Commentary: Advocating for patient and public involvement and engagement in health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation is still relatively rare, compared to other areas of health and social care research. Developing stronger patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation will be important in the future because such evaluations can impact on the treatments and interventions that patients can access in routine care. MAIN TEXT: The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) is a reporting guideline for authors publishing health economic evaluations. We established an international group of public contributors who were involved in the update of the CHEERS 2022 reporting guidance, ensuring two items (areas of reporting) specifically about public involvement were included. In this commentary we focus on the development of a guide to support public involvement in reporting, a key suggestion made by the CHEERS 2022 Public Reference Group, who advocated for greater public involvement in health economic evaluation. This need for this guide was identified during the development of CHEERS 2022 when it became apparent that the language of health economic evaluation is complex and not always accessible, creating challenges for meaningful public involvement in key deliberation and discussion. We took the first step to more meaningful dialogue by creating a guide that patient organisations could use to support their members to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: CHEERS 2022 provides a new direction for health economic evaluation, encouraging researchers to undertake and report their public involvement to build the evidence base for practice and may provide some reassurance to the public that their voice has played a part in evidence development. The CHEERS 2022 guide for patient representatives and patient organisations aims to support that endeavour by enabling deliberative discussions among patient organisations and their members. We recognise it is only a first step and further discussion is needed about the best ways to involve public contributors in health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation is still relatively rare, compared to other areas of health and social care research. Developing stronger patient and public involvement in health economic evaluation will be important in the future because such evaluations can impact on the treatments and interventions that patients can access in routine care. MAIN TEXT: We established an international group of public contributors who were involved in the development of the CHEERS 2022 reporting guidance, ensuring two items (areas of reporting) specifically about patient and public involvement were included. In this commentary we focus on the development of a guide to support patient and public involvement in reporting, a key suggestion made by the CHEERS 2022 Public Reference Group, who advocated for greater public involvement in health economic evaluation. The need for this guide was identified during the development of CHEERS 2022 when it became apparent that the language of health economic evaluation is complex and not always accessible, creating challenges for meaningful public involvement in key deliberation and discussion. We took the first step to more meaningful dialogue by creating a guide that patient representatives and patient organisations could use as support to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: CHEERS 2022 provides a new direction for health economic evaluation, encouraging researchers to undertake and report their public involvement in order to build the evidence base for practice. The CHEERS 2022 guide aims to support patient representatives and patient organisations to become more involved in discussions about health economic evaluations. We recognise it is only a first step and further discussion is needed about the best ways to involve public contributors in health economic evaluation.

How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy?

BACKGROUND: The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes. METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered. RESULTS: The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses.

Health related quality of life aspects not captured by EQ-5D-5L: Results from an international survey of patients.

BACKGROUND: In this paper we discuss and present evidence on whether a generic Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) measurement tool, the EQ-5D-5L, captures the dimensions of quality of life (QoL) which patients consider significant. METHODS: An online survey, of individuals with a chronic condition, mainly breast cancer (BC), blood cancers (BLC), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), asthma, and rare diseases (RD) was conducted to collect data on HRQoL and important QoL aspects that respondents thought were not captured by the EQ-5D-5L. Patient organisations across 47 countries were invited to voluntarily share the survey tool with their membership network. RESULTS: 767 responses from 38 countries showed that important QoL aspects were not captured by EQ-5D-5L for 51% of respondents, including fatigue (19%) and medication side effects (12%), among others. Fatigue (17%) was also the most commonly reported QoL aspect that changed over the course of patients' illness, suggesting that the current version of the EQ-5D-5L might miss capturing significant clinical changes in important QoL domains. CONCLUSIONS: Utilisation of the EQ-5D-5L in HRQoL measurement raises inconsistencies in capturing QoL attributes and changes in disease-specific patient populations. Further research is needed to clarify the extent to which other generic HRQoL measurement tools capture the aspects of health that really matter for patients.

DIFFERENTIATION OF HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES BETWEEN FIVE DISEASE AREAS: RESULTS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF PATIENTS.

OBJECTIVES: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data generated by generic, preference-based instruments (i.e., EQ-5D) are highly demanded in health policy decision making, because they allow for direct comparisons of HRQoL outcomes between disease areas. We aimed to quantify HRQoL outcomes in breast cancer (BC), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), multiple sclerosis (MS), rare cancers (RC), and rare disease (RD) patients and understand the patterns that differentiate HRQoL outcomes between these disease areas, and more specifically between rare and more common disease population groups. METHODS: An international, Web survey of patients measured HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L), self-perceived health (EQ-5D-5L Visual Analogue Scale), and additional QoL dimensions, such as patient disability level. RESULTS: We received 675 completed responses. Average utility loss was 53.5 percent, 32.5 percent, and 33.3 percent for RD, RA, and MS patients, respectively, in contrast to 18.6 percent for BC and RC patients. Statistically significant differences (p < .05) were observed between disease groups in all EQ-5D-5L domain outcomes, apart from that of "Anxiety/Depression." Severe and/or extreme problems were reported in performing usual activities for RD and RC (34 percent and 13 percent of overall problems reported respectively), mobility for MS (18 percent), pain/discomfort for RA (13 percent), and anxiety/depression for BC (7 percent) patients. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated significant differences in the dimensions that drive HRQoL outcomes between rare and more common diseases and showcased that the same EQ-5D utility may reflect very different severities depending on the patient population under investigation. Future research should examine whether outcomes in other, critical HRQoL domains not included in generic measures also highlight significant differences across disease areas.

Using IMPrESS to guide policy change in multiple sclerosis.

The International MultiPlE Sclerosis Study (IMPrESS) studied the significant impact of multiple sclerosis (MS) on the health and well-being of both people with the disease and their caregivers, along with its broader socioeconomic impact. Results confirmed that there is an urgent need to achieve better outcomes for people with MS. This paper uses results from the IMPrESS to present new international evidence on the socioeconomic burden of MS and discuss the merits of a likely paradigm shift in the management of MS towards the use of better (and more accurate) diagnostic follow-up to monitor disease progression and the earlier use of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) to achieve better clinical, quality-of-life and socioeconomic results for individuals.

Responsiveness of the EQ-5D to clinical change: is the patient experience adequately represented?

OBJECTIVES: In many economic evaluations and reimbursement decisions, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) are used as a measure of benefit to assess effectiveness of novel therapies, often based on the EQ-5D 3-level questionnaire. As only five dimensions of physical and mental well-being are reflected in this tool, significant aspects of the patient experience may be missed. We evaluate the use of the EQ-5D as a measurement of clinical change across a wide range of disorders from dermatological (acne) to life-threatening (metastatic cancers). METHODS: We analyze published studies on the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D 3-level questionnaire, extracting information on the Visual Analogue Scale versus Index score, Standardized Response Mean, and Effect Size. These are compared with ranges generally accepted to represent good responsiveness in the psychometric literature. RESULTS: We find that only approximately one in five study populations report subjective health state valuation of patients within 5 percent of the score attributed by the EQ-5D index, and more than 40 percent of studies report unacceptable ceiling effects. In the majority of studies, responsiveness of the EQ-5D index was found to be poor to moderate, based on Effect Size (63 percent poor­moderate) and Standardized Response Mean (72 percent poor­moderate). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the EQ-5D index does not adequately reflect patient health status across a range of conditions, and it is likely that a significant proportion of the subjective patient experience is not accounted for by the index. This has implications for economic evaluations of novel drugs based on evidence generated with the EQ-5D.

Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation.

There is increasing emphasis on providing patient-focused health care and ensuring patient involvement in the design of health services. As health technology assessment (HTA) is meant to be a multidisciplinary, wide-ranging policy analysis that informs decision making, it would be expected that patients' views should be incorporated into the assessment. However, HTA is still driven by collection of quantitative evidence to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a health technology. Patients' perspectives about their illness and the technology are rarely included, perhaps because they are seen as anecdotal, biased views. There are two distinct but complementary ways in which HTAs can be strengthened by: (i) gathering robust evidence about the patients' perspectives, and (ii) ensuring effective engagement of patients in the HTA process from scoping, through evidence gathering, assessment of value, development of recommendations and dissemination of findings. Robust evidence eliciting patients' perspectives can be obtained through social science research that is well conducted, critically appraised and carefully reported, either through meta-synthesis of existing studies or new primary research. Engagement with patients can occur at several levels and we propose that HTA should seek to support effective patient participation to create a fair deliberative process. This should allow two-way flow of information, so that the views of patients are obtained in a supportive way and fed into decision-making processes in a transparent manner.