Contact Us

Home

About us

Services

AI Excellence

case studies

publications

HEOR Certificationheor Certification

AI for Medical Writing

Contact

  • Expanding Horizons: Capturing the Full Societal Value of Healthcare Interventions

    Expanding Horizons: Capturing the Full Societal Value of Healthcare Interventions
    Expanding Horizons Capturing the Full Societal Value of Healthcare Interventions

    Healthcare interventions have traditionally been assessed primarily within the confines of the healthcare system. However, the ripple effects of these interventions extend far beyond, influencing various aspects of society, including economic productivity, educational attainment, and overall societal well-being. Recognizing and quantifying these broader impacts is crucial for a more comprehensive evaluation of healthcare interventions, leading to more informed decision-making and optimal resource allocation. Achieving this requires not only refined analytical methods but also stronger intersectoral collaborations, fostering coordinated efforts between healthcare, education, employment, social welfare, and economic sectors to ensure that data, insights, and strategies are shared across domains for maximum societal benefit.[1]

    The role of health in human capital cannot be overstated. A healthy population exhibits higher productivity, increased labor force participation, and enhanced income generation. This results in higher tax revenues and greater government spending on social programs, emphasizing the critical importance of healthcare interventions in fostering economic prosperity and societal well-being.[1]

    Health technology assessments (HTAs) are essential in determining the value of healthcare interventions. They assess the benefits and costs of new technologies, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and procedures, with the aim of informing decisions about their use and reimbursement. However, traditional HTA approaches often overlook significant benefits or harms associated with healthcare interventions that extend beyond the healthcare system itself. For instance, a treatment that reduces disability and improves productivity among patients can generate economic gains by reducing long-term disability costs, stimulating job creation, and fostering economic growth in related sectors. Yet, these broader economic impacts frequently escape the traditional HTA analysis framework. Neglecting such economic impacts in HTA evaluations may undervalue the true worth of interventions and hinder informed decision-making.[2-4]

    To address these limitations, a conceptual framework has been introduced to estimate and reward the broader value of healthcare interventions. This framework employs a multifaceted approach, acknowledging direct health benefits and indirect effects on sectors like education, employment, and social services. Crucially, this framework emphasizes intersectoral collaboration, enabling healthcare decision-makers to work closely with stakeholders from education, labor, and social service sectors to capture the full range of impacts healthcare interventions generate. Such collaboration ensures that the societal value of interventions is fully understood and appropriately weighted.[5]

    It integrates conventional cost-effectiveness analysis, macroeconomic methods, and a voting scheme to capture and evaluate the broader economic and societal impacts of healthcare interventions. Incorporating patient-centred value assessments within this framework can further enhance its comprehensiveness by capturing outcomes that matter most to patients, such as improvements in quality of life, functional independence, and satisfaction with care. Patient-reported outcomes, patient preferences, and lived experiences offer invaluable insights that ground this broader evaluation framework in the real-world priorities of the individuals it seeks to serve.

    The distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA), which is considered as a patient-centric and equitable CEA, assesses how healthcare interventions affect different population subgroups and their equitable distribution of outcomes. While DCEA enhances HTA by considering patient-centered outcomes and equity, it stops short of capturing the broader societal impacts of health technologies. Therefore, it is recommended to augment DCEA with macroeconomic analysis to comprehensively assess the societal value of healthcare interventions.Incorporating patient-centered value assessment into DCEA would further enhance its utility by integrating both equity and personal value perspectives, ensuring that interventions deliver meaningful benefits across diverse population groups. [6]

    The input-output model is a macroeconomic analysis tool traditionally used and can be effectively utilized to evaluate the extensive economic effects of healthcare interventions. This model helps to map out how different sectors of the economy interact and shows the far-reaching impact of healthcare beyond its immediate environment. By fostering intersectoral collaboration between healthcare economists, labor economists, and policymakers, input-output modeling can become even more effective in capturing cross-sector impacts, such as changes in workforce participation, educational attainment, and social service utilization. This quantitative model advocates for a holistic appreciation of healthcare’s contributions, advocating for policies that recognize and reward the full spectrum of impacts across the economy.[7]

    Ali et al. (2024) introduced a structured voting scheme to guide intervention decisions by weighing health benefits against broader impacts. A voting scheme guides intervention adoption decisions, balancing health benefits against broader impacts. It categorizes interventions into four quadrants based on net health and broader impact balances, aiding decision-makers in prioritizing interventions that maximize societal benefits. Quadrant I, the ideal choice, (positive net health benefits + net broader impact) represents interventions that provide the highest value for money, actively sought after by organizations and individuals striving to maximize the impact of their allocated resources. Quadrant II (positive net health benefits + negative net broader impact), these interventions are pursued when the augmented net health benefits outweigh the negative broader impacts, justifying the investment in the intervention. Conversely, Quadrant III (negative net health benefit + negative net broader impact) interventions are deemed inadequate choices, as they engender detrimental outcomes. Options within this quadrant should be unequivocally rejected due to their deleterious effects. Lastly, Quadrant IV (negative net health benefit + positive net broader impact) includes interventions that may be pursued when the positive societal impacts outweigh the negative augmented net health benefits [5].

    The voting scheme is designed to integrate interdisciplinary perspectives from multiple stakeholders, including patients, healthcare providers, policymakers, researchers, advocacy groups, payors, and community representatives, ensuring a balanced and inclusive approach to decision-making. The votes are cast to determine the adoption of interventions, facilitating a democratic and transparent process, where the diverse values and priorities of the community are reflected in the final choices.

    For example, Reset-O, a US FDA-approved prescription digital therapeutic for opioid use disorder, has been shown to not only improve patient outcomes by reducing opioid use, but also to generate broader societal benefits, such as reducing health inequity and improving employment rates among treated individuals. This highlights the importance of evaluating both direct health benefits and wider economic and social outcomes when assessing healthcare interventions.[5] Similarly, large-scale vaccination programs have demonstrated positive impacts far beyond healthcare, improving school attendance rates, enhancing labor productivity, and reducing household economic vulnerability. Comprehensive mental health programs have similarly shown to improve employment retention, reduce criminal justice system involvement, and strengthen family stability. Such practical examples highlight the importance of evaluating both direct health benefits and wider economic and social outcomes when assessing healthcare interventions.[5]

    In conclusion, broadening the evaluation of healthcare interventions to encompass impacts beyond the healthcare sector is essential for a comprehensive understanding of their true value. By integrating frameworks like DCEA, input-output models, and inclusive voting schemes, we can better capture the extensive economic and societal benefits these interventions offer. This holistic approach not only promotes more informed decision-making but also ensures that the contributions of healthcare interventions are fully recognized and rewarded, ultimately leading to enhanced well-being and economic growth across society.

    Become A Certified HEOR Professional – Enrol yourself here!

    References:

    1. Bleakley H. Health, human capital, and development. Annu. Rev. Econ.. 2010 Sep 4;2(1):283-310.
    2. Goodman CS. HTA 101 Introduction to health technology assessment. 2014.
    3. Richardson J, Schlander M. Health technology assessment (HTA) and economic evaluation: efficiency or fairness first. Journal of market access & health policy. 2019 Jan;7(1):1557981.
    4. Angelis A, Lange A, Kanavos P. Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. The European Journal of Health Economics. 2018 Jan;19:123-52.
    5. Ali AA, Kulkarni A, Bhattacharjee S, Diaby V. Estimating and Rewarding the Value of Healthcare Interventions Beyond the Healthcare Sector: A Conceptual Framework. PharmacoEconomics. 2024 May 17:1-4.
    6. Asaria M, Griffin S, Cookson R. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: a tutorial. Medical Decision Making. 2016 Jan;36(1):8-19.
    7. Leontief W. National economic planning: methods and problems. Challenge. 1976 Jul 1;19(3):6-11.

    MarksMan Healthcare

    , , ,

  • Enhancing Credibility in Real-World Evidence Generation through SPACE and SPIFD Frameworks

    Enhancing Credibility in Real-World Evidence Generation through SPACE and SPIFD Frameworks
    Enhancing Credibility in Real-World Evidence Generation through SPACE and SPIFD Frameworks

    Over time, real-world evidence (RWE) has transitioned from a supplementary tool to a key driver in healthcare decision-making, bridging the gap between clinical trials and real-world practice. Recognized by regulatory bodies like the FDA, EMA, NICE, and CADTH, RWE offers insights into intervention effectiveness and safety across diverse populations. However, challenges persist, including credibility concerns highlighted by flawed COVID-19 studies, emphasizing the need for transparent, relevant data selection. To address this, frameworks like SPACE and SPIFD provide structured methodologies to enhance the design, data selection, and credibility of RWE.[1,2]

    Since 2021, regulatory and HTA bodies have published new or updated guidelines, necessitating rationalization and transparency of real-world study design and data source selection to ensure fitness-for-purpose in addressing specific research questions. Researchers have, therefore, been exploring tools to meet these standards. Among them is the Structured Preapproval and Postapproval Comparative Study Design Framework to Generate Valid and Transparent Real-World Evidence (SPACE) tool, introduced in 2019.[3,4]

    This SPACE framework provides a step-by-step process for identifying elements of real-world study design, minimal criteria to ensure feasibility and validity of data, and documentation of study design decisions, including the planned analysis. This structured approach significantly mitigates bias in research by ensuring that every aspect of the study design is systematically planned and documented, thereby supporting the initial steps in study design to identify suitable data or draft protocol documents.[3,5]

    The SPACE framework consists of several key steps that guide researchers through designing credible real-world studies. The first step involves formulating a clear research question that focuses on addressing specific healthcare needs. This is followed by identifying relevant study designs that align with the research question to ensure valid comparisons. Next, researchers assess the feasibility and validity of data sources by evaluating whether they can provide reliable information for answering the research question. Finally, all decision-making processes are documented comprehensively to enhance transparency and reproducibility throughout the study design process.

    In 2021, the Structured Process to Identify Fit-for-Purpose Data (SPIFD) was introduced as an extension to the SPACE framework. SPIFD offers a comprehensive, step-by-step process for conducting and documenting systematic data feasibility assessments to ensure data fitness for the research question. By thoroughly assessing the data sources, SPIFD enhances transparency and validity in data selection, crucially reducing bias by ensuring that only the most suitable data sources are used. Together, SPACE and SPIFD frameworks facilitate valid and transparent real-world comparative study design, planned analysis, and data selection, meeting the stringent standards required by regulators, HTAs, and payers.[6]

    The SPIFD framework also follows a structured methodology with specific steps to ensure appropriate data selection for RWE studies. First, researchers conduct systematic assessments of potential data sources to evaluate their suitability for addressing the research question. They then evaluate these sources for relevance, quality, and completeness to ensure they meet necessary standards for generating credible evidence. Finally, alignment with regulatory requirements is ensured so that selected datasets comply with applicable guidelines from regulatory bodies like FDA or EMA.[3,5]

    One of the most significant roles of the SPACE framework in generating credible RWE data is its focus on minimizing bias through meticulous study design. Adopting a target trial approach allows researchers to simulate the conditions of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the context of real-world setting. This practice ensures that the selected study design closely replicates the ideal experimental conditions, and helps to identify and address potential sources of bias at early stages of a study design process. Thus, enhancing the validity of results and making the evidence more reliable for decision-making.[4]

    Furthermore, the framework of SPIFD places immense emphasis on systematic assessment of data feasibility. This means that only data fit for the intended purpose shall be used for studies of real-world settings. SPIFD also aids researchers in selecting the most relevant datasets for their studies, by rigorously evaluating candidate data sources for their relevance, quality, and completeness. This thorough vetting process not only enhances transparency in the selection of data but also ensures that the resulting evidence is strong and credible. This alignment with stringent regulatory and HTA standards fosters greater confidence in the use of RWE for critical healthcare decisions.[6]

    To evaluate the effectiveness of studies designed using these frameworks, researchers can rely on several key metrics. For example, tracking the “percentage of relevant data sources identified” during feasibility assessments provides insights into how effectively suitable datasets were pinpointed. Similarly, monitoring the “number of potential biases mitigated” during study design helps gauge how well frameworks like SPACE address methodological challenges early on. These metrics provide tangible measures of success when applying these frameworks to RWE studies while ensuring alignment with regulatory expectations.[6]

    In 2023, the introduction of SPIFD2 marked a significant advancement by consolidating both the design and data aspects of the original SPACE and SPIFD templates. SPIFD2 ensures that users specify the correct real-world data (RWD) study design before assessing the feasibility of candidate data sources. This comprehensive framework captures potential sources of bias that may arise in the real-world emulation of the target trial, providing a robust mechanism for enhancing the credibility of RWE. By addressing both study design and data assessment in a unified framework, SPIFD2 offers a holistic approach to mitigate bias and improve the reliability of real-world studies.[3]

    In conclusion, the SPACE and SPIFD frameworks represent pivotal advancements in the field of real-world evidence generation, offering structured methodologies to tackle the complexities and challenges inherent in RWE studies. Where SPACE facilitates rigorous study design by adopting a target trial approach, the SPIFD framework ensures the selection of fit-for-purpose data through systematic assessment. By guiding study design and data source selection, these frameworks ensure that RWE studies are rigorous, transparent, and aligned with regulatory and HTA standards. The introduction of SPIFD2 in 2023 further enhances these frameworks, aligning them with evolving regulatory and HTA requirements. This unified approach improves the reliability and relevance of RWE, empowering informed healthcare decisions and advancing patient outcomes.

    Become A Certified HEOR Professional – Enrol yourself here!

    References:

    1. White R. Building trust in real world evidence (RWE): moving transparency in RWE towards the randomized controlled trial standard. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2023 Dec 2;39(12):1737-41.
    2. Winterstein AG, Ehrenstein V, Brown JS, Stürmer T, Smith MY. A road map for peer review of real-world evidence studies on safety and effectiveness of treatments. Diabetes Care. 2023 Aug 1;46(8):1448-54.
    3. Gatto NM, Vititoe SE, Rubinstein E, Reynolds RF, Campbell UB. A structured process to identify fit‐for‐purpose study design and data to generate valid and transparent real‐world evidence for regulatory uses. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2023 Jun;113(6):1235-9.
    4. Gatto NM, Reynolds RF, Campbell UB. A structured preapproval and postapproval comparative study design framework to generate valid and transparent real‐world evidence for regulatory decisions. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2019 Jul;106(1):103-15.
    5. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. American journal of epidemiology. 2016 Apr 15;183(8):758-64.
    6. Gatto NM, Campbell UB, Rubinstein E, Jaksa A, Mattox P, Mo J, Reynolds RF. The structured process to identify fit‐for‐purpose data: a data feasibility assessment framework. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2022 Jan;111(1):122-34.

    MarksMan Healthcare

    , , ,

  • EU HTAR: Shaping the Future of Health Technology Assessment in the European Union

    EU HTAR: Shaping the Future of Health Technology Assessment in the European Union
    EU HTAR: Shaping the Future of Health Technology Assessment in the European Union

    Health technology assessment (HTA) is pivotal in the intricate landscape of today’s contemporary healthcare system. By meticulously and transparently consolidating data regarding the application of innovative technologies, HTA contributes to safeguarding patient safety, enhancing effectiveness, and maximizing overall value of healthcare services. This evidence-driven methodology supports informed decision-making and the formulation of health policies, ultimately resulting in the best possible outcomes. The Health Technology Assessment Regulation (HTAR) established by the European Union (EU) represents a significant advancement by creating a cohesive HTA framework across the EU.[1]

    Enacted by the European Commission, this pioneer legislation will provide a single unified framework for the evaluation of medical novelties across the member states, which ensures their safety and accessibility in order to bring about breakthroughs in patient care. The EU HTAR became effective in December 2021 and shall fully come into function from January 2025. It is not just a mere update in the procedures of HTA, but a strategic shift towards an effective healthcare system in the EU. Conceived to unify fragmented HTAs, it streamlines processes to eliminate redundancies and expedite the delivery of cutting-edge health technologies to patients. By fostering innovation and ensuring faster access to treatments, the EU HTAR establishes a common framework for collaboration among national HTA bodies in the EU, enhancing market access for healthcare technologies across Europe.[2-4] The journey of the EU HTAR began in 2018, culminating in its adoption in December 2021. Among the key features of the EU HTAR are the Joint Clinical Assessments (JCA), Joint Scientific Consultations (JSC), horizon scanning activities, and voluntary cooperation in areas outside the scope of mandatory cooperation.[5]

    The JCA is a joint initiative of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with national HTA agencies, aiming at assessing clinical benefit and evaluating the cost-effectiveness of drugs with a view to their pricing and reimbursement at the national level. The JSC, on the other hand, streamlines logistics to maximize gains by optimizing opportunities for mutual understanding between regulators and HTAs. This promotes optimal and robust evidence generation fit-for-purpose for both regulators and HTA bodies, ultimately resulting in benefits for public health by enabling access to medicines that are effective for European patients.[6-7]

    The long-awaited draft implementing act on procedural rules for JCA of medicinal products was published in March 2024 confirming the timelines and procedures previously laid out by the European Commission. The implementing regulation specifies that to allow sufficient time for a high-quality JCA, the clinical assessment should be initiated at the same time as the marketing authorization procedure, specifically upon the EMA’s confirmation of a valid submission of an application for marketing authorization. Additionally, the final JCA report shall also be endorsed by the HTA Coordination Group (HTACG) no later than 30 days after the date of adoption of the European Commission decision granting marketing authorization for the medicinal product under evaluation. If changes occur during the regulatory process, such as changes in the therapeutic indication compared to the initially submitted one or a variation to the terms of existing marketing authorization, timelines for the JCA may be significantly delayed, depending on the extent of the impact of such changes.[8]

    Implementing the EU HTAR presents challenges, such as harmonizing methodologies and ensuring the active participation of all stakeholders in the JCA and JSC processes. For pharmaceutical and medical device makers, the regulation implies a pivot towards a more centralized European procedure for clinical evidence evaluation, impacting how they approach data generation and submission for the HTA process. There could also be some important challenges brought to the pharmaceutical manufacturers by the virtue of the new EU legislation. One major concern is the potentially onerous data requirements, which include multiple PICOs criteria (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome) for off-label treatments. One of the most important challenges that should be expected is the management of timelines because the final PICOs will only be known about 90 days prior to the JCA submission deadline, which typically leaves very little time to complete the evidence-generation process through meticulous and resource-intensive procedures such as systematic literature reviews, indirect treatment comparisons, and cost-effectiveness analysis using complex pharmacoeconomic models. This means that early engagement with local affiliates and key external stakeholders (payers, healthcare providers, patient organizations) will be crucial to understanding differences in clinical practice between Member States that will impact the scope of work.[9]

    Concerns have been raised about the impact on smaller companies and the overall attractiveness of Europe for investment in healthcare innovation. The workload and limited engagement with industry during the development of the JCA process present a paradox: while the original goal was to reduce the overall workload, it might have the opposite effect, particularly as the process will be needed for all new oncology and Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs).[8]

    In conclusion, the new EU HTAR signals a transformative era in EU regulatory oversight, driving towards a more integrated and efficient approach to the HTA process. Manufacturers must proactively address the procedural and evidence-generation challenges ahead. While the new framework presents initial hurdles, it promises streamlined evaluations, reduced redundancy, and accelerated access to innovative treatments across Europe. Successful navigation of EU HTAR implementation will require active engagement from all stakeholders, including regulatory bodies, healthcare providers, manufacturers, and patients.

    Become A Certified HEOR Professional – Enrol yourself here!

    References:

    1. Wild C, Stricka M, Patera N. Guidance for the development of a National HTA-strategy. Health Policy and Technology. 2017 Sep 1;6(3):339-47.
    2. European Commission. Regulation on Health Technology Assessment. Retrieved from Regulation on Health Technology Assessment – European Commission (europa.eu).
    3. European Commission. Questions and Answers: Adoption of Regulation on Health Technology Assessment. Retrieved from QANDA_21_6773_EN.pdf (europa.eu).
    4. Desmet T, Brijs M, Vanderdonck F, Tops S, Simoens S, Huys I. Implementing the EU HTA regulation: Insights from semi-structured interviews on patient expectations, Belgian and European institutional perspectives, and industry outlooks. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2024 Apr 10;15:1369508.
    5. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2021 on Health Technology Assessment and amending Directive 2011/24/EU2021 22.12.2021. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R2282&from=EN.
    6. EU Joint Clinical Assessments: Theory vs Practice. Retrieved from PharmaBoardroom – EU Joint Clinical Assessments: Theory vs Practice. Accessed on 4 Jun, 2024.
    7. Klaar S. Joint Scientific Consultations – Advice for EU Health Technology Assessment. NDA Whitepaper. 2024
    8. European Commission. The EU regulation on health technology assessment: what’s in it and why it matters? https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/855247c3-cda9-4645-99f7-7098836f314c_en?filename=ev_20240409_co01_en.pdf.
    9. Open Health. European Health Technology Assessment Regulation: Implications for the industry and the 5 key areas for successful implementation. EU HTAR – What are its implications for the industry + infographic (hubspotusercontent-na1.net).

    MarksMan Healthcare

    , , ,

  • Modelling Novel and Societal Value Elements for Holistic Value Assessment in HTA

    Modelling Novel and Societal Value Elements for Holistic Value Assessment in HTA
    Modelling Novel and Societal Value Elements for Holistic Value Assessment in HTA

    In the dynamic landscape of healthcare evaluation, methodologies for appraising the genuine value of medical innovations are experiencing profound evolution. The traditional framework of Health Technology Assessment (HTA), which has rested heretofore on the pillars of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness, is drastically expanded to include elements of novelty and value to the society. This is a transformation that aims at more comprehensive and holistic value assessment, in a manner that multifaceted benefits from healthcare advances can be appropriately acknowledged and valued.[1,2]

    Historically, HTA has been driven primarily by quantifiable metrics, principally Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and direct economic impact. Such measures, while Important in their own right, often overlook broader societal implications, patient-centric outcomes, and innovation incentives. By integrating novel value dimensions, HTA can capture the entirety of the benefits that new technologies and treatments bring to patients and society.[2]

    One such novel dimension is the consideration of equity and access in value assessment. Creative treatments hold massive potential in promoting health equity, and can potentially reduce disparities in health outcomes between diverse population groups. For instance, personalized medicine can dramatically increase the effectiveness of treatment for historically marginalized populations developed from the presentation of the specific genetic profiles of patients. The integration of equity considerations in HTA ensures that interventions promoting broader access and reducing health disparities receive due recognition.[3,4]

    Modeling these holistic parameters demands sophisticated data analytics and simulation techniques. Traditional models such as Markov models and decision trees are evolving to encompass broader societal values. Health economic models now incorporate variables for productivity losses, caregiver burden, and social equity impacts, providing a more nuanced representation of the value of the intervention. These models simulate long-term outcomes and costs associated with healthcare interventions, equipping stakeholders with comprehensive data to inform decision-making.[5]

    Additionally, there is a growing interest in societal value elements of HTA, including productivity gains and reduction in caregiver burden. It is absolutely necessary to determine the extent to which new therapies would make patients return to work and contribute economically, as well as the relief they offer to caregivers. Treatments that enable patients with chronic diseases to stay employed not only improve individual quality of life but also reduce broader societal economic burdens. Similarly, treatments alleviating the physical and emotional strain on caregivers yield substantial societal value, enhancing overall community well-being.[1,6]

    Advanced modeling methods, like microsimulation and dynamic simulation models, are peculiarly suited to capture such societal benefits. Microsimulation models can look at the trajectories over time of individual patients that might outline subtle impacts of healthcare interventions on productivity and caregiver burden. For example, through the use of dynamic simulation models, it would be possible to gain insights into how a new Alzheimer’s disease treatment could influence the long term cognitive function of patients while simultaneously reducing caregiver stress and societal healthcare costs over the long term.[7]

    Moreover, the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) model brings further sophistication to HTA. In this respect, MCDA provides a very structured framework within which different health interventions can be evaluated and compared according to multiple criteria, hence representing a much more comprehensive measure of their value. In applying MCDA, stakeholders have a better possibility of weighing and prioritizing different value dimensions in a more transparent way, thus enabling more informed and balanced decision-making in HTA processes.[8]

    Several HTA authorities are at the forefront of integrating these holistic parameters. For example, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK has already begun incorporating broader societal benefits and impact assessments into its review process. Similarly, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) is increasing the emphasis on patient and caregiver perspectives in its reviews. All of these organizations are working to provide a standard for holistic value assessment and concrete practical application of these cutting-edge methodologies.[9]

    The evolution of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a major step towards a much more extensive approach to healthcare assessment. By bringing on board novelty and societal value attributes along with sophisticated modeling techniques, HTA will be better placed to really capture the full spectrum of benefits offered by medical innovations. This new development adds to the objectivity of value assessments but goes ahead to establish a commitment to fairness, innovation, and patient-centricity. As organizations begin to fine-tune methodologies and include different perspectives from various stakeholders, the slowly evolving landscape of healthcare becomes all the more inclusive and responsive to societal needs. In essence, this evolution in HTA reflects a broader commitment to informed decisions and improved patient outcomes, paving the way for a healthcare system that prioritizes effectiveness, equity, and the well-being of all individuals.

    Become A Certified HEOR Professional – Enrol yourself here!

    References

    1. Culyer AJ. “Perspectives” in health technology assessment. AMA Journal of Ethics. 2021 Aug 1;23(8):619-23.
    2. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford university press; 2015 Sep 25.
    3. Garrison LP, Jansen JP, Devlin NJ, Griffin S. Novel approaches to value assessment within the cost-effectiveness framework. Value in Health. 2019 Jun 1;22(6):S12-7.
    4. Benkhalti M, Espinoza M, Cookson R, Welch V, Tugwell P, Dagenais P. Development of a checklist to guide equity considerations in health technology assessment. International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2021 Jan;37(1):e17.
    5. K de Bienassis K, Slawomirski L, Klazinga NS. The economics of patient safety Part IV: Safety in the workplace: Occupational safety as the bedrock of resilient health systems.
    6. Drost RM, Paulus AT, Evers SM. Five pillars for societal perspective. International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2020 Apr;36(2):72-4.
    7. Cuijpers Y, Van Lente H. Early diagnostics and Alzheimer’s disease: Beyond ‘cure’and ‘care’. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2015 Apr 1;93:54-67.
    8. Marsh K, Thokala P, Youngkong S, Chalkidou K. Incorporating MCDA into HTA: challenges and potential solutions, with a focus on lower income settings. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. 2018 Nov;16:1-9.
    9. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CADTH framework for patient engagement in health technology assessment. 2019. https://www.cadth.ca/cadth-framework-patient-engagement-health-technology-assessment-0.

    MarksMan Healthcare

    , , ,

  • Innovation in Rare Disease Research through Integration of Real-World Evidence in HTA

    Innovation in Rare Disease Research through Integration of Real-World Evidence in HTA

    For individuals grappling with rare diseases, finding effective treatment options can be an overwhelming challenge. The conventional pathways of drug development, tailored for larger patient cohorts, encounter numerous obstacles in the context of rare diseases. This leads to delays in innovation and impedes access to potentially life-changing therapies. Fortunately, the emergence of real-world evidence (RWE) offers a promising solution to overcome these challenges and reshape the landscape of innovation in rare diseases.[1]

    The term “rare disease” encompasses a diverse array of conditions affecting a limited number of individuals. This small patient population presents a substantial hurdle for traditional clinical trial design, which relies on large cohorts to establish statistically significant efficacy and safety. Recruiting an adequate number of participants for rare disease trials is a time-consuming and expensive process, often necessitating international collaboration and specialized expertise. Additionally, the heterogeneity of rare diseases, with their varied presentations and disease trajectories, further complicates the development process.[1]

    The traditional HTA process relies heavily on data generated from controlled clinical trials, which may not adequately capture the complexities and variabilities associated with rare diseases. Moreover, the rarity of these conditions often means that traditional clinical trials include a limited number of patients, making it challenging to generate statistically significant results. This limitation not only hampers the regulatory approval of new drugs but also affects the subsequent HTA evaluations.[2]

    RWE offers a powerful tool to address these challenges and accelerate innovation in rare disease research and development. RWE encompasses data collected outside of traditional clinical trials, including electronic health records, claims databases, patient registries, and wearable devices. RWE empowers regulatory agencies and HTA bodies, offering the potential to streamline the approval and reimbursement processes for innovative drugs in rare diseases.[2,3]

    RWE can be used to quantify the unmet medical need by providing valuable insights into the prevalence, burden, and impact of rare diseases. This data not only highlights the necessity for new treatment options but also informs cost-effectiveness analyses, estimating the costs associated with rare disease management and potential cost savings from innovative treatments. Additionally, RWE contributes to evaluating the long-term value of therapies, offering insights into their impact on patient outcomes and healthcare utilization. This comprehensive approach aids HTA bodies in assessing the overall value proposition of new therapies, ultimately expediting access to effective treatments for patients in need.[3]

    RWE significantly drives innovation for rare diseases, offering diverse benefits. Firstly, RWE can be used to identify and recruit patients who meet specific inclusion criteria, even for geographically dispersed populations, leading to faster and more efficient trial completion. Additionally, RWE supports adaptive pathways that align with personalized medicine. This approach allows continuous learning and adaptation based on real-world experiences, tailoring treatments to individual patient characteristics and needs.[3,4]

    The integration of RWE into HTA processes brings forth a range of advantages, yet it is not without its challenges. Notably, the quality and standardization of real-world data emerge as critical considerations, demanding continuous efforts to establish common standards and enhance data quality for credible HTA evaluations. Additionally, the reliance on patient data from real-world settings in RWE necessitates a delicate balance between data access and patient confidentiality, highlighting the ongoing challenge of addressing privacy and ethical concerns.[3]

    Education and adoption present another layer of complexity, with stakeholders such as regulatory agencies, HTA bodies, healthcare professionals, and pharmaceutical companies requiring comprehensive awareness of the benefits and limitations of RWE. This underscores the need for active promotion and facilitation of RWE adoption in decision-making processes. In the context of rare diseases, these challenges are amplified, prompting innovative approaches to evidence generation.[3]

    To fully harness the potential of RWE in rare disease research and HTA, the establishment of a robust infrastructure is imperative. This involves standardizing and harmonizing data collection, analysis, and reporting across different sources to ensure reliable and comparable evidence. Investment in technologies that facilitate data sharing and integration from diverse sources is essential for enhanced data capture. Building trust in RWE necessitates transparency in data sources, methodologies, and limitations, requiring open dialogue with patients, researchers, and HTA bodies. Additionally, clear regulatory guidelines and frameworks for utilizing RWE in HTA decisions are crucial, providing developers and researchers with the necessary clarity and fostering greater use of RWE.[4,5]

    The integration of RWE into HTA has the potential to reshape the landscape of rare disease innovation. By providing a more comprehensive understanding of treatment effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness in real-world settings, RWE can address the limitations of traditional clinical trials and expedite the development and access to innovative therapies for rare diseases.

    Become A Certified HEOR Professional – Enrol yourself here!

    References

    1. Dang A. Real-World Evidence: A Primer. Pharmaceut Med. 2023 Jan;37(1):25-36.
    2. Graili P, Guertin JR, Chan KKW, Tadrous M. Integration of real-world evidence from different data sources in health technology assessment. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2023 Jul 17;26:11460.
    3. Hampson G, Towse A, Dreitlein WB, et al. Real-world evidence for coverage decisions: opportunities and challenges. Journal of comparative effectiveness research. 2018 Dec;7(12):1133-43.
    4. Field MJ, Boat TF. Development of new therapeutic drugs and biologics for rare diseases. InRare Diseases and Orphan Products: Accelerating Research and Development 2010. National Academies Press (US).
    5. Boat TF, Field MJ, editors. Rare diseases and orphan products: accelerating research and development. National Academies Press; 2011 Apr 3.

    MarksMan Healthcare

    , , ,

  • Rapid HTA & Adaptive HTA: Pragmatic Approaches for Informed Decision-Making

    Rapid HTA & Adaptive HTA: Pragmatic Approaches for Informed Decision-Making
    Rapid HTA & Adaptive HTA: Pragmatic Approaches for Informed Decision-making

    Health technology assessment (HTA) is a quintessential component of universal health coverage because of its ability to inform strategic decision-making by providing comprehensive evidence. However, as a byproduct of this comprehensiveness, performing an HTA is laborious, resource-intensive, and time-consuming. Recognizing the importance and shortcomings of HTA, new methodologies such as rapid HTA and Adaptive HTA have emerged. Each method plays a distinct role in the evolving landscape of healthcare decision-making, offering unique advantages and addressing specific challenges.[1]

    First, a brief overview of HTA. It is a multidisciplinary process that utilizes explicit methods to comprehensively evaluate the value of health technology by systematically gathering evidence from all possible sources, evaluating the risk of bias from within each evidence source, meticulously analyzing the gathered data, and elaborate reporting in sufficient detail in such a way to permit reproducibility of the methods. The primary objective of HTA is to inform decision-making, ensuring that choices made in healthcare are equitable, efficient, and of high quality.[1]

    Rapid-HTA is an expedited modification of the HTA, with a core objective of providing timely information for decision-making, especially in situations where there is urgency or a need for rapid policy responses. In other words, a rapid HTA is a streamlined and accelerated version of traditional HTA, designed to provide quick assessments of health technologies, often with limited data and resources. While traditional HTAs can take several months to complete, rapid HTAs aim for a quicker turnaround of a few weeks to 1-2 months. There is often flexibility in the rapid HTA methodology to respond quickly to emerging issues and to accommodate resource constraints. The stress is on the quickness of methodology while being focussed on the most essential outcomes; to achieve this, there is often early and extensive stakeholder engagement, utilization of streamlined methodologies focusing on critical aspects such as clinical efficacy and safety, and the implementation of parallel processes to expedite data collection, analysis, and decision-making. The streamlined process in rapid HTAs significantly reduces the time required for evidence synthesis and analysis, allowing for quick and informed decision-making. This not only optimizes resource utilization but also ensures timely responses to urgent policy questions. [2,3]

    While rapid HTA prioritizes speed over the depth of analysis, this can potentially lead to limitations in the quality and comprehensiveness of the evidence considered. The accelerated timeline of rapid HTA may result in a reliance on limited data, potentially overlooking crucial aspects of a health technology’s value or risks and a potential compromise in the comprehensive understanding of the nuances associated with a health technology. These limitations underscore the necessity for a more adaptive approach. Adaptive HTAs address these shortcomings by allowing for ongoing adjustments and refinements to the assessment process.[3]

    Adaptive HTA is an approach that recognizes the need for flexibility in the HTA process, allowing for adjustments based on emerging evidence and stakeholder input. Unlike traditional HTA, adaptive HTA embraces an iterative and flexible framework that can adapt to emerging evidence and changing circumstances. Adaptive HTAs work with the objective of addressing uncertainties and adapting assessments over time as new data becomes available, allowing for more responsive and dynamic decision-making. There is an emphasis on ongoing, iterative processes that can be updated as new evidence emerges, making it less bound by a fixed timeline. In essence, adaptive HTA is a flexible methodological adaptation, finely attuned to the unique practical considerations and needs of specific contexts. This adaptive approach does not adhere to a rigid, one-size-fits-all structure but rather tailors its methods and processes to suit the nuanced requirements of different health systems.[3,4]

    Adaptive HTA exhibits versatility by leveraging international data, economic evaluations, and decisions from established HTA agencies, expediting policy decisions while considering concerns of transferability and uncertainty. This pragmatic approach adheres to key HTA principles, including transparency, independence, consultation, and contestability. Despite its adaptive nature, adaptive HTA maintains the integrity of these principles, ensuring robust and credible evaluations. This fit-for-purpose approach positions adaptive HTA as a dynamic and responsive tool in healthcare decision-making, especially in settings facing constraints or requiring flexibility. Its advantages include dynamic decision-making, optimizing resource allocation through an iterative process, and providing clarity on innovation’s impact by reducing uncertainty. However, the iterative nature introduces complexity, demanding careful management of decision points and ongoing monitoring. Additionally, the resource intensiveness of continuous monitoring and adaptation may challenge the capacity of some healthcare systems.[3,4]

    As decision-makers navigate this intricate landscape, the synergy between evidence, speed, and adaptability emerges as the key to unlocking a more efficient, equitable, and patient-centric healthcare future. The seamless integration of these methodologies into healthcare systems holds the potential to revolutionize how emerging health technologies are assessed, adopted, and leveraged for the betterment of global healthcare.

    Become A Certified HEOR Professional – Enrol yourself here!

    References

    1. Hailey D, Corabian P, Harstall C, Schneider W. The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments. International journal of technology assessment in health care. 2000 Apr;16(2):651-6.
    2. Schünemann HJ, Moja L. Reviews: rapid! rapid! rapid!… and systematic. Systematic Reviews. 2015 Dec;4(1):1-3.
    3. Nemzoff C, Ruiz F, Chalkidou K, et al. Adaptive health technology assessment to facilitate priority setting in low‑and middle‑income countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2021.
    4. Nemzoff C, Shah HA, Heupink L, et al. Adaptive health technology assessment: a scoping review of methods. Value in Health. 2023 Jun 5.

    MarksMan Healthcare

    , ,