DO SPAIN AND PORTUGAL EVALUATORS AND DECISION MAKERS GIVE THE SAME IMPORTANCE TO EVALUATION CRITERIA OF INNOVATIVE MEDICINES?

Author(s)

Badia FJ1, Calleja M2, Mirco A3, Poveda J4, Gil A5
1Omakase Consulting, Barcelona, Spain, 2Hospital Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain, 3South and Autonomous Regions Branch-Pharmaceutical Society Portugal, Lisbon, Portugal, 4Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Valencia, Spain, 5Omakase Consulting, BARCELONA, Spain

OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative importance given to the EVIDEM criteria by Spanish (ES) and Portuguese (PT) evaluators and decision-makers involved in health technology assessment.

METHODS: Seven MCDA training sessions were performed in Spain and three in Portugal, using the EVIDEM framework. Sessions involved evaluators and decision-makers (80% pharmacist) from national, regional and local (hospital) evaluation bodies. In each session, the criteria were presented and weighted using a non-hierarchical 5-point weighting scale (5 being the highest importance). Mean score was calculated for each criterion and compared between countries applying the t-test, being the null hypothesis that Spanish weight scores would be the same as in Portugal.

RESULTS: Criteria were weighted by a total of 134 evaluators and decision makers (98 in Spain and 36 in Portugal). The most important criteria for both countries were “disease severity” and comparative efficacy”, and the less important criteria were “size of affected population” (evaluators do not choose based on number of patients to be treated), “expert consensus/clinical practice guidelines” (evaluators do not believe in guidelines because they might be biased) and “comparative non-medical costs” (evaluators feel these are not health related costs). There was no statistical difference in the assigned weight scores in 10 out of 13 criteria. Differences were observed in “size of affected population” (ES scored +0,53 compared to PT, p<0,035), “comparative patient-reported outcomes (PROs)” (ES scored -0,39 compared to PT, p<0,046) and “quality of evidence” (ES scored +0,55 compared to PT, p<0,001).

CONCLUSIONS: Evaluators and decision makers from ES and PT considered EVIDEM criteria very relevant and applicable for health technology value assessment. Overall weights assigned to criteria was very similar as well as the criteria ranking. Values assigned to “Size of affected population” and “quality of evidence” were higher in Spain, whereas “comparative PROs” were higher in Portugal.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2018-11, ISPOR Europe 2018, Barcelona, Spain

Value in Health, Vol. 21, S3 (October 2018)

Code

HT6

Topic

Health Policy & Regulatory, Health Service Delivery & Process of Care

Topic Subcategory

Hospital and Clinical Practices, Reimbursement & Access Policy

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

×