Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL)

International audienceAbstractRare diseases are an important public health issue with high unmet need. The introduction of the EU Regulation on orphan medicinal products (OMP) has been successful in stimulating investment in the research and development of OMPs. Despite this advancement, patients do not have universal access to these new medicines. There are many factors that affect OMP uptake, but one of the most important is the difficulty of making pricing and reimbursement (P&R) decisions in rare diseases. Until now, there has been little consensus on the most appropriate assessment criteria, perspective or appraisal process. This paper proposes nine principles to help improve the consistency of OMP P&R assessment in Europe and ensure that value assessment, pricing and funding processes reflect the specificities of rare diseases and contribute to both the sustainability of healthcare systems and the sustainability of innovation in this field. These recommendations are the output of the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL), a collaboration between rare disease experts, patient representatives, academics, health technology assessment (HTA) practitioners, politicians and industry representatives. ORPH-VAL reached its recommendations through careful consideration of existing OMP P&R literature and through a wide consultation with expert stakeholders, including payers, regulators and patients. The principles cover four areas: OMP decision criteria, OMP decision process, OMP sustainable funding systems and European co-ordination. This paper also presents a guide to the core elements of value relevant to OMPs that should be consistently considered in all OMP appraisals. The principles outlined in this paper may be helpful in drawing together an emerging consensus on this topic and identifying areas where consistency in payer approach could be achievable and beneficial. All stakeholders have an obligation to work together to ensure that the promise of OMP’s is realised

An evidence base to optimise methods for involving patient and public contributors in clinical trials: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND: In comparison with other study designs, randomised trials are regarded as particularly likely to benefit from patient and public involvement (PPI). Using mixed-methods research we investigated PPI from the perspectives of researchers and PPI contributors. METHODS: Randomised trials in receipt of funding from the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme between 2006 and 2010 were identified. Funding applications and board and referee comments were obtained and data relevant to PPI extracted. Chief investigators (CIs), PPI contributors and UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units (RCTUs) were surveyed. Interviews were conducted with researchers and PPI contributors. RESULTS: A total of 111 trials were included. Text relevant to PPI was identified in half of the trials for which the first-stage applications were available, but only one-quarter described PPI within their development. In the second stage of the application, the majority provided some text relevant to PPI, with over half having PPI in their development. Fewer than half of referees commented on PPI, and funding boards rarely provided comments in relation to PPI. Seventy-three per cent (81 of 111) of CIs responded to the survey and 98% (79 of 81) included PPI at some stage in their trial. CIs considered high impact from PPI contributors to occur more frequently in trial setup, with low or no impact being more common during trial conduct, analysis and dissemination. Only one-third of CIs provided PPI contributor contact details but all contributors contacted completed the survey. The majority of contributors felt engaged and valued by the research team. Interviews were conducted with researchers and/or PPI contributors for 28 trials identifying two main influences on perception of PPI impact: whether or not CIs expressed personal goals and plans for PPI; and the quality of their relationship with the PPI contributors. The importance of early engagement was identified, with opportunity for input thereafter limited. Three PPI roles were identified: oversight, managerial and responsive. Oversight roles, as required by funders, were associated with low impact in comparison with responsive or managerial roles. Most researchers could see some value in PPI training for researchers, although those that had received such training themselves expressed concerns about its purpose and evidence base. Training for PPI contributors was considered unnecessary, with conversational approaches preferred, although this did not appear to provide an opportunity for role negotiation. The RCTU survey response rate was 85% (39 of 46). The majority (37 of 39) reported PPI within trials co-ordinated by their unit. Trial characteristics were used by half to determine the approach to PPI. Two-thirds reported recent developments or changes in implementing plans for PPI (21 of 33). Support to PPI contributors was commonly offered through members of staff at the unit. CONCLUSIONS: PPI is occurring in the majority of trials funded by the HTA programme, but uncertainty remains about how it is assessed and valued. Early involvement, building a relationship between researchers and contributors, responsive or managerial roles, and having defined goals for PPI were associated with impact. Efficiency could be gained by utilising the RCTU network to identify and tackle challenges, and develop a risk-based approach utilising trial characteristics. Recommendations are made to trial funders and the research community. Given the difficulties for some informants in recalling PPI contributions, future research using a prospective approach would be valuable. Ethnographic research that combines observation and multi-informant interviews is likely to be informative in identifying impact. The research community needs to give further consideration to processes for selecting PPI contributors and models of implementing PPI

Meeting the review family : exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements

Background and objectives The last decade has witnessed increased recognition of the value of literature reviews for advancing understanding and decision making. This has been accompanied by an expansion in the range of methodological approaches and types of review. However, there remains uncertainty over definitions and search requirements beyond those for the ‘traditional’ systematic review. This study aims to characterise health related reviews by type and to provide recommendations on appropriate methods of information retrieval based on the available guidance. Methods A list of review types was generated from published typologies and categorised into ‘families’ based on their common features. Guidance on information retrieval for each review type was identified by searching pubmed, medline and Google Scholar, supplemented by scrutinising websites of review producing organisations. Results Forty‐eight review types were identified and categorised into seven families. Published guidance reveals increasing specification of methods for information retrieval; however, much of it remains generic with many review types lacking explicit requirements for the identification of evidence. Conclusions Defining review types and utilising appropriate search methods remain challenging. By familiarising themselves with a range of review methodologies and associated search methods, information specialists will be better equipped to select suitable approaches for future projects

Ethical issues in autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in advanced breast cancer: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND: An effectiveness assessment on ASCT in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer identified serious ethical issues associated with this intervention. Our objective was to systematically review these aspects by means of a literature analysis. METHODS: We chose the reflexive Socratic approach as the review method using Hofmann's question list, conducted a comprehensive literature search in biomedical, psychological and ethics bibliographic databases and screened the resulting hits in a 2-step selection process. Relevant arguments were assembled from the included articles, and were assessed and assigned to the question list. Hofmann's questions were addressed by synthesizing these arguments. RESULTS: Of the identified 879 documents 102 included arguments related to one or more questions from Hofmann's question list. The most important ethical issues were the implementation of ASCT in clinical practice on the basis of phase-II trials in the 1990s and the publication of falsified data in the first randomized controlled trials (Bezwoda fraud), which caused significant negative effects on recruiting patients for further clinical trials and the doctor-patient relationship. Recent meta-analyses report a marginal effect in prolonging disease-free survival, accompanied by severe harms, including death. ASCT in breast cancer remains a stigmatized technology. Reported health-related-quality-of-life data are often at high risk of bias in favor of the survivors. Furthermore little attention has been paid to those patients who were dying. CONCLUSIONS: The questions were addressed in different degrees of completeness. All arguments were assignable to the questions. The central ethical dimensions of ASCT could be discussed by reviewing the published literature

Introduction to economic evaluation and health technology assessment

introduction to HTA for clinical engineer

Assessing context suitability (generalisability, external validity, applicability or transferability) of findings in evidence syntheses in healthcare - an integrative review of methodological guidance

Evidence syntheses provide the basis for evidence-based decision making in healthcare. To judge the certainty of findings for the specific decision context evidence syntheses should consider context suitability (ie, generalizability, external validity, applicability or transferability). Our objective was to determine the status quo and to provide a comprehensive overview of existing methodological recommendations of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Systematic Review (SR) producing organizations in assessing context suitability of evidence on effectiveness of health care interventions. Additionally, we analyzed similarities and differences between the recommendations