THE QUEV SCORE- A QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF THE QUALITY OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE IN HTA

Author(s)

Schmitz S1, McCullagh L2, Walsh C3, Dolan E4
1Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg, 2Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, 3University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland, 4Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland

OBJECTIVES: A recent analysis of reimbursement recommendations issued by the NCPE in Ireland has identified quality of clinical evidence (QuEV) to be an important driver of reimbursement decisions; mirroring findings in other countries. The lack of a scoring system impedes the formal incorporation of this additional uncertainty in the decision making process. We propose a multidimensional scoring system (the QuEV score) to capture multiple aspects influencing quality of evidence. METHODS: Relevant dimensions for the assessment of QuEV were derived from the NCPE template to assess clinical and comparative effectiveness and complemented in discussion with the NCPE review team. The outcomes in each dimension are mapped onto values between 0 (=worst outcome) and 1 (=best outcome) and are combined in a analytic hierarchy process. This allows for continued flexiblity to represent preferences of different decision makers and a future incorporation into a MCDA model to inform reimbursement decisions. RESULTS: The following dimensions were included in the QuEV score (all to be evaluated with respect to the main comparator treatment): network properties (direct, indirect adjusted, indirect matched, naïve), trial type (multiple RCTs, one RCT, observational, phase-2 trials, phase-1 trials), trial quality (Cochrane risk of bias tool), and outcome measure (direct, surrogate). Three hypothetical treatment profiles illustrate how, analogously to actuarial science, the score can be used to translate into a threshold reduction. Sensitivity analysis on the relative importance of criteria highlights high sensitivity for treatments with varied scores in the dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: The QuEV score provides a quantitative tool to evaluate the underpinning clinical evidence in HTAs. Threshold reductions for technologies with an increased risk of a wrong decision due to a poor evidence base can ensure that the increased risk is not solely carried by the payer and provides an incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to collect post reimbursement data.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2016-10, ISPOR Europe 2016, Vienna, Austria

Value in Health, Vol. 19, No. 7 (November 2016)

Code

PHP337

Topic

Health Policy & Regulatory

Topic Subcategory

Risk-sharing Approaches

Disease

Multiple Diseases

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

×