Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:39:57.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences among formulary submission guidelines: Implications for health technology assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2011

Josephine Mauskopf ,
Jeffrey Walter ,
Julie Birt ,
Lee Bowman ,
Catherine Copley-Merriman  and
Michael Drummond
Josephine Mauskopf
Affiliation:
RTI Health Solutions
Jeffrey Walter
Affiliation:
RTI Health Solutions
Julie Birt
Affiliation:
Eli Lilly and Company
Lee Bowman
Affiliation:
Eli Lilly and Company
Catherine Copley-Merriman
Affiliation:
RTI Health Solutions
Michael Drummond
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: This article provides a detailed understanding of the differences in selected formulary submission guidelines supplied by various health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and indicates how these differences can impact the evidence base used to populate the HTA.

Methods: Detailed summaries of the recommended methods for evidence generation, organized by topic areas relevant for clinical and economic data, for twelve countries in Europe, North America, and Australia where HTA processes are well developed were prepared. Using these summaries, we provide examples of the likely impact these differences in recommended methods could have on the evidence base used to evaluate new health technologies.

Results: Areas where recommendations differed included methodologies for systematic literature reviews (e.g., preferred databases and study designs for inclusion); selection of appropriate comparators; guidance on critical appraisal and synthesis of clinical evidence; appropriate sources for health value measures, resource use, and cost data; and approaches to uncertainty analyses. Performing literature searches that capture all relevant studies and then creating subsets of the literature based on a listing of country-specific requirements could allow for direct comparison of the evidence bases associated with the different guidelines.

Conclusions: If the formulary submission guidelines were followed as written, different (although overlapping) bodies of evidence likely would be generated for each country, which could contribute to disparate assessments and recommendations. This comparison of the formulary submission guidelines could contribute to an understanding of why clinical and reimbursement decisions vary across countries.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentFormulary submission guidelinesHarmonizationInternational guidelinesEvidenceData synthesis
Type
POLICIES
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 261 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. AMCP format for formulary submissions, version 3.0. 2009. http://www.amcp.org/amcp.ark?p=0F6E1295 (accessed June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
2. Andradas, E, Blasco, JA, Valentin, B, Lopez Pedraza, MJ, Gracia, FJ. Defining products for a new health technology assessment agency in Madrid, Spain: A survey of decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:60–69.Google Scholar
3. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CADTH guidelines for the evaluation of health technologies: Canada, 3rd ed. 2006. http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
4. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Common drug review: Insulin glargine—CEDAC final recommendation. October 25, 2006. http://www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/complete/cdr_complete_Lantus_Oct25–06.pdf (accessed August 25, 2010).Google Scholar
5. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Common drug review: Ustekinumab—CEDAC final recommendation. June 17, 2009. http://www.cadth.ca/media/cdr/complete/cdr_complete_Stelara_June-17-2009.pdf (accessed August 25, 2010).Google Scholar
6. Capri, S, Ceci, A, Terranova, L, Merlo, F, Mantovani, L. Guidelines for economic evaluations in Italy: Recommendations from the Italian group of pharmacoeconomic studies. Drug Inf J. 2001;35:189–201.Google Scholar
7. Clement, FM, Harris, A, Li, JJ, et al. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: A comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA. 2009;302:1437–1443.Google Scholar
8. College des Economistes de la Sante. French guidelines for the economic evaluation of health care technologies. 2004. http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/source/France_Guidelines_HE_Evaluation.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
9. College voor zorgverzekeringen. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research (Netherlands), updated version. 2006. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/HTAGuidelinesNLupdated2006.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
10. Conjoint Committee for New Drugs Evaluation. Evaluation of new drugs in Spain. 2008. http://www.osasun.ejgv.euskadi.net/r52-478/es/contenidos/informacion/innovaciones_terap/es_1221/adjuntos/PNT_nuevos_med_b.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
11. Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jonsson, B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Emanuel, EJ, Fuchs, VR, Garber, AM. Essential elements of a technology and outcomes assessment initiative. JAMA. 2007;298:1323–1325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. European Network for Health Technology Assessment. EUnetHTA joint action—new phase in EUnetHTA development. 2010. http://www.eunethta.net/Public/Home/ (accessed June 29, 2010).Google Scholar
14. European Network for Health Technology Assessment. HTA core model for medical and surgical interventions 1.0 (Work Package 4). 2008. http://www.eunethta.net/upload/WP4/Final%20Deliverables/HTA%20Core%20Model%20for%20Medical%20and%20Surgical%20Interventions%201%200r.pdf (accessed July 20, 2010).Google Scholar
15. Graf von der Schulenberg, JM, Greiner, W, Jost, F, et al. German recommendations on health economic evaluation: Third and updated version of the Hanover Consensus. Value Health. 2008;11:539–544.Google Scholar
16. Hutton, J, Trueman, P, Facey, K. Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:511–517.Google Scholar
17. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen [Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care]. General methods. 2008. http://www.iqwig.de/download/IQWiG_General_methods_V-3-0.pdf (accessed July 20, 2010).Google Scholar
18. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen [Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care]. IQWiG methods for assessment of the relation of benefits to costs in the German statutory health care system, version 1.1. 2008. http://www.iqwig.de/download/08-01-24_Draft_Methods_of_the_Relation_of_Benefits_to_Costs_Version_1_0.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
19. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. 2010. http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/index.asp (accessed June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
20. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of long-acting insulin analogues for the treatment of diabetes—insulin glargine. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 53. December 2002. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11482/32518/32518.pdf (accessed August 25, 2010).Google Scholar
21. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2008. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
22. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Single technology appraisal specification for manufacturer/sponsor submission of evidence. 2009. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/E29/DF/SpecificationForManufacturerSponsorSubmissionofEvidenceDraft.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
23. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Ustekinumab for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 180. September 2009. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12235/45461/45461.pdf (accessed August 25, 2010).Google Scholar
24. Neumann, PJ, Drummond, MF, Jonsson, B, et al. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:71–78.Google ScholarPubMed
25. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, version 4.2. 2007. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/pbacguidelines-index (accessed June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
26. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public summary document: Insulin glargine. March 2006. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/1975B80032DC13C8CA25719C00244A7D/$File/Insulin_glargine.pdf (accessed August 25, 2010).Google Scholar
27. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Public summary document: Ustekinumab. November 2009. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/83DE850311C895EFCA2576D20081008E/$File/Ustekinumab%20112009.pdf (accessed August 25, 2010).Google Scholar
28. Scottish Medicines Consortium. Scottish Medicines Consortium guidance to manufacturers for completion of new product assessment form. 2007. http://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/smc/servlet/controller?p_service=Content.show&p_applic=CCC&pContentID=33 (accessed June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
29. Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. 2003. http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/source/Guidelines_in_Sweden.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
30. Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. Guidelines for companies. 2008. http://www.tlv.se/Upload/English/Guidelines-for-Companies.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
31. WellPoint. Health technology assessment guidelines. 2008. https://www.wellpointnextrx.com/shared/noapplication/f1/s0/t0/pw_ad080614.pdf (accessed June 30, 2010).Google Scholar