Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-6mft8 Total loading time: 0.217 Render date: 2021-10-19T00:25:19.336Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

INDUSTRY'S EXPERIENCES WITH THE SCIENTIFIC ADVICE OFFERED BY THE FEDERAL JOINT COMMITTEE WITHIN THE EARLY BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS IN GERMANY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2018

Charalabos-Markos Dintsios
Affiliation:
Institute for Health Services Research and Health Economics Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf dintsios@hhu.de
Sara Schlenkrich
Affiliation:
University of Applied Sciences, Zittau/Görlitz

Abstract

Objectives: Optional scientific advice (SA) for the early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals is offered by the German decision maker, the Federal Joint Committee (FJC). The aim of this study was to elicit manufacturers’ experiences with the SA procedures offered by the FJC to date.

Methods: A preliminary survey on a small sample size was conducted. Subsequently, a questionnaire comprising eight items, which was developed on the basis of that survey, was used. Data were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Results: The elicitation, including a sample of 25 percent of the completed advice, highlighted the following, regarding the process as well as to the content shortcomings of the SA procedures from an industrial perspective: inconsistencies, FJC's lack of expertise in conducting clinical trials, partially incomplete answers. and a low willingness of the FJC to engage in dialogue with industry were criticized. On the other hand, the majority of respondents expressed a positive attitude concerning unambiguousness, completeness, traceability, discussion atmosphere, and the protocol of the advice. Early SA, before pivotal trials start, showed a significantly higher completeness compared with late SA with respect to endpoints and study duration. Within 4 years the quality of FJC's propositions on some topics improved significantly.

Conclusions: Only a few statistically significant differences were detectable between early versus late SA. A positive trend in industry's perception of the SA can be observed over time. A more active involvement of additional stakeholders and the incorporation of procedural elements from other healthcare systems could improve the quality of the SA offered by the FJC.

Type
Policy
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Backhouse, ME, Wonder, M, Hornby, E, Kilburg, A, Drummond, M, Mayer, FK. Early dialogue between the developers of new technologies and pricing and reimbursement agencies: a pilot study. Value Health. 2011;14:608615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Wonder, M. What can be gained from increased early-stage interaction between regulators, payersthe pharmaceutical industry? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:465467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Wonder, M, Backhouse, ME, Hornby, E. Early scientific advice obtained simultaneously from regulators and payers: findings from a pilot study in Australia. Value Health. 2013;16:10671073.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Cuche, M, Beckerman, R, Chowdhury, CA, van Weelden, MA. Early dialogue with health technology assessment bodies: a European perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:571578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Longson, C, Crabb, N, Osipenko, L. NICE supports allowing technology assessment bodies to provide advice to drug industry. BMJ. 2014;349:g5035.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Maignen, FM, Osipenko, L, Gajraj, E, Chivers, R. Trends in early engagement between industry and HTA: analysis of scientific advice service provided by Nice since 2009. Value Health. 2014;17:A441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Siviero, PD, Montilla, S, Sammarco, A, Trotta, MP, Tafuri, G, Pani, L. PHP105 - The Italian Medicines Agency experience with HTA scientific advice activities: a comprehensive analysis of three years of national and international activities. Value Health. 2014;17:A27-A28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Canadian Agency for DrugsTechnologies in Health. Scientific Advice Program. 2015. https://www.cadth.ca/scientific-advice (accessed August 30, 2016).Google Scholar
9.EUnetHTA. Multi HTA early dialogues – pharmaceuticals. http://eunethta.eu/sites/default/files/news-attachments/procedure_eunethta_multi-hta_pharma_20170125.pdf (accessed November 25, 2017).Google Scholar
10.Ruof, J, Schwartz, FW, Schulenburg, JM, Dintsios, CM. Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:577589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Busse, R, Blumel, M. Germany: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2014;16:1296.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Hecken, J. Rückblick 2014 – Ausblick 2015. Schütze-Brief: Gesundheitspolitischer Info-Dienst. 2014;98:120.Google Scholar
13.Cassel, U, Heigl, A. AMNOG in der Umsetzung: Preisregulierung als Innovationsbremse? RPG. 2013;19:118.Google Scholar
14.Sattelmeier, J, Prenzler, A, Frank, M. Das Arzneimittelmarktneuordnungsgesetz (AMNOG) in der Praxis – erste Erfahrungen, Kritikpunkte und Weiterentwicklungsmöglichkeiten. Gesundh ökon Qual manag. 2013;18:213220.Google Scholar
15.DiskussionspapierFrühe Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln: Beratung der Industrie durch den G-BA. Gesundh ökon Qual manag. 2015;20:210212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Witzel, A. The problem-centered interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2000;1 (1). Art. 22. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1132/2521 (accessed August 30, 2016).Google Scholar
17.O'Brien, BC, Harris, IB, Beckman, TJ, Reed, DA, Cook, DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89:12451251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Beinlich, P, Müller-Berghaus, J, Sudhop, T, Vieths, S, Broich, K. Zusammenspiel zwischen Zulassung und Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz. 2015;58:227231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte, Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. Strukturierte Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss, dem Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte und dem Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. 2016. http://www.bmg.bund.de/fileadmin/dateien/Downloads/P/Pharmadialog/Vereinbarung_G-BA-BOB_2016-04-12.pdf (accessed August 16, 2016).Google Scholar
20. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften. Stellungnahme zum Verfahren der Frühen Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln nach § 35a SGBV und aufgrund des Arzneimittelmarktneuordnungsgesetzes (AMNOG) von 2010. 2015. http://www.awmf.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Stellungnahmen/Medizinische_Versorgung/AWMF-Stellungnahme_AMNOG_2015-02-24.pdf (accessed August 16, 2016).Google Scholar
21.Enzmann, H. New trends and challenges in the European regulation of innovative medicines. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016;80:314320.Google ScholarPubMed
22.Fronsdal, K, Pichler, F, Mardhani-Bayne, L, et al. Interaction initiatives between regulatory, health technology assessment and coverage bodies, and industry. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:374381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.European Medicines Agency. Best practice guidance for pilot EMA HTA parallel scientific advice procedures. 2014. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2014/05/WC500166226.pdf (accessed August 16, 2016).Google Scholar
24.Tapestry Networks. Pilots of multi-stakeholder consultations in drug development. 2012. http://www.tapestrynetworks.com/initiatives/healthcare/upload/Pilots-of-multi-stakeholder-consultations-in-drug-development-6-June-2012.pdf (accessed August 30, 2016).Google Scholar
25.Tafuri, G, Pagnini, M, Moseley, J, et al. How aligned are the perspectives of EU regulators and HTA bodies? A comparative analysis of regulatory-HTA parallel scientific advice. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;82:965973.Google ScholarPubMed
26.Lebioda, A, Gasche, D, Dippel, FW, Theobald, K, Plantor, S. Relevance of indirect comparisons in the German early benefit assessment and in comparison to HTA processes in England, France and Scotland. Health Econ Rev. 2014;4:31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.European Commision. Health and Consumers Directorate-General: report on the public consultation on the modalities of stakeholder consultation in the future Health Technology Assessment Network. 2012:24. http://ec.europa.eu/health/technology_assessment/docs/cons_hta_network_results_en.pdf (accessed August 30, 2016).Google Scholar
28.Shaping European Early Dialogues for health technologies. SEED; 2013. http://www.earlydialogues.eu/has/ (accessed August 30, 2016).Google Scholar
29.Kleijnen, S, Toenders, W, de Groot, F, et al. European collaboration on relative effectiveness assessments: what is needed to be successful? Health Policy. 2015;119:569576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Cavazza, M, Jommi, C. Stakeholders involvement by HTA organisations: why is so different? Health Policy. 2012;105:236245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Maignen, F, Osipenko, L, Pinilla-Dominguez, P, Crowe, E. Integrating health technology assessment requirements in the clinical development of medicines: the experience from NICE scientific advice. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;73:297305.Google ScholarPubMed
5
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

INDUSTRY'S EXPERIENCES WITH THE SCIENTIFIC ADVICE OFFERED BY THE FEDERAL JOINT COMMITTEE WITHIN THE EARLY BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS IN GERMANY
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

INDUSTRY'S EXPERIENCES WITH THE SCIENTIFIC ADVICE OFFERED BY THE FEDERAL JOINT COMMITTEE WITHIN THE EARLY BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS IN GERMANY
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

INDUSTRY'S EXPERIENCES WITH THE SCIENTIFIC ADVICE OFFERED BY THE FEDERAL JOINT COMMITTEE WITHIN THE EARLY BENEFIT ASSESSMENT OF PHARMACEUTICALS IN GERMANY
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *