Development of an international template to support patient submissions in Health Technology Assessments.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an international template to support patient submissions in Health Technology Assessments (HTAs). This was to be based on the experience and feedback from the implementation and use of the Scottish Medicines Consortium's (SMC) Summary Information for Patient Groups (SIP). METHODS: To gather feedback on the SMC experience, web-based surveys were conducted with pharmaceutical companies and patient groups familiar with the SMC SIP. Semistructured interviews with representatives from HTA bodies were undertaken, along with patient group discussions with those less familiar with the SIP, to explore issues around the approach. These qualitative data informed the development of an international SIP template. RESULTS: Survey data indicated that 82 percent (18 of 22 respondents) of pharmaceutical company representatives felt that the SIP was worthwhile; 88 percent (15/17) of patient group respondents found the SIP helpful. Both groups highlighted the need for additional support and guidance around plain language summaries. Further suggestions included provision of a glossary of terms and cost-effectiveness information. Patient group interviews supported the survey findings and led to the development of a new template. HTA bodies raised potential challenges around buy-in, timing, and bias connected to the SIP approach. CONCLUSIONS: The international SIP template is another approach to support deliberative processes in HTA. Although challenges remain around writing summaries for lay audiences, along with feasibility considerations for HTA bodies, the SIP approach should support more meaningful patient involvement in HTAs.

Evaluation of the impact of patient input in health technology assessments at NICE.

OBJECTIVE: Accounts of patient experiences are increasingly used in health technology assessment (HTA) processes. However, we know little about their impact on the decision-making process. This study aims to assess the level and the type of impact of patient input to highly specialised technologies (HSTs) and interventional procedures (IPs) guidance at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to capture quantitative and qualitative data on the amount and type of impact of patient input into NICE HTAs. It was completed by committee members of the guidance-producing programs after a discussion of the considered topics. The data were analyzed by topic and overall, for each program, and compared across programs. RESULTS: Patient input was assessed on ten pieces of HST guidance published between January 2015 and November 2019, and on twenty-six pieces of IP guidance scoped between February 2016 and October 2018. A total of 96 responses were collected for HST and 440 for IP. The level of impact of patient input was higher for HST than for IP. For HST, no respondents stated that it had no impact, whereas in IP, 35 percent of respondents did. The most common types of impact found for HST and IP were that it helped interpret the other evidence and that it provided new evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of patient input is not necessarily explicit in changing recommendations, but it provides context, reassurance, and new information to the committee for the decision-making process in HTAs.

Strengthening patient outcome evidence in health technology assessment: a coproduction approach.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) worked with patients and staff from six patient organizations to review existing health technology assessment (HTA) methods and coproduce proposals to improve the following: patient involvement, how patient evidence is identified and considered by committees, and the support offered to patient stakeholders. This engagement identified important factors that HTA bodies need to understand to enable meaningful patient and public involvement (PPI), such as having clearly documented processes, appropriate evidence submission processes, transparent decisions, and suitable support. This work demonstrated the benefits of HTA bodies working collaboratively with patient stakeholders to improve PPI. By doing so, HTA bodies can increase their knowledge and understanding of the barriers faced by patient stakeholders to develop appropriate solutions to remove them. The coproduction approach improved stakeholder engagement methods, provided a better analysis of data, supported the development of meaningful conclusions, and improved stakeholder relationships.

Use of Patient Preference Studies in HTA Decision Making: A NICE Perspective.

Patient preference studies could provide valuable insights to a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence committee into the preferences patients have for different treatment options, especially if the study sample is representative of the broader patient population. We identify three main uses of patient preference studies along a technology's pathway from drug development to clinical use: in early clinical development to guide the selection of appropriate endpoints, to inform benefit-risk assessments carried out by regulators and to inform reimbursement decisions made by health technology assessment bodies. In the context of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's methods and processes, we do not see a role for quantitative patient preference data to be directly incorporated into health economic modelling. Rather, we see a role for patient preference studies to be submitted alongside other types of evidence. Examples where patient preference studies might have added value in health technology assessments include cases where two distinctly different treatment options are being compared, when patients have to decide between multiple treatment options, when technologies have important non-health benefits or when a treatment is indicated for a heterogenous population.

Stories of Patient Involvement Impact in Health Technology Assessments: A Discussion Paper.

OBJECTIVES: As more health technology assessment (HTA) bodies seek to implement patient involvement, there is a desire to learn from other HTA bodies about their experiences and understand what approaches can be used and which ones make a real difference to HTA. This is difficult, as the impact of patient involvement in HTA is not well documented. This study aims to promote further discussion about the ways in which patient involvement can impact HTAs by studying stories of impact. METHODS: In a multi-stakeholder workshop, experts leading patient involvement in four HTA bodies shared examples of HTAs where they believed patient involvement made a difference, then they reflected on these impact stories within the wider context of impact evaluation. RESULTS: The HTA bodies drew on patient input and patient-based evidence to inform their HTAs. The patient involvement was observed to elucidate patients' experiences, needs and preferences which, in turn, was observed to influence the HTA recommendations about optimal use of technologies, including taking account of issues for sub-groups, outcomes that matter to patients and educational needs. CONCLUSIONS: Personal stories of patient involvement may enable a wider understanding of different approaches to and impact of patient involvement. The examples relate to both patient input and patient-based evidence and highlight the role that patient involvement can play in reducing uncertainties and complementing the clinical and economic evidence in HTA. They suggest that impact can be seen in recommendations about how and when a technology is used.