Sarah Kleijnen1, Mohammed Fathallah2, Michiel W van der Linden3, Piet Vancraeynest4, Bachir Dahmani5, Angela Timoney6, Anthonius De Boer7, Hubertus G Leufkens7, Wim G Goettsch8. 1. National Health Care Institute, Diemen, Netherlands; Faculty of Science, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht, Netherlands. Electronic address: skleijnen@zinl.nl. 2. University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. 3. National Health Care Institute, Diemen, Netherlands. 4. National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance, Brussels, Belgium. 5. National Authority for Health, Paris, France. 6. Scottish Medicines Consortium and Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom. 7. Faculty of Science, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht, Netherlands. 8. National Health Care Institute, Diemen, Netherlands; Faculty of Science, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Agnes Kisser; Joschua Knieriemen; Annette Fasan; Karolin Eberle; Sara Hogger; Sebastian Werner; Tina Taube; Andrej Rasch Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2021-11-12