ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN HEALTH-TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Author(s)

Hong YD1, Hennig M2, Shen Q3, Alfonso R3, Kitchen H4, Marshall C5, Romero-Salerno V6, Keeley T7
1University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA, 2GlaxoSmithKline, Munich, Germany, 3GlaxoSmithKline, Collegeville, PA, USA, 4DRG (part of Clarivate), Manchester, UK, 5DRG Abacus, Manchester, UK, 6Context Matters, New York, NY, USA, 7GlaxoSmithKline, Middlesex, UK

OBJECTIVES: There is growing emphasis on incorporating the patient perspective in assessing the value of new health technologies. The extent to which health technology assessment (HTA) bodies are using patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in their assessments is evolving and poorly understood. This analysis aimed to evaluate the role of PROs in decisions made by HTA bodies.

METHODS: We reviewed HTA appraisals conducted between January 2015 and June 2019 by CADTH, pCODR, G-BA, HAS, NICE, and PBAC for 3 diseases representing oncology (multiple myeloma), neurology (Parkinson’s disease), and immune-inflammatory (rheumatoid arthritis) therapies. Relevant HTA appraisals were identified using the Context Matters Market Access Platform (MAP). HTA appraisals for which complete data were not yet available were excluded. PROs were categorized as accepted/rejected/unknown, and reasons for rejection were documented.

RESULTS: Overall, 96% of HTA appraisals (238/249) were available in the MAP. 29% of indications (69/238) reviewed by HTA bodies involved the use of one or more PROs (36% for multiple myeloma, 40% for Parkinson’s disease, and 24% for rheumatoid arthritis). A total of 165 PROs were included, and overall, 64% of PROs (105/165) were accepted. PRO acceptance rates were higher for rheumatoid arthritis (68%) and Parkinson’s disease (67%) than for multiple myeloma indications (56%). Acceptance rates also varied across HTA bodies. Common reasons for rejection of PROs were related to the statistical analysis methods used (e.g., hierarchical analysis of endpoints), open-label study design, the lack of specification (or validity) of minimally important difference thresholds/responder definitions, and low completion rates.

CONCLUSIONS: Approximately two-thirds of PROs included in recent HTA appraisals were accepted. The use and acceptance of PROs in HTA appraisals varied across diseases and HTA bodies. Using validated PRO measures and validated minimally important difference thresholds in well-designed clinical studies are important for the PRO data to be considered in HTA decisions.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2020-05, ISPOR 2020, Orlando, FL, USA

Value in Health, Volume 23, Issue 5, S1 (May 2020)

Code

PMU108

Topic

Health Technology Assessment, Methodological & Statistical Research, Patient-Centered Research

Topic Subcategory

Decision & Deliberative Processes, Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes, PRO & Related Methods

Disease

Multiple Diseases, Musculoskeletal Disorders, Neurological Disorders, Oncology

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

×