Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-5rlvm Total loading time: 0.212 Render date: 2021-10-19T10:03:52.157Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

VP107 Pharmaceutical Industry's Experiences with the German Health Technology Assessment Scientific Advice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2018

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

The early benefit assessment of drugs was introduced in Germany with the ‘Act to Reorganize the Pharmaceuticals’ Market in the SHI’ (AMNOG) in 2011. Before submitting the manufacturer's dossier, optional scientific advice is offered by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). The objective was to elicit manufacturers experience with the scientific advice offered by the Federal Joint Committee.

METHODS:

To prepare the survey, several manufacturers were interviewed on their experience with the scientific advice offered by the Federal Joint Committee. Subsequently, a questionnaire was developed to collect information for this purpose, comprising eight items on different topics aimed at understanding the perceived quality of the scientific advice provided.

RESULTS:

The qualitative part comprised seven manufacturers who had received between one and ten advisories before the end of 2012. With regard to the quantitative elicitation part, a total of sixty-one completed questionnaires from nineteen manufacturers were included until the beginning of 2015 (corresponding to almost 25 percent of the overall implemented scientific advice). Fourteen cases were about so called “early” scientific advice in terms of relating to evidence before commencing phase-III trials, forty-four cases concerned “late” scientific advice (pivotal trials were just conducted or already terminated), another two concerned repeated scientific advice and finally, four referred to miscellaneous contents (multiple answers possible). Both, the preceding qualitative and the following quantitative part of the elicitation, highlighted points about the process as well as the content shortcomings from an industry's point of view: inconsistencies, lacking expertise with conducting clinical trials, partially incomplete answers and a low readiness to engage in dialogue were criticized. On the other hand, the majority of respondents showed a positive attitude concerning unambiguousness, completeness, traceability, atmosphere and the protocol of the advice. Over the course of time, propositions on study design, agreement with the determined appropriate comparative therapy and subgroup definitions improved significantly.

CONCLUSIONS:

A more active involvement of further stakeholders and the incorporation of procedural elements from other health are systems with longer experience could improve the scientific advice provided.

Type
Vignette Presentations
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.)

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.

VP107 Pharmaceutical Industry's Experiences with the German Health Technology Assessment Scientific Advice
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.

VP107 Pharmaceutical Industry's Experiences with the German Health Technology Assessment Scientific Advice
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.

VP107 Pharmaceutical Industry's Experiences with the German Health Technology Assessment Scientific Advice
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? *