Comparison of the Guidelines for Quantitative Evidence Synthesis in the European Union (EU) Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) of Medicinal Products to Current Methods for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in Germany

Author(s)

Maier M1, Meier C2, Becker M3, Scheulen C3, Specks J3, Hinnenthal M3, Blondrath K4, Rich A3, Oberhauser M3, Gallinger P3, Bonduelle D5, van Engen A6
1IQVIA Commercial GmbH & Co. OHG, Barcelona, B, Spain, 2IQVIA Spain, Madrid, M, Spain, 3IQVIA Commercial GmbH & Co. OHG, Munich, Germany, 4IQVIA Commercial GmbH & Co. OHG, Barcelona, Spain, 5IQVIA, Munich, Germany, 6IQVIA, Amsterdam, NH, Netherlands

OBJECTIVES: Commencing 2025, new oncology medicines and advanced therapy medicinal products will be assessed at EU level. The EU Coordination Group on HTA recently published methodological and practical guidelines for evidence synthesis in terms of JCA, which were developed in close collaboration with German healthcare authorities. Here, we identified differences between these guidelines and the HTA methods used by German authorities.

METHODS: The European Methodological and Practical Guidelines for Quantitative Evidence Synthesis, the General Methods by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) and the Rules of Procedure by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) were compared to identify differences and similarities in the recommended approaches for evidence synthesis.

RESULTS: The general approach and the specifications for direct comparisons are largely congruent between JCA and German methodology. Both approaches show strong preferences for direct comparisons. However, there are differences in the recommended methodology for indirect comparisons. Whereas JCA does not explicitly exclude the submission of non-adjusted indirect comparisons, these are currently not accepted in Germany, as the benefit assessments for e.g., pembrolizumab, trastuzumab deruxtecan, and dezaparvovec, have shown. For any indirect comparisons, German authorities require an adjusted comparison and an adequate connecting comparator. For indirect comparisons without common comparators to be considered, Germany requires full access to individual patient data (IPD) for all trials, whereas JCA requests IPD for at least one trial, but does not endorse this approach.

CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the HTA methodologies, differences in the requirements for presenting indirect comparisons were identified. Germany currently only accepts adjusted comparisons and demands IPD in the case of no common comparator. By including non-adjusted indirect comparison in the guidelines, it appears that JCA is more amenable to the use of these methods.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2024-11, ISPOR Europe 2024, Barcelona, Spain

Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 12, S2 (December 2024)

Code

HTA379

Topic

Clinical Outcomes, Health Policy & Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment, Study Approaches

Topic Subcategory

Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy, Meta-Analysis & Indirect Comparisons, Reimbursement & Access Policy, Value Frameworks & Dossier Format

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas

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

×