Challenges of Health Technology Assessment in Pluralistic Healthcare Systems: An ISPOR Council Report.

Health technology assessment (HTA) has been growing in use over the past 40 years, especially in its impact on decisions regarding the reimbursement, adoption, and use of new drugs, devices, and procedures. In countries or jurisdictions with "pluralistic" healthcare systems, there are multiple payers or sectors, each of which could potentially benefit from HTA. Nevertheless, a single HTA, conducted centrally, may not meet the needs of these different actors, who may have different budgets, current standards of care, populations to serve, or decision-making processes. This article reports on the research conducted by an ISPOR Health Technology Assessment Council Working Group established to examine the specific challenges of conducting and using HTA in countries with pluralistic healthcare systems. The Group used its own knowledge and expertise, supplemented by a narrative literature review and survey of US payers, to identify existing challenges and any initiatives taken to address them. We recommend that countries with pluralistic healthcare systems establish a national focus for HTA, develop a uniform set of HTA methods guidelines, ensure that HTAs are produced in a timely fashion, facilitate the use of HTA in the local setting, and develop a framework to encourage transparency in HTA. These efforts can be enhanced by the development of good practice guidance from ISPOR or similar groups and increased training to facilitate local use of HTA.

Are We Ready for a New Approach to Comparing Coverage and Reimbursement Policies for Medical Nutrition in Key Markets: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare policy makers should ensure optimal patient access to medical nutrition (MN) as part of the management of nutrition-related disorders and conditions. Questions remain whether current healthcare policies reflect the clinical and economic benefits of MN. The objective of this article is to characterize coverage and reimbursement of MN, defined as food for special medical purposes/medical food for a diverse set of countries, including Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States. METHODS: Data sources included published literature and online sources. ISPOR's Nutrition Economics Special Interest Group developed a data collection form to guide data extraction that included reimbursement coverage, years that reimbursement policies were established, and presence of a formal health technology assessment (HTA) for MN technologies. RESULTS: Reimbursement coverage of MN technologies varied across the countries that were reviewed. All but 3 countries limited coverage to specific formulations of products, regardless of demonstrated clinical benefit. The year that reimbursement policies were established varied across countries (ranging from 1984 to 2017), and only 4 countries regularly update policies. France and Brazil are the only countries with a formal HTA process for MN technologies. CONCLUSIONS: Most countries have limited MN reimbursement, have not updated reimbursement policies, and lack HTA for MN technologies. These limitations may lead to suboptimal access to MN technologies where they are indicated to manage nutrition-related disorders and conditions, with the potential of negatively affecting patient and healthcare system outcomes.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmaceuticals assessed in observational studies compared with randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: There have been ongoing efforts to understand when and how data from observational studies can be applied to clinical and regulatory decision making. The objective of this review was to assess the comparability of relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 1990, and January 31, 2020, that reported relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from both observational studies and RCTs. We extracted pooled relative effect estimates from observational studies and RCTs for each outcome, intervention-comparator, or indication assessed in the reviews. We calculated the ratio of the relative effect estimate from observational studies over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each pair of pooled RCT and observational study estimates, and we evaluated the consistency in relative treatment effects. RESULTS: Thirty systematic reviews across 7 therapeutic areas were identified from the literature. We analyzed 74 pairs of pooled relative effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies from 29 reviews. There was no statistically significant difference (based on the 95% CI) in relative effect estimates between RCTs and observational studies in 79.7% of pairs. There was an extreme difference (ratio < 0.7 or > 1.43) in 43.2% of pairs, and, in 17.6% of pairs, there was a significant difference and the estimates pointed in opposite directions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our review shows that while there is no significant difference in the relative risk ratios between the majority of RCTs and observational studies compared, there is significant variation in about 20% of comparisons. The source of this variation should be the subject of further inquiry to elucidate how much of the variation is due to differences in patient populations versus biased estimates arising from issues with study design or analytical/statistical methods.

Improving Transparency to Build Trust in Real-World Secondary Data Studies for Hypothesis Testing-Why, What, and How: Recommendations and a Road Map from the Real-World Evidence Transparency Initiative.

Real-world data (RWD) and the derivations of these data into real-world evidence (RWE) are rapidly expanding from informing healthcare decisions at the patient and health system level to influencing major health policy decisions, including regulatory approvals and coverage. Recent examples include the approval of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for male breast cancer and the inclusion of RWE in the label of paliperidone palmitate for schizophrenia. This interest has created an urgency to develop processes that promote trust in the evidence-generation process. Key stakeholders and decision-makers include patients and their healthcare providers; learning health systems; health technology assessment bodies and payers; pharmacoepidemiologists and other clinical reseachers, and policy makers interested in bioethical and regulatory issues. A key to optimal uptake of RWE is transparency of the research process to enable decision-makers to evaluate the quality of the methods used and the applicability of the evidence that results from the RWE studies. Registration of RWE studies-particularly for hypothesis evaluating treatment effectiveness (HETE) studies-has been proposed to improve transparency, trust, and research replicability. Although registration would not guarantee better RWE studies would be conducted, it would encourage the prospective disclosure of study plans, timing, and rationale for modifications. A joint task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) recommended that investigators preregister their RWE studies and post their study protocols in a publicly available forum before starting studies to reduce publication bias and improve the transparency of research methods. Recognizing that published recommendations alone are insufficient, especially without accessible registration options and with no incentives, a group of experts gathered on February 25 and 26, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to explore the structural and practical challenges to the successful implementation of the recommendations of the ISPOR/ISPE task force for preregistration. This positioning article describes a plan for making registration of HETE RWE studies routine. The plan includes specifying the rationale for registering HETE RWE studies, the studies that should be registered, where and when these studies should be registered, how and when analytic deviations from protocols should be reported, how and when to publish results, and incentives to encourage registration. Table 1 summarizes the rationale, goals, and potential solutions that increase transparency, in addition to unique concerns about secondary data studies. Definitions of terms used throughout this report are provided in Table 2.

Improving transparency to build trust in real-world secondary data studies for hypothesis testing-Why, what, and how: recommendations and a road map from the real-world evidence transparency initiative.

Real-world data (RWD) and the derivations of these data into real-world evidence (RWE) are rapidly expanding from informing healthcare decisions at the patient and health system level to influencing major health policy decisions, including regulatory approvals and coverage. Recent examples include the approval of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for male breast cancer and the inclusion of RWE in the label of paliperidone palmitate for schizophrenia. This interest has created an urgency to develop processes that promote trust in the evidence-generation process. Key stakeholders and decision-makers include patients and their healthcare providers; learning health systems; health technology assessment bodies and payers; pharmacoepidemiologists and other clinical reseachers, and policy makers interested in bioethical and regulatory issues. A key to optimal uptake of RWE is transparency of the research process to enable decision-makers to evaluate the quality of the methods used and the applicability of the evidence that results from the RWE studies. Registration of RWE studies-particularly for hypothesis evaluating treatment effectiveness (HETE) studies-has been proposed to improve transparency, trust, and research replicability. Although registration would not guarantee better RWE studies would be conducted, it would encourage the prospective disclosure of study plans, timing, and rationale for modifications. A joint task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) recommended that investigators preregister their RWE studies and post their study protocols in a publicly available forum before starting studies to reduce publication bias and improve the transparency of research methods. Recognizing that published recommendations alone are insufficient, especially without accessible registration options and with no incentives, a group of experts gathered on February 25 and 26, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to explore the structural and practical challenges to the successful implementation of the recommendations of the ISPOR/ISPE task force for preregistration. This positioning article describes a plan for making registration of HETE RWE studies routine. The plan includes specifying the rationale for registering HETE RWE studies, the studies that should be registered, where and when these studies should be registered, how and when analytic deviations from protocols should be reported, how and when to publish results, and incentives to encourage registration. Table 1 summarizes the rationale, goals, and potential solutions that increase transparency, in addition to unique concerns about secondary data studies. Definitions of terms used throughout this report are provided in Table 2.