Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:51:47.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality of health economic evaluations submitted to the Italian Medicines Agency: current state and future actions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2020

Angelica Carletto Open the ORCID record for Angelica Carletto [Opens in a new window] ,
Matteo Zanuzzi ,
Annalisa Sammarco  and
Pierluigi Russo
Angelica Carletto*
Affiliation:
Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), Rome, Italy
Matteo Zanuzzi
Affiliation:
Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), Rome, Italy
Annalisa Sammarco
Affiliation:
Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), Rome, Italy
Pierluigi Russo
Affiliation:
Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), Rome, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: Angelica Carletto, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current state of health economic evaluations (HEEs) submitted by pharmaceutical companies to the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) as part of their pricing and reimbursement (P&R) dossiers, and to explore potential future actions in order to enhance their quality.

Methods

All company dossiers submitted from October 2016 to December 2018 were reviewed to select those containing pharmacoeconomic studies. The general characteristics of HEEs were described and their quality assessed based on a checklist adapted from Philips et al. (Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8: 1–158).

Results

Of the 299 dossiers submitted to AIFA, 105 included one or more pharmacoeconomic studies, of which fifty-three were cost-effectiveness analyses. Overall, the compliance of the HEEs with the quality checklist was highly variable: some studies reached high methodological standards whereas others had serious flaws (mean 59.22 percent, range 19.35–90.32 percent). The main weaknesses were the unjustified exclusion of relevant alternatives, poor description and justification of model data and assumptions, and insufficient exploration of uncertainty and study validity. Non-homogeneity across studies was found in study perspectives, discount rates, methods for costing, estimating quality-adjusted life-years and conducting sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, the recommended actions for increasing the quality of HEEs within reimbursement submissions in Italy are twofold: first, to set methodological standards for conducting and reporting HEEs; second, to strengthen the internal assessment process, also through the acquisition of companies' models and re-evaluation of results. These actions will hopefully provide greater contribution to the evidence-based P&R decision making.

Keywords

Methodological qualityQuality appraisalEconomic evaluationCost-effectiveness analysisPharmaceuticals
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 36 , Issue 6 , December 2020 , pp. 560 - 568
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The guideline for the submission of HEEs to the Italian Medicines Agency was drafted during the revision of this manuscript and published the 27th of May 2020. It can be downloaded from https://www.aifa.gov.it/web/guest/linea-guida-capitolo-9. All the authors of this article were actively involved in the drafting and publication of the guideline.

References

International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) [Internet]. c2019 [cited 2019 Jun 27]. Available from: https://tools.ispor.org/peguidelines/Google Scholar
Ontario, Ministry of Health. Guidelines for preparation of economic analysis to be included in submission to drug programs branch for listing in the Ontario Benefit Formulary/Comparative Drug Index, Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health; 1991.Google Scholar
Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 1992.Google Scholar
European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) [Internet] Methods for health economic evaluations—A guideline based on current practices in Europe. Methodological Guideline: EUnetHTA; 2015 [cited 2020 April 27] Available from: https://www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Methods_for_health_economic_evaluations.pdfGoogle Scholar
Expert Panel on effective ways of investing in Health (EXPH) [Internet] Defining value in “value-based healthcare”. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 [cited 2019 Jun 27]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/expert_panel/sites/expertpanel/files/docsdir/024_defining-value-vbhc_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ngo, P. The influence of cost-effectiveness evaluations on reimbursement in Australia: A retrospective study of decisions made by the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee. Pharm Med. 2014;28:187–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dakin, H, Devlin, N, Feng, Y, Rice, N, O'Neill, P, Parkin, D. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. Health Econ. 2015;24:1256–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jommi, C, Armeni, P, Costa, F, Bertolani, A, Otto, M. Implementation of value-based pricing for medicines. Clin Ther. 2020;42:15–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Comitato Interministeriale per la Programmazione Economica (CIPE). [Internet] Delibera CIPE No. 3 of 1 February 2001. Individuazione dei criteri per la contrattazione del prezzo dei farmaci. (GU n. 73 del 28 marzo 2001). c2001 [cited 2020 Apr 30]. Available from: http://ricerca-delibere.programmazioneeconomica.gov.it/3-01-febbraio-2001/Google Scholar
Villa, F, Tutone, M, Altamura, G, Antignani, S, Cangini, A, Fortino, I et al. . Determinants of price negotiations for new drugs. The experience of the Italian medicines agency. Health Policy. 2019; 123: 595–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Comitato Interministeriale per la Programmazione Economica (CIPE). [Internet] Delibera CIPE No. 5 of 30 January 1997. Individuazione dei criteri per la contrattazione del prezzo dei farmaci innovativi. c1997 [cited 2020 Apr 30]. Available from: http://ricerca-delibere.programmazioneeconomica.gov.it/5-30-gennaio-1997/Google Scholar
Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) [Internet] Nuovo regolamento di organizzazione, del funzionamento e dell'ordinamento del personale e della nuova dotazione organica. (16A04575) (GU Serie Generale n. 140 del 17-06-2016) [cited 2020 April 30] Available from: https://www.aifa.gov.it/documents/20142/629739/Regolamento_AIFA_2016_3.pdf/18550ff8-1e5e-0261-98a9-1eb404100003Google Scholar
Ministero della Salute [Internet] Documento in materia di Governance Farmaceutica [cited 2019 Dec 05]. Available from: http://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_notizie_3567_listaFile_itemName_0_file.pdfGoogle Scholar
Italian Health Economics Association (Associazione Italiana di Economia Sanitaria—AIES). Proposta di linee guida per la valutazione economica degli interventi sanitari in Italia. [Italian guidelines proposal on how to conduct economic evaluation studies of health programs] (only available in Italian). Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;11:83–93.Google Scholar
Cornago, D, Li Bassi, L, De Compadri, P, Garattini, L. Pharmacoeconomic studies in Italy: A critical review of the literature. Eur J Health Econ. 2007;8:89–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffmann, C, von der Schulenburg, JMG. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making: A European survey. Health Policy. 2000;52:179–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russo, P. La valutazione farmacoeconomica nel contesto regolatorio italiano. Analisi quali-quantitativa dei dossier di richiesta del prezzo e della rimborsabilità. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;10:59.Google Scholar
Philips, Z, Ginnelly, L, Sculpher, M, Claxton, K, Golder, S, Riemsma, R et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iii-iv, ix-xi, 1–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, Carswell, C, Moher, D, Greenberg, D et al. ; ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines-CHEERS good reporting practices task force. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: A report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16:231–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sculpher, M, Fenwick, E, Claxton, K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: A suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:461–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soto, J. Health economic evaluations using decision analytic modeling. Principles and practices—utilization of a checklist to their development and appraisal. Int J Technol Assess Health Care Winter. 2002;18:94–111.Google Scholar
Weinstein, MC, O'Brien, B, Hornberger, J, Jackson, J, Johannesson, M, McCabe, C et al. ; ISPOR task force on good research practices—modeling studies. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: Report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices—modeling studies. Value Health. 2003;6:9–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, DG, Wilson, RF, Sharma, R, Bridges, J, Niessen, L, Bass, EB et al. Best Practices for Conducting Economic Evaluations in Health Care: A Systematic Review of Quality Assessment Tools [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Oct. Report No.: 12(13)-EHC132-EF.Google Scholar
Caro, J, Eddy, DM, Kan, H, Kaltz, C, Patel, B, Eldessouki, R et al. ; ISPOR-AMCP-NPC modeling CER task forces. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value Health. 2014;17:174–82. Erratum in: Value Health. 2016;19(1):121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adarkwah, CC, van Gils, PF, Hiligsmann, M, Evers, SM. Risk of bias in model-based economic evaluations: The ECOBIAS checklist. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16:513–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shemilt, I, Mugford, M, Byford, S, Drummond, M, Eisenstein, E, Knapp, M et al. Incorporating economics evidence (Chap. 15). In: Higgins, JPT, Green, S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. Wiley; 2008. p. 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). [Internet] Developing NICE guidelines: the manual; 2014; [cited 2020 Apr 29]. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/article/PMG20/chapter/7-Incorporating-economic-evaluation.Google Scholar
Wijnen, B, Van Mastrigt, G, Redekop, W, Majoie, H, De Kinderen, R, Evers, S. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: Data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16:723–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalone, L, Cortesi, PA, Ciampichini, R, Belisari, A, D'Angiolella, LS, Cesana, G et al. Italian population-based values of EQ-5D health states. Value Health. 2013;16:814–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scalone, L, Cortesi, PA, Ciampichini, R, Cesana, G, Mantovani, LG. Health related quality of life norm data of the Italian general population: Results using the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments. Epidemiol, Biostatist Public Health. 2015;12:e11457 1–15.Google Scholar
Caro, JJ, Briggs, AH, Siebert, U, Kuntz, KM, ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Modeling good research practices—overview: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-1. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:667–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullins, CD, Onwudiwe, NC, de Araújo, GTB, Chen, W, Xuan, J, Tichopád, A et al. . Guidance document: Global pharmacoeconomic model adaption strategies. Value Health Reg Issues. 2014;5:7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsberg, J, Odeberg, S, Engström, A, Lundin, D. Examining the quality of health economic analyses submitted to the pharmaceutical benefits board in Sweden. Eur J Health Econo. 2004;49:351–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yim, EY, Lim, SH, Oh, MJ, Park, HK, Gong, JR, Park, SE et al. . (2012). Assessment of pharmacoeconomic evaluations submitted for reimbursement in Korea. Value Health. 2012;15:S104–S110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action. Is there a European view on health economic evaluations? Results from a synopsis of methodological guidelines used in the EUnetHTA partner countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjelmgren, J, Berggren, F, Andersson, F. Health economic guidelines—similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health. 2001;4:225–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauskopf, J, Walter, J, Birt, J, Bowman, L, Copley-Merriman, C, Drummond, M. Differences among formulary submission guidelines: Implications for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:261–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anis, AH, Gagnon, Y. Using economic evaluations to make formulary coverage decisions. So much for guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:55–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, SR, Mitchell, AS, Henry, DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: A review of submissions to the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme. JAMA 2000;283:2116–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoomans, T, Severens, JL, van der Roer, N, Delwel, GO. Methodological quality of economic evaluations of new pharmaceuticals in The Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:219–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simoens, S. Assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations in Belgian drug reimbursement applications. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e85411 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toumi, M, Motrunich, A, Millier, A, Rémuzat, C, Chouaid, C, Falissard, B et al. Analysis of health economics assessment reports for pharmaceuticals in France—Understanding the underlying philosophy of CEESP assessment. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2017;5:1344088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbieri, M, Hawkins, N, Sculpher, M. Who does the numbers? The role of third-party technology assessment to inform health systems’ decision-making about the funding of health technologies. Value Health. 2009;12:193–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johannesen, KM, Claxton, K, Sculpher, MJ, Wailoo, AJ. How to design the cost-effectiveness appraisal process of new healthcare technologies to maximise population health: A conceptual framework. Health Econ. 2018;27:e41–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eddy, DM, Hollingworth, W, Caro, JJ, Tsevat, J, McDonald, KM, Wong, JB, ISPOR − SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Model transparency and validation: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-7. Value Health. 2012;15:843-50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed