OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessments (HTAs) in Ireland must adhere to national guidelines provided by the Health Information and Quality Authority. These guidelines provide details of the parameters to include when conducting HTA. These Irish-specific parameters may not be in line with other jurisdictions. Differences in parameters can preclude the transferability of HTAs between jurisdictions. In light of increasing efforts between nations to collaborate on HTA, it is important to be cognisant of the similarities and differences that exist between the input parameters of individual countries. The objective of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of national HTAs of tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah®) for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, to identify their similarities and differences and comment on the transferability of these national HTAs to the Irish setting.

METHODS: A qualitative analysis of national HTAs pertaining to tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah®) was conducted. Published reports comprising a clinical and economic section were included, in line with Ireland’s national guidelines. Reports written in a language other than English were excluded. Criteria extracted were based on Ireland’s national HTA agency’s (NCPE) assessment template and included both clinical and economic data.

RESULTS: HTAs of four national HTA agencies were assessed; Ireland, Scotland, England and Canada. Common limitations in the clinical data and economic model were identified in all HTAs, the most significant of which was the limited evidence base. Notable differences were identified in the comparators used, data synthesis methods, extrapolation methods, budget impact and discount rates. The overall HTA outcomes were different across all HTAs. Ireland’s national HTA guidelines were violated in the three assessments.

CONCLUSIONS: The differences identified between jurisdictions suggest that the HTAs are not directly transferable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. However, this does not preclude collaboration between jurisdictions, particularly in relation to methodological challenges.