Sarah Kleijnen

Relative Effectiveness Assessment of Pharmaceuticals: Similarities and Differences in 29 Jurisdictions

OBJECTIVE Assessment of the effectiveness compared with alternative treatment(s) plays an important role in many jurisdictions in determining the reimbursement status of pharmaceuticals. This type of assessment is often referred to as a relative effectiveness assessment (REA) and is carried out by many jurisdictions. Increased sharing of information across jurisdictions may save costs and reduce duplication. The objective of this study was to explore the main similarities and differences in the major methodological aspects of REA in multiple jurisdictions. METHODS Data were gathered with a standardized data extraction form by searching publicly available information and by eliciting information from representatives at relevant organizations. RESULTS Of the initially included 35 jurisdictions, data were gathered for 29 jurisdictions. There seem to be substantial similarities on the choice of the comparator, the role of indirect comparisons, and preferred end points in REAs (except for the use of health state utilities). Jurisdictions, however, differ in whether effectiveness (usual circumstances of health care practice) is estimated in case no (comparative) effectiveness data are available and how this is done. CONCLUSION Some important methodological aspects for REA are approached in a similar way in many jurisdictions, indicating that collaboration on assessments may be feasible. Enhanced collaboration in the development of methods and best practices for REA between jurisdictions will be a necessary first step. Important topics for developing best practice are indirect comparisons and how to handle the gap between efficacy and effectiveness data in case good quality comparative effectiveness data are not yet available at the time of reimbursement decisions.

European collaboration on relative effectiveness assessments: What is needed to be successful?

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to identify the possible barriers and critical success factors for the implementation of European collaboration in the field of relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of drugs. METHODS Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with representatives from eight European health technology assessment (HTA) organisations involved in assessment of drugs for coverage decision-making (AAZ, AIFA, AHTAPol, HAS, HVB, IQWIG, NICE and ZiN). RESULTS Potential barriers identified mainly relate to methodology, resources and challenges with implementation in the respective national processes (e.g. legal restrictions). The most critical success factors for production of cross-border assessments were the continuous cooperation of competent partners, and the quality and timely availability of the assessment. CONCLUSION Further adaptation of the process and methods is required for optimal collaboration. In the near future it can be expected that cross-border assessments will meet in particular the needs of smaller/middle-sized European countries and also European countries with less developed HTA systems as the potential efficiency/quality gains are the highest for these countries. Therefore, national implementation of cross-border assessments is especially likely in these countries in the coming years. Once more experience is gained with cross-border assessments, and successes become more evident, efficiency/quality gains may also be likely for some larger countries with well established processes.

Relative effectiveness assessments of oncology medicines for pricing and reimbursement decisions in European countries

BACKGROUND There is a debate on the added clinical value of new, expensive, anticancer treatments. Among European decision makers, the relevance of commonly used end points in trials, especially overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL), varies, leading to the available evidence being valued differently. This research studies the extent to which the value of end points for cancer medicines differs among European decision makers. METHODS We compared guidelines and relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of medicines for pricing or reimbursement decisions in England, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, and Scotland. Anticancer medicines that received marketing authorization in Europe between 2011 and 2013 with at least four available national REAs were evaluated. A total of 79 REAs were included. RESULTS Health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines indicate a preference for clinically and patient relevant end points such as OS and QoL above surrogate end points. Most guidelines do not specify whether PFS is considered a surrogate or patient-relevant end point. The number of REAs included per jurisdiction varied between 7 (The Netherlands) and 18 (Germany). OS data were included in all REAs and were the preferred end point by HTA agencies, but these data were not always mature or robust. QoL data are included in only 54% of the REAs, with a limited impact on the recommendations. PFS data are included in 70% of the REAs, but the extent to which HTA agencies find PFS relevant varies. CONCLUSIONS European decision-making on relative effectiveness of anticancer medicines is affected by a gap in requested versus available clinical evidence, mainly because the regulator is willing to accept some degree of clinical uncertainty. A multi-stakeholder debate would be essential to align concrete robust evidence requirements in oncology and a collectively shared definition for relevant clinical benefit, which will benefit patients and society in general.

Can a Joint Assessment Provide Relevant Information for National/Local Relative Effectiveness Assessments? : An In-Depth Comparison of Pazopanib Assessments

BACKGROUND In many European jurisdictions, relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of pharmaceuticals are performed during the reimbursement decision-making process. International collaboration in the production of these assessments may prevent the duplication of information in various jurisdictions. A first pilot of a joint REA (pazopanib for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma) was published in 2011. OBJECTIVE The objective was to investigate how well the methods used in the joint REA match the methods used in the national/local assessments on the same topic. METHODS National/local assessments from European jurisdictions, available in English language, were identified through a literature search and an e-mail request to health technology assessment organizations. Data were abstracted from joint and national/local assessments using a structured data abstraction form. Results were compared for differences and similarities. RESULTS In total, five national/local reports were included (Belgium, England/Wales, France, The Netherlands, and Scotland). The general methods (indication, main comparator, main end points, main trial) were similar. The details of the assessment (e.g., exact wording of indication, additional comparators, additional trials included, and method of indirect comparison), however, varied. Despite these differences, the joint REA included nearly all comparators, end points, trials, and methods of analysis that were used in national/local REA reports. CONCLUSIONS This study has shown overlap in the methods national/local REA bodies in Europe have chosen for a pazopanib REA for renal cell carcinoma, except for the use and methods of indirect comparisons. Although some additional comparators and outcomes differed between national/local REAs, they can be captured in a comprehensive joint REA.

STANDARDIZED REPORTING FOR RAPID RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENTS OF PHARMACEUTICALS

OBJECTIVES 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. METHODS 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. RESULTS 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. CONCLUSIONS 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.

Piloting international production of rapid relative effectiveness assessments of pharmaceuticals.

BACKGROUND 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. METHODS 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. RESULTS 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. CONCLUSIONS 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.

HTA goes Europe: European collaboration on joint assessment and methodological issues becomes reality

INTRODUCTION The standardisation of European HTA and thus the reduction of redundancies require clearly defined processes and methods. The HTA Core Model®, a tool developed by the European Network EUnetHTA, is intended to ensure the transparent production of standardised and high-quality assessments in international collaboration. METHODS The present paper describes the experience with already published EUnetHTA assessments as well as possibilities for national/local adaptations of these assessments. The integration of jointly developed methods in routine processes of individual HTA agencies will be explained on the basis of a selected example. Further methodological initiatives in Europe will be presented. RESULTS So far, EUnetHTA has published four rapid assessments conducted through European cooperation between 6-9 HTA institutes during Joint Action 2 (2012-2015). Two assessments dealt with pharmaceuticals and two with non-pharmaceutical interventions. The overall duration of these assessments ranged from 7 to 9 months. There is initial information about the frequency and manner in which these assessments have been used for national/local HTA reports. According to a survey, a total of 28 HTA institutes have indicated that they want to make use of these assessments in their own context. In Austria, the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment (LBI-HTA) has produced two reports based on EUnetHTA assessments. A further step towards cross-border collaboration and harmonisation is the implementation of these tools in a national and regional context. Beginning in 2015 the LBI-HTA will adjust two programme lines to the format of the HTA Core Model® in order to increase the transferability of HTAs and to reduce redundancies. DISCUSSION Barriers to European collaboration include the relevance of topics for individual HTA institutes and the timing of joint assessments. Implementing commonly developed methods as standard practice in local/national HTA institutes is mainly impeded by legislative requirements. CONCLUSION Despite the initial positive experiences with international collaboration on specific topics and methods, the coming years will have to prove whether existing barriers can be overcome effectively.

Comparing the hta core model with a national health technology assessment report.

OBJECTIVES The HTA Core Model is a framework for producing health technology assessments (HTAs) in a structured format. The Model splits the content of a HTA into assessment elements. The objective is to explore the adaptability of these assessment elements in national report production in a pilot case study comparing a national HTA report and the HTA Core Model. METHODS An on-going Dutch HTA report on endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) was chosen as a typical representative of a national report on medical interventions. The author of the EVAR report assessed the relevance and comprehensiveness of the assessment elements of the HTA Core Model for her work. Another researcher annotated the Core Model specific content in the EVAR report. Matching and missing content, as well as the distribution of information in the EVAR report were tabulated and analysed in joint deliberations. RESULTS Forty percent of the assessment elements of the Core Model were considered relevant for the EVAR report. Some issues relevant for EVAR but missing from the Core Model were identified: they were about re-interventions, secondary prevention, subpopulations that benefit most, and the length of the hospital stay. The distribution of information differed substantially between the Code Model and the national report. CONCLUSIONS The assessment elements of the HTA Core Model covered most relevant questions of the national report. In order to facilitate easy adaptation of information, the distribution of information should be more consistent in the national report and the Core model.

The impact of quality-of-life data in relative effectiveness assessments of new anti-cancer drugs in European countries

PurposeThe aim of this study is to investigate the role of health-related quality-of-life (QoL) data in relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of new anti-cancer drugs across European jurisdictions, during health technology assessment procedures.MethodsComparative analysis of guidelines and publicly available REAs in six European jurisdictions of anti-cancer drugs approved by EMA between 2011 and 2013.ResultsFourteen anti-cancer drugs were included, adding up to 79 REAs. Whilst all guidelines state that QoL is a relevant endpoint to determine the relative effectiveness of new cancer drugs, QoL data were included in only 54% of the 79 reports and their impact on the recommendations was limited.ConclusionsWhilst national guidelines recognize the relevance of QoL to determine the relative effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs, this is not well-reflected in current assessments. Developing and implementing into REAs specific evidence requirements for QoL data would improve the use of this patient-centred outcome in future reimbursement and pricing decisions.