Health Technology Assessment Decisions Research Articles

Development of a disease-specific health utility score for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from a discrete choice experiment patient preference study.

While patient input to health technology assessment (HTA) has traditionally been of a qualitative nature, there is increasing interest to integrate quantitative evidence from patient preference studies into HTA decision making. Preference data can be used to generate disease-specific health utility data. We generated a health utility score for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and consider its use within HTAs. Based on qualitative research, six symptoms were identified as important to COPD patients: shortness of breath, exacerbations, chronic cough, mucus secretion, sleep disturbance, and urinary incontinence. We employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and the random parameter logistic regression technique to estimate utility scores for all COPD health states. The relationship between patients' COPD health utility scores, self-perceived COPD severity, and EQ-5D-3L utility scores was analyzed, with data stratified according to disease severity and comorbidity subgroups. The COPD health utility score had face validity, with utility scores negatively correlated with patients' self-perceived COPD severity. The correlation between the COPD health utility scores and EQ-5D-3L values was only moderate. While patient EQ-5D-3L scores were impacted by comorbidities, the COPD health utility score was less impacted by comorbid conditions. Our COPD utility measure, derived from a DCE, provides a patient-centered health utility score and is more sensitive to the COPD health of the individual and less sensitive to other comorbidities. This disease-specific instrument should be considered alongside generic health-related quality of life instruments when valuing new COPD therapies in submissions to licensing and reimbursement agencies.

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.

Development of a Value Assessment Framework for Pediatric Health Technologies Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis: Expanding the Value Lens for Funding Decision Making

ObjectivesA health technology assessment (HTA) does not systematically account for the circumstances and needs of children and youth. To supplement HTA processes, we aimed to develop a child-tailored value assessment framework using a multicriteria decision analysis approach. MethodsWe constructed a multicriteria-decision-analysis-based model in multiple phases to create the Comprehensive Assessment of Technologies for Child Health (CATCH) framework. Using a modified Delphi process with stakeholders having broad disciplinary and geographic variation (N = 23), we refined previously generated criteria and developed rank-based weights. We established a criterion-pertinent scoring rubric for assessing incremental benefits of new drugs. Three clinicians independently assessed comprehension by pilotscoring 9 drugs. We then validated CATCH for 2 childhood cancer therapies through structured deliberation with an expert panel (N = 10), obtaining individual scores, consensus scores, and verbal feedback. Analyses included descriptive statistics, thematic analysis, exploratory disagreement indices, and sensitivity analysis. ResultsThe modified Delphi process yielded 10 criteria, based on absolute importance/relevance and agreed importance (median disagreement indices = 0.34): Effectiveness, Child-specific Health-related Quality of Life, Disease Severity, Unmet Need, Therapeutic Safety, Equity, Family Impacts, Life-course Development, Rarity, and Fair Share of Life. Pilot scoring resulted in adjusted criteria definitions and more precise score-scaling guidelines. Validation panelists endorsed the framework’s key modifiers of value. Modes of their individual prescores aligned closely with deliberative consensus scores. ConclusionsWe iteratively developed a value assessment framework that captures dimensions of child-specific health and nonhealth gains. CATCH could improve the richness and relevance of HTA decision making for children in Canada and comparable health systems.

Comparison of partitioned survival modeling with state transition modeling approaches with or without consideration of brain metastasis: a case study of Osimertinib versus pemetrexed-platinum

BackgroundThe partitioned survival model (PSM) and the state transition model (STM) are widely used in cost-effectiveness analyses of anticancer drugs. Using different modeling approaches with or without consideration of brain metastasis, we compared the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) estimates of Osimertinib and pemetrexed-platinum in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with epidermal growth factor receptor mutations.MethodsWe constructed three economic models using parametric curves fitted to patient-level data from the National Health Insurance Review and Assessment claims database from 2009 to 2020. PSM and 3-health state transition model (3-STM) consist of three health states: progression-free, post-progression, and death. The 5-health state transition model (5-STM) has two additional health states (brain metastasis with continuing initial therapy, and with subsequent therapy). Time-dependent transition probabilities were calculated in the state transition models. The incremental life-year (LY) and QALY between the Osimertinib and pemetrexed-platinum cohorts for each modeling approach were estimated over seven years.ResultsThe PSM and 3-STM produced similar incremental LY (0.889 and 0.899, respectively) and QALY (0.827 and 0.840, respectively). However, 5-STM, which considered brain metastasis as separate health states, yielded a slightly higher incremental LY (0.910) but lower incremental QALY (0.695) than PSM and 3-STM.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that incorporating additional health states such as brain metastases into economic models can have a considerable impact on incremental QALY estimates. To ensure appropriate health technology assessment decisions, comparison and justification of different modeling approaches are recommended in the economic evaluation of anticancer drugs.

Real-world evidence for coverage determination of treatments for rare diseases

Health technology assessment (HTA) decisions for pharmaceuticals are complex and evolving. New rare disease treatments are often approved more quickly through accelerated approval schemes, creating more uncertainties about clinical evidence and budget impact at the time of market entry. The use of real-world evidence (RWE), including early coverage with evidence development, has been suggested as a means to support HTA decisions for rare disease treatments. However, the collection and use of RWE poses substantial challenges. These challenges are compounded when considered in the context of treatments for rare diseases. In this paper, we describe the methodological challenges to developing and using prospective and retrospective RWE for HTA decisions, for rare diseases in particular. We focus attention on key elements of study design and analyses, including patient selection and recruitment, appropriate adjustment for confounding and other sources of bias, outcome selection, and data quality monitoring. We conclude by offering suggestions to help address some of the most vexing challenges. The role of RWE in coverage and pricing determination will grow. It is, therefore, necessary for researchers, manufacturers, HTA agencies, and payers to ensure that rigorous and appropriate scientific principles are followed when using RWE as part of decision-making.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 14.

In this latest update we highlight: a publication from the US FDA regarding the definitions of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE); a publication from academic researchers on a demonstration project for target trial emulation; a publication from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on the 1year anniversary of their RWE framework; and a publication from NICE and Flatiron Health on the utility of US RWD for initialUK health technology assessment decision making.

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.

PP109 The Use Of Health Technology Assessment In Decision Making: Evidence From The Balkan Countries

IntroductionAccording to the most recent definition health technology assessment (HTA) “is a multidisciplinary process that uses explicit methods to determine the value of a health technology at different points in its lifecycle. The purpose is to inform decision-making in order to promote an equitable, efficient, and high-quality health system”. This article aimed to evaluate implementation of HTA in decision making in the Balkan countries.MethodsA scoping review of the existing literature took place to locate relevant scientific articles, policy papers and documents released by the respective Ministries. We searched data for 6 Western Balkan countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia) and didn’t focus on those countries that are part of the European Union (EU). For the literature search key words were used, while documents only in English were included in the analyses. Additionally, the search was conducted for the period January 2010 until October 2022.ResultsThe Western Balkan countries are in process of integration to the EU and based on this they are trying to make improvement in different sectors including health services. However, the use of HTA in most of the studied countries is in its preliminary phase. Most of the countries have established HTA bodies or specific authorities but with limited resources (both human and financial). Additionally, their reports are non-binding for policy makers and healthcare decisions are taken based on experts’ opinions and not an extensive HTA analyses.ConclusionsDespite their efforts, the Western Balkan countries need to improve and considerably increase the use of HTA in decision-making. Its use can help in provision of better healthcare services as well as to decrease costs. Specific attention should be put on human and financial resources that are lacking in all settings.Western Balkan countries need to put much more efforts for harmonization of their legal framework with that of the EU countries.

OP21 Patient Values Project (PVP): Patient Preferences For Cancer Treatments To Inform A Framework Incorporating Patient Values Into Health Technology Assessment

IntroductionThe methodology for explicitly incorporating patient preferences by expert committees engaged in deliberative health technology assessment (HTA) processes for drug reimbursement recommendations is a relatively unexplored area despite the growing emphasis on patient-reported outcomes and patient engagement. The Patient Values Project (PVP) aims to improve patient input to expert review committees and promote a better understanding of the patient perspective using quantitative data to support the rationale in assessing new cancer drugs. Using colorectal cancer as a starting point, the PVP aims to develop a framework to objectively incorporate quantitative patient values and preferences into Canada’s cancer drug HTA decision-making process. We report on results from the first phase.MethodsIn the first phase, we developed a bilingual survey informed by qualitative focus groups, literature review and feedback from clinicians, patients and experts. The survey includes background questions, general and cancer specific quality-of-life tools, two discrete choice experiments (DCE) and a best worst scaling (BWS) experiment. After pre-testing and pilot testing, the survey was administered across Canada to metastatic and non-metastatic colorectal cancer patients and caregivers, in addition to adults from the general population. In the next phases, we will use vignettes to explore how patient preferences could be incorporated explicitly into decision-making, and what approach to use in HTA submissions.ResultsDCE1 survey results (˜n=1,000) reflect trade-offs between health-related quality-of-life and survival; DCE2 results reflect trade-offs between treatment regimens, side effects and survival/risk of recurrence; BWS results ranked and weighted the tolerability of 25 possible side effects of treatment. We observed differences in preferences amongst the general population, patients with metastatic cancer, non-metastatic cancer and caregivers.ConclusionsPatients have unique perspectives and preferences about what is important and of value to them, which may impact patient adherence to treatment. In the next phases, we will explore how this evidence from patient preferences can be translated into values that could potentially be incorporated as an explicit element of the deliberative process for HTA decision-making.

OP100 Patient Perspectives In Value Assessment Frameworks: The Asia Pacific Perspective

IntroductionThe importance of patient centricity in healthcare decision making has been recognized and advocated for decades. However, approaches for including the patient perspective are diverse, and progress varies among countries. Some reimbursement bodies acknowledge the importance of patient preferences in health technology assessment (HTA) and funding decision processes. However, patients’ perspectives are not yet systematically and transparently included in value assessment frameworks globally, and even less so in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. This systematic review aimed to investigate how patients’ perspectives are used to inform pricing and reimbursement decisions in the APAC region.MethodsA systematic review is ongoing that utilized a search of 12 databases, including MEDLINE and Embase, to identify publications on the consideration of patient perspectives in health policy decision-making published to November 2022. Conference abstracts published in the last five years from ISPOR and Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) were screened, along with gray literature and government websites from Australia, China, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. Publications were included if the impact of either one or more of the following on HTA decision-making was assessed: active participation of patients or patient advocacy groups; type, extent, and evolution of patient-reported outcomes; health-related quality of life or quality of life tools; and themes where the impact of patients’ perspectives on value assessment was the primary outcome. Countries were characterized into archetypes based on similarities or differences in the weight and value assigned to patient perspectives in decision-making.ResultsA total of 6,438 retrieved citations will undergo the systematic review process. Additionally, 758 conference abstracts from ISPOR, 1,312 from HTAi conferences and 73 records from gray literature will be screened.The results of the systematic review will be consolidated into country archetypes, examples, and learnings. Gaps and opportunities will also be identified.ConclusionsThe research will provide recommendations to increase shared decision-making and support the development of decision-making frameworks that systematically incorporate patients’ perspectives in value assessment across APAC countries.

OP136 A Comparison Of Health Technology Assessment Recommendations In Australia, Canada, And England: Is There Opportunity For Further Alignment?

IntroductionOver the past decade there have been increasing interactions between health technology assessment (HTA) agencies through international networks at the policy level and European joint actions at the product level. A pilot project is underway to explore collaboration beyond Europe between HTA agencies in Australia, Canada, and the UK. This study the compared HTA recommendations of new active substances (NAS) appraised by Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), Canada’s CADTH, and England’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).MethodsUsing publicly available data and established benchmarking methodology, we examined 45 NAS appraised by PBAC, CADTH, and NICE between 2017 and 2021. Analysis was performed to assess rollout time from regulatory to HTA recommendation, and to the first HTA recommendation.ResultsMost products were submitted to the Europe Medicine Agency first (89%). However, 71 percent of NAS in Australia and 69 percent in Canada were submitted to HTA in parallel with regulatory review, which shortened overall rollout time. The median HTA submission gap among the three agencies was 140 days in Australia, 102 days in Canada, and 8 days in England. PBAC had the highest number of negative recommendations (51%), followed by CADTH (18%), and NICE (5%). The congruence of HTA decisions was highest between CADTH and NICE (56%), compared with PBAC and CADTH (11%), and PBAC and NICE (20%)ConclusionsTo achieve a more collaborative HTA process it is necessary to understand the rollout time in these jurisdictions. This study identified submission gaps among the regulatory agencies, but there may be more synergy in the future as regulators in the three jurisdictions work collaboratively through the Access Consortium. Currently, the submission gap for the three HTA agencies was mostly within six months, making collaboration on joint assessment possible. We observed divergences in HTA recommendations due to the methodology and decision criteria applied by each agency. Therefore, collaboration on assessment should build on the clinical aspects, although HTA decisions should be grounded in the local context.

HTA346 The Use of Real-World Evidence in Health Technology Assessment Decisions in Sweden and the UK: A Natural Language Processing (NLP) Approach

HTA346 The Use of Real-World Evidence in Health Technology Assessment Decisions in Sweden and the UK: A Natural Language Processing (NLP) Approach

OP57 Consumer Engagement In Health Technology Assessment: An Australian Journey To Date

IntroductionAustralian health technology assessment (HTA) committees and processes at the national level have needed to consider an increasing focus on patient involvement and interactions within their scope. As various approaches have been explored, the visibility and impacts of patient involvement and consumer representation has evolved markedly over the most recent five years.MethodsProgram activities were developed from review of contemporary HTA models of practice across various HTA sectors internationally alongside input from individual patients and patient groups. Practical application of program pilots was influenced by specific requirements of the Office of HTA, the coordination of HTA Committee procedures and timelines, and involvement of HTA Committee consumer members.ResultsThe development of capacity building programs for HTA consumer committee members, the growth of external activity and communications targeting patient groups and networks, and the establishment of an expert position to develop the HTA Consumer Evidence and Engagement Unit within the Department’s Office of HTA, are all examples of the work delivered in this period to better integrate patient evidence and inputs into HTA processes and decision-making. Activities over the next period will seek to establish formal frameworks for meaningful involvement that can demonstrate these contributions to evaluations and decision-making.ConclusionsVarious examples of patient involvement and participation in processes have evolved over time. The scope and impacts of these experiences have illustrated important participatory demands and resourcing needs, as well potential benefits for deliberations. The Australian Government and Departmental frameworks for HTA currently seek to enhance the development of patient evidence inputs and participation. These developments will be informed by the Australian context and comprehensive consultation with Australian patient groups and their networks. Strategies for improvements are anticipated to be relevant across all HTA processes and Committees within HTA areas.

OP120 Developing A Call To Action For Patient Involvement In Health Technology Assessment (HTA) In Southern Africa

IntroductionIn building health technology assessment (HTA) and related decision processes in Southern Africa, institutions and stakeholders face region-specific challenges such as disease prevalence and population makeup. These can be addressed by collaboratively discussing patient engagement solutions that fit the local culture and systems and serve to ensure equitable and sustainable access to patient-relevant health technologies. Our aim is to initiate a collaboration for driving patient involvement (PI) suitable for the Southern African context and Sub-Saharan patient communities. In addition, we explore current experiences in PI, including the stakeholder expectations, gaps, limitations, and new opportunities.MethodsA one-day hybrid multi-stakeholder PI in HTA workshop was held in Johannesburg, South Africa. Co-created by the participants, the outputs are a call to action and a concept draft for the vital success criteria for PI in the region. The content of the call to action is gathered from pre-workshop surveys, interviews, and outcomes from historic meetings held in conjunction with the Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) PI workstream as well as facilitated discussion from the actual workshop.ResultsThe workshop was attended by 42 participants from nine countries, representing diverse stakeholder groups. The attendees represented multiple PI stakeholder groups. The workshop survey was completed by 44 respondents, while 12 participants completed the post-event survey. A workshop outcomes document highlighting a high level of alignment and identifying seven key success factors was developed. A workshop proceeding detailing the outcomes is now being drafted.ConclusionsOver 95 percent of respondents to pre-and post-surveys indicated an interest in contributing to a more in-depth description of PI in their country. While the majority of participants were from South Africa, participants from Tanzania, Ethiopia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe emphasized that trans-African-engagement for HTA will provide an additional opportunity for HTA in Africa and patient and community participation in HTA and healthcare decision-making. Hence, a collaborative platform could help all African countries to advance and benefit from improved healthcare decision processes.

HTA72 How Is Real-World Evidence (RWE) Being Used in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Decisions? Qualitative Insights from Comparisons of Three RWE Study Types Across Multiple Jurisdictions

HTA72 How Is Real-World Evidence (RWE) Being Used in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Decisions? Qualitative Insights from Comparisons of Three RWE Study Types Across Multiple Jurisdictions

OP153 Access To Real-World Data For Use In Health Technology Assessment – Still Work To Be Done

IntroductionReal-world data (RWD) is an important source of evidence for health technology assessment (HTA). It is widely used to fill clinical trial data gaps and to inform risk-sharing agreements. HTA is mandatory in many jurisdictions as it is used for price negotiation between a manufacturer and a payer. HTA practitioners have so far had limited involvement in the debate surrounding access to RWD as regulators have primarily focused on scientific research and market authorization. This study examined the challenges of obtaining RWD for HTA decision-making that is beneficial at the population level when data sources are restricted to maintain the data integrity and rights of the public.MethodsTypes of RWD and processes for obtaining data were assessed for two jurisdictions (Australia and Denmark). Types of data considered were national registries, ongoing or completed cohorts, surveys at various universities, archived historical data, and medical claims data. The assessment was performed by analyzing a series of cases.ResultsThere were similarities and differences between the two jurisdictions. In both jurisdictions the process for obtaining data included an ethics application as well as data handling fees. Patients and clinicians had little to no say in what their data are used for. It can take up to six months to obtain data. Person identification numbers enable linking of different datasets. Population wide data are accessible in Denmark only through secure servers, whereas full data sets, such as prescription data, can be released for research in Australia. Public hospital data, such as electronic health records, are not easily obtained in Denmark. In Australia, public hospitals are run by individual states and, therefore, additional effort is required to access nationwide data.ConclusionsAccess to RWD for HTA is challenging in both Australia and Denmark. Improvements in the process of applying for data and linking different data sources for HTA purposes are still needed.

OP51 Use Of Real-World Data In Cost-effectiveness Analysis Of Sequential Biologic Treatment For Rheumatoid Arthritis

IntroductionIn health technology assessment (HTA), economic evaluations assessing biologic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) involve modeling patients’ responses to multiple treatments given sequentially over a lifetime horizon. When data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are scarce, data from non-randomized studies (e.g., single-arm trials [SATs] and disease registries) can be used to supplement the evidence base. This research aimed to demonstrate meta-analytic methods for combining effectiveness data from randomized and non-randomized studies and their corresponding impact on cost-effectiveness estimates.MethodsData comparing patients receiving second-line rituximab with continued background non-biologic treatment were extracted from one RCT and six SATs identified in an HTA assessing second-line rituximab for RA, and from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register-Rheumatoid Arthritis, by applying a target trial emulation approach. A binomial meta-analysis model was used to estimate the probabilities of achieving the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria by pooling data from the RCT, SATs, and the registry. The probabilities were entered into a decision model from a previous HTA to derive incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates for treatment strategies with and without biologic drugs.ResultsCompared with the original analysis, the estimated probability of at least a moderate EULAR response on rituximab from combined sources was substantially lower. For example, the probability obtained from an RCT was 0.68 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.345, 0.907), but only 0.29 (95% [CrI]: 0.242, 0.333) when using RCT plus registry data and 0.29 (95% CrI: 0.244, 0.336) for combined RCT, registry, and SAT data. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the median ICERs were higher when including real-world data.ConclusionsSynthesis of all relevant data, including RWD, provides additional information regarding the variability in cost-effectiveness estimates and can be considered in sensitivity analyses for HTA decision-making.

OP71 Road To Public Funding Of Cancer Codependent Technologies In Australia In The Last Ten Years

IntroductionIn Australia, cancer codependent technologies (cCDTs) mostly comprise a biomarker targeting medicine and a companion diagnostic test (CDx). Health technology assessment (HTA) of cCDTs is carried out to inform funding deliberations on CDxs by the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) and on personalized medicine by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). To understand the strengths and weaknesses of this dual assessment mechanism, we studied the journey of cCDTs in getting funding support from the two committees since the introduction of the codependent technology evaluation framework.MethodsPublic summary documents summarizing deliberations by each committee were reviewed from 2012 to 2022. Information was retrieved on the patient indication, date, biomarkers related to the tests, and PBAC or MSAC funding outcomes. The alignment of HTA decisions, time taken until dual funding approval (if approved), and the reasons for discrepant and negative decision-making were determined.ResultsFrom 2012 to 2022, a total of 26 cCDT applications were submitted to PBAC and MSAC, corresponding with 43 paired PBAC/MSAC considerations and 11 single committee considerations. Non-small cell lung cancer and programmed cell death ligand 1 were the most frequently nominated cancer and biomarker test, respectively. When a cCDT was submitted in the same decision round to both committees, 60 percent of funding decisions were aligned, reaching 73 percent when the considerations were made separately (resubmissions). Only 9 percent of considerations received polarized, where one committee supported and the other committee rejected funding. After multiple resubmissions, 73 percent of cCDTs obtained dual funding support after an average of 34.8 weeks, with considerations by PBAC and MSAC occurring an average of 2.3 and 1.9 times, respectively.ConclusionsMost cCDTs obtain funding support, but only after multiple resubmissions to PBAC and MSAC. Polarized decisions are rare. Reasons for rejection primarily relate to uncertain clinical benefit and an unacceptably high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

PP93 Health Technology Assessments For Rare Diseases In Australia: A Case Study On Cystic Fibrosis

IntroductionCurrently, no cure exists for the 1 in 2,500 Australian babies born with potentially fatal cystic fibrosis (CF). The authors conducted a health technology assessment (HTA) case study analysis of all regulatory approved CF treatments in Australia from January 1994 to July 2022. Submissions were also made under the Therapeutics Goods Administration and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (TGA-PBAC) parallel process.MethodsPublic summary and source materials were researched to understand relevant clinical and health economic evidence requirements, and access decisions from Australia’s lead HTA body, PBAC.ResultsThe review found that there are more than seven approved products in Australia. Of those, all four novel CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulating medications, which treat the underlying disease, received an orphan drug designation and were eventually listed. However, initial HTA decisions were mixed, with one recommended (25%), one not recommended (25%), and two deferred (50%). Clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, clinical need, as well as patient/carer-centric perspectives were most influential in HTA recommendations. Like other rare disease treatments, price, high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), uncertainty around cost-effectiveness and/or efficacy were key barriers to positive decisions. Notably, Australian stakeholders did not recommend CF medicines when their ICERs significantly exceeded a threshold of AUD200,000 (USD134,700) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Administratively, Australia addresses risks associated with poor cost-effectiveness and high costs through managed access programs, risk-sharing agreements (RSA) and special pricing arrangements.Recently approved elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor would be inaccessible to many Australian patients without inclusion in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS); this placement increases access by limiting patients’ payments to AUD42.50 (USD28.62) maximum per prescription. Alternatively, manufacturers of therapies for other chronic or rare life-threatening conditions can participate in Australia’s Highly Specialised Drugs Program and/or Life Saving Drugs Program to facilitate access.ConclusionsCompanies can accelerate and optimize market access by using the TGA-PBAC parallel process. Other Asia-Pacific countries can model components of Australia’s approach to advancing access to innovative, live-saving therapies.

HTA141 Exploring the Role of Patient Experience Data and Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment Decision Making

HTA141 Exploring the Role of Patient Experience Data and Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment Decision Making