Towards compatibility of EUnetHTA JCA methodology and German HTA: a systematic comparison and recommendations from an industry perspective

Agnes Kisser, Joschua Knieriemen, Annette Fasan (), Karolin Eberle, Sara Hogger, Sebastian Werner, Tina Taube and Andrej Rasch
Additional contact information
Agnes Kisser: Pfizer Pharma GmbH
Joschua Knieriemen: AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
Annette Fasan: AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH
Karolin Eberle: AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH
Sara Hogger: AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH
Sebastian Werner: Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V.
Tina Taube: Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V.
Andrej Rasch: Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V.

The European Journal of Health Economics, 2022, vol. 23, issue 5, No 9, 863-878

Abstract: Abstract Objective The transferability of the EU joint clinical assessment (JCA) reports for pharmaceuticals for the German benefit assessment was evaluated by systematically comparing EU JCA and German clinical assessments (CA) based on established assessment elements for HTA and assessing the potential impact of differences on Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) ability to derive the therapeutic added value. Methods Identification of all pharmaceuticals undergoing both, EU JCA and German CA between January 2016–June 2020. Qualitative review and data extraction from the assessments, assessment of methodological differences using a hierarchical model. Recommendations for harmonisation were developed and consented with pharmaceutical industry stakeholders. Results Differences with potentially major impact: (1) View on differing treatment algorithms and definition of corresponding subpopulations/respective comparators. (2) Clinical relevance of surrogate/intermediate endpoints. Inclusion of different/surrogate morbidity endpoints resulting in different relative effectiveness conclusions. (3) Tolerance of study interventions not used according to marketing authorisation. (4) Different operationalisation and/or weighting of individual safety endpoints leading to differing relative safety conclusions. Differences with potentially minor impact: (1) Disagreement in risk of bias assessment for overall survival and its robustness against study limitations. (2) Use of patient-reported outcome symptom scales as measurements for health-related quality of life instruments. Conclusion While many synergies between EU JCA and German CA exist, we identified several aspects in HTA methodology that would benefit of harmonisation and ensure the transferability of future EU JCA to the German HTA process without duplicated evaluation requirements. For those, a set of recommendations was developed.

Keywords: Act on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (AMNOG); EUnetHTA; Relative effectiveness assessment; Health technology assessment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I10 I18 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-021-01400-2 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:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01400-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... cs/journal/10198/PS2

DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01400-2

Access Statistics for this article

The European Journal of Health Economics is currently edited by J.-M.G.v.d. Schulenburg

More articles in The European Journal of Health Economics from Springer, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ) Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().