulfill the role profile. Finally, the activities suggested per group were prioritized by plenary group. The prioritized actions for patients included training and capacity building, the establishment of a patient involvement committee, and the establishment of a patient unit at the EC secretariat. For clinicians, it included alignment on evidence assessment from a clinical vs. HTA point of view, capacity building, and standardization of processes. The most important actions for regulators are to develop joint regulatory-HTA guidance documents, align processes and interfaces under the regulation, and share discussions on post-licensing evidence generation. HTDs prioritized scientific advice capacity and the review of the scoping process, and further development of the scope of the assessment report fact checks. The top three actions for national HTA bodies and payers included clarification on the early HTD dialogue process, political support and commitment, and clarification on financial support. Addressing the activities identified as the most important for stakeholders/collaborators in the EU HTA process (e.g., in the implementation of the EU HTA Stakeholder Network and of the guidance documents developed by the EUnetHTA 21 consortium) will be key to starting an "inclusive civil society dialogue", as suggested by the European Commission's Pharmaceutical Strategy.

A framework for evaluating the diversity of clinical trials

ObjectivesThe topic of diversity in clinical trials is rising to the forefront of many conversations in evidence-based medicine, and efforts are being made to improve the diversity of clinical trials. However, there is little uniformity in the methods used to evaluate these efforts. In this article, we describe our Clinical trial Diversity Rating (CDR) framework and the development process, including the broader considerations for evaluating the demographic diversity of clinical trials and their implications, and demonstrate its use through an illustrative example. Study Design and SettingThe development of the framework was a four-step process, including a scoping review, a cross-sectional study, creation of the tool, and integration of feedback from an advisory group. ResultsOur scoping review identified 110 publications that examined clinical trial diversity. Race/ethnicity, sex, and age were the most common characteristics evaluated. About 85% clearly defined the benchmark used for evaluation, but less than half (48%) used disease prevalence as the benchmark. Only 64% of studies defined what would be considered adequate representation. The cross-sectional study, which applied some of the approaches identified in the literature, helped to identify the complexities of evaluating multinational trials and certain demographic characteristics. Key decisions for the CDR framework, such as the demographic characteristics to be evaluated, the benchmark and thresholds for evaluation, and how these factors contribute to the overall rating of clinical trial diversity, were informed by the two earlier phases and feedback from an advisory group. ConclusionThe CDR framework provides an objective and transparent approach to evaluating clinical trial diversity. Groups such as Health Technology Assessment bodies, clinical trial regulators, policymakers, journal editors, and individual researchers can use this tool to examine, monitor, and improve diversity in clinical trials.

Evidence Synthesis and Linkage for Modelling the Cost-Effectiveness of Diagnostic Tests: Preliminary Good Practice Recommendations.

To develop preliminary good practice recommendations for synthesising and linking evidence of treatment effectiveness when modelling the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests. We conducted a targeted review of guidance from key Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies to summarise current recommendations on synthesis and linkage of treatment effectiveness evidence within economic evaluations of diagnostic tests. We then focused on a specific case study, the cost-effectiveness of troponin for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction, and reviewed the approach taken to synthesise and link treatment effectiveness evidence in different modelling studies. The Australian and UK HTA bodies provided advice for synthesising and linking treatment effectiveness in diagnostic models, acknowledging that linking test results to treatment options and their outcomes is common. Across all reviewed models for the case study, uniform test-directed treatment decision making was assumed, i.e., all those who tested positive were treated. Treatment outcome data from a variety of sources, including expert opinion, were utilised for linked clinical outcomes. Preliminary good practice recommendations for data identification, integration and description are proposed. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests poses unique challenges in linking evidence on test accuracy to treatment effectiveness data to understand how a test impacts patient outcomes and costs. Upfront consideration of how a test and its results will likely be incorporated into patient diagnostic pathways is key to exploring the optimal design of such models. We propose some preliminary good practice recommendations to improve the quality of cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostics tests going forward.

Availability and Coverage of New Drugs in 6 High-Income Countries With Health Technology Assessment Bodies

Availability and Coverage of New Drugs in 6 High-Income Countries With Health Technology Assessment Bodies

Navigating the unknown: how to best 'reflect' standard of care in indications without a dedicated treatment pathway in health technology assessment submissions.

There is an urgent need for expedited approval and access for new health technologies targeting rare and very rare diseases, some of which are associated with high unmet treatment needs. Once a new technology achieves regulatory approval, the technology needs to be assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. This assessment quantitatively examines the clinical effectiveness, safety and/or economic impact of the new technology relative to standard of care (SoC) in a specific market. However, in rare and very rare diseases, the patient populations are small and there is often no established treatment pathway available to define 'SoC'. In these situations, several challenges arise to assess the added benefit of a new technology -both clinically and economically -due to lack of established SoC to guide an appropriate comparator selection. These challenges include: How should 'SoC' be defined and characterized in HTA submissions for new technologies aiming to establish new treatment standards? What is usual care without an established clinical pathway? How should the evidence for the comparator 'SoC' (i.e., usual care) arm be collected in situations with low patient representation and, sometimes, limited disease-specific clinical knowledge in certain geographies? This commentary outlines the evidence generation challenges in designing clinical comparative effectiveness for a new technology when there is a lack of established SoC. The commentary also proposes considerations to facilitate the reliable integration of real-world evidence into HTA and decision-making based on the collective experience of the authors.

Pediatric Market Access: A Qualitative Study.

This qualitative study aims to analyze current PM regulation and market access requirements and proposes potential solutions to mitigate current challenges. Twenty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts from pharmaceutical industry, regulatory authorities, national health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, pediatricians, and academia from the Netherlands (NL), Germany (DE), the United Kingdom (UK), and France (FR) to get insight into the pediatric research, the regulatory and reimbursement processes, challenges, and solutions. Themes for further testing were developed on how to facilitate pediatric market access. Atlas.ti 9 was used to analyze the findings. Heterogeneity in requirements for the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and HTA approvals are noted. By example, DE grants direct reimbursement after regulatory approval, the other countries require additional reimbursement which generate delays and challenges in patient access after marketing authorization. Key components in facilitating PM market access include multi-stakeholder collaboration, transparency, patient representatives, informed consent guidance, real-world evidence, and appropriate clinical trial designs. Pricing models based on the economic capabilities of individual countries could further reduce delays and challenges in market access. The additional specific pediatric incentives should be taken as best practice to encourage innovation in pediatric conditions. This study highlights differences in requirements for regulatory and reimbursement approval, along with international differences in pricing and reimbursement procedures for pediatric market access.

Chronic cough: more than just a persistent cough: a systematic literature review to understand the impact of chronic cough on quality of life.

Chronic cough (CC), defined as a cough persisting ≥ 8weeks, can have a substantial negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This is exacerbated by challenges with timely diagnosis and a lack of approved therapies. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify evidence on HRQoL and health state utility values associated with refractory CC or unexplained CC. Electronic database searches were supplemented with searches of conference proceedings and health technology assessment body websites. Two independent reviewers assessed all citations for inclusion based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Key inclusion criteria were patient populations with CC and reporting of patient-reported outcomes or utilities using generic or disease-specific measures. Following screening, 65 studies were identified for inclusion in the SLR. Of these, 23 studies assessed HRQoL among patients with CC who were not treated or treated with unspecified interventions, and 42 studies in patients who were treated with specified interventions. The studies indicated a substantial decrement to HRQoL as a result of CC, characterized by generic and disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures. HRQoL was impacted across multiple domains, including physical, psychological, and social functioning. The studies also demonstrated the potential for treatments to have a significant positive impact on HRQoL. CC can substantially affect HRQoL in patients, across physical, psychological, and social domains. Although treatments can improve HRQoL in these patients, the available evidence is limited. There remains an unmet need for approved pharmacological treatments to alleviate CC and improve HRQoL for these patients.

Opportunities to improve the adoption of health-related quality of life evidence as part of the French Health Technology Assessment process

ObjectivesPatient’s health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome measure that is considered by many payers and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies in the evaluation of treatments. We aimed to identify opportunities for HRQoL to be further incorporated into the assessment of the French HTA by comparing three health systems. We put forward recommendations that could bring further innovations to French patients.MethodsWe reviewed methodologies by the French, German and British HTA, and conducted a systematic review of all French (n = 312) and German (n = 175) HTA appraisals from 01 January 2019 to 31 December 2021. We also setup an advisory board of 11 ex-HTA leaders, payers, methodologists, healthcare providers and patient advocates, from France, Britain and Germany, to discuss opportunities to improve acceptance and adoption of HRQoL evidence in France.ResultsOur systematic review of HTA appraisals showed a higher HRQoL data rejection rate in France: in > 75% of cases the HRQoL evidence submitted was not accepted for the assessment (usually for methodological reasons, for example, data being considered exploratory; 16–75% of the appraisals mentioned HRQoL evidence, varying by therapeutic area). Overall, we found the French HTA to be more restrictive in its approach than IQWiG.ConclusionsBased on these findings we articulate collaborative proposals for industry and the HAS to improve acceptance of HRQoL evidence and create a positive feedback loop between HAS and industry along four dimensions (1) patient perception, (2) testing hierarchy, (3) trial design and (4) data collection.

Opportunities and Challenges for Decentralized Clinical Trial Approaches: European Health Technology Assessment Perspective

ObjectivesDecentralized clinical trial (DCT) approaches are clinical trials in which some or all trial activities take place closer to participants’ proximities instead of a traditional investigative site. Data from DCTs may be used for clinical and economic evaluations by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to support reimbursement decision making. This study aimed to explore the opportunities and challenges for DCT approaches from an HTA perspective by interviewing representatives from European HTA bodies. MethodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with 25 European HTA representatives between September 2022 and February 2023, and transcripts were analyzed after thematic analysis. ResultsTwo main themes were identified from the data relating to (1) DCT approaches in HTA and (2) trial-level acceptance and relevance. Experience with assessing DCTs was limited and a variety of knowledge about DCTs was observed. The respondents recognized the opportunity of DCTs to reduce recall bias when participant-reported outcome data can be collected more frequently and conveniently from home. Concerns were expressed about the data quality when participants become responsible for data collection. Despite this challenge, the respondents recognized the potential of DCTs to increase the generalizability of results because data can be collected in a setting reflective of the everyday situation potentially from a more diverse participant group. ConclusionsDCTs could generate relevant results for HTA decision making when data are collected in a real-world setting from a diverse participant group. Increased awareness of the opportunities and challenges could help HTA assessors in their appraisal of DCT approaches.

OP137 A Qualitative Exploration Of The National Institute For Health And Care Excellence’s Impact On International Health Technology Assessment

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.

PP96 Continuous Innovation In Neurostimulation Therapies For The Management Of Chronic Pain: Challenges For Health Technology Assessment Policy

IntroductionChronic pain is a debilitating condition with a high burden of disease. Neurostimulation therapy is an established modality for patients with chronic pain refractory to pharmacological based approaches and conservative interventional therapies. The therapy has evolved over the decades, based on improved understanding of the mechanisms of action, as well as technological advancement in device design.Our objective is to conduct a review of the innovation in neurostimulation therapy for chronic pain, in the context of health technology assessment (HTA), and its implications on policies related to patient access.MethodsA qualitative literature review was conducted to identify published HTAs, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines and other relevant articles and reports on neurostimulation therapies used in pain management. Searches were limited to the past 10 years to ensure that a contemporary analysis was conducted.ResultsOur review indicates that there has been continuous innovation in neurostimulation therapies for chronic pain. This includes improvements in battery longevity and reduced size, advances in the design of leads, the development of novel stimulation waveforms and personalized programming using sophisticated algorithms including sensing and feedback loops, and remote management to name a few. Clinical research has also enabled an expansion in the range of neural targets and indicated subpopulations. The literature shows that apart from reduction in pain, neurostimulation therapy facilitates improvements in the quality of life, and reduction in opioid dependence, carer burden and disability, which are outcomes important to patients as well as to society at large. Clinical guidelines are largely supportive of neurostimulation for the management of chronic refractory pain in carefully selected patients.ConclusionsThe range and complexity of neurostimulation devices and the variety of study designs presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. HTA bodies need to ensure that the methodologies for evaluating a heterogeneous therapy such as neurostimulation for pain management are robust, and that the policies for determining access to such innovative therapies are patient-centric and fit-for-purpose.

OP09 Developing A Patient And Consumer Training Tool Explaining Health Technology Assessment And Patient/Consumer Participation: The French Experience

IntroductionThe French National Authority for Health’s (HAS) 2019-2024 strategic workplan called for “making public involvement a priority.” This project was designed within the roadmap validated in 2021; “Strengthening public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) at the HAS”, including an action of building a means of training patient organizations for their contribution. The project’s overall objective was to develop with patients and consumers a first training tool, representing an online knowledge base targeting French patients and consumers to explain the HAS HTA process and assist their participation in these assessments.MethodsThree stages were designed to meet this objective. Firstly, an international benchmark was performed of available online HTA training tools for patients and consumers, notably those used by HTA bodies and European and international patient and consumer groups (PCGs). Secondly, an internal HAS search for e-learning tools, was conducted to identify whether they could meet the training needs of French patients and consumers. Finally, the training tool was developed via a working group composed of patients and HAS scientific officers.ResultsThe benchmark identified 82 online training tools selected according to the specified inclusion criteria. Sixteen international HTA agencies, nine European and international PCGs and 13 other bodies provided online HTA training tools for patients and consumers during the research period, but no journal articles identified such tools. Eleven formats and 12 key themes, divided into two main categories were identified: important content related to HTA, and important content related to public involvement in HTA. The HAS search for e-learning tools resulted in internal e-learning tools offered for clinical experts not meeting the needs and preferences of patients and consumers. Finally, HAS based its training tool development on these preferences and needs to create a PowerPoint in two blocks of modules covering the two main categories above (six modules in total).ConclusionsFrench patients and consumers preferences and needs for a HTA training tool were inspired by the international benchmark, dividing key themes into two main categories: important content related to HTA, and important content related to public involvement in HTA. This resulted in HAS development of two blocks of modules in PowerPoint format covering these two categories.

PP44 Time Is Now: Advancing Value Assessment Of Cancer Therapies To Help Eliminate Cancer As The Cause Of Death

IntroductionEarlier cancer diagnosis and advances in science are resulting in improved patient and societal outcomes. However, payer frameworks and methods can find it difficult to keep pace with scientific progress, evolution of endpoints, and assess the wider value of these advances.MethodsA multidisciplinary, international group of experts working in the cancer field was brought together to reach consensus on key principles of defining and assessing of cancer treatment value. A Delphi-based approach including surveys, virtual panels, interviews and structured online discussions was used to reach consensus. This work was initiated and funded by AstraZeneca.ResultsTwenty-four experts from across the world (including patient advocates, oncologists, health economists, regulators, members of payer and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies) reached consensus on seven key principles across two themes, oncology relevant endpoints and dimensions of value. Three of the seven principles were found to be of particular relevance to HTA bodies and payers: assessing broad economic impact of new medicines (including socio-economic and caregiver impact), where early-stage cancer treatments can enhance patients’ ability to lead productive lives and contribute to economic activity; consider other value aspects of relevance to patients and society; use of Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) supported by ongoing evidence collection to help address decision-maker evidence needs and address clinical uncertainty.ConclusionsIncentivizing access to early-stage treatments can promote cancer control, improved outcomes and generate long-term societal benefit. Furthermore, early diagnosis and treatment at earlier stages of cancer can be cost-effective, and sometimes cost-saving, as well as provide opportunities for cure. Expanding value components in therapy assessments to include, for example, insurance value, the value of choice, scientific spillovers, and wider societal perspectives, along with structured MEAs to manage clinical uncertainty and balance budgets will help realize the potential to eliminate cancer as the cause of death.

Methodological guidelines and publications of benefit–risk assessment for health technology assessment: a scoping review protocol

BackgroundBenefit–risk assessment (BRA) is used in multiple phases along the health technology’s life-cycle to evaluate the balance between the benefits and risks, as it is fundamental to all stakeholders. BRA...