Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T18:33:10.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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  and
Sara Schlenkrich
Charalabos-Markos Dintsios
Affiliation:
Institute for Health Services Research and Health Economics Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorfdintsios@hhu.de
Sara Schlenkrich
Affiliation:
University of Applied Sciences, Zittau/Görlitz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

Scientific adviceEarly benefit assessmentAMNOGPharmaceutical industryFederal Joint Committee
Type
Policy
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , 2018 , pp. 196 - 204
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

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;14:608–615.Google Scholar
2.Wonder, M. What can be gained from increased early-stage interaction between regulators, payersthe pharmaceutical industry? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:465–467.Google Scholar
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;16:1067–1073.Google Scholar
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;30:571–578.Google Scholar
5.Longson, C, Crabb, N, Osipenko, L. NICE supports allowing technology assessment bodies to provide advice to drug industry. BMJ. 2014;349:g5035.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google 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;15:577–589.Google Scholar
11.Busse, R, Blumel, M. Germany: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2014;16:1–296.Google Scholar
12.Hecken, J. Rückblick 2014 – Ausblick 2015. Schütze-Brief: Gesundheitspolitischer Info-Dienst. 2014;98:1–20.Google Scholar
13.Cassel, U, Heigl, A. AMNOG in der Umsetzung: Preisregulierung als Innovationsbremse? RPG. 2013;19:1–18.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;18:213–220.Google Scholar
15.Diskussionspapier – Frühe Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln: Beratung der Industrie durch den G-BA. Gesundh ökon Qual manag. 2015;20:210–212.Google 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;89:1245–1251.Google Scholar
18.Beinlich, P, Müller-Berghaus, J, Sudhop, T, Vieths, S, Broich, K. Zusammenspiel zwischen Zulassung und Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz. 2015;58:227–231.Google 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;80:314–320.Google Scholar
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;28:374–381.Google Scholar
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;82:965–973.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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;119:569–576.Google Scholar
30.Cavazza, M, Jommi, C. Stakeholders involvement by HTA organisations: why is so different? Health Policy. 2012;105:236–245.Google Scholar
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;73:297–305.Google Scholar