PP298 Scottish Health Technologies Group (SHTG) Adaptations: Utilizing Other Agencies’ HTAs In Scotland

IntroductionHealth Technology Assessment (HTA) is an important but time-consuming process to inform decision-making. Following requests from stakeholders in Scotland to provide advice on technologies that had recently undergone HTA in other jurisdictions, SHTG recognized a gap in their ‘product menu’. Colleagues within the SHTG team devised a mechanism through which an original HTA could be adapted for Scotland, taking into account local contextual factors.MethodsSHTG Adaptations comprise the following: i) assessment of the original HTA using the EUnetHTA HTA Adaptation Toolkit and checklist; ii) draft Adaptation using the outcome of the assessment and contextual information for Scotland; iii) consultation group of relevant Scottish clinicians is provided with the original HTA and draft SHTG Adaptation; iv) modified Delphi approach (max. three rounds of questioning) is used to ascertain the relevance of the original HTA to Scotland; v) the Adaptation is submitted to SHTG Council for endorsement.ResultsSHTG Adaptations have a timeline of 2–3 months, three have been published since this product was launched. The process has run smoothly with excellent clinical engagement from across NHS Scotland. Key learning focusses on the role of the SHTG Council (i.e. appraisal committee) in this process and in handling of expert opinion of evidence which has already been appraised by another agency.ConclusionsThe SHTG Adaptation is a new product which offers a timely assessment and utilization of an HTA from another agency.

OP303 Do You Get The Message? Making HTA Findings Easier For Decision-Makers To Implement

IntroductionOften health technology assessment (HTA) products developed by the Scottish Health Technologies Group (SHTG) did not reach clear directive conclusions because the evidence base for a technology was weak. Despite being methodologically robust, these products did not meet the needs of decision-makers and may have had negligible impact.MethodsSHTG set out to equip and empower the recommendation-making council (that is, appraisal committee) to reach clear conclusions. SHTG broadened the HTA components and types of evidence that could be considered. The increased breadth of evidence included: clinicians attending council meetings to respond to questions; patient groups making submissions and presenting at council meetings; Scotland-specific economic modelling; and consultation on draft recommendations. SHTG also restructured the council for improved deliberative decision-making.ResultsClear directive conclusions were reached in a substantially higher proportion of HTA products (eighty-eight percent in 2019 compared with eight percent in 2017). It became possible for decision-makers to implement findings. It also became feasible to assess the impact and implementation of recommendations.ConclusionsBroadening SHTG's consideration of HTA components has led to a clearer conclusion being reached and stronger messaging for decision makers. This positions SHTG to increase its influence in the use of health technologies in Scotland.

Under Careful Construction: Combining Findings, Arguments, and Values Into Robust Health Care Coverage Decisions

Background: Health care coverage decisions deal with health care technology provision or reimbursement on a national level. The coverage decision outcome, i.e., the publicly available document with reasons for the decision, may contain various elements: quantitative calculations like cost and clinical effectiveness analyses and formalised and non-formalised qualitative considerations. We know little about the process of combining these heterogeneous elements into robust decision outcomes.Methods: In this study, we describe a model for combining different elements into coverage decision outcomes. We build on two qualitative cases of coverage appraisals at the Dutch National Health Care Institute, for which we analysed observations at committee meetings (n=2, with field notes taken) and analysis of audio files (n=3), interviews with appraisal committee members (n=10 in seven interviews) and with Institute employees (n=5 in three interviews).Results: We conceptualise decision outcomes as combinations of elements, specifically (quantitative) findings and (qualitative) arguments and values. Our model contains three steps: 1) identifying elements; 2) designing the combinations of elements, which entails articulating links, broadening the scope of designed combinations, and black-boxing links; and 3) testing these combinations and choosing one as the final decision outcome. Conclusions: The proposed model highlights decision makers’ expertise in composing both elements and combinations. It also provides additional rationales for facilitating appeals and engaging patients and the public. Future research efforts could further explore the relationship between robustness and decision combination strength.

Protocol for the cost-effectiveness of parenteral iron and oral iron therapy for first-line management of anaemia among pregnant women in a natural programme setting in Gujarat

IntroductionMaternal anaemia is a major public health issue in India. The government of India recommends parenteral iron to manage moderate and severe grades of anaemia. In contrast to its clinical efficacy, the cost-effectiveness of intravenous iron sucrose and ferric carboxymaltose is not yet established in Indian context. This article illustrates the protocol of health technology assessment to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous therapy on the improvement of haemoglobin concentration over oral therapy.Methods and analysisThe study will be carried out in two districts of Gujarat state. The study participants will be selected by a proportionate sampling method from the rural, tribal, desert and coastal region of the districts. Data will be collected over 1 year on key outcome indicators using a mixed-method approach. Key informant interviews will be conducted, and cost data will be gathered to perform cost-effectiveness analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by the Technical Appraisal Committee of Health Technology Assessment India, Department of Health Research and Institutional Ethics Committee of the Indian Institute of Public Health, Gandhinagar.

The impact of rarity in NICE’s health technology appraisals

Background In the absence of a framework designed to evaluate medicines for rare diseases in the UK, most orphan medicines are appraised by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) through the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. Results An analysis of STA appraisals of orphan and non-orphan medicines revealed that orphan medicines were subject to a significantly longer mean time in the NICE process than non-orphan medicines [370 days (n = 44) vs. 277 days (n = 118), p = < 0.0001]. A higher proportion of orphan STAs required more than one Appraisal Committee Meeting (ACM) versus non-orphan STAs, and orphan STAs were disadvantaged by worse outcomes with respect to positive recommendations than those orphan medicines assessed by Highly Specialised Technology evaluation (HST). Conclusions The uncertainties inherent to developing orphan medicines may contribute to these disadvantages. Improved understanding of the challenges in drug development for orphan medicines and clearer guidance for decision makers on navigating uncertainty in the HTA process may promote greater equity in access to medicines across rare and common conditions.

The Impact of Rarity in NICE's Health Technology Appraisals

In the absence of a framework designed to evaluate medicines for rare diseases in the UK, most orphan medicines are appraised by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) through the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. An analysis of STA appraisals of orphan and non-orphan medicines revealed that orphan medicines were subject to a significantly longer mean time in the NICE process than non-orphan medicines (370 days (n=44) vs 277 days (n=118), p=<0.0001). A higher proportion of orphan STAs required more than one Appraisal Committee Meeting (ACM) vs. non-orphan STAs, and orphan STAs were disadvantaged by worse outcomes with respect to positive recommendations than those orphan medicines assessed by Highly Specialised Technology evaluation (HST). The uncertainties inherent to developing orphan medicines may contribute to these disadvantages. Improved understanding of the challenges in drug development for orphan medicines and clearer guidance for decision makers on navigating uncertainty in the HTA process may promote greater equity in access to medicines across rare and common conditions.

Necessity under construction – societal weighing rationality in the appraisal of health care technologies

Health care coverage decisions may employ many different considerations, which are brought together across two phases. The assessment phase examines the available scientific evidence, such as the cost-effectiveness, of the technology. The appraisal then contextualises this evidence to arrive at an (advised) coverage decision, but little is known about how this is done. In the Netherlands, the appraisal is set up to achieve a societal weighing and is the primary place where need- and solidarity-related (‘necessity’) argumentations are used. To elucidate how the Dutch appraisal committee ‘constructs necessity’, we analysed observations and recordings of two appraisal committee meetings at the National Health Care Institute, the corresponding documents (five), and interviews with committee members and policy makers (13 interviewees in 12 interviews), with attention to specific necessity argumentations. The Dutch appraisal committee constructs necessity in four phases: (1) allowing explicit criteria to steer the process; (2) allowing patient (representative) contributions to challenge the process; (3) bringing new argumentations in from outside and weaving them together; and (4) formulating recommendations to societal stakeholders. We argue that in these ways, the appraisal committee achieves societal weighing rationality, as the committee actively uses argumentations from society and embeds the decision outcome in society.

Application of evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment in low- and middle-income countries

ObjectivesEvidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes toward more legitimate decision making. A survey among members of the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA) showed that EDPs can also be relevant for countries that have not (yet) established such an agency. Therefore, we explored to what extent low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) applied the steps and elements stipulated in the EDP framework and their need for guidance.MethodsThe survey among INAHTA members was slightly adapted to address LMIC context and sent to 416 experts identified through several HTA sources. The questions focused on contextual factors and the EDP steps (installation of an appraisal committee, selecting technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, communication and appeal). Data collection took place between 21 May and 1 September 2019. Descriptive statistics and qualitative analyses were used to summarize the findings.ResultsWe received sixty-six meaningful responses from experts in thirty-two LMIC. We found that contextual factors to support HTA development are overall not present or only present to some extent. Respondents indicated that guidance was needed for specific elements related to selecting technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, as well as communication and appeal.ConclusionsEDPs have the potential to provide steps for improving HTA processes. The results of this study can serve as a baseline measurement for future monitoring and evaluation of EDP application in the responding LMIC. This could support the countries in improving their processes and enhancing legitimate decision making when using HTA.

Exploration of the visibility of patient input in final recommendation documentation for three health technology assessment bodies

Health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations informed by patient concerns are seen to ensure democracy and legitimacy. We explored how written and oral patient involvement in two HTAs was reported on in publicly available final recommendations and discussion summaries of appraisal committees from three HTA bodies. We aimed to gain insights into how patient input was utilized by appraisal committees to better understand the goals of patient involvement and how these are being achieved. In each of the three HTA bodies, templated submission questionnaires provide a formal process for seeking written patient group input. Additionally, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selects patient experts to provide a templated submission and attend appraisal committee meetings. For Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), a patient advocate and clinician combined meeting (PACE) discussed the cancer drug, referred to in the final recommendation. The discussion summaries of all appraisal committees contained references to patient involvement. Where two mechanisms for patient involvement were provided, oral input from the expert patients and PACE were more clearly documented than information from written patient group submissions. NICE reports focused on the perspective of the patient expert. The SMC report highlighted feedback from the PACE throughout. We suggest that the lack of clear reporting on the use of patient group input in deliberations and therefore accountability to patient groups limits progress in patient involvement in HTA. Patient groups may therefore not have a clear understanding of what information they can best provide to inform deliberations, and in reporting back to members.

Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe

Background: Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were recently introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes towards more legitimate decision-making. The EDP framework provides guidance that covers the HTA process, ie, contextual factors, installation of an appraisal committee, selecting health technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, and communication and appeal. The aims of this study were to identify the level of use of EDPs by HTA agencies, identify their needs for guidance, and to learn about best practices. Methods: A questionnaire for an online survey was developed based on the EDP framework, consisting of elements that reflect each part of the framework. The survey was sent to members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Two weeks following the invitation, a reminder was sent. The data collection took place between September-December 2018. Results: Contact persons from 27 member agencies filled out the survey (response rate: 54%), of which 25 completed all questions. We found that contextual factors to support HTA development and the critical elements regarding conducting and reporting on HTA are overall in place. Respondents indicated that guidance was needed for specific elements related to selecting technologies and criteria, appraisal, and communication and appeal. With regard to best practices, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, UK) were most often mentioned. Conclusion: This is the first survey among HTA agencies regarding the use of EDPs and provides useful information for further developing a practical guide for HTA agencies around the globe. The results could support HTA agencies in improving their processes towards more legitimate decision-making, as they could serve as a baseline measurement for future monitoring and evaluation.