European collaboration on relative effectiveness assessments: What is needed to be successful?

Health Policy

Volumn 119, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 569-576

  Kleijnen, Sarah ^a,b   Toenders, Wil ^c   de Groot, Folkert ^c   Huic, Mirjana ^d   George, Elisabeth ^f   Wieseler, Beate ^g   Pavlovic, Mira ^h   Bucsics, Anna ^i,j   Siviero, Paolo D ^e   van der Graaff, Martin ^a   Rdzany, Rafał ^k   Kristensen, Finn Børlum ^l,m   Goettsch, Wim ^a,b  

^a Section Pharmaceutical Care   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c ToendersdeGroot Consultants   (Netherlands)

^d Agency for Quality and Accreditation in Health Care and Social Welfare   (Croatia)

^e ITALIAN MEDICINES AGENCY   (Italy)

^f NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

^g The Inst for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare   (Germany)

^h Ancien Délégué Général de la Fédération de l'Hospitalisation Privée   (France)

ⁱ Association of Austrian Social Insurance Institutions   (Austria)

^j UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^k Agency for Health Technology Assessment in Poland   (Poland)

^l Danish Health and Medicines Authority   (Denmark)

^m UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

more..

Author keywords

European collaboration; Health technology assessment; Pharmaceuticals; Reimbursement; Relative effectiveness; Relative effectiveness assessment

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; EUROPEAN; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP; RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT; REVIEW; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DRUG SCREENING; EUROPE; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; NONBIOLOGICAL MODEL; PROCEDURES; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARDS;

DRUG;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DRUG EVALUATION; EUROPE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MODELS, ORGANIZATIONAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84930864495     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: 18726054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.01.018     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Robinson J.C., Howell S. Specialty pharmaceuticals: policy initiatives to improve assessment, pricing, prescription, and use. Health Affairs 2014, 33(October (10)):1745-1750.
2. Sorenson C., Drummond M., Kanavos P. Ensuring value for money in healthcare: the role of health technology assessment in the European Union Observatory studies series, no. 11 2008, World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
3. Hutton J., Trueman P., Facey K. Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2008, 24(4):511-517.
4. Kleijnen S., George E., Goulden S., d'Andon A., Vitré P., Osińska B., et al. Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: similarities and differences in 29 jurisdictions. Value in Health 2012, 15(September-October (6)):954-960.
5. European Commission Enterprise and Industry High level pharmaceutical forum 2005-2008. Conclusions and recommendations 2008, European Commission, Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/healthcare/files/docs/pharmaforum_final_conclusions_brochure_en.pdf [accessed 05.05.14].
6. Kleijnen S., Pasternack I., Van de Casteele M., Rossi B., Cangini A., Di Bidino R., et al. Standardised reporting for rapid relative effectiveness assessments of pharmaceuticals. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2015, 30. 10.1017/S0266462314000609.
7. Lampe K., Mäkelä M., Garrido M.V., Anttila H., Autti-Rämö I., Hicks N.J., et al. The HTA core model: a novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2009, 25(Suppl. 2):9-20.
8. EUnetHTA WP5 Joint Action 1 Methodological guidelines for rapid REA of pharmaceuticals March 2013, Available from: http://www.eunethta.eu/eunethta-guidelines [accessed 28.03.14].
9. EUnetHTA Work Package 5 Joint Action 1 Pazopanib for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Pilot assessment using the draft HTA Core Model for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment model December 2012, Available from: http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/WP5%20JA1%20Pilot%20Pazopanib%20Report+Appendix.pdf [accessed 28.03.14].
10. EUnetHTA WP5 Joint Action 2 Strand A Zostavax for the prevention of herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia September 2013, Available from: http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/Zostavax_main%20report%20including%20appendices_20130922.pdf [accessed 28.03.14].
11. EUnetHTA WP5 Joint Action 2 Strand A Canagliflozin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus February 2014, Available from: http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/WP5_SA-2_canagliflozin_for_the_treatment_of_diabetes_mellitus.pdf [accessed 28.03.14].
12. Hailey D., Marshall D., Sampietro-Colom L., Rico R., Granados A., Asua J., et al. International collaboration in health technology assessment: a study of technologies used in management of osteoporosis. Health Policy 1998, 43:233-241.
13. Estrada M.D., Asplund K., Barrington R., Faisst K., Kahan J.P., Kjonniksen I., et al. European joint assessments and coordination of findings and resources. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2002, 8:321-360.
14. Huić M., Nachtnebel A., Zechmeister I., Pasternak I., Wild C. collaboration in health technology assessment (EUnetHTA joint action, 2010-2012): four case studies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2013, 29(July (3)):323-330.
15. Tong A., Sainsbury P., Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2007, 19(December (6)):349-357.
16. Clement F.M., Harris A., Li J.J., Yong K., Lee K.M. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. The Journal of the American Medical Association 2009, 302(October (13)):1437-1443.
17. Levy A.R., Mitton C., Johnston K.M., Harrigan B., Briggs A.H. International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: insights for the US. Pharmacoeconomics 2010, 28(10):813-830.
18. Franken M., Nilsson F., Sandmann F., de Boer A., Koopmanschap M. Unravelling drug reimbursement outcomes: a comparative study of the role of pharmacoeconomic evidence in Dutch and Swedish reimbursement decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 2013, 31(September (9)):781-797.
19. Spinner D.S., Birt J., Walter J.W., Bowman L., Mauskopf J., Drummond M.F., et al. Do different clinical evidence bases lead to discordant health-technology assessment decisions? An in-depth case series across three jurisdictions. ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research 2013, 5:69-85.
20. Paris V., Belloni A. Value in pharmaceutical pricing, OECD health working papers, no. 63 2013, OECD, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k43jc9v6knx-en [accessed 15.01.15].
21. Kristensen F.B.1, Gerhardus A. Health technology assessments: what do differing conclusions tell us?. British Medical Journal 2010, 341(October):c5236.
22. George E., Sidhu R., Kaiser T., Schüler Y.B., Wieseler B. A comparison of the NICE and IQWIG/G-BA assessments of ticagrelor for ACS. Poster presented at ISPOR, Berlin November 2012, Available at: http://www.ispor.org/congresses/Berlin1112/casestudyabstracts.aspx [accessed 05.01.15].