PP132 澳大利亚、中国和日本的医疗技术评估机构对患者体验数据的期望

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI:10.1017/s0266462323002441
Carolina Alonzo, Ding Ding, Jiat-Ling Poon, Juergen Zschocke, Lei Zhang, Aranishi Toshihiko, Shane Myrick, Jennifer Hill, Louise Larkin, Nancy Perez, Laure Delbecque
{"title":"PP132 澳大利亚、中国和日本的医疗技术评估机构对患者体验数据的期望","authors":"Carolina Alonzo, Ding Ding, Jiat-Ling Poon, Juergen Zschocke, Lei Zhang, Aranishi Toshihiko, Shane Myrick, Jennifer Hill, Louise Larkin, Nancy Perez, Laure Delbecque","doi":"10.1017/s0266462323002441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span>Introduction</span><p>Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are increasingly embracing patient experience data (PED) to support reimbursement decisions. This study aimed to review HTA agencies’ expectations with regards to utilizing PED to support drug reimbursement in Australia, Japan, and China.</p><span>Methods</span><p>Published HTA guidance documents were reviewed in 2021 to identify any PED-specific information. If available, recommendations related to the type of PED (e.g., generic vs. disease-specific clinical outcomes assessment (COA)); COA validation, analyses, endpoints and interpretation; and the interest in PED beyond COA in HTA decision-making (e.g., patient preference information) were reviewed. Literature review and semi-structured interviews with key opinion leaders (KOLs) were conducted to further explore these themes and future trends with regards to PED.</p><span>Results</span><p>Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee guidance document includes a dedicated section on patient-reported outcomes (PRO), providing details on preferred PRO instruments; validation expectations; and recommended methods to explore score interpretation, assess and report PRO results and handle missing data. While PED derived from non-PRO sources are not discussed in the guidance, the KOL noted that they should not be ruled out. Japan’s Center for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health guideline includes a section dedicated to PROs without details related to instrument validation, analyses and interpretation, however, is focused on the use of PRO to inform health economic assessments. In China, the HTA center of China National Health Commission drafted two disease-specific technical guidance documents recommending the inclusion of PROs in efficacy assessments and use of instruments relevant in the Chinese population; these points were echoed by the KOL interviewed.</p><span>Conclusions</span><p>There are recommendations on PED use included in country-specific guidance documents, however their level of detail varies greatly. Knowing each agency’s expectations with regards to PED is key when submitting HTA evidence dossiers and should be considered early in clinical trial design to integrate market access perspectives and optimize drug development.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PP132 Health Technology Assessment Agencies’ Expectations Regarding Patient Experience Data in Australia, China, And Japan\",\"authors\":\"Carolina Alonzo, Ding Ding, Jiat-Ling Poon, Juergen Zschocke, Lei Zhang, Aranishi Toshihiko, Shane Myrick, Jennifer Hill, Louise Larkin, Nancy Perez, Laure Delbecque\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0266462323002441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span>Introduction</span><p>Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are increasingly embracing patient experience data (PED) to support reimbursement decisions. This study aimed to review HTA agencies’ expectations with regards to utilizing PED to support drug reimbursement in Australia, Japan, and China.</p><span>Methods</span><p>Published HTA guidance documents were reviewed in 2021 to identify any PED-specific information. If available, recommendations related to the type of PED (e.g., generic vs. disease-specific clinical outcomes assessment (COA)); COA validation, analyses, endpoints and interpretation; and the interest in PED beyond COA in HTA decision-making (e.g., patient preference information) were reviewed. Literature review and semi-structured interviews with key opinion leaders (KOLs) were conducted to further explore these themes and future trends with regards to PED.</p><span>Results</span><p>Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee guidance document includes a dedicated section on patient-reported outcomes (PRO), providing details on preferred PRO instruments; validation expectations; and recommended methods to explore score interpretation, assess and report PRO results and handle missing data. While PED derived from non-PRO sources are not discussed in the guidance, the KOL noted that they should not be ruled out. Japan’s Center for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health guideline includes a section dedicated to PROs without details related to instrument validation, analyses and interpretation, however, is focused on the use of PRO to inform health economic assessments. In China, the HTA center of China National Health Commission drafted two disease-specific technical guidance documents recommending the inclusion of PROs in efficacy assessments and use of instruments relevant in the Chinese population; these points were echoed by the KOL interviewed.</p><span>Conclusions</span><p>There are recommendations on PED use included in country-specific guidance documents, however their level of detail varies greatly. Knowing each agency’s expectations with regards to PED is key when submitting HTA evidence dossiers and should be considered early in clinical trial design to integrate market access perspectives and optimize drug development.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462323002441\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462323002441","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

卫生技术评估(HTA)机构越来越多地采用患者体验数据(PED)来支持报销决策。本研究旨在回顾澳大利亚、日本和中国HTA机构对利用PED支持药品报销的期望。方法于2021年审查已发表的HTA指导文件,以确定任何ped特异性信息。如有可能,提供与PED类型相关的建议(例如,通用与疾病特异性临床结果评估(COA));COA验证、分析、终点和解释;以及在HTA决策(例如,患者偏好信息)中对PED的兴趣超出COA。我们进行了文献综述和对关键意见领袖(kol)的半结构化访谈,以进一步探讨PED的这些主题和未来趋势。结果澳大利亚药品福利咨询委员会的指导文件包括一个关于患者报告结果(PRO)的专门部分,提供了首选PRO仪器的详细信息;验证预期;并推荐了探索分数解释、评估和报告PRO结果以及处理缺失数据的方法。虽然指南中没有讨论来自非专业人士来源的PED,但KOL指出不应排除它们。日本的卫生成果研究和经济评价中心指南中有一节专门介绍了PRO,但没有详细介绍与仪器验证、分析和解释有关的内容,但侧重于使用PRO为卫生经济评估提供信息。在中国,中国国家卫生健康委员会HTA中心起草了两份针对特定疾病的技术指导文件,建议将pro纳入疗效评估并使用与中国人群相关的仪器;这些观点得到了受访KOL的认同。结论各国的指导文件中包含了关于PED使用的建议,但其详细程度差异很大。在提交HTA证据档案时,了解每个机构对PED的期望是关键,应该在临床试验设计的早期考虑,以整合市场准入观点并优化药物开发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
PP132 Health Technology Assessment Agencies’ Expectations Regarding Patient Experience Data in Australia, China, And Japan
Introduction

Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are increasingly embracing patient experience data (PED) to support reimbursement decisions. This study aimed to review HTA agencies’ expectations with regards to utilizing PED to support drug reimbursement in Australia, Japan, and China.

Methods

Published HTA guidance documents were reviewed in 2021 to identify any PED-specific information. If available, recommendations related to the type of PED (e.g., generic vs. disease-specific clinical outcomes assessment (COA)); COA validation, analyses, endpoints and interpretation; and the interest in PED beyond COA in HTA decision-making (e.g., patient preference information) were reviewed. Literature review and semi-structured interviews with key opinion leaders (KOLs) were conducted to further explore these themes and future trends with regards to PED.

Results

Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee guidance document includes a dedicated section on patient-reported outcomes (PRO), providing details on preferred PRO instruments; validation expectations; and recommended methods to explore score interpretation, assess and report PRO results and handle missing data. While PED derived from non-PRO sources are not discussed in the guidance, the KOL noted that they should not be ruled out. Japan’s Center for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health guideline includes a section dedicated to PROs without details related to instrument validation, analyses and interpretation, however, is focused on the use of PRO to inform health economic assessments. In China, the HTA center of China National Health Commission drafted two disease-specific technical guidance documents recommending the inclusion of PROs in efficacy assessments and use of instruments relevant in the Chinese population; these points were echoed by the KOL interviewed.

Conclusions

There are recommendations on PED use included in country-specific guidance documents, however their level of detail varies greatly. Knowing each agency’s expectations with regards to PED is key when submitting HTA evidence dossiers and should be considered early in clinical trial design to integrate market access perspectives and optimize drug development.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
15.60%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.
期刊最新文献
Development of an MCDA Framework for Rare Disease Reimbursement Prioritization in Malaysia. Experiences of patient organizations' involvement in medicine appraisal and reimbursement processes in Finland - a qualitative study. PP78 Real-World Trends And Medical Costs Of Stroke After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation In Korea: A Nationwide, Population-Based Study Can requests for real-world evidence by the French HTA body be planned? An exhaustive retrospective case-control study of medicinal products appraisals from 2016 to 2021. A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness of immunoglobulin treatment in patients with hematological malignancies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1