Health Technology Assessment Evaluation Research Articles

Are Medical Device Characteristics Included in HTA Methods Guidelines and Reports? A Brief Review.

It is well accepted that medical devices (MDs) and procedures have several unique characteristics compared with pharmaceuticals, such as learning curve (LC), incremental innovation (II), dynamic pricing (DP), and organizational impact (OI). The objective of this study was to determine the extent to which these MD characteristics are routinely assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and incorporated in their guidelines and reports. Three approaches were taken. First, a review of the most recent HTA methods guidelines from 14 selected HTA agencies and 5 HTA networks was undertaken. Next, HTA reports from these agencies were reviewed for inclusion of MD-specific characteristics for 16 selected MDs. Finally, a narrative literature review on this topic was conducted. A total of 13 of the included HTA organizations, and some HTA networks (2/5), have published either general or MD-specific method guidelines, whilst several addressed MD-specific characteristics. NICE included all four MD characteristics in their guidelines, but this did not equate to their inclusion in published HTA evaluations. European Network HTA (EUnetHTA) described the inclusion of LC (within patient safety) and OI within their guidance. The results highlight a lack of consistency. For the narrative review, 10/149 articles identified were reviewed. Most provided recommendations on challenges faced by HTAs, proposed steps to address uncertainties around MD characteristics and reported a lack of methodological guidance for evaluating MDs. A lack of inclusion of MD characteristics in HTA is a complex interplay of several important factors. For these characteristics to become a formal part of HTA of MDs in the future, clear guidance and frameworks are required to enable manufacturers to develop appropriate evidence, and HTA practitioners to assess their impact more broadly.

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.

Health technology assessment in traditional and complementary medicine: a scoping review of international activity and examples of acupuncture.

Traditional therapies are crucial in maintaining and improving human well-being. China's healthcare policymakers are attempting to use health technology assessment (HTA) as a decision-making supportive tool. The value assessment framework for Chinese patent medicine (CPM) has been developed and is being adopted and validated widely by research institutions. Subsequently, the healthcare decision-makers particularly hanker for the value framework of traditional non-pharmacological therapies. To construct a practical value framework for traditional non-pharmacological therapies, a scoping review methodology was adopted to identify the evaluation domains and obstacles. A search, screening, and analysis process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Evidence was retrieved from scientific databases and HTA agencies' websites. The search strategy identified 5 guidelines records and 17 acupuncture HTA reports. By synthesizing the valuable reports of CPM and acupuncture evaluation in representative countries, this study found that Mainland China was promoting the comprehensive value assessment of CPM, whereas the United Kingdom, Singapore, Canada, the United States, and Malaysia had carried out the HTA evaluation of acupuncture for various conditions among which chronic pain was the most common. UK and Singapore applied the HTA results to support acupuncture reimbursement decisions. Three domains, including safety, effectiveness, and economy, were commonly adopted. The identified biggest challenge of evaluating traditional non-pharmacological therapies is the scarce high-quality clinical evidence. This study identified value domains and issues of traditional therapies, and pointed out future research implications, to promote the development value framework of traditional therapies.

PP127 Early Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Of Medical Technologies To Inform Subsidy Decision-making In Singapore

IntroductionMedical technologies are evolving rapidly, with many new and expensive technologies entering the market constantly, challenging the sustainability of the public healthcare system. Early health technology assessment (HTA) to inform subsidy decision for innovative medical technologies, before they diffuse into the public healthcare system, may drive appropriate early adoption or curtail inappropriate use. This abstract describes the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE)’s experience in conducting early HTAs and key challenges faced.MethodsDuring ACE’s 2021 topic prioritization exercise, ACE took a proactive approach by considering medical technologies identified from horizon scanning (HS) for subsidy evaluation. Two topics were shortlisted from HS. Standard HTA evaluation framework and local clinician consultation were used to define the evaluation scope and clinical pathways. Literature search and appraisal were conducted for safety, effectiveness, and economic evidence. Budget impact estimations and organizational feasibility assessment were additional domains considered for subsidy decision-making by the Ministry of Health Medical Technology Advisory Committee (MTAC).ResultsMTAC did not recommend subsidy for the two technologies due to weak evidence base, largely due to a lack of comparative evidence, small samples, short-term follow-ups, or heterogeneity of population. Additional considerations included potentially high budget impact or organizational feasibility issues such as substantial capital and maintenance cost and infrastructure reconfiguration required. During the evaluation, key challenges of assessing such technologies in their early diffusion within the healthcare system were: (i) differing clinical opinions on whether the technology meets an unmet need; (ii) uncertain place in the clinical management algorithm for the relevant indications; (iii) sparse and weak evidence; (iv) uncertain financial implications to the healthcare system due to a lack of available local costs.ConclusionsEarly HTA on medical technologies identified from HS can be a useful tool to guide subsidy decisions; however, several challenges exist. Careful selection of technologies and timing of evaluation are critical. Seeking stakeholder inputs earlier would ensure shortlisting appropriate technologies with greater clinical need for HTA.

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.

Comparative Assessment of Reimbursement Recommendations by NICE and HAS for Oncology New Medicines Indicated for the Treatment of Solid Tumors from 2015 to 2021.

This study aimed to compare reimbursement recommendations by the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the French National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé; HAS) for oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors. Public assessment reports published on NICE and HAS Web sites between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2021, describing appraisals for public reimbursement for oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors were searched and systematically reviewed. Biosimilars and generic drugs were excluded from the analysis. Overall, 119 public assessment reports published by NICE and 134 by HAS were identified, with 101 interventions assessed by both agencies. Of 101, 38 (38%) interventions received similar recommendations, 38 (38%) were recommended for different populations, and 25 (25%) were endorsed by one agency but rejected by the other. The main reason NICE would not recommend a drug was due to lack of cost-effectiveness, whereas HAS would primarily reject a drug on the grounds of insufficient clinical evidence. The major divergence between agencies is the key criterion used for reimbursement recommendations. NICE mainly considers cost-effectiveness, whereas HAS primarily focuses on the clinical value of interventions. This contributes to the variability in reimbursement recommendations and leads to differential access to oncology new medicines indicated for the treatment of solid tumors among patients in France, and England and Wales. Both the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé; HAS) have established formal health technology assessment (HTA) processes and offer universal public health care coverage. However, both agencies diverge in the weight given to different elements of evidence during HTA evaluations. NICE uses cost-effectiveness as key criterion for recommendations on drug reimbursement, while HAS mostly limits its assessment to clinical value.For oncology new medicines indicated for treating solid tumors between 2015 and 2021, recommendations differed 62% of the time between NICE and HAS, primarily due to the distinct key decision-making criteria each HTA agency uses.For 4 interventions not endorsed by NICE, HAS saw these drugs as providing a substantial enhancement in clinical value over existing treatments, potentially providing an edge in price negotiations. Conversely, NICE deemed these drugs as not delivering adequate value for money in comparison with current therapies.A key difference between the 2 agencies is HAS's insistence on methodological rigor in efficacy results, compared with NICE's more flexible approach, considering descriptive efficacy results in cost-effectiveness modeling.

Incorporating Dynamic Pricing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Are Known Unknowns Valuable?

Current practice in health technology assessment (HTA) of pharmaceuticals conducts cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) based on a static price or the estimated price at market launch. Recent publications suggest incorporating dynamic pricing. To test the feasibility and importance of including dynamic pricing, we compared the standard static approach to four dynamic scenarios by replicating US-based HTA evaluations with dynamic pricing inputs. The four case examples included omalizumab (Xolair®) for the treatment of allergic asthma, elagolix (Orilissa®) for the treatment of endometriosis, ocrelizumab (Ocrevus®) for the treatment of primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS), and dupilumab (Dupixent®) for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD). The primary outcome was the relative percentage change in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for two dynamic pricing scenarios versus static pricing. Secondary outcomes included the absolute difference in ICERs versus base-case and an assessment of decision uncertainty. Base-case ICERs were $327,000, $102,000, $700,000, and $102,000 for allergic asthma, endometriosis, PPMS, and AD, respectively. Across scenarios and case examples, the range of ICERs versus base-case varied from decreases of 56% to increases of 232%. The absolute difference in ICERs versus base-case ranged from decreases of $120,000 to increases of $758,000. Conclusions on cost effectiveness were altered in 2/16 scenarios across the four case examples. Given the decision context that US payers face, with prices varying over time, findings suggest further research to reduce uncertainty around price trajectories, as well as conducting or updating multiple assessments over the lifecycle of pharmaceutical products.

PD25 Use Of Real-World Evidence In The Reimbursement Assessment Of Medical Devices

IntroductionRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are typically considered the gold standard source of clinical evidence for reimbursement submissions, but they can often be resource-intensive, expensive, and may not always be appropriate. For example, it may be unethical to assign patients to an untreated or undiagnosed control group, or blinding may not be feasible when assessing medical devices. Evidence for medical devices is therefore often limited to nonrandomized studies. We explored the use and value of real-world evidence (RWE) in the reimbursement of medical devices across several health technology assessment (HTA) agencies.MethodsA narrative review was completed to compare the acceptability of RWE for the HTA evaluation of medical devices across a convenience sample of countries. English-language published guidance documents were reviewed, and study design preferences extracted.ResultsIn Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, and Scotland, HTA agencies prefer RCT evidence but accept RWE as supporting data. In England, there is no preferred study design, with directly observed clinical outcomes, evidence syntheses, nonclinical, and modelling studies accepted. Notably, methods and processes for HTA programs are being reviewed and are expected to place a greater emphasis on RWE. In Australia, pseudo-randomized trials, comparative cohort studies, case series, and other study designs are permitted. In France, nonrandomized or nonblinded trials, patient preference cohorts, prospective comparative observational studies, and propensity score matched cohorts are permitted, accompanied by justification. In Scotland, lived experiences, RWE, and systematic reviews are accepted. In Germany, nonrandomized studies are deemed to provide “minimum”, “very low” or “low” certainty of results. In Norway, RWE may be accepted if no RCT data are available, or to support RCTs.ConclusionsIn the assessment of medical devices, where RCTs are unsuitable, RWE can form a feasible alternative. Real-world evidence is increasingly being recognized as a valuable source of evidence for medical interventions and is accepted by a number of HTA agencies. No funding was received for this study.

Exploratory analyses of clinical trial data used for health technology assessments: a retrospective evaluation.

ObjectivesTo examine the validity and statistical limitations of exploratory analyses of clinical trial data commonly requested by agencies responsible for determining which medical products may be financed or reimbursed by a healthcare system.DesignThis was a retrospective review of efficacy and safety analyses conducted for German Health Technology Assessment (HTA) evaluations with a decision date between 2015 and 2020, and an illustrative safety-related exploratory analysis of data from two phase III clinical trials of verubecestat (an anti-amyloid drug whose development was stopped for lack of efficacy) as would be mandated by the German HTA agency.ResultsWe identified 422 HTA evaluations of 404 randomised controlled clinical trials. For 140 trials (34.7%), the evaluation was based on subpopulations of participants in the originating confirmatory trial (175 subpopulations were assessed). In 57% (100 of 175), the subpopulation sample size was 50% or less of the original study population. Detailed analysis of five evaluations based on subpopulations of the original trial is presented. The safety-related exploratory analysis of verubecestat led to 206 statistical analyses for treatments and 812 treatment-by-subgroup interaction tests. Of 31 safety endpoints with an elevated HR (suggesting association with drug treatment), the HR for 81% of these (25 of 31) was not elevated in both trials. Of the 812 treatment-by-subgroup interactions evaluated, 26 had an elevated HR for a subgroup in one trial, but only 1 was elevated in both trials.ConclusionsMany HTA evaluations rely on subpopulation analyses and numerous post hoc statistical hypothesis tests. Subpopulation analysis may lead to loss of statistical power and uncontrolled influences of random imbalances. Multiple testing may introduce spurious findings. Decisions about benefits of medical products should therefore not rely on exploratory analyses of clinical trial data but rather on prospective clinical studies and careful synthesis of all available evidence based on prespecified criteria.

The regulatory, evaluation, pricing and reimbursement pathway for medicines in the UK: combining innovation and access

The United Kingdom has universal healthcare systems, the National Health System (NHS), in its four nations, with healthcare services provided free of charge at the point of delivery. Approximately 10.5% of the UK population has voluntary supplementary private health insurance. While the provision of inpatient medicines is free of charge, medicines provided in the outpatient setting have a dispensing fee in some of the nations, such as the case of England (co-payment). The UK marketing authorisation process is called product licensing and is overseen by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). There are different licensing routes based on the intended market for launch. MHRA also offers early access schemes and pathways for products targeting unmet medical needs and promising technologies, that aim to accelerate and facilitate market and patient access to products in the UK. These schemes include the option for companies to engage early with regulators and other system partners such as health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. As soon as the technology is authorised, it is available at a list price. Prices for medicines are regulated in legislation and in schemes agreed between the industry association and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The prices for the NHS are negotiated between the government and the companies. Routine funding decisions in the NHS are guided by HTA evaluations informed by agencies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England, the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) in Scotland, and the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG) in Wales. Many medicines and other technologies are subject to price negotiations in the NHS, sometimes with confidential price agreements. The NHS in England is legally mandated to routinely fund technologies recommended by NICE that have been evaluated by some of its programmes. The other UK nations have similar arrangements or recognise decisions made in England. The role and contribution of NICE and other HTA agencies in ensuring value for money and evidence-based decision making is well recognised worldwide.

Market access to new anticancer medicines for children and adolescents with cancer in Europe

Background and aimsThere is an alarming delay in Europe for anticancer medicines becoming accessible for children. Following a paediatric European Union marketing authorisation, national Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies evaluate effectiveness, and safety of medicines to support decision on their cost and reimbursement. This study (a SIOPE Access to Medicines project) aimed to evaluate how these HTA evaluations take place for anticancer medicines indicated for paediatric use in Europe and to explore where the delays for market access originate. MethodsWe obtained HTA reports from the public domain for nine European countries for blinatumomab, dinutuximab beta and tisagenlecleucel. We evaluated the time elapsed between marketing authorisation for a paediatric indication and a national HTA decision and the nature of the decision. ResultsOut of 23 HTA decisions (four countries without blinatumomab report), 18 were positive, two with restrictions, three negative. For blinatumomab, tisagenlecleucel and dinutuximab beta, the median time to an HTA decision after regulatory approval for paediatric use was 353 days (range 193–751), 141 days (range 77–517) and 515 days (range 0–780), respectively, with variability between countries. Dinutuximab beta and tisagenlecleucel were first introduced in children, but did not result in shorter time to HTA decision. For blinatumomab, marketing authorisation followed 1008 days after the indication in adults, with HTA applications submitted a median of 167 days later, and a recommendation after 145 days. ConclusionsThis study reveals ample variability in HTA decision making in nine European Union countries. Collaboration and alignment of required evidence is needed to facilitate robust scientific HTA assessments, also considering methodological challenges in paediatric oncology.

Health technology assessment for gene therapies in haemophilia.

Gene therapies are poised to become a new therapeutic option for persons with haemophilia (PwH), having begun to show durable efficacy and safety in clinical trials to date. However, value assessment of gene therapies faces challenges from small populations that preclude randomized clinical trials (RCT), ethical considerations when treating a serious genetic disorder with lifelong consequences, and appropriate endpoint selection that captures the full scope of the disorder and its lifelong complications. Health technology assessment (HTA) for new haemophilia therapies may require greater flexibility in evidence requirements and recognition of factors that vary across patient populations and health systems, including current standard-of-care, gains in survival and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL), and reduced replacement factor utilization. It will be important for HTAs to consider limitations of RCTs for gene therapy and to consider intra-patient data as evidence of clinical effectiveness. Despite long-term clinical trials with up to 8 years of follow-up, ongoing uncertainties about durability of effect may be informed by extrapolating clinical data out ∼10 years, using different projections of durability. Beyond objective endpoints, such as Petersson scores or annualized bleed rates, health utilities that accompany gene therapy (e.g., mental health, freedom of choice, peace of mind) should be considered in HTA evaluations, particularly for comparisons with low dose or no prophylaxis. HTAs of gene therapies in haemophilia are encouraged to rise to the challenge of filling evidence gaps and conducting assessments. It is important for HTA bodies to consider the limitations to conduct randomized controlled trials for gene therapy and to consider intrapatient data as evidence of comparative effectiveness. Given the uncertainties around the long-term gene therapy use, clinical trial data should be extrapolated ∼10 years, using scenarios that consider different durations of effect. The major value drivers in a model, in addition to drug pricing itself, will be based on assumptions about duration of effect and savings/cost offsets from reduced use of replacement therapy. Assessment methodologies and modelling configurations need to evolve to fully capture the value of gene therapy, including patient meaningful outcomes, in a validated and quantitative fashion. Regardless of payment system archetype, the intersection between NGOs, the clinical community's voice, HTA willingness to collaborate, and alignment with regulatory acceptance of benefit is critical. [Correction added on 21 February 2022, after first online publication: the 'Key Points of Consideration' have been added in this version.].

A Systematic Review of Health Technology Assessments of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapies in Young Compared With Older Patients

ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to identify sources of variability in cost-effectiveness analyses of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies, tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel, evaluated by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, focusing on young compared with older patients. MethodsHTA evaluations in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and adult diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were included from Australia, Canada, England, Norway, and the United States. Key clinical evidence, economic approach, and outcomes (costs, quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) were summarized. ResultsFourteen HTA evaluations were identified (5 ALL, 9 DLBCL [4 tisagenlecleucel, 5 axicabtagene]). Analyses were naive comparisons of prospective single-arm studies for the CAR-Ts with retrospective cohort studies for the comparators. Key clinical evidence and economic model approaches were generally consistent by CAR-T and indication, although outcomes varied. Notably, incremental QALYs varied substantially in ALL (3.67-10.6 QALYs gained), whereas variation in DLBCL was less (1.21-1.97 [tisagenlecleucel], 1.97-3.40 [axicabtagene]). Discounting of costs and outcomes varied, with the highest QALYs generated for tisagenlecleucel in ALL (10.95) associated with the lowest discount rate (1.5%) and vice versa (4.97 QALYs; 5% discount rate). The approach to extrapolation of overall survival data varied, even where the same empirical data were used. ConclusionModeled, long-term treatment benefit in young patients may be associated with greater uncertainty compared with adults because of potential life-long benefits with cell and gene therapies. This reflects the methodological challenges identified by HTA agencies associated with single-arm, short-term studies.

Health technology assessment in sub-Saharan Africa: a descriptive analysis and narrative synthesis

BackgroundCountries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are moving towards universal health coverage. The process of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) can support decisions relating to benefit package design and service coverage. HTA involves institutional cooperation with agreed methods and procedural standards. We systematically reviewed the literature on policies and capacity building to support HTA institutionalisation in SSA.MethodsWe systematically reviewed the literature by searching major databases (PubMed, Embase, etc.) until June 2019 using terms considering three aspects: HTA; health policy, decision making; and SSA. We quantitatively extracted and descriptively analysed content and conducted a narrative synthesis eliciting themes from the selected literature, which varied in study type and apporach.ResultsHalf of the 49 papers identified were primary research studies and mostly qualitative. Five countries were represented in six of ten studies; South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, Cameroon, and Ethiopia. Half of first authors were from SSA. Most informants were policy makers. Five themes emerged: (1) use of HTA; (2) decision-making in HTA; (3) values and criteria for setting priority areas in HTA; (4) involving stakeholders in HTA; and (5) specific examples of progress in HTA in SSA. The first one was the main theme where there was little use of evidence and research in making policy. The awareness of HTA and economic evaluation was low, with inadequate expertise and a lack of local data and tools.ConclusionsDespite growing interest in HTA in SSA countries, awareness remains low and HTA-related activities are uncoordinated and often disconnected from policy. Further training and skills development are needed, firmly linked to a strategy focusing on strengthening within-country partnerships, particularly among researchers and policy makers. The international community has an important role here by supporting policy- relevant technical assistance, highlighting that sustainable financing demands evidence-based processes for effective resource allocation, and catalysing knowledge-sharing opportunities among countries facing similar challenges.

Non-Price-Related Determinants of Value and Access for Novel Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treatments: A Cross-Country Review of HTA Decision Making.

IntroductionAccess and funding for newly approved treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are often dependent on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) involving cost-effectiveness analysis. Whilst methods used by HTA agencies share many similarities, final decisions may differ. This may be the result, not just of price considerations, but also of variation in value judgements by different agencies. The aim of this study was to review international HTA evaluations to identify determinants of value and access for NSCLC treatments.MethodsA targeted review and analysis was undertaken of published HTAs for NSCLC across HTA agencies in six countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, Ireland and Scotland). Analysis of extracted data consisted of three stages: descriptive analysis, bivariate analysis and multivariable analysis.ResultsThe analysis included 163 HTAs that assessed oncological treatments for NSCLC from 2003 to 2019. The majority of HTA decisions (67.5%) were positive. However, some evidence of heterogeneity in HTA decisions and the factors informing them were identified. The most influential factors included in the multivariate model related to the HTA agency conducting the appraisal, the year of market authorisation, treatment type and the line of treatment.ConclusionHeterogenous decision-making frameworks can present a challenge to developing HTA submissions. This research contributes to understanding decision-making factors and why countries make different decisions.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-021-00279-2.

Which Criteria are Considered and How are They Evaluated in Health Technology Assessments? A Review of Methodological Guidelines Used in Western and Asian Countries.

This study aimed to provide an exhaustive description of criteria and methodological recommendations for evaluating them in health technology assessment (HTA) in Western and Asian countries. We conducted a system literature review of HTA-related guidelines by searching the websites of HTA agencies and related data sources. The guidelines, reports, or recommendations introducing the HTA evaluation methods, processes, decision-making frameworks, and criteria for priority setting were eligible to be included. The review was limited to guidelines from countries belonging to the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) and HTAsiaLink organisations and other countries with well-established available guidelines. A total of 52 guidelines from 24 countries were identified, including 13 countries from the EUnetHTA organisation, 9 countries from the HTAsiaLink organisation and 2 other countries (Canada and the USA). A strong consensus was observed among the HTA agencies on the core set of criteria including efficacy or effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, safety, and budget impact. More similarities were observed than differences in methodological recommendations for clinical and economic evaluations among the agencies. Substantial convergence is seen in the criteria included in the HTA process, as well as the methods to evaluate and quantify them. Further efforts are needed to verify whether the criteria identified from the guidelines are incorporated in real HTA decisions, and how they are assessed and weighted in practice.

OP523 Towards A Health Technology Assessment Framework For Omics-Technologies: Preliminary Results Of The ExACT project.

IntroductionOmics technologies enable the measurements of genes (genomics), mRNA (transcriptomics), proteins (proteomics) and metabolites (metabolomics) and thus proved to be valuable tools for personalized decision-making in clinical practice. For their evaluation, a health technology assessment (HTA) framework is not standardized and accepted, yet. Therefore, we aim at designing an omics-technologies HTA evaluation framework to facilitate their assessment, through a mixed-method approach. This work is part of the ExACT project, which aims to produce a range of tools to facilitate the implementation of precision health in clinical practice.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify the existing HTA frameworks used for the evaluation of omics-technologies. Desk research on the HTA agencies’ websites was performed to identify the reports on omics-technologies HTA evaluation frameworks used by these agencies. A questionnaire evaluating HTA agencies’ experience on evaluation of omics-technologies was designed. The new framework will be elaborated based on the findings from the three methodological steps, and will be validated through a Delphi process.ResultsTwenty-three articles were included in the systematic review. The main identified HTA frameworks were ACCE and “Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention” (EGAPP). The desk research showed that these frameworks were seldom used by HTA agencies, which for the evaluation of omics-technologies mostly refer to the HTA Core Model®, mainly assessing the following domains: clinical effectiveness and economic evaluation. Data collection process of the questionnaire HTA agencies’ experience is in progress.ConclusionsAlthough two main HTA frameworks for the evaluation of omics-technologies have been identified, these frameworks are sporadically used by HTA agencies in their practice. The particular interest of HTA agencies on clinical effectiveness and economic evaluation, might potentially reflect the uncertainty and difficulties when evaluating omics-technologies. This could indicate that these HTA frameworks are not feasible and practical to be used in routine HTA agency processes for omics technologies, emphasizing the need for a new framework. Our methodological approach might contribute to the development of a new HTA framework, feasible and practical to use not only for HTA agencies.

A Systematic Review of the Value Assessment Frameworks Used within Health Technology Assessment of Omics Technologies and Their Actual Adoption from HTA Agencies

Background: Omics technologies, enabling the measurements of genes (genomics), mRNA (transcriptomics), proteins (proteomics) and metabolites (metabolomics), are valuable tools for personalized decision-making. We aimed to identify the existing value assessment frameworks used by health technology assessment (HTA) doers for the evaluation of omics technologies through a systematic review. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched to retrieve potential eligible articles published until 31 May 2020 in English. Additionally, through a desk research in HTA agencies’ repositories, we retrieved the published reports on the practical use of these frameworks. Results: Twenty-three articles were included in the systematic review. Twenty-two frameworks, which addressed genetic and/or genomic technologies, were described. Most of them derived from the ACCE framework and evaluated the domains of analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility. We retrieved forty-five reports, which mainly addressed the commercial transcriptomic prognostics and next generation sequencing, and evaluated clinical effectiveness, economic aspects, and description and technical characteristics. Conclusions: A value assessment framework for the HTA evaluation of omics technologies is not standardized and accepted, yet. Our work reports that the most evaluated domains are analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility and economic aspects.

Surrogate Endpoints in Health Technology Assessment: An International Review of Methodological Guidelines.

In the drive towards faster patient access to treatments, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are increasingly faced with reliance on evidence from surrogate endpoints, leading to increased decision uncertainty. This study undertook an updated survey of methodological guidance for using surrogate endpoints across international HTA agencies. We reviewed HTA and economic evaluation methods guidance from European, Australian and Canadian HTA agencies. We considered how guidelines addressed the methods for handling surrogate endpoints, including (1) level of evidence, (2) methods of validation, and (3) thresholds of acceptability. Across the 73 HTA agencies surveyed, 29 (40%) had methodological guidelines that made specific reference to consideration of surrogate outcomes. Of the 45 methods documents analysed, the majority [27 (60%)] were non-technology specific, 15 (33%) focused on pharmaceuticals and three (7%) on medical devices. The principles of the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) guidelines published in 2015 on the handling of surrogate endpoints appear to have been adopted by many European HTA agencies, i.e. preference for final patient-relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate endpoints with biological plausibility and epidemiological evidence of the association between the surrogate and final endpoint. Only a small number of HTA agencies (UK National Institute for Care and Excellence; the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information and Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care; the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee; and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health) have developed more detailed prescriptive criteria for the acceptance of surrogate endpoints, e.g. meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials showing strong association between the treatment effect on the surrogate and final outcomes. As the decision uncertainty associated with reliance on surrogate endpoints carries a risk to patients and society, there is a need for HTA agencies to develop more detailed methodological guidance for consistent selection and evaluation of health technologies that lack definitive final patient-relevant outcome evidence at the time of the assessment.

PNS278 A REVIEW OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES ON THE APPROVAL OF BIOSIMILARS

Although biosimilars have been authorized by the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and other regulatory agencies as a cost saving alternative to more expensive biologics, their uptake has been slow. We aimed to study the health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement processes of biosimilars across different markets. We examined the HTA review process of biosimilars in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, and other European countries by reviewing the guidelines and position statements issued by their respective national agencies. This work noticed that HTA review process for biosimilars can vary considerably in the countries studied, given differing views on biological equivalence, importance of adverse events, comparability of resource use and relevance of reference product as comparator. In the UK, NICE reviews biosimilars in the context of a multiple technology appraisal along with their reference product and issues an evidence summary of the new medicine without any recommendations; SMC, however, does not review biosimilars when the reference product is approved for the same indication, in the same population, in other cases a full review is conducted. In Canada, CADTH has a tailored approach for the review of biosimilars with recommendations to switching for some biosimilars. PBAC in Australia recommends a minor submission to the new biosimilars without a need for any economic evaluation for the same indication, and it supports the biosimilar substitution at pharmacy level. Germany’s IQWiG does not assess biosimilars unless requested and has not made any recommendations regarding biosimilar substitution. HAS in France considers biosimilars as new drugs and a full review is required. Given that views on biosimilars varied across the majority of countries considered, the requirement for full HTA and economic evaluation differed and consequently guidelines for use, substitution and interchangeability of biosimilars similarly varied.