IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v122y2018i6p599-606.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Confirmatory versus explorative endpoint analysis: Decision-making on the basis of evidence available from market authorization and early benefit assessment for oncology drugs

Author

Listed:
  • Niehaus, Ines
  • Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos

Abstract

The early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany and their preceding market authorization pursue different objectives. This is reflected by the inclusion of varying confirmatory endpoints within the evaluation of oncology drugs in early benefit assessment versus market authorization, with both relying on the same evidence. Data from assessments up to July 2015 are used to estimate the impact of explorative in comparison to confirmatory endpoints on market authorization and early benefit assessment by contrasting the benefit-risk ratio of EMA and the benefit-harm balance of the HTA jurisdiction. Agreement between market authorization and early benefit assessment is examined by Cohen’s kappa (k). 21 of 41 assessments were considered in the analysis. Market authorization is more confirmatory than early benefit assessment because it includes a higher proportion of primary endpoints. The latter implies a primary endpoint to be relevant for the benefit-harm balance in only 67% of cases (0.078). Explorative mortality endpoints reached the highest agreement regarding the mutual consideration for the risk-benefit ratio and the benefit-harm balance (0.000). For explorative morbidity endpoints (−0.600), quality of life (−0.600) and side effects (−0.949) no agreement is ascertainable. To warrant a broader confirmatory basis for decisions supported by HTA, closer inter-institutional cooperation of approval authorities and HTA jurisdictions by means of reliable joint advice for manufacturers regarding endpoint definition would be favorable.

Suggested Citation

  • Niehaus, Ines & Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos, 2018. "Confirmatory versus explorative endpoint analysis: Decision-making on the basis of evidence available from market authorization and early benefit assessment for oncology drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 599-606.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:122:y:2018:i:6:p:599-606
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.03.017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016885101830071X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.03.017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Inna Dabisch & Jürgen Dethling & Charalabos-Markos Dintsios & Melanie Drechsler & Daniel Kalanovic & Peter Kaskel & Frank Langer & Jörg Ruof & Thorsten Ruppert & Daniel Wirth, 2014. "Patient relevant endpoints in oncology: current issues in the context of early benefit assessment in Germany," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Jörg Ruof & Friedrich Schwartz & J.-Matthias Schulenburg & Charalabos-Markos Dintsios, 2014. "Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(6), pages 577-589, July.
    3. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth & Heisser, Thomas & Stargardt, Tom, 2016. "Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1115-1122.
    4. Ruof, Jörg & Knoerzer, Dietrich & Dünne, Anja-Alexandra & Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos & Staab, Thomas & Schwartz, Friedrich Wilhelm, 2014. "Analysis of endpoints used in marketing authorisations versus value assessments of oncology medicines in Germany," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 242-254.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Agnes Kisser & Joschua Knieriemen & Annette Fasan & Karolin Eberle & Sara Hogger & Sebastian Werner & Tina Taube & Andrej Rasch, 2022. "Towards compatibility of EUnetHTA JCA methodology and German HTA: a systematic comparison and recommendations from an industry perspective," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(5), pages 863-878, July.
    2. Matthias Herpers & Charalabos-Markos Dintsios, 2019. "Methodological problems in the method used by IQWiG within early benefit assessment of new pharmaceuticals in Germany," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 45-57, February.
    3. C. M. Dintsios & F. Worm & J. Ruof & M. Herpers, 2019. "Different interpretation of additional evidence for HTA by the commissioned HTA body and the commissioning decision maker in Germany: whenever IQWiG and Federal Joint Committee disagree," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruof, Jörg & Knoerzer, Dietrich & Dünne, Anja-Alexandra & Dintsios, Charalabos-Markos & Staab, Thomas & Schwartz, Friedrich Wilhelm, 2014. "Analysis of endpoints used in marketing authorisations versus value assessments of oncology medicines in Germany," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 242-254.
    2. C. M. Dintsios & I. Beinhauer, 2020. "The impact of additive or substitutive clinical study design on the negotiated reimbursement for oncology pharmaceuticals after early benefit assessment in Germany," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, December.
    3. Jörg Ruof & Thomas Staab & Charalabos-Markos Dintsios & Jakob Schröter & Friedrich Wilhelm Schwartz, 2016. "Comparison of post-authorisation measures from regulatory authorities with additional evidence requirements from the HTA body in Germany – are additional data requirements by the Federal Joint Committ," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Visintin, Erica & Tinelli, Michela & Kanavos, Panos, 2019. "Value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: HTA evidence from seven OECD countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 118-129.
    5. Matthias Herpers & Charalabos-Markos Dintsios, 2019. "Methodological problems in the method used by IQWiG within early benefit assessment of new pharmaceuticals in Germany," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 45-57, February.
    6. Christine Blome & Matthias Augustin & Hidayet Metin & David Lohrberg, 2017. "Four years of early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany: a qualitative study on methodological requirements for quality of life data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(2), pages 181-193, March.
    7. Wranik, Wiesława Dominika & Zielińska, Dorota Anna & Gambold, Liesl & Sevgur, Serperi, 2019. "Threats to the value of Health Technology Assessment: Qualitative evidence from Canada and Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 191-202.
    8. Chris Skedgel & Dominika Wranik & Min Hu, 2018. "The Relative Importance of Clinical, Economic, Patient Values and Feasibility Criteria in Cancer Drug Reimbursement in Canada: A Revealed Preferences Analysis of Recommendations of the Pan-Canadian On," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 467-475, April.
    9. Hostenkamp, Gisela & Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth & Borch-Johnsen, Knut, 2016. "Drug safety and the impact of drug warnings: An interrupted time series analysis of diabetes drug prescriptions in Germany and Denmark," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(12), pages 1404-1411.
    10. Oriana Ciani & Bogdan Grigore & Hedwig Blommestein & Saskia de Groot & Meilin Möllenkamp & Stefan Rabbe & Rita Daubner-Bendes & Rod S. Taylor, 2021. "Validity of Surrogate Endpoints and Their Impact on Coverage Recommendations: A Retrospective Analysis across International Health Technology Assessment Agencies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(4), pages 439-452, May.
    11. Blankart, Carl Rudolf & Dams, Florian & Penton, Hannah & Kaló, Zoltán & Zemplényi, Antal & Shatrov, Kosta & Iskandar, Rowan & Federici, Carlo, 2021. "Regulatory and HTA early dialogues in medical devices," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(10), pages 1322-1329.
    12. Mills, Mackenzie & Kanavos, Panos, 2022. "How do HTA agencies perceive conditional approval of medicines? Evidence from England, Scotland, France and Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(11), pages 1130-1143.
    13. Anderson, Michael & Drummond, Michael & Taylor, David & McGuire, Alistair & Carter, Paul & Mossialos, Elias, 2022. "Promoting innovation while controlling cost: The UK's approach to health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 224-233.
    14. Omer Ben-Aharon & Oren Shavit & Racheli Magnezi, 2017. "Does drug price-regulation affect healthcare expenditures?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(7), pages 859-867, September.
    15. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth & Heisser, Thomas & Stargardt, Tom, 2016. "Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: An international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1115-1122.
    16. Ingo Stiller & Arjen Witteloostuijn & Bart Cambré, 2021. "Do current radical innovation measures actually measure radical drug innovation?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1049-1078, February.
    17. Stephan Eger & Jörg Mahlich, 2014. "Pharmaceutical regulation in Europe and its impact on corporate R&D," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    18. Bogdan Grigore & Oriana Ciani & Florian Dams & Carlo Federici & Saskia Groot & Meilin Möllenkamp & Stefan Rabbe & Kosta Shatrov & Antal Zemplenyi & Rod S. Taylor, 2020. "Surrogate Endpoints in Health Technology Assessment: An International Review of Methodological Guidelines," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(10), pages 1055-1070, October.
    19. Ulrike Theidel & J-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg, 2016. "Benefit assessment in Germany: implications for price discounts," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
    20. Chassagnol, F & Marcelli, G & Wagle, J & Giuliani, G & Traub, D & Schaub, V & Ruof, J, 2020. "Review of Relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of pharmaceuticals at the European network for health technology assessment (EUnetHTA): A first step towards a consolidated European perspective on ," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(9), pages 943-951.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:122:y:2018:i:6:p:599-606. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.