To What Extent Do the EUnetHTA 21 D4.4 Guidelines on Endpoints Recognize Non-Os Endpoints and Patient-Reported Outcomes, and What Opportunities Exist in the Joint Clinical Assessment to Reflect Their Value?

Author(s)

Fameli A1, Paulsson T2, Gutierrez B3, Cimen A4, Chung S3, Cassarino G3
1GSK, London, London, UK, 2GSK, LONDON, GLS, UK, 3GSK, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 4GSK, Zug, Switzerland

OBJECTIVES: The Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) aims to harmonize the EU HTA procedure and will become mandatory for oncology drugs in 2025. As part of the JCA, member states (MS) identify PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) needs, to enable manufacturers to present necessary data for the JCA. To support the JCA, the EUnetHTA21 joint consortium published the D4.4 endpoints guidelines in 2023. HTA bodies/payers do not always accept endpoints beyond overall survival (OS)/patient-reported outcomes (PROs), even though their value is frequently recognized by patients, clinicians and regulators. This study assessed the extent to which the guidelines recognize non-OS endpoints/PROs and the opportunities within the JCA to reflect their value.

METHODS: This study is informed by a literature review and 6 interviews with European HTA experts.

RESULTS: The guidelines state a preference for OS. While non-OS endpoints are accepted as surrogates where final outcomes are unavailable or unfeasible to collect, there is no recognition that they have standalone value in capturing outcomes beyond survival. E.g., progression-free survival has value as an efficacy measure independent of OS correlation, due to the direct impact of tumor progression on symptoms, HRQoL and treatment decisions. In maintenance therapies, preventing progression is a primary treatment goal where it provides patient benefit. Furthermore, experts demand greater clarity on surrogacy use cases for non-OS endpoints. The guidelines recognize the need to tailor endpoints per setting and highlight patients’ / clinicians’ roles in achieving this, but do not engage regulators or industry in defining endpoint validity.

CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines state a preference for OS and don’t explicitly recognize the standalone value of non-OS endpoints/PROs. However, MS have the opportunity to specify outcomes beyond OS via the PICO process to reflect the holistic value of novel therapies, including via HRQoL and resource use and by agreeing the relationships between surrogate endpoints and patient-centered outcomes.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2023-11, ISPOR Europe 2023, Copenhagen, Denmark

Value in Health, Volume 26, Issue 11, S2 (December 2023)

Code

HTA80

Topic

Clinical Outcomes, Health Technology Assessment

Topic Subcategory

Clinical Outcomes Assessment, Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy, Decision & Deliberative Processes, Value Frameworks & Dossier Format

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Oncology

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×