Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment Research Articles

Stakeholder perspectives on cooperation in the clinical and nonclinical health technology assessment domains.

The aim of this study was to deliver insights from multiple stakeholders into actual and future collaboration for health technology assessment (HTA) in general and in oncology in particular. Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts from European HTA bodies (HTAbs), former board members of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry, a regulatory agency, academia, and patient organizations. The stakeholders were asked about their support of the EUnetHTA's intent, about the general strengths and challenges of the EUnetHTA and its Joint Action 3 (JA 3), the strengths and challenges of the clinically oriented HTA collaboration in oncology during JA 3 across the technology life cycle, about future challenges to HTA in oncology with consequences for collaboration, and about collaboration in the economic domains of HTA. The transcribed interviews were analyzed qualitatively. The participants perceived the intention and work quality of the EUnetHTA as positive. The experts described methodological, procedural, and capacity challenges in early dialogues (EDs) and rapid relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) meant to analyze clinical effectiveness in oncology. The majority attached increasing importance to collaboration in the future to cope with the uncertainty of HTA. Several stakeholders also proposed the incorporation of joint postlaunch evidence generation (PLEG) activities. Some gave sporadic suggestions for voluntary nonclinical collaboration as well. Stakeholders' continued readiness to discuss the remaining challenges to and sufficient resources for implementing HTA regulation, as well as further cooperative expansion along the technology life cycle, are necessary for improved HTA collaboration in Europe.

Stool DNA testing for early detection of colorectal cancer: systematic review using the HTA Core Model® for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment.

Stool DNA testing for early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a non-invasive technology with the potential to supplement established CRC screening tests. The aim of this health technology assessment was to evaluate effectiveness and safety of currently CE-marked stool DNA tests, compared to other CRC tests in CRC screening strategies in an asymptomatic screening population. The assessment was carried out following the guidelines of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). This included a systematic literature search in MED-LINE, Cochrane and EMBASE in 2018. Manufacturers were asked to provide additional data. Five patient interviews helped assessing potential ethical or social aspects and patients' experiences and preferences. We assessed the risk of bias using QUADAS-2, and the quality of the body of evidence using GRADE. We identified three test accuracy studies, two of which investigated a multitarget stool DNA test (Cologuard®, compared fecal immunochemical test (FIT)) and one a combined DNA stool assay (ColoAlert®, compared to guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), Pyruvate Kinase Isoenzyme Type M2 (M2-PK) and combined gFOBT/M2-PK). We found five published surveys on patient satisfaction. No primary study investigating screening effects on CRC incidence or on overall mortality was found. Both stool DNA tests showed in direct comparison higher sensitivity for the detection of CRC and (advanced) adenoma compared to FIT, or gFOBT, respectively, but had lower specificity. However, these comparative results may depend on the exact type of FIT used. The reported test failure rates were higher for stool DNA testing than for FIT. The certainty of evidence was moderate to high for Cologuard® studies, and low to very low for the ColoAlert® study which refers to a former version of the product and yielded no direct evidence on the test accuracy for ad-vanced versus non-advanced adenoma. ColoAlert® is the only stool DNA test currently sold in Europe and is available at a lower price than Cologuard®, but reliable evidence is lacking. A screening study including the current product version of ColoAlert® and suitable comparators would, therefore, help evaluate the effectiveness of this screening option in a European context.

Implementation of Health Technology Assessment and Management Course in Undergraduate Program in Biomedical Engineering ITB.

The Undergraduate Program in Biomedical Engineering ITB, Indonesia, introduce the Health Technology Assessment and Management as an elective course in 2021. This course is implemented to support the World Health Assembly that urges the member states to establish national strategies in health technology assessment and management, particularly medical devices. Furthermore, it is designed to give biomedical engineering students a broader insight into their career opportunities. Therefore, this course is delivered by the practitioner and guided by the main lecturer. The course syllabus is developed from the WHO Medical Devices Technical Series and European Network for Health Technology Assessment. It tries to implement HTA Core Model for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessments. A questionnaire is used to measure the students' perception of the course implementation. Moreover, it is used to obtain the students' comments and feedback. The course that is delivered by the practitioner not only gives the course content but also the context. After attending the course, students have a broader insight into the career opportunities as biomedical engineers in Indonesia.

Information specialist collaboration in Europe: Collaborative methods, processes and infrastructure through EUnetHTA-CORRIGENDUM.

The history of European health technology assessment (HTA) goes back more than 30 years. Almost as old as HTA agencies themselves is the desire to achieve European collaboration. This gained further impetus with the establishment of the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) in 2006. In this context, the field of information management faced specific challenges. Although these services are an integral part of HTA and information specialists play a key role here, this field is often not adequately represented in the HTA agencies within EUnetHTA. Furthermore, the organization of HTA production, including the types of HTAs produced, as well as funding, varies considerably. In order to meet these different conditions, information specialists have created various products and defined processes. With the EUnetHTA guideline, a common methodological understanding for the production of rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessments now exists. Furthermore, the Standard Operating Procedures map the complex information retrieval processes within EUnetHTA in a hands-on manner. The newly established Information Specialist Network (ISN) will in future ensure that information specialists are involved in all EUnetHTA assessments and that the methods are applied consistently in all assessments. In addition, the steering committee of the ISN manages enquiries and can be contacted to discuss methodological issues. Major barriers such as heterogeneity in the daily work of the EUnetHTA members can only be overcome through more collaboration and training.

PP612 Use of Rapid Review Methods In Health Technology Assessment For Central Procurement Decisions: Experience In Ukraine

IntroductionThe Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Department of the “State Expert Center of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine” was established in 2019 for conducting assessments and development of recommendations for informing decisions of the Ukrainian Ministry of Health regarding financing of the health technologies. Since 2015, procurement of medicines by the state budget in Ukraine was carried out through international specialized organizations. The central procurement program covers forty-one programs for different disease areas. The list of medicines and medical devices purchased were based of procurement agreements with specialized organizations approved by Cabinet of Ministers Decree of Ukraine № 255 of 13 March 2019.MethodsDescriptive analysis of methodological processes around rapid review methods in HTA used for the procedure of central procurements of medicines. In the process of conducting rapid assessment we use a modern tool based on the HTA Core Model® for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessments version (V3.0). HTA Guidance in Ukraine was developed in 2017.ResultsThe list of government programs, for which rapid review methods in HTAhave been conducted, included following diseases: adult and pediatric oncology, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, hemophilia, and orphan diseases. Reports include an overview of comparative efficacy, effectiveness and safety, as well as analysis of reports from HTA agencies and thresholds, budget impact for informing decisions for development of the central procurement programs in 2019. The HTA Department conducted more than forty reviews in less than 6 months.ConclusionsUse of rapid review methods in HTA in Ukraine for informing decisions for the central procurement programs of medicines is the perspective for rational resource allocation and spending. This increases and improves patients’ access to effective, safe and cost-effective medicines.

Information specialist collaboration in Europe: collaborative methods, processes, and infrastructure through EUnetHTA.

The history of European health technology assessment (HTA) goes back more than 30 years. Almost as old as HTA agencies themselves is the desire to achieve European collaboration. This gained further impetus with the establishment of the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) in 2006. In this context, the field of information management faced specific challenges. Although these services are an integral part of HTA and information specialists play a key role here, this field is often not adequately represented in the HTA agencies within EUnetHTA. Furthermore, the organization of HTA production, including the types of HTAs produced, as well as funding, varies considerably. In order to meet these different conditions, information specialists have created various products and defined processes. With the EUnetHTA guideline, a common methodological understanding for the production of rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessments now exists. Furthermore, the Standard Operating Procedures map the complex information retrieval processes within EUnetHTA in a hands-on manner. The newly established Information Specialist Network (ISN) will in future ensure that information specialists are involved in all EUnetHTA assessments and that the methods are applied consistently in all assessments. In addition, the steering committee of the ISN manages enquiries and can be contacted to discuss methodological issues. Major barriers such as heterogeneity in the daily work of the EUnetHTA members can only be overcome through more collaboration and training.

Coronary Sinus Reducing Stent for the Treatment of Refractory Angina Pectoris: A Health Technology Assessment.

AimTo summarize the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and safety of coronary sinus reducing stent (CSRS) therapy in refractory angina pectoris (AP) patients.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search in common databases (n=4). The evidence obtained was summarized according to GRADE methodology. A health technology assessment (HTA) was conducted using the HTA Core Model® for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment. Primary outcomes for the clinical effectiveness domain were the proportion of patients with improvement in two or more Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina score classes, overall mean reduction of CCS class, and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) quality of life (QoL) score improvement. Outcomes for the safety domain were adverse device effects (ADEs) and serious adverse device effects (SADEs).ResultsOne randomized controlled trial (RCT) was identified. Outcomes that showed statistically significant differences between CSRS and sham treatment (in favor of CSRS) were CCS angina score improvement of one or two classes, overall mean reduction of CCS class, and SAQ QoL score improvement. Concerning safety, the sham-controlled trial data indicate that there were fewer SADEs in the intervention group (19%) than in the control group (46%). SADEs reported in observation studies ranged from none to 30%. The most frequently reported SADEs were death and stable angina. In the RCT, the only case of death occurred in the control group. Concerning clinical effectiveness, the risk of bias (RoB) was rated to be low, and concerning safety, the RoB was rated to range from low to moderate. As assessed by GRADE, the overall strength of evidence for effectiveness and safety was moderate. Internal and external validity of the evidence base were low.ConclusionEven though the current evidence indicates that the assessed technology, CSRS, is potentially more effective than sham intervention for refractory AP patients, the lack of internal validity of the studies undermines the partially positive results.

Health Technology Assessment of Carbon-ion Beam Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review of Clinical Effectiveness and Safety for 54 Oncological Indications in 12 Tumour Regions.

Due to the unique physical dose distribution of carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT), CIRT can be regarded as a novel tumour irradiation technique - potentially advantageous for various tumour types. Yet it is unclear in how far, superiority or inferiority can be claimed when comparing CIRT to standard irradiation. This study aimed to assess the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of CIRT. A systematic literature review was performed using the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Core Model® for rapid relative effectiveness assessment. The literature search for clinical outcome studies on CIRT was performed using four databases [Cochrane (Central), Centre for Research and Dissemination (CRD), Embase and OVID MEDLINE]. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (for randomised controlled trials) and the Institute of Health Economics (IHE-18) Checklist (for observational studies) were used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. The evidence synthesis was restricted to 54 oncological indications in 12 broad tumour regions and studies with a low or moderate risk of bias, published between 2005 and 2017. Twenty-seven studies were eligible for the qualitative synthesis of the evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of CIRT: One randomised controlled trial that primarily focused on the feasibility of CIRT, three case-control studies, three before- and after- studies with a focus on quality of life, and 20 further studies of case series. Overall, insufficient scientific evidence was found for superiority or inferiority of CIRT when compared to standard irradiation for 13/54 oncologicaI indications in 7/12 tumour regions (skull base tumours, brain cancer, cancer in the ear-nose-throat region, bone and soft-tissue tumours, lung cancer, prostate cancer, gastrointestinal tumours). No scientific evidence was found for the remaining 41/54 oncological indications. CIRT is undoubtedly, theoretically, a promising cancer treatment. To date, however, it lacks randomised controlled trials assessing the long-term effectiveness and harms associated with the use of CIRT. CIRT must be considered as an experimental treatment due to the lack of high-quality clinical research.

OP162 Stakeholder Involvement In EUnetHTA Relative Effectiveness Assessments

IntroductionAppropriate involvement of stakeholders is one of the founding principles of the European Cooperation on Health Technology Assessment. The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) produces Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessments (REAs) to assess pharmaceutical (PT) or other technologies (OT). Stakeholders essentially participate in the scoping, the draft assessment phase, or both.MethodsAll REAs published since 2013 were reviewed. Stakeholder participation in scoping (project plan) and draft assessment was evaluated. We aggregated categories of stakeholders in four groups (Health Care Providers and Academia, Patients and Consumers, Manufacturers, and Regulators and Payers). Means of collaboration (meetings, comments to project plan and draft assessment, questionnaires, focus groups) are also analyzed. Data is continuously updated with new REAs.ResultsMore than 20 REAs have been published at the moment, with a higher number of OT. Health Care Providers and Academia acted as experts in both phases, participating in all REA of OT, and less of PT. Manufacturers participated in all REA in the scoping phase. Regulators and Payers, less involved, participated mainly in the scoping phase. The main methods are providing comments in a standardized form and meetings. Patients' contribution, similar in OT and PT, has increased over the years. Questionnaires or interviews were the main method of involvement, followed by participation in meetings and focus groups. Visibility and transparency have also improved, with a clearer reporting of the stakeholder contribution in the last assessments.ConclusionsThe stakeholder involvement in EUnetHTA REAs is steadily growing, with the different nature of stakeholders’ categories reflected in their contribution to the assessments. EUnetHTA is standardizing stakeholder involvement procedures taking into account the particularities of each group when generating guidance for stakeholder involvement.

VP62 The EUnetHTA Companion Guide: A New Repository To Support European HTA

IntroductionGood quality management (QM) and the sound application of EUnetHTA's (European network for Health Technology Assessment) well-established methodology and tools are fundamental prerequisites for reliable and trustworthy joint work. To provide ultimate support and guidance to the assessment teams of EUnetHTA – and further, to ensure a sustainable mode of work for the post-2020 period – a comprehensive web-based so called “EUnetHTA Companion Guide” is established in Joint Action 3.MethodsThe Companion Guide was created using the open source Wiki software “DokuWiki”. We divided the content into five main parts: 1. EUnetHTA's QM concept, 2. QM for rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment (REA) Pharma, 3. QM for rapid REA Other Technologies (OT) 4. Scientific Guidance & Tools and 5. QMS-related training material. The assessment processes for rapid REA Pharma and OT have been subdivided into single process steps for which the Companion Guide provides standard operating procedures (SOPs), checklists, templates, guidelines and tools. The content of the Companion Guide is continuously subjected to evaluation by means of a structured survey with regard to the achievement of its purpose of ensuring to ensure high-quality HTA reports.ResultsIn May 2018, the Companion Guide was launched and is now available to all EUnetHTA partners. It provides central access to all components of the newly established QMquality management system for EUnetHTA. The user has access to training modules that provide information on how to use the Companion Guide. Moreover, the training material enables EUnetHTA partners to build up necessary capabilities for QMquality management, and application of methodologies and tools in the context of EUnetHTA.ConclusionsThe purpose of the Companion Guide is to ensure the production of high-quality HTA reports by providing ultimate support and guidance to the EUnetHTA assessment teams during their joint work. The continuous evaluation will reveal necessary revisions and the need for further developments and guidance.

OP157 Carbon Ion Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review

IntroductionDue to the promising physical dose distribution of carbon ion radiation therapy (CIRT), CIRT can be regarded as a novel tumor irradiation technique and is sometimes considered as a breakthrough therapy for various tumor types. However, it is unclear whether superiority or inferiority can be claimed when compared to standard irradiation. This study aimed to assess the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of CIRT.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted using the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Core Model® for rapid relative effectiveness assessment. The literature search for clinical outcome studies on CIRT was performed in four databases [Cochrane (Central), Centre for Research and Dissemination (CRD), Embase and OVID MEDLINE]. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (for randomized controlled trials) and the Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Checklist (for observational studies). The evidence synthesis was restricted to 12 tumor regions (and 54 indications) and studies with a low or moderate risk of bias, published between 2005 and 2017.ResultsIn total 27 studies were eligible for the qualitative synthesis of the evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of CIRT; one randomized controlled trial that primarily focused on the feasibility of CIRT, three case-control studies, three before-after studies focusing on quality of life, and 20 further case series studies. Overall, insufficient scientific evidence was found for 13 (out of 54) indications in seven tumor regions and no scientific evidence was found for 41 (out of 54) indications.ConclusionsTheoretically, CIRT is undoubtedly a promising cancer treatment. To date, however, 54 oncologic indications in 12 tumor regions under investigation lack randomized controlled trials assessing the long-term effectiveness and harms associated with its use. CIRT must be considered as an experimental treatment due to the lack of high-quality clinical research.

PCP26 - THE EUNETHTA COMPANION GUIDE – A REPOSITORY TO STRENGTHEN THE QUALITY OF EUNETHTA’S JOINT HTA PRODUCTION

In May 2018, the "EUnetHTA Companion Guide” has been launched. The Companion Guide provides central access to all components of the newly established quality management system (QMS) for EUnetHTA (European network for Health Technology Assessment) via a web-based wiki-platform. The purpose of the Companion Guide is to ensure the production of high-quality HTA reports by providing ultimate support and guidance to the EUnetHTA assessment teams during their joint work. The Companion Guide is divided into four main parts: 1. EUnetHTA’s quality management (QM) concept, 2. QM for rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment (REA) Pharma, 3. QM for rapid REA other technologies (OT) and 4. QMS-related training material. The QM concept paper establishes the main terms and definitions for a common QM understanding amongst EUnetHTA partners and introduces the QMS of EUnetHTA. The assessment processes for rapid REA Pharma and OT have been subdivided into single process steps for which the Companion Guide provides standard operating procedures (SOPs), checklists, templates, guidelines and tools. The user can choose to either see the whole list of SOPs or the SOPs sorted by role in the assessment team (author, co-author, dedicated reviewer). The user will have access to training modules via the Companion Guide which provide information on how to use the Companion Guide. Moreover, the training material enables HTA-doers of all EUnetHTA partners to build up necessary QM capabilities. The content of the Companion Guide is repeatedly subject to evaluation with regard to the achievement of its purpose to ensure high-quality HTA reports.

Wearable cardioverter defibrillators for the prevention of sudden cardiac arrest: a health technology assessment and patient focus group study.

AimTo summarize the evidence on clinical effectiveness and safety of wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) therapy for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest in patients at risk.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search in databases including MEDLINE via OVID, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CRD (DARE, NHS-EED, HTA). The evidence obtained was summarized according to GRADE methodology. A health technology assessment (HTA) was conducted using the HTA Core Model® for rapid relative effectiveness assessment. Primary outcomes for the clinical effectiveness domain were all-cause and disease-specific mortality. Outcomes for the safety domain were adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). A focus group with cardiac disease patients was conducted to evaluate ethical, organizational, patient, social, and legal aspects of the WCD use.ResultsNo randomized- or non-randomized controlled trials were identified. Non-comparative studies (n=5) reported AEs including skin rash/itching (6%), false alarms (14%), and palpitations/light-headedness/fainting (9%) and discontinuation due to comfort/lifestyle issues (16–22%), and SAEs including inappropriate shocks (0–2%), unsuccessful shocks (0–0.7%), and death (0–0.3%). The focus group results reported that experiencing a sense of security is crucial to patients and that the WCD is not considered an option for weeks or even months due to expected restrictions in living a “normal” life.ConclusionThe WCD appears to be relatively safe for short-to-medium term, but the quality of existing evidence is very low. AEs and SAEs need to be more appropriately reported in order to further evaluate the safety of the device. High-quality comparative evidence and well-described disease groups are required to assess the effectiveness of the WCD and to determine which patient groups may benefit most from the intervention.

The HTA Core Model®-10 Years of Developing an International Framework to Share Multidimensional Value Assessment.

The HTA Core Model® as a science-based framework for assessing dimensions of value was developed as a part of the European network for Health Technology Assessment project in the period 2006 to 2008 to facilitate production and sharing of health technology assessment (HTA) information, such as evidence on efficacy and effectiveness and patient aspects, to inform decisions. It covers clinical value as well as organizational, economic, and patient aspects of technologies and has been field-tested in two consecutive joint actions in the period 2010 to 2016. A large number of HTA institutions were involved in the work. The model has undergone revisions and improvement after iterations of piloting and can be used in a local, national, or international context to produce structured HTA information that can be taken forward by users into their own frameworks to fit their specific needs when informing decisions on technology. The model has a broad scope and offers a common ground to various stakeholders through offering a standard structure and a transparent set of proposed HTA questions. It consists of three main components: 1) the HTA ontology, 2) methodological guidance, and 3) a common reporting structure. It covers domains such as effectiveness, safety, and economics, and also includes domains covering organizational, patient, social, and legal aspects. There is a full model and a focused rapid relative effectiveness assessment model, and a third joint action is to continue till 2020. The HTA Core Model is now available for everyone around the world as a framework for assessing value.

VP67 The Value Of The European Network For Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Outputs For National Health Technology Assessment: The French Experience

INTRODUCTION:The French National Authority for Health (HAS) has participated in the work of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) since its creation in 2006. HAS has been an active partner in most EUnetHTA activities, and the lead partner of specific work packages.METHODS:This report presents a summary of the main contribution of HAS to the two latest EUnetHTA projects (Joint Action (JA) 1 and Joint Action 2 (JA2)), their impact on national production, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) doers feedback as to the opportunities and challenges of participating to the network and using its outputs.RESULTS:In JA 1 and JA 2 projects, HAS has: coordinated activities related to Early Dialogues and Additional Evidence Generation; coordinated the development of nine JA1 methodological guidelines for rapid relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals; participated in the production of two JA2 methodological guidelines; participated in the production of one JA1 and seven JA2 rapid REA reports, and two JA2 full HTAs.The national uptake of EUnetHTA outputs included entire adoptation of one REA report and adaptation of another. EUnetHTA templates and methodological guidelines have been taken into account when updating or developing national ones. Thanks to the network, HAS HTA doers could exchange on ongoing assessments with European colleagues, have enhanced their methodological know-how and enlarged their professional network.As for the challenges encountered, it turned out that the re-use of EUnetHTA reports for a technology of interest to HAS was not always possible, mainly due to discordances in deadlines or assessment questions between EUnetHTA and national productions.CONCLUSIONS:HAS has actively participated in different EUnetHTA projects since the network's creation. This collaboration has enabled HAS HTA doers, among others, to optimize national assessments and enhance their methodological know-how.

EXPERIENCES IN ADAPTING EUROPEAN NETWORK FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT RAPID REVIEWS TO INFORM LOCAL DECISION MAKING.

The Scottish Health Technologies Group (SHTG) produces rapid reviews on nonmedicine technologies to inform advice for decision making in the National Health Service in Scotland (NHSScotland). This study describes our experiences and lessons learned in adapting for NHSScotland two rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessments (REAs) produced as part of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) project to test collaborative preparation and then local adaptation. The REAs were examined for their relevance to NHSScotland and the feasibility of their adaptation evaluated using a screening toolkit. Some supplementary literature searches were conducted and additional background information on epidemiology and the specific technologies was sought. To inform decision making within Scotland, it was also necessary to identify and review cost-effective analyses. Robust evidence reviews were delivered for NHSScotland. Time saved was less than anticipated, partly due to the need to add in health economic information, and partly because of attempts to supplement and update the EUnetHTA material. The preparation of an accompanying advice statement for NHSScotland enabled the inclusion of local contextual information. Collaborative production and adaptation of HTAs is feasible and would be aided by the inclusion of cost-effectiveness analyses in the original work. Agencies should develop clear processes for adapting such reviews for their context with the focus on selecting appropriate topics for adaptation, avoiding unnecessary supplementation of the original work, and ensuring local ownership of final advice.

Pilot Assessment Of Pharmaceuticals Based On The Eunethta Core Model For Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment

Pilot Assessment Of Pharmaceuticals Based On The Eunethta Core Model For Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment

Piloting international production of rapid relative effectiveness assessments of pharmaceuticals.

This article describes the lessons learned from an international pilot assessment using the first version of the HTA Core Model® and Guidelines for rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment (REA) of pharmaceuticals based on input from three different perspectives: the assessors, the users (health technology assessment organisations) and the marketing authorisation holder. A pilot assessment was performed of pazopanib for the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma for which 54 individuals from 22 EUnetHTA member organisations from 16 European countries gave their contribution. The work was divided in eight domain teams. Subsequently, results of these domain teams were synthesised in one pilot report. Feedback on the outcomes of the pilot was gathered throughout the project and through structured surveys. The first version of the assessment was produced in six months and consisted of 55 question and answer pairs, 8 domain reports and a synthesis section that combined the results from the different domains. The organisation of the pilot required intense coordination. Main points of criticism on the assessment were the lengthiness of the document and overlap of information throughout the assessment. A reduction in the number of authoring organisations and individuals participating is necessary to avoid information overlap and increase efficiency in undertaking the assessment. Involving several organisations (e.g. five) in an in-depth review could still ensure the benefit of broad participation from various countries. The focus of a rapid REA should be on the first four domains of the Model.

Standardized reporting for rapid relative effectiveness assessments of pharmaceuticals.

Many European countries perform rapid assessments of the relative effectiveness (RE) of pharmaceuticals as part of the reimbursement decision making process. Increased sharing of information on RE across countries may save costs and reduce duplication of work. The objective of this article is to describe the development of a tool for rapid assessment of RE of new pharmaceuticals that enter the market, the HTA Core Model® for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment (REA) of Pharmaceuticals. Eighteen member organisations of the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) participated in the development of the model. Different versions of the model were developed and piloted in this collaboration and adjusted accordingly based on feedback on the content and feasibility of the model. The final model deviates from the traditional HTA Core Model® used for assessing other types of technologies. This is due to the limited scope (strong focus on RE), the timing of the assessment (just after market authorisation), and strict timelines (e.g. 90 days) required for performing the assessment. The number of domains and assessment elements was limited and it was decided that the primary information sources should preferably be a submission file provided by the marketing authorisation holder and the European Public Assessment Report. The HTA Core Model® for Rapid REA (version 3.0) was developed to produce standardised transparent RE information of pharmaceuticals. Further piloting can provide input for possible improvements, such as further refining the assessment elements and new methodological guidance on relevant areas.

Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment of Pharmaceuticals: Transferability and Completeness of Information Derived From Global Value Dossiers To Complete A Eunethta Submission.

Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment of Pharmaceuticals: Transferability and Completeness of Information Derived From Global Value Dossiers To Complete A Eunethta Submission.