Health Technology Assessment Recommendations Research Articles

A roadmap towards implementing health technology assessment in Oman

PurposeHealth technologies are advancing rapidly and becoming more expensive, posing a challenge for financing healthcare systems. Health technology assessment (HTA) improves the efficiency of resource allocation by facilitating evidence-informed decisions on the value of health technologies. Our study aims to create a customized HTA roadmap for Oman based on a gap analysis between the current and future status of HTA implementation.Design/methodology/approachWe surveyed participants of an advanced HTA training program to assess the current state of HTA implementation in Oman and explore long-term goals. A list of draft recommendations was developed in areas with room for improvement. The list was then validated for its feasibility in a round table discussion with senior health policy experts to conclude on specific actions for HTA implementation.FindingsSurvey results aligned well with expert discussions. The round table discussion concluded with a phasic action plan for HTA implementation. In the short term (1–2 years), efforts will focus on building capacity through training programs. For medium-term actions (3–5 years), plans include expanding the HTA unit and introducing multiple cost-effectiveness thresholds while from 6–10 years, publishing of HTA recommendations, critical appraisal reports, and timelines is recommended.Originality/valueAlthough the HTA system in Oman is still in its early stages, strong initiatives are being taken for its advancement. This structured approach ensures a comprehensive integration of HTA into the healthcare system, enhancing decision-making and promoting a sustainable, evidence-based system addressing the population’s needs.

Clinical benefit, reimbursement outcomes, and prices of FDA-approved cancer drugs reviewed through Project Orbis in the USA, Canada, England, and Scotland: a retrospective, comparative analysis

Project Orbis is a global initiative that aims to streamline regulatory review processes across international regulators in the USA, Canada, Australia, UK, Israel, Brazil, Singapore, and Switzerland to bring promising cancer drugs to patients earlier. We explored the clinical benefit, time to regulatory approval and health technology assessment recommendations, reimbursement outcomes, and monthly treatment prices of cancer drugs reviewed through this initiative. For this retrospective, comparative analysis, we identified cancer drug approvals reviewed through Project Orbis in the USA, Canada, and the UK between May 1, 2019, and Nov 1, 2023. Approvals of cancer drugs reviewed Project Orbis were extracted from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncology Centre of Excellence and all other FDA approvals from the Drugs@FDA database. The co-primary outcomes were time of regulatory review, time from regulatory approval to health technology assessment recommendation (England, Scotland, and Canada), reimbursement outcomes, clinical benefit (defined as median gains in progression-free survival and overall survival) between cancer drug approvals reviewed by Project Orbis and other FDA approval processes, and monthly treatment prices. The Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's Exact tests were used to examine statistical significance between approvals reviewed through Project Orbis and other FDA approvals during the same period. Between May 1, 2019 and Nov 1, 2023, 81 (33%) of 244 cancer drugs approved by the FDA were reviewed through Project Orbis. The median overall survival gains were 4·1 months (IQR 3·3-5·1) compared with 2·7 months (2·1-3·9) for other FDA approvals. Similarly, progression-free survival gains were 2·6 months (IQR 1·7-4·9) for Project Orbis compared with 2·6 months (0·6-5·1) for other FDA approvals. Neither overall survival (p=0·11) nor progression-free survival (p=0·44) gains were significantly different between the two cohorts of approvals. Of the 14 UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approvals reviewed by the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), the agency gave positive recommendations for all 14 (100%). Of the 15 MHRA approvals reviewed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the agency gave positive recommendations for six (40%). Of the 49 approvals reviewed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), the agency conditionally recommended 44 (90%). The time between regulatory approval to NICE recommendation increased from a median of 137 days (IQR 102-172) in 2021 to 302 days (184-483) in 2023, SMC recommendation increased from 185 days (in 2021 for one drug only) to 368 days (IQR 313-476) in 2023, and CADTH decision increased from 97 days (in 2020 for one drug only) to 202 days (IQR 153-304) in 2023. The median monthly price of approvals reviewed through Project Orbis was US$20 000 per month (IQR 13 000-37 000). Clinical outcomes of Project Orbis were no different than other FDA approvals during the same time, and access, after a successful health technology assessment, was considerably delayed or absent, raising questions about whether Project Orbis participation translates into faster patient access to medicines with high clinical benefit and sustainable costs. Although future challenges might benefit from regulatory harmonisation, the advantages are currently unclear. None.

Challenges and Opportunities in Interdisciplinary Research and Real-World Data for Treatment Sequences in Health Technology Assessments.

With an ever-increasing number of treatment options, the assessment of treatment sequences has become crucial in health technology assessment (HTA). This review systematically explores the multifaceted challenges inherent in evaluating sequences, delving into their interplay and nuances that go beyond economic model structures. We synthesised a 'roadmap' of literature from key methodological studies, highlighting the evolution of recent advances and emerging research themes. These insights were compared against HTA guidelines to identify potential avenues for future research. Our findings reveal a spectrum of challenges in sequence evaluation, encompassing selecting appropriate decision-analytic modelling approaches and comparators, deriving appropriate clinical effectiveness evidence in the face of data scarcity, scrutinising effectiveness assumptions and statistical adjustments, considering treatment displacement, and optimising model computations. Integrating methodologies from diverse disciplines-statistics, epidemiology, causal inference, operational research and computer science-has demonstrated promise in addressing these challenges. An updated review of application studies is warranted to provide detailed insights into the extent and manner in which these methodologies have been implemented. Data scarcity on the effectiveness of treatment sequences emerged as a dominant concern, especially because treatment sequences are rarely compared in clinical trials. Real-world data (RWD) provide an alternative means for capturing evidence on effectivenessand future research should prioritise harnessing causal inference methods, particularly Target Trial Emulation, to evaluate treatment sequence effectiveness using RWD. This approach is also adaptable for analysing trials harbouring sequencing information and adjusting indirect comparisons when collating evidence from heterogeneous sources. Such investigative efforts could lend support to reviews of HTA recommendations and contribute to synthesising external control arms involving treatment sequences.

Clinical aspects of reimbursement policies for orphan drugs in Central and Eastern European countries.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to characterize the reimbursement policy for orphan drugs (ODs) in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries in relation to the availability and impact of clinical evidence, health technology assessment (HTA) procedure, selected economic indicators, and the drug type according to indications. Materials and methods: A list of authorized medicines with orphan designation and information about active substance, Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification, and therapeutic area was extracted from the web-based register of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A country-based questionnaire survey was performed between September 2021 and January 2022 in a group of selected experts from nine CEE countries (an invitation was sent to 11 countries). A descriptive and statistical analysis was conducted to determine statistical significance, correlations, between the drug or country characteristic and the positive recommendation or reimbursement of ODs. Results: The proportion of reimbursed orphan drugs differed between countries, ranging from 17.7% in Estonia to 49.6% in Hungary (p < 0.001). The odds that ODs were reimbursed were reduced in countries with a "strong" level of impact of drug safety and efficacy on reimbursement decisions (p=0.018), the presence of other additional specific clinical aspects (e.g., genomic data) considered in the reimbursement decision (p < 0.001) and mandatory (without exception) safety assessments (p=0.004). The probability that ODs were reimbursed was increased in countries with a "moderate" level of impact of drug safety and efficacy on reimbursement decisions (p=0.018), when reimbursement decisions are dependent on the EMA registration status and orphan drug designation (p < 0.001), the presence of the "positive HTA recommendation guarantees reimbursement" policy (p < 0.001), higher GDP per inhabitant (p=0.003), and higher healthcare expenditure (p < 0.001). Conclusion: We found that there are differences among CEE countries in the reimbursement of orphan drugs, and we identified aspects that may influence these differences. Safety, efficacy, and specific clinical aspect issues significantly influenced reimbursement decisions. Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents drugs were the largest group of ODs and increased the chance of getting a positive recommendation. The higher GDP per inhabitant and healthcare expenditures per inhabitant were positively linked to the chance that an OD receives reimbursement.

AOTMiT reimbursement recommendations compared to other HTA agencies.

Our objective was to compare AOTMiT (Polish: Agencja Oceny Technologii Medycznych i Taryfikacji) recommendations to other HTA (Health Technology Assessment) agencies for newly registered drugs and new registration indications issued by the European Medicines Agency between 2014 and 2019. The study aims to assess the consistency and justifications of AOTMiT recommendations compared to that of other HTA agencies in 11 countries. A total of 2494 reimbursement recommendations published by 12 HTA agencies for 464 medicinal products and 525 indications were analyzed. Our analysis confirmed that the Polish AOTMiT agency seems to bear the closest resemblance to the corresponding HTA agencies from Canada (CADTH) and New Zealand (PHARMAC), when it comes to the outcome of HTA recommendations (positive or negative). Poland had a general scheme for justifying recommendations, similar to that of Ireland-four aspects (i.e., clinical efficacy, safety profile, cost-effectiveness, and impact on the payer's budget) are important for Poland when formulating the final decision. Compared to other countries, Poland shows a noticeably different pattern of justifying reimbursement recommendations, as revealed primarily in terms of budget impact and somewhat less so for cost-effectiveness rationales.

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.

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.

PP97 How Health Technology Agencies Estimate Target Population Size For Medical Devices: The Example Of Spinal Cord Stimulation

IntroductionSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective and safe option for patients with refractory neuropathic pain, with positive health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations across Western Europe, yet SCS uptake remains low. Estimating target patient populations within HTAs may impact upon medical device uptake, pricing and access. However, there is a dearth of information on how this is typically conducted. This study aimed to compare the approaches of Western Europe HTA agencies for estimating the target population for SCS.MethodsA survey was conducted among members of the Health Economics and Reimbursement function from Western Europe to collect country-specific information on how HTA agencies assess the target population of medical devices (MD). The estimations of the target population for SCS were extracted from HTA publications and compared.ResultsEight Health Economics and Reimbursement (HER) Analysts from France, Germany, the United Kingdom (UK), Belgium, Spain, Italy, Sweden and Norway completed the survey. HTA Agencies in France, UK and Belgium routinely ask for epidemiological data in the manufacturer submission, whereas in Germany, Sweden and Norway the request is dependent on the type of HTA submission. All HTA agencies, except NICE (UK), perform an independent estimation of the target population. HTA agencies in Germany and UK typically use epidemiological data from industry. In all countries, the estimation of the target population may indirectly impact the price of the MD, especially when budget impact analysis indicates a potential high use of healthcare resources. Only France, Belgium and UK have published HTA recommendations about SCS, however the estimated target population, nor the number of patients with refractory neuropathic pain, is not always included. Only the French and UK HTA agencies publish an approximation of the target population for SCS using the number of patients implanted every year.ConclusionsThis study showed there is a lack of harmonization between Western European HTA agencies’ guidelines on the inclusion and estimation of target patient populations. The new EU HTA Regulation should help to address this situation.

HTA7 The Price of Innovation – Oncology Treatments Expenditures: Case from Bulgaria

Beginning in late 2015, health technology assessment (HTA) has taken the lead as the essential tool for governing how new pharmaceuticals are introduced and used in Bulgaria. Since 2017, the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) has reimbursed for all oncology medications included on the positive drug list (PDL) following a positive HTA recommendation. The purpose of this study is to describe the evolution of total annual cancer treatments expenditures from 2017 to 2021 following the introduction of HTA as a tool for healthcare decision-making.

HTA25 Factors Including Real-World Evidence (RWE) That Play a Role in the HTA Recommendation of Oncology Drug Submissions Based on Phase II and/or Single Arm Trial Data

Perform a descriptive analysis to understand influential factors including RWE in health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making when assessing oncology submissions with phase II / single arm trial data.

The therapeutic value of treatment for multiple sclerosis: analysis of health technology assessments of three European countries.

In accordance with European regulation, medicines containing a new active substance to treat neurodegenerative diseases as well as autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions must be approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) through the centralized procedure before they can be marketed. However, after EMA approval, each country is responsible for national market access, following the assessment performed by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies with regard to the therapeutic value. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of HTA recommendations issued by three EU countries (France, Germany, and Italy) for new drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) following EMA approval. In the reference period, we identified 11 medicines authorized in Europe for MS, including relapsing forms of MS (RMS; n = 4), relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS; n = 6), secondary progressive MS (SPMS; n = 1), and the primary progressive form (PPMS; n = 1). We found no agreement on the therapeutic value (in particular, the "added value" compared to the standard of care) of the selected drugs. Most evaluations resulted in the lowest score ("additional benefit not proven/no clinical improvement"), underlining the need for new molecules with better efficacy and safety profiles for MS, especially for some forms and clinical settings.

Do Reimbursement Recommendations by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health Translate Into Coverage Decisions for Orphan Drugs in the Canadian Province of Ontario?

ObjectivesUnlike other high-income countries, Canada has no national policy for drugs treating rare diseases (orphan drugs). Nevertheless, in 2022, the Canadian government committed to creating a national strategy to make access to these drugs more consistent. Our aim was to study whether recommendations made by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) translated into coverage decisions for orphan drugs in Ontario, the largest Canadian province. This study is the first to look at this question for orphan drugs, which are at the center of policy attention. MethodsWe included 155 orphan drug-indication pairs approved and marketed in Canada between October 2002 and April 2022. Cohen’s kappa was used to test the agreement across health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations and coverage decisions in Ontario. Logistic regression was used to test which factors, relevant to decision-makers, might be associated with funding in Ontario. ResultsWe found only fair agreement between CADTH’s recommendations and coverage decisions in Ontario. Although a positive and statistically significant association between favorable HTA recommendations and coverage was found, more than half of the drugs with a negative HTA recommendation were available in Ontario, predominately through specialized funds. Successful pan-Canadian pricing negotiations were a strong predictor of coverage in Ontario. ConclusionsDespite efforts to harmonize access to drugs across Canada, considerable room for improvement remains. Introducing a national strategy for orphan drugs could help increase transparency, consistency, promote collaborations, and make access to orphan drugs a national priority.

Synergy between health technology assessments and clinical guidelines for multiple sclerosis.

Decision-making for reimbursement and clinical guidelines (CGs) serves different purposes although the decision-criteria and required evidence largely overlap. This study aimed to assess similarities and discrepancies between health technology assessment (HTA) reports as compared to CGs for multiple sclerosis (MS) medicines. All HTA reports and corresponding CGs for MS from the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and the European Union were assessed to identify synergies in recommendations for MS medicines (approved 1995-2020). A content analysis of HTA reports and CGs was performed to identify similarities and discrepancies in wording of treatment recommendations across documents. We assessed 132 HTA reports and 9 CGs for 16 MS treatments. Final recommendations for reimbursement and inclusion in CGs were mostly similar (90%), albeit with considerable differences in treatment lines and subindications. Since 2010, HTA reports refer to the use of CGs in 42% (55/132) and to consultations with clinicians in 43% (57/132) of cases. Six of nine CGs referred to HTA reports and two referred to HTA consultations, in one case having a formal relation to the HTA organization. CGs referenced pharmacoeconomic studies (4/9) for costs and cost-effectiveness. To date, not all new HTA recommendations for MS treatments are included in CGs. Some synergy exists between treatment recommendations in HTA reports and CGs, although discrepancies were seen in timelines and in recommended treatment lines and subindications. More stakeholder dialogue and/or consultation of each other's publications may further improve synergy, facilitate transparency, and enhance patient access.

The value and impact of health technology assessment: discussions and recommendations from the 2023 Health Technology Assessment International Global Policy Forum.

Health technology assessment (HTA) programs inform decision making about the value and reimbursement of new and existing health technologies; however, they are under increasing pressure to demonstrate that they are a cost-effective use of finite healthcare resources themselves. The 2023 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussed the value and impact of HTA, including how it is assessed and communicated, and how it could be enhanced in the future. This article summarizes the discussions held at the 2023 HTAi GPF, where the challenges and opportunities related to the value and impact of HTA were debated. Core themes and recommendations identified that defining the purpose of value and impact assessment is an essential first step prior to undertaking it, and that it can be done through the use and expansion of existing tools. Further work around aligning HTA programs with underlying societal values is needed to ensure the long-term value and impact of HTA. HTA could also have a role in assessing the efficiency of the wider health system by applying HTA methods or concepts to broader budgetary allocations and organizational aspects of health care. Stakeholders (particularly patients, industry, and clinicians but also payers, wider society, and the media) should ideally be actively engaged when undertaking the value and impact assessment of HTA. More concerted efforts in communicating the role and remit of HTA bodies would also help stakeholders to better understand the value and impact of HTA, which in turn could improve the implementation of HTA recommendations and application to future actions in the lifecycle of technologies.

Frameworks for Synthesizing Qualitative Evidence in Health Technology Assessment: A Scoping Review Protocol

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies and researchers recognize that evidence-based methodologies should be based on more than just quantitative evidence. Qualitative data enable evaluation based on feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness, patient values and preferences, acceptability, and equity. Despite some guidelines explaining how to conduct evidence synthesis of qualitative data, a specific framework or guideline for the HTA recommendation process is only recent and requires clarification . This scoping review aims to describe the frameworks, tools, and processes used to synthesize qualitative evidence and rate the quality of HTA. This scoping review follows the JBI methodology. The databases accessed were Medline (Pubmed), LILACS, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, JBI Database, and ScienceDirect. Grey literature was searched on PROQUEST, Open Grey, CADTH’s Grey Matters, Google Scholar, and HTA Agencies’ websites. The inclusion criterion was the synthesis of qualitative evidence frameworks as a concept, which refers to methods to synthesize evidence and rate the quality of evidence. HTA is applied worldwide, and there is no specific population . Data are presented in a tabular format and include fundamental concepts, frameworks, methods, subjects, and objectives.

PD47 Associations Of Orphan Designation And Other Drug Development-Related Factors On Rollout Times And Health-Technology-Assessment Recommendations Of New-Active-Substances

IntroductionThe orphan designation has been used by the European Medicines Agency to incentivize the development of drugs treating rare diseases with high-unmet medical needs by supporting their development process and economic returns. This study evaluated the impact of the regulatory orphan designation and other drug development-related factors on the rollout times and Health-Technology-Assessment (HTA) recommendations of new active substances (NASs).MethodsA total of 656 HTA appraisals from 6 European countries were collected for NASs that received regulatory approval between 2012 and 2020. Multivariable logistic (positive and positive with restrictions vs. negative HTA recommendation as dependent variable) and linear regression (rollout time as dependent variable) models examined associations with regulatory orphan designation, expedited process, product type (biotechnological vs chemical), and jurisdiction (France, England, Germany, Poland, Scotland and Sweden). Rollout time was defined as months elapsed from regulatory submission to HTA recommendation (mean± standard deviation).ResultsMultivariable logistic regression analysis identified disparities in HTA recommendations between countries. Every month increase in rollout time conferred a 3 percent reduction in the odds of a positive recommendation (p&lt;0.001). Review and product type did not show associations with HTA recommendation. Interestingly, orphan products showed a 99% increase in the odds of obtaining a positive HTA recommendation compared to non-orphan (p-value=0.003). We found 244 appraisals (37%) assessing an orphan product, of which 202 (83%) received a positive HTA recommendation.Multivariable linear regression analysis indicated that orphan products presented a 4.4-month rise in rollout time when compared to non-orphan products (p&lt;0.001). The mean rollout time in months for orphan products were 25±12 in France, 30±15 in England, 21±9.1 in Germany, 37±16 in Poland, 25±12 in Scotland and 27±14 in Sweden.ConclusionsOrphan designated products showed greater odds of receiving a positive HTA recommendation compared with non-orphan. A more detailed review of orphan products could result in their longer rollout time compared with non-orphan counterparts. Considerable differences were found between HTA recommendations and rollout times between jurisdictions.

PD63 Impact Of Parallel Submission On The Rollout Time and Health-Technology-Assessment Recommendation Of New-Active-Substances

IntroductionAustralia and Canada have parallel submission processes that allow companies to submit their dossier to the respective Health-Technology-Assessment (HTA) body before the market authorization is issued, aiming to provide timelier access to drugs. The objective of this study is to investigate the associations of parallel submissions with the rollout times and HTA recommendations of new active substances (NASs).MethodsPublic data from 208 HTA appraisals were collected from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) from Australia and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) for NASs obtaining regulatory approval between 2012 and 2020. We implemented multivariable logistic and linear regression models allowing for type of submission (parallel or sequential) and jurisdiction (Australia and Canada) to examine associations with first HTA recommendation (positive and positive with restrictions vs negative) and rollout time (regulatory submission to HTA recommendation), respectively.ResultsA total of 121 appraisals followed a parallel submission. The therapeutic products that most used a parallel submission were antineoplastic agents (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code=L;47.11%). A similar proportion of chemical and biotechnological products followed parallel submissions.Multivariable linear regression showed that parallel submission presented 14-months decrease in rollout time when compared to sequential (p&lt;0.001). Regarding jurisdictions, longer rollout times were seen for Canada when compared to Australia (β:4.0, p-value=0.024).Parallel submission showed no association with HTA recommendation. Canada had higher odds of receiving a positive recommendation (Odds Ratio:4.84, 95% confidence interval:2.63-9.18) when compared with Australia (p&lt;0.001).ConclusionsAntineoplastic agents were the main products using parallel submissions. Appraisals following a parallel submission showed a considerably faster rollout time than those following the traditional sequential submission, illustrating the advantage of this approach for dossier submission. The submission type did not have an impact on the HTA recommendation, indicating that although quicker, the HTA decision was not affected. Canada has a more restrictive criteria regarding the timing of dossier submission compared to Australia, which may lead to disparities in their rollout time.

OP24 Impact Of Patient Input On Cancer Drug Funding Recommendations In Canada

IntroductionPatient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) has documented advantages, such as improved understanding of disease context, and increased legitimacy and transparency of the HTA process. In the absence of clear metrics, thresholds, or criteria, it is not clear how input regarding patient preferences influences HTA based recommendations of the pan Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR).MethodsThis is a concurrent complementary mixed methods study. A quantitative model (logit) is used to estimate the impact of patient input and other HTA criteria on pCODR recommendations. A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with Canadian HTA committee members is used to describe the mechanisms of action through which patient input influences recommendations.ResultsPatient input was considered important in providing context to the HTA discussion, but committee members were not able to explicate how any specific elements of patient submissions weighted into the committee’s recommendation. There was an element of mistrust in the patient input data. The estimated impact of patient input on funding recommendations is not statistically significant, recommendations remain driven by evidence of clinical benefit.ConclusionsThe commitment to inclusion of patient perspectives in HTA in Canada is strong, and procedurally Canada is among the leaders in this regard. The tangible impact of patient input could be increased with an improved system for collection of most relevant data, and clear guidelines about how patient input should weigh into HTA recommendations.

HTA207 Managed Entry Agreements in the Context of Health Technology Assessment Recommendations in Ukraine: Analysis on the Stage of Development

HTA207 Managed Entry Agreements in the Context of Health Technology Assessment Recommendations in Ukraine: Analysis on the Stage of Development

Appraisals by Health Technology Assessment Agencies of Economic Evaluations Submitted as Part of Reimbursement Dossiers for Oncology Treatments: Evidence from Canada, the UK, and Australia.

Publicly funded healthcare systems, including those in Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), and Australia, often use health technology assessment (HTA) to inform drug reimbursement decision-making, based on dossiers submitted by manufacturers, and HTA agencies issue publicly available reports to support funding recommendations. However, the level of information reported by HTA agencies in these reports may vary. To provide insights on this issue, we describe and assess the reporting of economic methods in recent oncology HTA recommendations from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Publicly available HTA recommendations and reports for oncology drugs issued by CADTH over a 2-year period, 2019–2020, were identified and compared with the corresponding HTA documents from NICE and the PBAC. Reporting of key model characteristics and attributes, survival analysis methods, methodological criticisms, and re-assessment of the economic results were characterized using descriptive statistics. Dichotomous differences in the methodological criticisms observed between the three agencies were assessed using Cochran’s Q tests and substantiated using pairwise McNemar tests. Chi-squared tests were used to assess the dichotomous differences in the reporting of methods and explore the potential relationships between categorical variables, where appropriate. HTAs published by CADTH, NICE, and the PBAC consistently reported a broad spectrum of descriptive information on the economic models submitted by manufacturers. While common economic evaluation attributes were well-reported across the three HTA agencies, significant differences in the reporting of survival analysis methods and methodological criticisms were observed. NICE consistently reported more comprehensive information, compared to either CADTH or PBAC. Despite these differences, broadly similar recommendation rates were observed between CADTH and NICE. The PBAC was found to be more restrictive. Based on our 2-year sample of oncology, the HTAs published by CADTH matched with the corresponding HTAs from NICE and PBAC; we observed important variations in the reporting of economic evidence, especially technical aspects, such as survival analysis, across the three agencies. In addition to guidelines for HTA submissions by manufacturers, the community of HTA agencies should also have common standards for reporting the results of their assessments, though the information and opinions reported may differ.