Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34766242›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2022

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, Andrej Rasch

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Agnes KisserPfizer Pharma GmbH, Linkstraße 10, 10785, Berlin, Germany.
Joschua KnieriemenAbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Mainzer Straße 81, 65189, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Annette FasanAMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH, Rosa-Bavarese-Str. 5, 80639, Munich, Germany. annette.fasan@ams-europe.com.
Karolin EberleAMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH, Rosa-Bavarese-Str. 5, 80639, Munich, Germany.
Sara HoggerAMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH, Rosa-Bavarese-Str. 5, 80639, Munich, Germany.
Sebastian WernerVerband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V., Hausvogteiplatz 13, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Tina TaubeVerband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V., Hausvogteiplatz 13, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Andrej RaschVerband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V., Hausvogteiplatz 13, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
ABX-CRO Advanced Pharmaceutical Services (Germany) · DEVerband Forschender ArzneimittelherstellerAbbVie (Germany) · DEPfizer (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe 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.

methodsIdentification 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.

resultsDifferences 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.

conclusionWhile 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.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalDrug IndustryHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical PreparationsAct on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (AMNOG)EUnetHTAHealth technology assessmentRelative effectiveness assessment

Identifiers

PMID34766242
PMCPMC9170646
OpenAlexW3211370305

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.