Search

The prices of oncology drugs have been rising progressively in recent years. Despite accounting for only a small share of prescriptions, oncology drugs are the most expensive drugs on the market. However, the association between drug price and clinical benefit often remains questionable. Therefore, we set out to analyze the development of prescription and benefit assessment of protein kinase inhibitors. We identified 20 protein kinase inhibitors with oncological indications that were newly approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2015 and 2019, based on the Arzneiverordnungsreport (AVR, Drug Prescription Report). For these 20 drugs, the number of prescriptions, sales, defined daily dose (DDD), and DDD costs were identified for the year of approval and for 2020, respectively, based on data from the Wissenschaftliches Institut der Ortskrankenkassen (WIdO, Scientific Institute of the General Local Health Insurance Fund, AOK). Moreover, the additional benefit assessments by the Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (GBA, Federal Joint Committee) were considered for each drug. It is shown that the share of a drug in prescriptions, sales, and DDD does not correlate with the clinical benefit of the drug as measured by the additional benefit assessment by the GBA. Lastly, the advertisement pattern of protein kinase inhibitors in a representative oncology journal does not correlate with drug benefit. In conclusion, the immense costs of oncology drugs are therefore largely caused by drugs for which no additional benefit has been proven by the GBA. In order to ensure the long-term stability of health care systems, price-regulation measures are urgently needed, especially for drugs whose additional benefit has not been proven. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To analyze how ophthalmic drugs fared in the early benefit assessment (EBA) after its introduction in Germany up to 2020 and to quantify its impact on their negotiated prices. Relevant documents were screened and essential content on added benefit outcomes and the underlying evidence was extracted next to pricing information. In addition to descriptive statistics, cross-stakeholder analyses and agreement statistics were implemented. Thirteen completed EBA were identified involving eight drugs. Only four drugs (30.8%) received an added benefit. The OR for no added benefit of ophthalmic drugs versus all other drugs was 2.971 (0.902–9.781). The agreement between manufacturers' claims and decision-maker appraisals is fair (kappa 0.435). In all cases, evidence was derived for RCTs, but for different reasons, not all of them allowed direct comparisons with the comparator as defined by the decision-maker. The negotiated rebates on manufacturer's selling prices varied from 6.8% up to 47.4%. Nevertheless, the rebates for ophthalmic drugs (median 14.5%) were lower than those for all negotiated drugs (median 24%). Over the past decade, the EBA of ophthalmic drugs was not necessarily a success story, but in most of the cases, the drugs were successful in the market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Since the implementation of the Regulation on Patient Integration (2003), the Act on the Reorganization of the Pharmaceutical Market (2011), and the Patient Rights Law (2013), the inclusion of patient perspectives has been further anchored in the German early benefit assessment process. During the assessment of rare disease interventions, patient perspectives are particularly important, as clinical studies are often designed acknowledging small samples and patients suffering from severe symptoms and the chronic course of the disease. Therefore, our research question is whether patient perspectives are considered as part of early benefit assessments for rare diseases. We also strive to examine how patient perspectives are methodologically elicited and presented. Methods Our empirical evidence comes from a systematic review of orphan drug value dossiers submitted to the German Federal Joint Committee as well as the corresponding evaluations conducted between January 1, 2011 and March 1, 2019 (n = 81). Data on patient perspective integration were extracted using the following patient-reported outcome subcategories: clinical patient-reported outcomes, health-related quality of life, patient preferences, and patient satisfaction. Results The analysis demonstrates the specific relevance of patient-reported outcomes raised as part of the medical data set and presented during the early benefit assessment process. They are predominantly presented in the form of health-related quality of life data (n = 75%) and clinical outcomes (n = 49%). Preferences (n = 2%) and satisfaction (n = 1%) are still rarely presented, although the heated methodological discussion in Germany would suggest otherwise. While various methodologies for the integration of clinical outcomes and quality of life data were found, presenting data on satisfaction and preferences still lacks methodological rigor. The German Federal Joint Committee has not yet integrated these data in their decision text. Clinical outcomes and quality of life have been included in 46% and 73% of the cases, respectively. Conclusions The underlying analysis demonstrates that there is still a relative high potential for the regular and systematic inclusion of patient perspectives within the early benefit assessment process for rare diseases. In particular, patient preferences and patient satisfaction are still rarely included suggesting the need for a clear-cut methodological foundation and incentives.

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to analyse the impact of commissioned addenda by the Federal Joint Committee (FJC) to the HTA body (IQWiG) and their agreement with FJC decisions and to identify potential additional decisive factors of FJC. Methods All available relevant documents up to end of 2017 were screened and essential content extracted. Next to descriptive statistics, differences between IQWiG and FJC were tested and explored by agreement statistics (Cohen’s kappa and Fleiss’ kappa) and ordinal logistic regression. Results Most of the 90 addenda concerned oncological products. In all contingent comparisons, positive changes in added benefit or evidence level on a subpopulation basis (n = 124) prevailed negative ones. Fleiss’ ordinal kappa for agreement of assessments, addenda, and appraisals reached a moderate strength for added benefit (0.474, 95%-CI, 0.408–0.540). Overall agreement between addenda and appraisals on a binary nominal basis is poor for added benefit (Cohen’s kappa 0.183; 95%-CI: 0.010–0.357) ranging from “less than by chance” (respiratory diseases) to “perfect” (neurological diseases). The OR of the selected regression model showed that i) mortality, ii) unmet need, the positions of iii) the physicians’ drug commission and iv) medical societies, and v) the annual therapeutic costs of the appropriate comparative therapy had a high influence on FJC’s appraisals deviating from IQWiG’s addenda recommendation. Conclusions IQWiG’s addenda have a high impact on decision-maker’s appraisals offering additional analyses of supplementary evidence submitted by the manufacturers. Nevertheless, the agreement between addenda and appraisals varies, highlighting different decisive factors between IQWiG and FJC.

Objective: Due to the impact of the Federal Joint Committee's (FJC) appraisal on following price negotiations, it is crucial to understand the underlying reasons of failure in early benefit assessment (EBA) of medicinal products in Germany. Methods: Medicinal products for which no added benefit was granted, the underlying reasons given by the FJC were extracted and grouped into respective categories according to predefined working definitions. Several reasons may hold for one subgroup. Furthermore, binomial proportion analysis was performed to gather proportions and their precision for each therapeutic area regarding possible failure. Results: 293/427 subgroups did not receive an added benefit. For 265/293 the following main formal reasons were stated: deviation of label to the pivotal studies (59%), wrong comparator (20.5%), and methodological deficiencies of indirect comparisons (12.3%). The proportion of failure in EBA is heterogeneous and therapeutic area depending (p = 0.0005). For most of the therapeutic areas, the confidence intervals of binomial proportions include 50%. Conclusion: Various different reasons led to the failure of EBAs in the past. Despite different objectives, a better alignment between the requirements and methods in the marketing authorization procedure and the EBA might facilitate the design of pivotal studies, which may be useful in both procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) data is frequently requested in early benefit assessment in Germany. To test the hypothesis that the importance of HRQoL in general and the significance of disease-specific instruments in particular has increased since the introduction of AMNOG in Germany, we analysed all early benefit assessments between 2011 and 2022., Methods: All 793 early benefit assessments completed between 01/01/2011 and 03/11/2022 were systematically analysed. The HRQoL instruments featured in the dossier submissions were extracted for all assessments and categorized into generic and specific instruments. All G-BA resolutions were likewise assessed for consideration and acceptance of generic and specific HRQoL instruments. In addition, it was examined whether there was an association between HRQoL data and the extent of additional benefit., Results: Since 2014 HRQoL data have continuously been submitted in 70% to 80% of assessments per year with the exception of 2022 (63%). Generally, disease-specific instruments are favoured, regarding submissions by industry but especially with higher acceptance by the G-BA in the resolution. Subgroup analyses revealed oncology as a major contributor to the submission and acceptance rates of disease-specific instruments. Disease-specific instruments were submitted in 81% of all oncology assessments and accepted in 53% of assessments. Overall, assessments with accepted HRQoL data tend to reach a higher overall benefit. Procedures with accepted HRQoL were most likely to receive a considerable benefit (31%), while for procedures in which HRQoL data were not accepted, a benefit was most often (65%) not proven., Discussion: Industry has followed the request for submission of specific HRQoL instruments early on. Higher submission rates of specific instruments over time which at the same time meet the methodological requirements indicate that industry has learned from early assessments. A potential reason for the high submission- and acceptance rates of specific HRQoL instruments in oncology might be the particularly high relevance of HRQoL in this indication. Possible effects of changes in legislature on the future development of submission and acceptance of HRQoL data need to be monitored., Conclusion: In Germany, HRQoL has gained a relevant position in early benefit assessment over time. Overall specific instruments are favoured, regarding submissions by industry but especially through consideration by the G-BA in the resolution. Furthermore, HRQoL data can be supportive for benefit assessments, in particular to show that advantages in morbidity and/or mortality are reflected in HRQoL and not at the expense of HRQoL., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Abstract Background According to the AMNOG act, the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) determines the additional benefit of new medicines as a basis for subsequent price negotiations. Pharmaceutical companies may withdraw their medications from the market at any time during the process. This analysis aims to compare recommendations in clinical guidelines and HTA appraisals of medicines that were withdrawn from the German market since the introduction of AMNOG in 2011. Methods Medications withdrawn from the German market between January 2011 and June 2016 following benefit assessment were categorized as opt-outs (max. 2 weeks after start of price negotiations) or supply terminations (during or after further price negotiations). Related guidelines were systematically analyzed. For all withdrawals, therapeutic area, additional benefit rating and recommendation status in relevant clinical guidelines were assessed. Results Among 139 medications, 10 opt-outs and 12 supply terminations were identified. Twenty-one out of 22 withdrawn medicines (95%) received ‘no additional benefit’ appraisal by the G-BA (average ‘no additional benefit’ rating for all AMNOG products: 47%). Of the 22 medicines, 15 (68%) were recommended by at least one guideline at the time of benefit assessment and 18 (82%) on 1 June 2016. Heterogeneity among guidelines was high. Acceptance of clinical trial endpoints was different between G-BA appraisals and clinical guidelines. Conclusion Our analysis revealed considerable differences across clinical guidelines as well as between clinical guidelines and HTA appraisals of the medicines that were withdrawn from the German market. Better alignment of the clinical perspective and close collaboration between all involved parties is required to achieve and maintain optimization of patient care.

Objectives: Dossiers submitted for early benefit assessments in Germany also provide information on the precise determination of the target population (patients eligible for a drug). The situation is complex for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) due to highly specific therapeutic indications. Our aim was to compare the different methodological steps applied to determine the target population in dossiers on drugs for NSCLC. Methods: We analysed NSCLC dossiers assessed by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) between 01.01.2011 and 31.12.2017. Methodological details regarding the determination of the target population were extracted and compared. Results: We analysed 23 NSCLC dossiers. In all dossiers, the target population was determined using the number of all patients with lung cancer as the basis for calculations. This patient population was further reduced in several successive steps by assuming proportions of patients with a specific characteristic (e.g. disease stage). The most important calculation steps were patients with NSCLC (n = 23 dossiers), with a specific disease stage (n = 23), with a specific tumour mutation (n = 14), with a specific tumour histology (n = 7), without prior treatment (n = 15), with pretreatment in second or further treatment lines (n = 17), and/or with specific pretreatments (n = 9). The proportions of patients determined within the same calculation step varied considerably between dossiers. Discussion: The calculation methods applied and the target population sizes reported in NSCLC dossiers vary considerably. A consensus with regard to the databases and calculation methods used to determine the target population in NSCLC would be helpful to reduce variations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this study was to analyse the impact of commissioned addenda by the Federal Joint Committee (FJC) to the HTA body (IQWiG) and their agreement with FJC decisions and to identify potential additional decisive factors of FJC. Methods: All available relevant documents up to end of 2017 were screened and essential content extracted. Next to descriptive statistics, differences between IQWiG and FJC were tested and explored by agreement statistics (Cohen's kappa and Fleiss' kappa) and ordinal logistic regression. Results: Most of the 90 addenda concerned oncological products. In all contingent comparisons, positive changes in added benefit or evidence level on a subpopulation basis (n = 124) prevailed negative ones. Fleiss' ordinal kappa for agreement of assessments, addenda, and appraisals reached a moderate strength for added benefit (0.474, 95%-CI, 0.408–0.540). Overall agreement between addenda and appraisals on a binary nominal basis is poor for added benefit (Cohen's kappa 0.183; 95%-CI: 0.010–0.357) ranging from "less than by chance" (respiratory diseases) to "perfect" (neurological diseases). The OR of the selected regression model showed that i) mortality, ii) unmet need, the positions of iii) the physicians' drug commission and iv) medical societies, and v) the annual therapeutic costs of the appropriate comparative therapy had a high influence on FJC's appraisals deviating from IQWiG's addenda recommendation. Conclusions: IQWiG's addenda have a high impact on decision-maker's appraisals offering additional analyses of supplementary evidence submitted by the manufacturers. Nevertheless, the agreement between addenda and appraisals varies, highlighting different decisive factors between IQWiG and FJC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since the implementation of the Regulation on Patient Integration (2003), the Act on the Reorganization of the Pharmaceutical Market (2011), and the Patient Rights Law (2013), the inclusion of patient perspectives has been further anchored in the German early benefit assessment process. During the assessment of rare disease interventions, patient perspectives are particularly important, as clinical studies are often designed acknowledging small samples and patients suffering from severe symptoms and the chronic course of the disease. Therefore, our research question is whether patient perspectives are considered as part of early benefit assessments for rare diseases. We also strive to examine how patient perspectives are methodologically elicited and presented. Methods: Our empirical evidence comes from a systematic review of orphan drug value dossiers submitted to the German Federal Joint Committee as well as the corresponding evaluations conducted between January 1, 2011 and March 1, 2019 (n = 81). Data on patient perspective integration were extracted using the following patient-reported outcome subcategories: clinical patient-reported outcomes, health-related quality of life, patient preferences, and patient satisfaction. Results: The analysis demonstrates the specific relevance of patient-reported outcomes raised as part of the medical data set and presented during the early benefit assessment process. They are predominantly presented in the form of health-related quality of life data (n = 75%) and clinical outcomes (n = 49%). Preferences (n = 2%) and satisfaction (n = 1%) are still rarely presented, although the heated methodological discussion in Germany would suggest otherwise. While various methodologies for the integration of clinical outcomes and quality of life data were found, presenting data on satisfaction and preferences still lacks methodological rigor. The German Federal Joint Committee has not yet integrated these data in their decision text. Clinical outcomes and quality of life have been included in 46% and 73% of the cases, respectively. Conclusions: The underlying analysis demonstrates that there is still a relative high potential for the regular and systematic inclusion of patient perspectives within the early benefit assessment process for rare diseases. In particular, patient preferences and patient satisfaction are still rarely included suggesting the need for a clear-cut methodological foundation and incentives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Our study explores whether, and how, different methodological choices are associated with different health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes. We focus on the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) in Germany and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England. Both agencies may be considered as exemplars for the application of the principles of evidence-based medicine and the logic of cost-effectiveness, respectively. Methods: We extracted data from all publically available G-BA appraisals until April 2015, as well as all NICE single technology appraisals completed during this period. We compared HTA results for matched condition-intervention pairs by G-BA and NICE, and explored other factors including therapeutic area, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Results: NICE issued guidance for 88 technologies (125 subgroups) and recommended 67/88 technologies (99/125 subgroups). G-BA completed 105 appraisals (226 subgroups) and determined additional benefit for 64/105 appraisals (90/226 subgroups). We identified 37 matched pairs; for 24/37 drugs, evaluations diverged. NICE recommended 78% (29/37) of technologies appraised, whereas G-BA confirmed additional benefit for 57% (21/37) only (p < 0.05). Conclusions: NICE evaluates new drugs more favorably than G-BA. However, our analysis suggests differences by therapeutic area. Results indicate that different methods are associated with systematic differences in HTA outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since January 2011, the Federal Joint Committee (FJC) conducts early benefit assessments (EBA) of newly approved pharmaceutical drugs compared to appropriate standard therapies. The FJC commissions the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQEH) to prepare preliminary reports. We aimed to evaluate the extent, impact, and reason for different judgments on added benefit of both institutions. Methods: We searched EBA data on the FJC website and included completed procedures from 2011 to 2017. We conducted a quantitative analysis of the difference between FJC and IQEH on divergent judgments, a quantitative analysis of the impact of EBA on market withdrawal, and a qualitative analysis to identify potential factors contributing to divergent judgments. Results: FJC rated an added benefit in 30% (139 of 457) and IQEH in 22% (101 of 457) matching research questions (P = 0.004). In the aftermath of EBA, 28 pharmaceutical drugs were withdrawn from the German market. We identified three potential factors that might have contributed to the divergent judgments. IQEH used a unique threshold concept to define the rating, FJC conducted additional public hearings, and FJC showed more flexibility with adherence to stringent criteria and interpretation of results. Conclusions: FJC and IQEH differed significantly in their early benefit assessment. In response to negative EBA decisions, pharmaceutical companies withdrew a considerable number of medicines from the German market. The present work uncovers the subjectivity and possible variance inherent in benefit assessment, as the two institutions observe the same rules of procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The decision matrix applied by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) for the quantification of added benefit within the early benefit assessment of new pharmaceuticals in Germany with its nine fields is quite complex and could be simplified. Furthermore, the method used by IQWiG is subject to manifold criticism: (1) it is implicitly weighting endpoints differently in its assessments favoring overall survival and, thereby, drug interventions in fatal diseases, (2) it is assuming that two pivotal trials are available when assessing the dossiers submitted by the pharmaceutical manufacturers, leading to far-reaching implications with respect to the quantification of added benefit, and, (3) it is basing the evaluation primarily on dichotomous endpoints and consequently leading to an information loss of usable evidence.Objective: To investigate if criticism is justified and to propose methodological adaptations.Methods: Analysis of the available dossiers up to the end of 2016 using statistical tests and multinomial logistic regression and simulations.Results: It was shown that due to power losses, the method does not ensure that results are statistically valid and outcomes of the early benefit assessment may be compromised, though evidence on favoring overall survival remains unclear. Modifications, however, of the IQWiG method are possible to address the identified problems.Conclusion: By converging with the approach of approval authorities for confirmatory endpoints, the decision matrix could be simplified and the analysis method could be improved, to put the results on a more valid statistical basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Previous evaluations of oncological medicines in the German early benefit assessment (EBA) procedure have demonstrated inconsistent acceptance of endpoints by regulatory authorities and the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). Accepted standard endpoints for regulatory purposes are frequently not considered as patient-relevant in the German EBA system. In this study the acceptance of clinically acknowledged primary endpoints (PEPs) from regulatory trials in EBAs conducted by the G-BA was evaluated across three therapeutic areas. Methods Medicines for oncological, metabolic and infectious diseases with EBAs finalised before 25 January 2016 were evaluated. Respective manufacturer’s dossiers, regulatory assessments, G-BA appraisals and oral hearing minutes were reviewed, and PEPs were examined to determine whether they were considered relevant to patients by the G-BA. Furthermore, the acceptance of symptomatic vs asymptomatic PEPs was also analysed. Results A total of 65 EBAs were evaluated. Mortality PEPs were widely accepted as patient-relevant but were only used in a minority of EBAs and exclusively in oncological diseases. Morbidity PEPs constituted around 72 % of assessed PEPs, but were excluded from the EBA in over half of the corresponding assessments as they were not considered patient-relevant. Symptomatic endpoints were largely deemed patient-relevant, whereas acceptance of asymptomatic endpoints varied between therapeutic areas. Conclusions This evaluation identified inconsistencies in patient relevance of morbidity-related PEPs as well as in acceptance of asymptomatic endpoints by the G-BA in all three disease areas examined. Better harmonisation between the regulatory authorities and the G-BA is still required after 5 years of AMNOG health technology assessment in Germany.

Background: In oncology clinical trials, crossover is used frequently but may lead to uncertainties regarding treatment effects.Objective: To investigate the handling of evidence from crossover trials by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA).Methods: For oncology medicines with early benefit assessments before January 2015, presence of crossover, clinical data, EMA requests for additional data, and G-BA benefit ratings/evidence levels were analyzed from manufacturers' dossiers, G-BA appraisals, European Public Assessment Reports, and original publications.Results: Eleven of 21 benefit assessments included crossover trials. Significant intergroup differences (P < 0.05) in overall survival (OS) were noted in 7 of 11 trials with and 7 of 10 without crossover. For 6 of 11 medicines with crossover, these were demonstrated before crossover. Treatment effects generally worsened with increasing proportions of crossover. The EMA requested additional data more frequently if crossover was performed, particularly if no OS data were available before crossover. The G-BA granted a considerable benefit to 73% of medicines with crossover and 40% of those without. Evidence levels were intermediate for 50% and 75%, respectively. None of the medicines received the highest evidence level.Conclusions: In G-BA appraisals, oncology medicines with crossover received better additional benefit ratings, but were assigned lower evidence levels, than those without. The five medicines with crossover after progression were assigned lower evidence levels than the six medicines with crossover after demonstration of superior OS, indicating that the way in which crossover is implemented may be one factor influencing the assignment of evidence levels by the G-BA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Optional scientific advice (SA) for the early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals is offered by the German decision maker, the Federal Joint Committee (FJC). The aim of this study was to elicit manufacturers’ experiences with the SA procedures offered by the FJC to date. Methods: A preliminary survey on a small sample size was conducted. Subsequently, a questionnaire comprising eight items, which was developed on the basis of that survey, was used. Data were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative approaches. Results: The elicitation, including a sample of 25 percent of the completed advice, highlighted the following, regarding the process as well as to the content shortcomings of the SA procedures from an industrial perspective: inconsistencies, FJC's lack of expertise in conducting clinical trials, partially incomplete answers. and a low willingness of the FJC to engage in dialogue with industry were criticized. On the other hand, the majority of respondents expressed a positive attitude concerning unambiguousness, completeness, traceability, discussion atmosphere, and the protocol of the advice. Early SA, before pivotal trials start, showed a significantly higher completeness compared with late SA with respect to endpoints and study duration. Within 4 years the quality of FJC's propositions on some topics improved significantly. Conclusions: Only a few statistically significant differences were detectable between early versus late SA. A positive trend in industry's perception of the SA can be observed over time. A more active involvement of additional stakeholders and the incorporation of procedural elements from other healthcare systems could improve the quality of the SA offered by the FJC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To analyze how value is determined within the scope of the German Pharmaceutical Restructuring Act, which came into effect in 2011.Methods: Using data from all pharmaceuticals that had undergone assessment, appraisal, and price negotiations in Germany before June 30, 2016, we applied generalized linear model regression to analyze the impact of added benefit on the difference between negotiated prices and the prices of comparators. Data were extracted from the Federal Joint Committee's appraisals and price databases. We specified added benefit in various ways. In all models, we controlled for additional criteria such as size of patient population, European price levels, and whether the comparators were generic.Results: Our regression results confirmed the descriptive results, with price premiums reflecting the extent of added benefit as appraised by the Federal Joint Committee. On the substance level, an added benefit was associated with an increase in price premium of 227.2% (P < 0.001) compared with no added benefit. Moreover, we saw increases in price premium of 377.5% (P < 0.001), 90.0% (P < 0.001), and 336.8% (P < 0.001) for added benefits that were "considerable," "minor," and "not quantifiable," respectively. Beneficial effects on mortality were associated with the greatest price premium (624.3%; P < 0.001), followed by such effects on morbidity (174.7%; P < 0.001) and adverse events (93.1%; P = 0.019).Conclusions: Price premiums, or "value," are driven by health gain, the share of patients benefiting from a pharmaceutical, European price levels, and whether comparators are generic. No statement can be made, however, about the appropriateness of the level of price premiums. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since 2011, an early benefit assessment (EBA) of new drugs constricts free price setting in Germany. According to the Pharmaceutical Market Restructuring Act (AMNOG), pharmaceutical companies are obliged to demonstrate added benefit of new drugs over comparative treatment. Benefit is usually evaluated by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). The final appraisal is made by the Federal Joint Committee, Germany's highest-ranking decision body in the health sector, triggering drug prize negotiations between companies and statutory health insurance funds. One of four evaluation criteria is quality of life (QoL). QoL outcomes have, however, only rarely been pivotal in EBAs.Objective: This study determined methodological requirements for QoL measurement and data presentation in the EBA.Design: In a qualitative content analysis, documents of all EBAs completed by 2014 were searched for the term QoL. Relevant passages of all EBAs of 2011-2013 were independently extracted and reduced to key content by two researchers. Recurring patterns were identified and verified through comparison with EBAs of 2014.Results: We identified a range of requirements regarding QoL assessment, analysis, presentation, and interpretation, which go beyond official regulations. Disease-specific questionnaires are preferred and have to be validated according to certain standards and in the respective patient group. Effects must exceed the minimal important difference, which in turn must be validated in compliance with specific requirements. Often, instruments were not accepted as QoL measures, sometimes inconsistently across EBAs. Another frequent reason for non-acceptance of QoL data was that more than 30 % of randomized patients could not be analyzed due to missing data.Conclusions: Non-compliance with methodological requirements for QoL evidence impairs chances for positive benefit evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In Germany, an arbitration board is setting reimbursement amounts for drug innovations when price negations between payers and manufacturers fail. Objective To empirically analyze all arbitrations since the reform of Germany’s Act to Reorganize the Pharmaceuticals’ Market in the Statutory Health Insurance System came into effect. Methods All available relevant documents up to January 2016 were screened and the identified contentious issues between the negotiation parties extracted. Reimbursement requests of both the negotiating parties and the arbitrations were transformed into a comparable format on the basis of defined daily doses and then contrasted among each other. Results In the given period, 16 arbitrations took place. The arbitration board is implementing the same criteria used in the negotiations between manufacturers and payers. Almost all arbitrations dealt with generic appropriate comparative therapies. Reimbursement amounts set by arbitration were on average 38.4% less than the mean of negotiation parties’ requests (69.2% less than the manufacturers’ requests). The corresponding prescription volumes were arranged rather centrally. All but one arbitration refer to a 1-year contract period. The arbitration board rarely decided on further technical contentious points. Hence, no heuristics referring to them were derivable. Conclusions There is some evidence for a quasi-algorithmic approach of the arbitration board, even though it is legally determined that it has to decide while taking the peculiar conditions of each case into due consideration, including the characteristics of the respective therapeutic area. The balance of interests proved to be within a very narrow space albeit it concerns in principle discretionary decisions. Thus, the purpose of arbitration seems not to be achieved sufficiently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous evaluations of oncological medicines in the German early benefit assessment (EBA) procedure have demonstrated inconsistent acceptance of endpoints by regulatory authorities and the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). Accepted standard endpoints for regulatory purposes are frequently not considered as patient-relevant in the German EBA system. In this study the acceptance of clinically acknowledged primary endpoints (PEPs) from regulatory trials in EBAs conducted by the G-BA was evaluated across three therapeutic areas. Methods: Medicines for oncological, metabolic and infectious diseases with EBAs finalised before 25 January 2016 were evaluated. Respective manufacturer's dossiers, regulatory assessments, G-BA appraisals and oral hearing minutes were reviewed, and PEPs were examined to determine whether they were considered relevant to patients by the G-BA. Furthermore, the acceptance of symptomatic vs asymptomatic PEPs was also analysed. Results: A total of 65 EBAs were evaluated. Mortality PEPs were widely accepted as patient-relevant but were only used in a minority of EBAs and exclusively in oncological diseases. Morbidity PEPs constituted around 72 % of assessed PEPs, but were excluded from the EBA in over half of the corresponding assessments as they were not considered patient-relevant. Symptomatic endpoints were largely deemed patient-relevant, whereas acceptance of asymptomatic endpoints varied between therapeutic areas. Conclusions: This evaluation identified inconsistencies in patient relevance of morbidity-related PEPs as well as in acceptance of asymptomatic endpoints by the G-BA in all three disease areas examined. Better harmonisation between the regulatory authorities and the G-BA is still required after 5 years of AMNOG health technology assessment in Germany. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In 2011, Germany introduced a new form of drug benefit assessment, linking reimbursement prices to drug benefit and making quality of life (QoL) one of the main benefit criteria. Thus, QoL outcomes co-determine drug prices in Germany. QoL has, however, not been defined in the regulations. This study analyzed the definition and role of QoL in Germany's drug benefit assessment. It serves as a case study on the complexity of QoL as a parameter of health technology and drug assessments, which have become mandatory in almost all industrialized countries.Methods: In a qualitative analysis, the publicly available dossiers (summaries), dossier evaluations, protocols of the oral hearings, the final resolutions of the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) and its rationale of all benefit assessments completed by 2013 (n = 66) were processed. Additionally, quantitative data on the decision outcomes were collected.Results: Only two decisions drew on QoL outcomes as "main justifications" for additional benefit. It was due to a lack of valid and statistically significant QoL results, a deficient presentation of QoL data, or differing understandings of QoL, that QoL benefit was not demonstrated in more than two cases. While manufacturers applied wider definitions of QoL, the assessment institutions questioned evidence if it was not reported with the help of validated QoL questionnaires or deviated from their definition of QoL.Conclusions: The German experience with QoL as a drug benefit criterion highlights the importance of a clear QoL definition and according methodological regulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2010, the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) of Germany passed a new law (Arzneimittelmarktneuordnungsgesetz, AMNOG) on the regulation of medicinal products that applies to all pharmaceutical products with active ingredients that are launched beginning January 1, 2011. The law describes the process to determine the price at which an approved new product will be reimbursed by the statutory health insurance system. The process consists of two phases. The first phase assesses the additional benefit of the new product versus an appropriate comparator (zweckmäßige Vergleichstherapie, zVT). The second phase involves price negotiation. Focusing on the first phase, this paper investigates requirements of benefit assessment of a new product under this law with special attention on the methods applied by the German authorities on issues such as the choice of the comparator, patient relevant endpoints, subgroup analyses, extent of benefit, determination of net benefit, primary and secondary endpoints, and uncertainty of the additional benefit. We propose alternative approaches to address the requirements in some cases and invite other researchers to help develop solutions in other cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the beginning of 2011, the early benefit assessment of new drugs was introduced in Germany with the Act on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (AMNOG). The Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) generally commissions the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) with this type of assessment, which examines whether a new drug shows an added benefit (a positive patient-relevant treatment effect) over the current standard therapy. IQWiG is required to assess the extent of added benefit on the basis of a dossier submitted by the pharmaceutical company responsible. In this context, IQWiG was faced with the task of developing a transparent and plausible approach for operationalizing how to determine the extent of added benefit. In the case of an added benefit, the law specifies three main extent categories (minor, considerable, major). To restrict value judgements to a minimum in the first stage of the assessment process, an explicit and abstract operationalization was needed. The present paper is limited to the situation of binary data (analysis of 2 × 2 tables), using the relative risk as an effect measure. For the treatment effect to be classified as a minor, considerable, or major added benefit, the methodological approach stipulates that the (two-sided) 95% confidence interval of the effect must exceed a specified distance to the zero effect. In summary, we assume that our approach provides a robust, transparent, and thus predictable foundation to determine minor, considerable, and major treatment effects on binary outcomes in the early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany. After a decision on the added benefit of a new drug by G-BA, the classification of added benefit is used to inform pricing negotiations between the umbrella organization of statutory health insurance and the pharmaceutical companies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

For the early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany, medical writers are involved in the preparation of dossiers submitted by pharmaceutical companies to the main decision-making body of the German statutory healthcare system, the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA). These dossiers are generally assessed by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, IQWiG). The present article summarises the documents that are publicly available to guide dossier preparation and to ensure transparency. These documents detail the requirements for the structure and content of the dossier, procedures for dossier submission, assessment by IQWiG, and decision-making by the G-BA. Medical writers should adhere closely to the available guidance to help ensure that the submitted dossiers fulfil the formal and content requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany and their preceding market authorization pursue different objectives. This is reflected by the inclusion of varying confirmatory endpoints within the evaluation of oncology drugs in early benefit assessment versus market authorization, with both relying on the same evidence. Data from assessments up to July 2015 are used to estimate the impact of explorative in comparison to confirmatory endpoints on market authorization and early benefit assessment by contrasting the benefit-risk ratio of EMA and the benefit-harm balance of the HTA jurisdiction. Agreement between market authorization and early benefit assessment is examined by Cohen's kappa (k). 21 of 41 assessments were considered in the analysis. Market authorization is more confirmatory than early benefit assessment because it includes a higher proportion of primary endpoints. The latter implies a primary endpoint to be relevant for the benefit-harm balance in only 67% of cases (0.078). Explorative mortality endpoints reached the highest agreement regarding the mutual consideration for the risk-benefit ratio and the benefit-harm balance (0.000). For explorative morbidity endpoints (-0.600), quality of life (-0.600) and side effects (-0.949) no agreement is ascertainable. To warrant a broader confirmatory basis for decisions supported by HTA, closer inter-institutional cooperation of approval authorities and HTA jurisdictions by means of reliable joint advice for manufacturers regarding endpoint definition would be favorable., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The German framework of early benefit assessment (EBA) of drugs also provides for the participation of scientific medical societies. The aim of their inclusion is to assure that care providers can critically assess all aspects of the EBA and provide insights into relevant aspects regarding the provision of care. This study systematically reviews the frequency of participation of the scientific medical societies (FGs) and the Drug Commission of the German Medical Association (AkdÄ) within the scope of the EBA. In addition, the positioning of AkdÄ/FG is compared to the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) and the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) with a focus on antidiabetic drugs and cancer drugs., Methods: A literature analysis was performed based on the comprehensive documentation of benefit assessments published by G-BA. All proceedings of antidiabetic drugs and cancer drugs were included, for which a decision was published by August 6, 2015. In addition, statements of FGs or AkdÄ were identified by an exploratory literature review and included in the analysis. The statements considered were assessed with regard to three categories: (1) additional benefit, (2) appropriate comparator (ZVT) and (3) suitability of the endpoints. For each procedure and category, it was assessed whether there was agreement or disagreement between IGWiG/G-BA and AkdÄ/FGs statements. Regarding the additional benefit, a deviating position was further differentiated according to the level of additional benefit (higher/lower). Afterwards, the proportion of favorable and unfavorable positions was calculated, stratified by FGs and AkdÄ and, separately, for proceedings of antidiabetics and cancer drugs., Results: The literature review revealed 41 proceedings of cancer drugs and 21 proceedings of antidiabetic drugs which were included in the analyses. Statements by AkdÄ/FGs were identified in 90 % of the proceedings for antidiabetic drugs and in 98 % of the proceedings for cancer drugs. In general, the AkdÄ was more often in agreement with the IQWiG than with the FGs' positions. In addition, a different position was more frequent in the proceedings concerning antidiabetic drugs than in the proceedings concerning cancer drugs. Furthermore, the G-BA decision was more frequently in line with the AkdÄ position than with the FGs' position, and this applies to both indications., Conclusion: There was a high willingness to participate in the commenting procedure of the EBA. At the same time, the analyses revealed partially heterogeneous positions, both between FGs/AkdÄ and IQWiG/G-BA, as well as between FGs and AkdÄ. The results thus emphasize the need for such discussions within the framework of the EBA., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Background: Little is known on the performance of the newly introduced health benefit assessment process, AMNOG, in Germany compared to other health technology assessment agencies., Objective: We analysed whether decisions of the German Federal Joint Committee (FJC) deviate from decisions of the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) and the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC)., Methods: We analysed decisions made for comparable patient subgroups by the four agencies between 2011 and 2014. First, decisions were compared (a) by their final outcome, i.e. whether a health benefit was identified, and (b) by the agencies' judgement on comparative effectiveness. Subsequently, we partially explored reasons for differences between HTA agencies., Results: From the 192 FJC decisions, we identified 55 that overlapped with NICE, 166 with SMC and 119 with PBAC. FJC agreed with NICE in 40% in final outcome (Cohen's Kappa=-0.13). Similar results were obtained for FJC and SMC (47.6%, kappa=0.03) and FJC and PBAC (48.7%, kappa=0.07). Agreement increased when comparing judgements based on comparative effectiveness only. However, the FJC's final decision was positive only in 43.6%, 39.2% and 44.5% of the patient subgroups, as opposed to 74.5% (NICE), 68.7% (SMC), and 68.9% (PBAC), respectively., Conclusion: We show that the FJC - an agency relatively new in structurally assessing the health benefit of pharmaceuticals - deviates considerably in decisions compared to other HTA agencies. Our study also reveals that the FJC tends to appraise stricter than NICE., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Einleitung: Patientenberichtete Endpunkte (Patient-Reported Outcomes, PRO), wie die gesundheitsbezogene Lebensqualität (Health-Related Quality of Life, HRQoL), finden zunehmend Berücksichtigung im Bereich der Evaluation von Arzneimitteln. In diesem Beitrag wird der Stellenwert der HRQoL als patientenbezogener Endpunkt bei der frühen Nutzenbewertung von (neuen) Arzneimitteln in Deutschland vor dem Hintergrund der bisherigen Erfahrungen aufgezeigt. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Rising drug costs in Germany led to the Act on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (AMNOG) in January 2011. For new drugs, pharmaceutical companies have to submit dossiers containing all available evidence to demonstrate an added benefit versus an appropriate comparator therapy. The Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), the main decision-making body of the statutory healthcare system, is responsible for the overall procedure of "early benefit assessment". The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) largely conducts the dossier assessments, which inform decisions by the G-BA on added benefit and support price negotiations. Of the 25 dossiers (excluding orphan drugs) assessed until 31 December 2012, 14 contained sufficient data from randomized active-controlled trials investigating patient-relevant outcomes or at least acceptable surrogates; 11 contained insufficient data. The most common indications were oncology (6) and viral infections (4). For the 14 drugs assessed, the extent of added benefit was rated as minor, considerable, and non-quantifiable in 3, 8, and 2 cases; the remaining drug showed no added benefit. Despite some shortcomings, for the first time it has been possible in Germany to implement a systematic procedure for assessing new drugs at market entry, thus providing support for price negotiations and informed decision-making for patients, clinicians and policy makers., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The Act on the Reform of the Market for Medicinal Products (AMNOG) became effective in Germany on January 1, 2011. Since then, the assessment of the added benefit of new drugs versus a therapeutic standard on the basis of dossiers submitted by pharmaceutical companies has been required by law. The Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) generally commissions the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) with this task. The added benefit is primarily to be demonstrated on the basis of patient-relevant outcomes. The aim of this paper is to describe the feasibility of the early benefit assessment on the basis of patient-relevant outcomes by systematically characterising the outcomes available in company dossiers and comparing the companies' and IQWiG's evaluations regarding patient relevance and surrogate validity. Dossier assessments published between October 2011 and June 2012 were used for this purpose. The outcomes available and the respective evaluations were extracted and compared. 12 out of 22 submitted dossiers contained sufficient data to assess outcomes; all 12 assessable dossiers provided data on patient-relevant outcomes. Data on mortality and adverse events were available in all dossiers, except that one dossier did not contain adverse event data on the relevant subpopulation. In contrast, data on morbidity and health-related quality of life were available in 8 and 7 dossiers, respectively. Of a total of 214 outcomes extracted by IQWiG, 124 patient-relevant and 3 surrogate outcomes were included in IQWiG's assessment (companies: a total of 183 outcomes included, of which 172 were patient-relevant and 11 were surrogates). The first experiences with AMNOG have shown that in principle an early benefit assessment of drugs based on patient-relevant outcomes is feasible. The companies' and IQWiG's evaluations regarding patient relevance and surrogate validity of outcomes partly deviated from each other. By increasingly considering patient-relevant outcomes in approval studies, pharmaceutical companies can create the necessary data basis for the early benefit assessment., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Early benefit assessment aims to prove a benefit of a new pharmaceutical over the appropriate comparator based on patient-relevant endpoints. In addition to mortality and morbidity, quality of life is a patient-relevant endpoint. Thus, phase III clinical trials are the basis of evidence. But HTA and health authorities attach different importance to quality of life. Using the example of oncology, the challenges with study design and analysis will be discussed. A particular challenge to the analysis of quality-of-life data is varying observation times in treatment arms with different effectiveness. Based on the example of Crizotinib possible solutions will be presented., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)