Developing a Framework for the Health Technology Assessment of Histology-independent Precision Oncology Therapies

Jennifer G. Gaultney (), Jacoline C. Bouvy, Richard H. Chapman, Alexander J. Upton, Stacey Kowal, Carsten Bokemeyer, Oriol Solà-Morales, Jürgen Wolf and Andrew H. Briggs
Additional contact information
Jennifer G. Gaultney: IQVIA Ltd.
Jacoline C. Bouvy: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Richard H. Chapman: Institute for Clinical and Economic Review
Alexander J. Upton: Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc
Stacey Kowal: IQVIA
Carsten Bokemeyer: University Medical Center
Oriol Solà-Morales: Health Innovation Technology Transfer Foundation
Jürgen Wolf: Center for Integrated Oncology, University Hospital Cologne
Andrew H. Briggs: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2021, vol. 19, issue 5, No 1, 625-634

Abstract: Abstract The arrival of precision oncology is challenging the evidence standards under which technologies are evaluated for regulatory approval as well as for health technology assessment (HTA) purposes. Several key concepts are discussed to highlight the source of the challenges in evaluating these products, particularly those impacting the HTA of histology-independent therapies. These include the basket trial design, high uncertainty in (potentially substantial) benefits for histology-independent therapies, and the inability to identify and quantify benefits of standard of care in daily practice when the biomarker is not currently used in practice. There is little precedent for a technology with the unique mixture of challenges for HTA of histology-independent therapies and they will be evaluated using standard HTA, as there currently is no evidence suggesting the standard HTA framework is not appropriate. A number of questions proposed to help guide HTA bodies when assessing the appropriateness of local processes to optimally evaluate histology-independent therapies. Pragmatic solutions are further proposed to decrease uncertainty in the benefits of histology independent therapies as well as fill gaps in comparative evidence. The proposed solutions ensure a consistent and streamlined approach to evaluation across histology-independent products, although with varying strengths and limitations. Alongside these solutions, sponsors should engage early with HTA bodies/payers and regulatory agencies through parallel/joint scientific advice to facilitate the integration of both regulatory and HTA perspectives into one clinical development programme, potentially reconciling evidence requirements.

Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-021-00654-4 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00654-4

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00654-4

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().