Identifying Methods Used Within Early Value Assessments for NICE: Results of a Scoping Review
Author(s)
Eugenie Evelynne Johnson, MSc1, Giovany Orozco Leal, MSc1, Madeleine Still, MSc1, Nicole O'Connor, MSc1, Lakshmi Jayachandran, Pharm D1, Tomos Robinson, PhD1, Nick Meader, PhD1, Ryan PW Kenny, PhD1, Sheila A. Wallace, MSc1, Sonia Garcia Gonzalez-Moral, MSc1, Luke Vale, PhD2, Rosalyn Parker, MSc3, Stephen Rice, MSc1, Gurdeep S. Sagoo, BSc, MSc, PhD1, Fiona Pearson, PhD1.
1Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 2Health Economics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom, 3External Assessment Group, Northern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
1Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 2Health Economics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom, 3External Assessment Group, Northern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: Early value assessments (EVAs) were introduced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to accelerate access to promising health technologies that have the potential to address unmet needs and contribute to the National Health Service’s Long Term Plan. However, to date, there have been no overviews considering the differences and commonalities of methods used to conduct EVAs. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and describe methods used within EVA Reports to July 2024.
METHODS: All completed EVAs published on the NICE website up to 23 July 2024 were included. Potentially relevant records were screened for eligibility by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Two pairs of independent reviewers extracted information on the methods used in included EVAs using a pre-piloted form; extractions were checked for accuracy. A narrative summary with graphs and tables were used to describe the extracted data.
RESULTS: Seventeen EVA Reports of 16 EVAs were included in this scoping review. Five Reports did not specify how many reviewers undertook screening and five did not report data extraction methods. Five EVAs planned to synthesise data using meta-analyses, nine planned narrative syntheses and seven planned narrative summaries. Across the EVAs, 11 conceptual decision models were presented. The available data were used to construct: cost-utility analyses (N=7); cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs; N=1); a mix of CEAs and cost-consequence analyses (CCA; N=1); one CCA; and three cost-comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS: The methods used within the included EVA Reports varied and there were inconsistencies in reporting. In future, EVA Reports should enhance transparency in the reporting of methods. Future EVAs could also provide opportunities to adopt innovative methodological approaches. Flexible communication between EVA authors and key stakeholders including patients and clinicians, companies, and NICE could facilitate this.
METHODS: All completed EVAs published on the NICE website up to 23 July 2024 were included. Potentially relevant records were screened for eligibility by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Two pairs of independent reviewers extracted information on the methods used in included EVAs using a pre-piloted form; extractions were checked for accuracy. A narrative summary with graphs and tables were used to describe the extracted data.
RESULTS: Seventeen EVA Reports of 16 EVAs were included in this scoping review. Five Reports did not specify how many reviewers undertook screening and five did not report data extraction methods. Five EVAs planned to synthesise data using meta-analyses, nine planned narrative syntheses and seven planned narrative summaries. Across the EVAs, 11 conceptual decision models were presented. The available data were used to construct: cost-utility analyses (N=7); cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs; N=1); a mix of CEAs and cost-consequence analyses (CCA; N=1); one CCA; and three cost-comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS: The methods used within the included EVA Reports varied and there were inconsistencies in reporting. In future, EVA Reports should enhance transparency in the reporting of methods. Future EVAs could also provide opportunities to adopt innovative methodological approaches. Flexible communication between EVA authors and key stakeholders including patients and clinicians, companies, and NICE could facilitate this.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
HTA191
Topic
Health Technology Assessment
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas