Health technology assessment (HTA): Decisions on treatment efficiency guided by clinical judgement and pharmacoeconomics

被引:0
作者
Paterson, Kenneth R. [1 ]
Webb, David J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland
[2] Univ Edinburgh, Ctr Cardiovasc Sci, Edinburgh, Scotland
关键词
clinical pharmacology; cost-effectiveness; health technology assessment; medicines; novel therapeutics; pharmacoeconomics; NATIONAL INSTITUTE; CARE EXCELLENCE; DRUGS;
D O I
10.1002/bcp.70157
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Over the past 25 years, the UK has adopted health technology assessment (HTA) as a mechanism to ensure that new medicines, and new indications for existing medicines, are assessed in an open, objective and robust way so that when the UK National Health Service (NHS) adopts these therapeutic developments, it does so in a cost-effective manner, accepting those agents with an acceptable cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) or a discount that brings the cost below the threshold. Usually, pharmacoeconomic modelling is used to justify pricing, often relying on surrogate endpoints or extrapolation beyond the duration of existing trials data. Although cost-effectiveness is often based on robust clinical trials, there are other issues to consider, which require an understanding of clinical pharmacology and clinical judgement. Key considerations include the justification of use of surrogates and extrapolation, the appropriateness of any comparator drug studied, the difference between efficacy in trials and clinical effectiveness in real-world use, the additional costs of providing a service to deliver the medicine, and the cost of any important adverse effects that are likely to occur. Although the process in the UK is now well established, with support from clinicians and the public, there remain questions about whether the currently accepted cost/QALY is set too high, whether a special case should be made for some drugs commanding a higher cost/QALY (such as in cancer and end-of-life situations), and whether HTA should be used more broadly to assess other activities undertaken by the NHS.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]   Do patient access schemes for high-cost cancer drugs deliver value to society?-lessons from the NHS Cancer Drugs Fund [J].
Aggarwal, A. ;
Fojo, T. ;
Chamberlain, C. ;
Davis, C. ;
Sullivan, R. .
ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2017, 28 (08) :1738-1750
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2022, Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board (JRCPTB) Curriculum forClinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Training
[3]  
Implementation
[4]  
Bateman DN, 1999, BRIT J CLIN PHARMACO, V48, P1
[5]   Societal Preferences for Funding Orphan Drugs in the United Kingdom: An Application of Person Trade-Off and Discrete Choice Experiment Methods [J].
Bourke, Siobhan M. ;
Plumpton, Catrin O. ;
Hughes, Dyfrig A. .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2018, 21 (05) :538-546
[6]   Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold [J].
Claxton, Karl ;
Martin, Steve ;
Soares, Marta ;
Rice, Nigel ;
Spackman, Eldon ;
Hinde, Sebastian ;
Devlin, Nancy ;
Smith, Peter C. ;
Sculpher, Mark .
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2015, 19 (14) :1-+
[7]   NICE's end of life decision making scheme: impact on population health [J].
Collins, Marissa ;
Latimer, Nicholas .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 346
[8]   Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13 [J].
Davis, Courtney ;
Naci, Huseyin ;
Gurpinar, Evrim ;
Poplavska, Elita ;
Pinto, Ashlyn ;
Aggarwal, Ajay .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2017, 359
[9]   Use of Extrapolation in New Drug Approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration [J].
Feldman, Daniel ;
Avorn, Jerry ;
Kesselheim, Aaron S. .
JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2022, 5 (04)
[10]   NICE guidance: a comparative study of the introduction of the single technology appraisal process and comparison with guidance from Scottish Medicines Consortium [J].
Ford, John A. ;
Waugh, Norman ;
Sharma, Pawana ;
Sculpher, Mark ;
Walker, Andrew .
BMJ OPEN, 2012, 2 (01)