Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30242522›Full record

ArticleHealth economics review2018

Leveraging EUnetHTA's conceptual framework to compare HTA decision drivers in France, Italy, and Germany from a manufacturer's point of view.

Giovanni Giuliani, Frederic Chassagnol, David Traub, Marlene Gyldmark, Ansgar Hebborn, Pierre Ducournau, Jörg Ruof

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Giovanni GiulianiRoche S.p.A, Monza, Italy.
Frederic ChassagnolRoche SAS, Boulogne-Billancourt Cedex, France.
David TraubRoche Pharma AG, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany.
Marlene GyldmarkF. Hoffmann La Roche, Basel, Switzerland.
Ansgar HebbornF. Hoffmann La Roche, Basel, Switzerland.
Pierre DucournauF. Hoffmann La Roche, Basel, Switzerland.
Jörg RuofMedical School of Hanover, Hanover, Germany. joerg.ruof@r-connect.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8706-934X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth Technology Assessments (HTA) procedures differ substantially across the various European countries. We reviewed recent appraisals of a pharmaceutical manufacturer in three major European markets (France; Italy; Germany) and identified and categorized related decision drivers.

methodsNew marketing authorisation between January 2011 and August 2017, and Roche being the Marketing Authorization Holder, were included. Outcome of HTA appraisals by the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), and Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) were reviewed. Respective decision drivers were identified and commonalities and differences across the three countries were determined leveraging the EUnetHTA conceptual taxonomy (i.e. the 9 domains of the EUnetHTA core model).

resultsWithin that time period Roche received European marketing authorization for eight new molecular entities (10 indications, respectively). Outcome of HTA appraisals was heterogeneous across the three countries. However, the four clinical domains of the EUnetHTA core model were driving the national HTA appraisals, with the clinical effectiveness domain being of most importance. Important drivers related to the other three clinical domains included the target patient population (subgroups, Germany), the current management of the condition (unmet need, Italy), the regulatory status (Orphan Designation, Germany), as well as safety considerations (all three countries). Average time between EMA approval and full commercial availability of new medicines was 63 (Germany), 459 (Italy), and 557 days (France).

conclusionsThe clinical domains of the EUnetHTA framework are mainly driven by national HTA appraisals, providing a suitable starting point for further developing a joint European view on value and evidence. Underlying topics and issues still reveal considerable differences.

Indexed as

AIFAAppraisalEUnetHTA Core modelG-BAHASHealth technology assessmentInnovation

Identifiers

PMID30242522
PMCPMC6755607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.