IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v23y2022i5d10.1007_s10198-021-01400-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards compatibility of EUnetHTA JCA methodology and German HTA: a systematic comparison and recommendations from an industry perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Agnes Kisser

    (Pfizer Pharma GmbH)

  • Joschua Knieriemen

    (AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG)

  • Annette Fasan

    (AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH)

  • Karolin Eberle

    (AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH)

  • Sara Hogger

    (AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH)

  • Sebastian Werner

    (Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V.)

  • Tina Taube

    (Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V.)

  • Andrej Rasch

    (Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V.)

Abstract

Objective The transferability of the EU joint clinical assessment (JCA) reports for pharmaceuticals for the German benefit assessment was evaluated by systematically comparing EU JCA and German clinical assessments (CA) based on established assessment elements for HTA and assessing the potential impact of differences on Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) ability to derive the therapeutic added value. Methods Identification of all pharmaceuticals undergoing both, EU JCA and German CA between January 2016–June 2020. Qualitative review and data extraction from the assessments, assessment of methodological differences using a hierarchical model. Recommendations for harmonisation were developed and consented with pharmaceutical industry stakeholders. Results Differences with potentially major impact: (1) View on differing treatment algorithms and definition of corresponding subpopulations/respective comparators. (2) Clinical relevance of surrogate/intermediate endpoints. Inclusion of different/surrogate morbidity endpoints resulting in different relative effectiveness conclusions. (3) Tolerance of study interventions not used according to marketing authorisation. (4) Different operationalisation and/or weighting of individual safety endpoints leading to differing relative safety conclusions. Differences with potentially minor impact: (1) Disagreement in risk of bias assessment for overall survival and its robustness against study limitations. (2) Use of patient-reported outcome symptom scales as measurements for health-related quality of life instruments. Conclusion While many synergies between EU JCA and German CA exist, we identified several aspects in HTA methodology that would benefit of harmonisation and ensure the transferability of future EU JCA to the German HTA process without duplicated evaluation requirements. For those, a set of recommendations was developed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01400-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01400-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-021-01400-2
    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/s10198-021-01400-2?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Act on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (AMNOG); EUnetHTA; Relative effectiveness assessment; Health technology assessment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:23:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01400-2. 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.