Search

Aim: Health technology assessment (HTA) and payer organizations are often faced with early decisionmaking in oncology. To design and conduct robust indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), it is important to better understand HTA and payer decision-maker perceptions of ITCs. Here we aim to describe what individuals with HTA and payer experience see as the acceptability of ITCs for HTA and payer organization coverage and reimbursement decision-making. Materials & methods: This survey included 30 current and former HTA and payer decision-makers from five countries: Australia, France, Germany, the UK (n = 5 each) and the US (n = 10). Main outcomes included the ratings of acceptance of ITCs and the presence of welldefined methodological guidance for ITCs. Results: ITCs are generally accepted by participants in Australia and the UK but are more likely evaluated on a case-by-case basis in France, Germany and the US. Four of five participants in Germany and the UK, two of five in Australia and one of five in France reported that well-defined and prescribed criteria regarding the use of ITCs were in place. Conclusion: There is a need for harmonization of methods used to assess ITCs by HTA and payers, especially in the rapidly evolving treatment landscape in oncology.

Abstract Background Secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) is a subtype of multiple sclerosis (MS), which is a chronic neurological disease, characterised by inflammation of the central nervous system. Most of MS patients eventually progress to SPMS. This study estimates the prevalence of SPMS in the United States of America, Europe, Canada, Australia, and Brazil. Methods A systematic literature search of the Medline and Embase databases was performed using the OVID™ SP platform to identify MS epidemiological studies published in English from database inception to September 22, 2020. Studies reporting the prevalence of MS and proportion of SPMS patients in the included population were selected. The pooled prevalence of SPMS was calculated based on the proportion of SPMS patients. The Loney quality assessment checklist was used for quality grading. A meta-analysis of the proportions was conducted in RStudio. Results A total of 4754 articles were retrieved, and prevalence was calculated from 97 relevant studies. Overall, 86 medium- and high-quality studies were included in the meta-analysis. Most studies were conducted in European countries (84 studies). The estimated pooled prevalence of SPMS was 22.42 (99% confidence interval: 18.30, 26.95)/100,000. The prevalence of SPMS was more in the North European countries, highest in Sweden and lowest in Brazil. A decline in SPMS prevalence was observed since the availability of oral disease-modifying therapies. We also observed a regional variation of higher SPMS prevalence in urban areas compared with rural areas. Conclusion High variability was observed in the estimated SPMS prevalence, and the quality of the studies conducted. The influence of latitude and other factors known to affect overall MS prevalence did not fully explain the wide range of inter-country and intra-country variability identified in the results.