In model-based economic evaluations, the effectiveness parameter is often informed by studies with a limited duration of follow-up, requiring extrapolation of the treatment effect over a longer time horizon. Extrapolation from short-term data alone may not adequately capture uncertainty in that extrapolation. This study aimed to use structured expert elicitation to quantify uncertainty associated with extrapolation of the treatment effect observed in a clinical trial.

A structured expert elicitation exercise was conducted for an applied study of a podiatry intervention designed to reduce the rate of falls and fractures in the elderly. A bespoke web application was used to elicit experts’ beliefs about two outcomes (rate of falls and odds of fracture) as probability distributions (priors), for two treatment options (intervention and treatment as usual) at multiple time points. These priors were used to derive the temporal change in the treatment effect of the intervention, to extrapolate outcomes observed in a trial. The results were compared with extrapolation without experts’ priors.

The study recruited thirty-eight experts (geriatricians, general practitioners, physiotherapists, nurses, and academics) from England and Wales. The majority of experts (32/38) believed that the treatment effect would depreciate over time and expressed greater uncertainty than that extrapolated from a trial-based outcome alone. The between-expert variation in predicted outcomes was relatively small.

This study suggests that uncertainty in extrapolation can be informed using structured expert elicitation methods. Using structured elicitation to attach values to complex parameters requires key assumptions and simplifications to be considered.

In spring 2020, The European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) decided to join forces to produce best evidence to inform health policy in the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this paper is to describe the process and output of the coordinated and collaborative activities of EUnetHTA.

Relevant published and internal documents were retrieved for a descriptive analysis of EUnetHTA processes, methods, and outputs related to EUnetHTA’s response to the pandemic.

Process: In April 2020, a COVID-19 task force was set up and a survey collected pressing health policy questions across Europe. Two coordinating agencies for diagnostic tests and therapeutics were assigned. A process for prioritization and selection was set up for therapeutics, as well as explicit starting and stopping rules. Methodology: To increase a timely response, it was agreed that the rapid collaborative reviews (rapid CRs) would not require the consultation of manufacturers and the involvement of external experts, but would not differ in the methods and conduct of the systematic search, review, and synthesis of all available evidence, nor in the requirement for reviewing by EUnetHTA partners. Final reports: The joint effort resulted in the production of two rapid CRs on diagnostic tests, nineteen collaborative rolling reviews on therapeutics, three of which later moved to rapid CRs.

During COVID-19 pandemic, the EUnetHTA partners proved capable of prompt collaboration, which allowed speeding up the production and release of high-quality EUnetHTA outputs, while the relationships with the other European institutions facilitated their quick dissemination.

An increasing number of innovative therapies (e.g., gene- and cell-based treatments) have been developed in the past 20 years. Despite the significant clinical potential of these therapies, access delays may arise because of differing perspectives of manufacturers and payers regarding issues such as the value of the product, clinical and financial uncertainties, and sustainability.

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) can enable access to treatments that would not be reimbursed by conventional methods because of such concerns. However, although MEA typologies exist, there is currently no structured process to come to agreements on MEAs, which can be difficult to decide upon and implement.

To facilitate more structured MEA negotiations, we propose a conceptual “value-based negotiation framework” with corresponding application tools.

The framework was developed based on an iterative process of scientific literature review and expert input.

The framework aims to (i) systematically identify and prioritize manufacturer and payer concerns about a new treatment, and (ii) select a mutually acceptable combination of MEA terms that can best address priority concerns, with the lowest possible implementation burden.

The proposed framework will be tested in practice, and is a step toward supporting payers and manufacturers to engage in more structured, transparent negotiations to balance the needs of both sides, and enabling quicker, more transparent MEA negotiations and patient access to innovative products.

Argentina has a fragmented healthcare system with social security covering almost two thirds of the population. Its benefit package—called compulsory medical program (PMO; by its Spanish acronym Programa Médico Obligatorio)—has not been formally and widely updated since 2005. However, laws, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and a high-cost technology reimbursement fund complement it. Our objective was to comprehensively review such a PMO and propose an update considering the corresponding complementary sources.

We followed four steps: (i) identification of health technologies from the current PMO and complementary sources, (ii) prioritization, (iii) assessment through rapid health technology assessment (HTA), and (iv) appraisal and recommendations. We evaluated three value domains: quality of evidence, net benefit, and economics, which were summarized in a five-category recommendation traffic-light scale ranging from a strong recommendation in favor of inclusion to a strong recommendation for exclusion.

Eight hundred fifty technologies were identified; 164 of those, considered as high priority, were assessed through rapid HTAs. Those technologies mentioned in laws and CPGs were mostly outpatient essential medicines, whereas those from the reimbursement system were mostly high-cost drugs; of these 101 technologies, 50 percent were recommended to be kept in the PMO. The other 63 (identified by the Superintendence of Health Services, technology producers, and patients) were mostly medical procedures and high-cost drugs; only 25 percent of those resulted in a favorable recommendation.

A methodology based on four clearly identified steps was used to carry out a comprehensive review of an outdated and fragmented benefit package. The use of rapid HTAs and a traffic-light recommendation framework facilitated the deliberative evidence-based update.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE) method guide for technology appraisals (TAs) encourages medicine manufacturers to use the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) in relevant clinical trials to obtain utility values; however, the EQ-5D may have low sensitivity when compared to disease-specific measures. This study investigated whether the NICE TA committee’s acceptance of manufacturer-proposed utility values is dependent on the manufacturers’ sources of the utility values.

Using publicly available data for 2011–2020, we identified 136 single TAs of cancer medicines, the health-related quality-of-life-measures used in relevant clinical trials, manufacturers’ sources of utility values, and the NICE TA committee’s acceptance of these values. Fisher’s exact tests were performed to compare the acceptability of different value sources and reasons for non-acceptance.

The number of appraisals for which the EQ-5D in the relevant clinical trials was the source of the manufacturer-proposed utility values increased continuously over time. The TA committee’s acceptance of values was not dependent on the information source. In cases where a submission for which the information source was the EQ-5D was rejected, the reason was generally related to inappropriate values for the UK population or inappropriate data adjustment, not data reliability.

Our results demonstrated that according with the NICE’s method guide regarding utility values does not guarantee acceptance by the TA committee. Manufacturers must consider in advance possible differences between their clinical trials and clinical practice in the UK and refine plans for EQ-5D measurement in order to obtain convincing evidence.

While ethics has been identified as a core component of health technology assessment (HTA), there are few examples of practical, systematic inclusion of ethics analysis in HTA. Some attribute the scarcity of ethics analysis in HTA to debates about appropriate methodology and the need for ethics frameworks that are relevant to local social values. The “South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage” (SAVE-UHC) project models an approach that countries can use to develop HTA ethics frameworks that are specific to their national contexts.

The SAVE-UHC approach consisted of two phases. In Phase I, the research team convened and facilitated a national multistakeholder working group to develop a provisional ethics framework through a collaborative, engagement-driven process. In Phase II, the research team refined the model framework by piloting it through three simulated HTA appraisal committee meetings. Each simulated committee reviewed two case studies of sample health interventions: opioid substitution therapy and either a novel contraceptive implant or seasonal influenza immunization for children under five.

The methodology was fit-for-purpose, resulting in a context-specified ethics framework and producing relevant findings to inform application of the framework for the given HTA context.

The SAVE-UHC approach provides a model for developing, piloting, and refining an ethics framework for health priority-setting that is responsive to national social values. This approach also helps identify key facilitators and challenges for integrating ethics analysis into HTA processes.

Scientific literature debates on the economic affordability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in order to give a useful support to decision makers aiming at establishing a reimbursement scheme for TAVI. For this reason, it is important to assess the quality and the generalizability of the existing economic evidences.

The first step was to run a literature search according to a predefined population, intervention, comparator, and outcome on the cost and effectiveness of the TAVI procedure in comparison to medical therapy and traditional surgery. Second, a manual search was carried out on the Web sites of the main HTA agencies. Third, the checklist developed by Augustovski et al. was applied in order to assess the quality and the generalizability of the articles resulting from the selection process.

Overall, 106 articles were obtained. Of these, sixty-five articles were excluded since the title was not consistent with the objective. Further selection took place after abstract and full-text reading. In the end, thirty-one documents were included for the review. According to the checklist, none of the articles was considered generalizable and only one was considered transferable which compares the TAVI procedure with Medical Management in inoperable patients.

Despite the overall quality of the selected studies was considered good, there is still a lack of evidence on whether evidences generated in different contexts can be considered generalizable. Further research on resource consumption and preferences is needed in order to provide decision makers with more robust evidences.

Extrapolation is often required to inform cost-effectiveness (CE) evaluations of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) since survival data from pivotal clinical trials are seldom complete. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the accuracy of estimates of long-term overall survival (OS) predicted in French CE assessment reports of ICIs, and to identify models presenting the best fit to the observed long-term survival data.

A systematic review of French assessment reports of ICIs in the metastatic setting since inception until May 2020 was performed. A targeted literature review was conducted to collect associated extended follow-up of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) used in the CE assessment reports. Difference between projected and observed OS was calculated. A range of standard parametric and spline-based models were applied to the extended follow-up data from the RCT to determine the best-fitting survival models.

Of the 121 CE assessment reports published, 11 reports met the inclusion criteria. OS was underestimated in 73 percent of the CE assessment reports. The mean relative difference between each source was −13 percent (median: −15 percent; IQR: −0.4 to 26 percent). Models providing the best fit were those that could reflect nonmonotonic hazards.

Based on the available data at the time of submission, longer-term survival of ICIs was not fully captured by the extrapolation models used in CE assessments. Standard and flexible parametric models which can capture nonmonotonic hazard functions provided the best fit to the extended follow-up data. However, these models may still have performed poorly if fitted to survival data available at the time of submission to the French National Authority for Health.

To undertake a technical review of the search interface of the ISPOR Presentations Database. By technical review, we mean an evaluation of the technical aspects of the search interface and functionality, which a user must navigate to complete a search.

A validated checklist (Bethel and Rogers, 2014, Health Info Libr J, 31, 43-53) was used to identify where the interface performed well, where the interface was adequate, where the interface performed poorly, where functionality available in core biomedical bibliographic databases does not exist in the ISPOR database, and to establish a list of any issues arising during the review. Two researchers independently undertook the technical review in October 2021.

The ISPOR database scored 35 of a possible 165 (27/111 essential criteria and 8/54 desirable criteria). Two issues arising were identified, both of which will cause searchers to miss potentially eligible abstracts: (i) that search terms, which include * or ? as truncation or wildcard symbols should not be capitalized (e.g., cost* not Cost*; organi?ation not Organi?ation) and (ii) that quotation marks should be straight sided in phrase searching (e.g., “cost analyses” not “cost analyses”).

The ISPOR database is a promising and free database to identify abstracts/posters presented at ISPOR. We summarize two key issues arising, and we set out proposed changes to the search interface, including: adding the ability to export abstracts to a bibliographic tool, exporting search strategies, adding a researcher account, and updating the help guide. All suggestions will further improve this helpful database.

The aim of this article is to describe the process, results, and experiences of European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action 3’s (JA3) Early Dialogue (ED) activities and to highlight opportunities for improving the processes.

A descriptive analysis of the steps of the EUnetHTA ED process and evaluation of the data from the EDs conducted by EU health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, published guidelines, and documents, as well as internal statistics.

In JA3, an Early Dialogues Working Party (EDWP) was established, responsible for developing and improving processes and providing advice to pharmaceutical companies, supported by the ED Secretariat. From June 2017 to May 2021, 113 requests for pharmaceutical EDs were received and 38 conducted. The process was continuously optimized, and different approaches for involving patients were tested. Finally, a centralized procedure was chosen with the key documents produced by two responsible agencies and reviewed by the EDWP. Patient involvement was primarily done by interviewing a national patient representative to obtain general feedback on the disease and the planned study design.

During JA3, EDs were established as an efficient, successful product. Pharmaceutical companies benefited not only from the positions of the individual agencies for the national HTA, but also from the recommendations that were common to all HTA authorities. In addition, regarding the European HTA Regulation, it will be important to conduct Joint Scientific Consultations with a view toward future Joint Clinical Assessments and to further develop processes aligned with the high demand for consultation.

The term Postlaunch Evidence Generation (PLEG) refers to evidence generated after the launch or licensing of a health technology. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the implementation of these practices in the European Union in order to explore cross-border cooperation opportunities.

In December 2019, a survey composed of nine closed-ended questions with multiple choice answers about the PLEG practices in each country was sent to all twenty-five dedicated work package (WP5B) partners of the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action 3. In addition to the survey, the national practices were discussed during a face-to-face meeting with WP5B partners.

Twelve Health TechnologyAssessment (HTA) bodies completed the survey. Of these, eleven reported procedures in place for official requests for PLEGs in their remit. In the large majority of cases, the requests are made at the time of the assessment/appraisal. Several agencies participate in the definition of the scope of the PLEG or review of its protocol. Data collection and analysis mainly lie with companies for pharmaceuticals, whereas it is more the responsibility of the HTA bodies for medical devices. Only one agency owns the data and is able to exchange them without asking permission.

Most agencies recommend European collaboration on PLEG commence once the evidence gaps have been defined or during the production of the HTA report in the case of European joint assessment.

To review the development of economic evaluation guidelines (EEGs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with the goal of assisting those developing EEGs in LMICs.

We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EconLit, Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Library, and the gray literature until March 2021. We extracted data on the methods used in the EEG development process, the responsible party engaged, and the development team’s composition. We conducted a quality assessment, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems tool, and then carried out a relative comparison.

Fourteen EEGs and nine studies were identified. In ten countries, the Ministry of Health was responsible for handling the development process. The majority of LMICs who developed EEGs did not explicitly report the discipline of those involved in the process. The developers of EEGs followed four main steps: conducting a review on national guidelines, organizing workshops, and getting support from international experts or from organizations. One-third of the identified EEGs failed to engage multisectoral or multidisciplinary developers, and approximately 14 percent did not follow or report any recommended step.

This study identified a scarcity of published information related to the development process and the suboptimal quality of included studies. It provides relevant material to support international organizations and developers of guidelines in LMICs in developing EEGs that fit their national context. In addition, this paper recommends a transparent approach to the design of guidelines and to reporting on the methods for developing them.

This review intends to provide an overview of revealed preferences of decision-makers for recommendations of cancer drugs in health technology assessment (HTA) among the different agencies.

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to July 2020. The studies were eligible for inclusion if they conducted a quantitative analysis of HTA’s previous decisions for cancer drugs. The factors with p-values below the significance level of .05 were considered as the statistically significant factors for HTA decisions.

A total of nine studies for six agencies in Australia, Belgium, France, South Korea, the UK, and Canada were eligible to be included. From the univariable analysis, improvements in clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness were found as significant factors for the agencies in Belgium, South Korea, and Canada. From the multivariable analysis, cost-effectiveness was found as a positive factor for the agencies in the UK, South Korea, and Canada. Few factors related to characteristics of disease and technology were found to be significant among the included agencies.

Despite the different drug reimbursement systems and the socioeconomic situations, cost-effectiveness and/or improvement on clinical outcomes seemed to be the most important factors for recommendations of cancer drugs among the agencies.

Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap.

The joint Task Force consisted of fifteen members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to two rounds of peer review.

A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation.

The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by six phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

The extent to which value assessments are uniquely deployed in any given geographic setting is variable. Increasingly, markets are seeking insights from external health technology assessments (HTAs) to assist with decisions surrounding the adoption of new technologies. We reviewed the environment, infrastructure, and practice of value assessment in six countries, with a focus on how these elements influence the transferability of value assessments between settings.

We reviewed the diverse settings in which six organizations conducting HTA operate, and explored how differences might affect the transferability of value assessment. We focused attention on Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, China’s National Center for Medicine and HTA, Germany’s Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, Japan’s Center for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health (Core 2 Health), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England and Wales, and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review in the United States.

HTA is adopted to address unique objectives for a given health system and is tailored to support local standards and preferences. Some elements of a value assessment, such as evidence on clinical effectiveness, may be more transferable than others. It is challenging to appropriately adjust external assessments to the local context.

Contextual differences influence both the role and application of HTA. These differences limit the transferability of value assessments from one setting to another. De novo appraisals, customized to the local decision context, are the ideal approach to determinations about value.