IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v21y2020i6d10.1007_s10198-020-01180-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determination of the target population in early benefit assessments in Germany: challenges for non-small-cell lung cancer

Author

Listed:
  • C. Thoren

    (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG))

  • C. Balg

    (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG))

  • J. Gibbert

    (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG))

  • S. Mostardt

    (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG))

  • M. Ripoll

    (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG))

  • D. Schierbaum

    (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG))

  • S. Schiller

    (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG))

  • A. Schwalm

    (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG))

Abstract

Objectives Dossiers submitted for early benefit assessments in Germany also provide information on the precise determination of the target population (patients eligible for a drug). The situation is complex for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to highly specific therapeutic indications. Our aim was to compare the different methodological steps applied to determine the target population in dossiers on drugs for NSCLC. Methods We analysed NSCLC dossiers assessed by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) between 01.01.2011 and 31.12.2017. Methodological details regarding the determination of the target population were extracted and compared. Results We analysed 23 NSCLC dossiers. In all dossiers, the target population was determined using the number of all patients with lung cancer as the basis for calculations. This patient population was further reduced in several successive steps by assuming proportions of patients with a specific characteristic (e.g. disease stage). The most important calculation steps were patients with NSCLC (n = 23 dossiers), with a specific disease stage (n = 23), with a specific tumour mutation (n = 14), with a specific tumour histology (n = 7), without prior treatment (n = 15), with pretreatment in second or further treatment lines (n = 17), and/or with specific pretreatments (n = 9). The proportions of patients determined within the same calculation step varied considerably between dossiers. Discussion The calculation methods applied and the target population sizes reported in NSCLC dossiers vary considerably. A consensus with regard to the databases and calculation methods used to determine the target population in NSCLC would be helpful to reduce variations.

Suggested Citation

  • C. Thoren & C. Balg & J. Gibbert & S. Mostardt & M. Ripoll & D. Schierbaum & S. Schiller & A. Schwalm, 2020. "Determination of the target population in early benefit assessments in Germany: challenges for non-small-cell lung cancer," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(6), pages 881-893, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01180-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01180-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-020-01180-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-020-01180-1?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. Hörn, Helmut & Nink, Katrin & McGauran, Natalie & Wieseler, Beate, 2014. "Early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany – Results from 2011 to 2012," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 147-153.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    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:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01180-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.