PICO Criteria Applied in Joint Action 3 Differ From National HTA Requirements: A Review of Oncology Drug Assessments in Denmark, France, Germany, and Sweden

Author(s)

Konstanski M1, Gehrman J2, Schepis Martinez J3, Schmidt K1, Wissinger E4, Altmann H5
1Xcenda GmbH, part of Cencora, Hannover, NI, Germany, 2PharmaLex Sweden AB, part of Cencora, Göteborg, O, Sweden, 3Xcenda Switzerland GmbH, part of Cencora, Bern, BE, Switzerland, 4Xcenda LLC, part of Cencora, Carrollton, TX, USA, 5PharmaLex GmbH, part of Cencora, Munich, Germany

OBJECTIVES: To compare the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) criteria applied in Joint Action 3 (JA3) assessment reports and respective national health technology assessments (HTA) for oncology drugs and to explore potential implications for the Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) which will become mandatory for oncology drugs in 2025.

METHODS: JA3 reports of oncology drugs published between 2019 and 2021 were compared to the national HTA reports in Denmark, France, Germany, and Sweden.

RESULTS: Between 2019 and 2021 three oncology drugs venetoclax, glasdegib and polatuzumab were assessed in the JA3 framework. National HTA bodies in Denmark, France, and Sweden assessed venetoclax and polatuzumab, while all the drugs were assessed in Germany. JA3 and national reports aligned particularly well regarding the populations and interventions, although Germany requested a subpopulation analysis for venetoclax. While the JA3 reports overall covered national requirements in terms of comparators and outcomes, there were differences seen between the four national assessments for venetoclax and polatuzumab. Overall, Germany was less restrictive than other countries for the comparator in case of orphan drugs, but more restrictive regarding outcomes and study types considered. Denmark and France included data from studies other than randomized controlled trials for polatuzumab. Despite slight differences in PICOs, overall conclusions on the additional benefit of the drugs vs comparators were similar between countries.

CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we conclude that national differences in European health care systems and treatment guidelines may lead to extensive PICO criteria in the JCA. To accelerate the overall HTA process in European Union (EU) countries, it will be crucial that PICOs consolidated during the JCA scoping process are streamlined, while adequately addressing national requirements from all EU countries. From this analysis, additional data requirements from individual countries are to be expected, which could delay entry of affected drugs in these countries.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2023-11, ISPOR Europe 2023, Copenhagen, Denmark

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

Code

HTA229

Topic

Health Technology Assessment

Topic Subcategory

Decision & Deliberative Processes

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

×