PP131 欧洲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/s026646232300243x
Juergen Zschocke, Carolina Alonzo, Ding Ding, Jiat-Ling Poon, Lillbrith Vonarx, Arianna Avitabile, Shane Myrick, Jennifer Hill, Alberto Molero, Nancy Perez, Laure Delbecque
{"title":"PP131 欧洲医疗技术评估机构对患者体验数据的期望","authors":"Juergen Zschocke, Carolina Alonzo, Ding Ding, Jiat-Ling Poon, Lillbrith Vonarx, Arianna Avitabile, Shane Myrick, Jennifer Hill, Alberto Molero, Nancy Perez, Laure Delbecque","doi":"10.1017/s026646232300243x","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 describe the European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA) and HTA agencies expectations regarding PED to support reimbursement in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.</p><span>Methods</span><p>Published HTA guidance documents were reviewed to identify recommendations related to clinical outcomes assessment (COA) (including disease-specificity, validation, analyses, endpoints and interpretation) and other forms of PED (e.g., patient preference information) in HTA decision-making. Insights from guidance documents were supplemented with a review of literature and published HTA cases and interviews with key opinion leaders (KOLs) focused on current and future states.</p><span>Results</span><p>The German and French guidance documents include PED recommendations focused on relevant COA and health-related quality of life data, without detailing preferred COA measures. However, key differences were noted between these two countries in the methodological approaches regarding responder definitions, acceptable missing data threshold and multiplicity analyses. These differences were reinforced by the case studies and the KOLs. UK’s sources also focused on COA, in general proposing specific use of the EQ-5D to derive utility values for modelling, but included limited details on other PED-related elements. The Italian and Spanish guidance documents do not detail COA or other PED expectations, but the Italian KOL described that COA is considered if submitted. The currently developed EUnetHTA21 guidelines include PED-related information that bear the signature of certain individual HTA bodies. Globally, there is limited interest in PED beyond COA across the agencies.</p><span>Conclusions</span><p>The level of expectations with regards to PED varies across EUnetHTA and several European HTA agencies. Interest in PED derived from non-COA sources is limited across the countries. 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. Global harmonization would help advancing PED measurement standards.</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\":\"PP131 Health Technology Assessment Agencies’ Expectations Regarding Patient Experience Data in Europe\",\"authors\":\"Juergen Zschocke, Carolina Alonzo, Ding Ding, Jiat-Ling Poon, Lillbrith Vonarx, Arianna Avitabile, Shane Myrick, Jennifer Hill, Alberto Molero, Nancy Perez, Laure Delbecque\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s026646232300243x\",\"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 describe the European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA) and HTA agencies expectations regarding PED to support reimbursement in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.</p><span>Methods</span><p>Published HTA guidance documents were reviewed to identify recommendations related to clinical outcomes assessment (COA) (including disease-specificity, validation, analyses, endpoints and interpretation) and other forms of PED (e.g., patient preference information) in HTA decision-making. Insights from guidance documents were supplemented with a review of literature and published HTA cases and interviews with key opinion leaders (KOLs) focused on current and future states.</p><span>Results</span><p>The German and French guidance documents include PED recommendations focused on relevant COA and health-related quality of life data, without detailing preferred COA measures. However, key differences were noted between these two countries in the methodological approaches regarding responder definitions, acceptable missing data threshold and multiplicity analyses. These differences were reinforced by the case studies and the KOLs. UK’s sources also focused on COA, in general proposing specific use of the EQ-5D to derive utility values for modelling, but included limited details on other PED-related elements. The Italian and Spanish guidance documents do not detail COA or other PED expectations, but the Italian KOL described that COA is considered if submitted. The currently developed EUnetHTA21 guidelines include PED-related information that bear the signature of certain individual HTA bodies. Globally, there is limited interest in PED beyond COA across the agencies.</p><span>Conclusions</span><p>The level of expectations with regards to PED varies across EUnetHTA and several European HTA agencies. Interest in PED derived from non-COA sources is limited across the countries. 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. Global harmonization would help advancing PED measurement standards.</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/s026646232300243x\",\"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/s026646232300243x","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。本研究旨在描述欧洲HTA网络(EUnetHTA)和HTA机构对PED在法国、德国、意大利、西班牙和英国支持报销的期望。方法回顾已发表的HTA指导文件,以确定在HTA决策中与临床结果评估(COA)(包括疾病特异性、验证、分析、终点和解释)和其他形式的PED(如患者偏好信息)相关的建议。从指导文件中获得的见解补充了文献综述和已发表的HTA案例,并对关注当前和未来状态的关键意见领袖(kol)进行了采访。结果德国和法国的指导文件包括PED的建议,重点关注相关COA和健康相关生活质量数据,但没有详细说明首选的COA措施。但是,注意到这两个国家在关于答复者定义、可接受的缺失数据阈值和多重性分析的方法方法方面存在重大差异。这些差异被案例研究和kol强化了。英国的消息来源也侧重于COA,一般建议具体使用EQ-5D来获得建模的实用价值,但对其他ped相关元素的细节有限。意大利语和西班牙语指导文件没有详细说明COA或其他PED期望,但意大利语KOL描述了如果提交COA将被考虑。目前制定的EUnetHTA21指南包括与ped相关的信息,这些信息具有某些单独的HTA机构的签名。在全球范围内,除了COA之外,各机构对PED的兴趣有限。结论:对PED的期望水平在欧盟和几个欧洲HTA机构之间有所不同。各国对非coa来源的PED的兴趣有限。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。全球协调将有助于推进PED测量标准。
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
PP131 Health Technology Assessment Agencies’ Expectations Regarding Patient Experience Data in Europe
Introduction

Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are increasingly embracing patient experience data (PED) to support reimbursement decisions. This study aimed to describe the European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA) and HTA agencies expectations regarding PED to support reimbursement in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.

Methods

Published HTA guidance documents were reviewed to identify recommendations related to clinical outcomes assessment (COA) (including disease-specificity, validation, analyses, endpoints and interpretation) and other forms of PED (e.g., patient preference information) in HTA decision-making. Insights from guidance documents were supplemented with a review of literature and published HTA cases and interviews with key opinion leaders (KOLs) focused on current and future states.

Results

The German and French guidance documents include PED recommendations focused on relevant COA and health-related quality of life data, without detailing preferred COA measures. However, key differences were noted between these two countries in the methodological approaches regarding responder definitions, acceptable missing data threshold and multiplicity analyses. These differences were reinforced by the case studies and the KOLs. UK’s sources also focused on COA, in general proposing specific use of the EQ-5D to derive utility values for modelling, but included limited details on other PED-related elements. The Italian and Spanish guidance documents do not detail COA or other PED expectations, but the Italian KOL described that COA is considered if submitted. The currently developed EUnetHTA21 guidelines include PED-related information that bear the signature of certain individual HTA bodies. Globally, there is limited interest in PED beyond COA across the agencies.

Conclusions

The level of expectations with regards to PED varies across EUnetHTA and several European HTA agencies. Interest in PED derived from non-COA sources is limited across the countries. 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. Global harmonization would help advancing PED measurement standards.

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