Cargando…
How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy?
BACKGROUND: The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10182681/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37179322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09494-5 |
_version_ | 1785041806270922752 |
---|---|
author | Drummond, Michael Ciani, Oriana Fornaro, Giulia Jommi, Claudio Dietrich, Eva Susanne Espin, Jaime Mossman, Jean de Pouvourville, Gerard |
author_facet | Drummond, Michael Ciani, Oriana Fornaro, Giulia Jommi, Claudio Dietrich, Eva Susanne Espin, Jaime Mossman, Jean de Pouvourville, Gerard |
author_sort | Drummond, Michael |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes. METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered. RESULTS: The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-023-09494-5. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10182681 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101826812023-05-14 How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy? Drummond, Michael Ciani, Oriana Fornaro, Giulia Jommi, Claudio Dietrich, Eva Susanne Espin, Jaime Mossman, Jean de Pouvourville, Gerard BMC Health Serv Res Research BACKGROUND: The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes. METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered. RESULTS: The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-023-09494-5. BioMed Central 2023-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10182681/ /pubmed/37179322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09494-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2023, corrected publication 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Drummond, Michael Ciani, Oriana Fornaro, Giulia Jommi, Claudio Dietrich, Eva Susanne Espin, Jaime Mossman, Jean de Pouvourville, Gerard How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy? |
title | How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy? |
title_full | How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy? |
title_fullStr | How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy? |
title_full_unstemmed | How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy? |
title_short | How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy? |
title_sort | how are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy? |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10182681/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37179322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09494-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT drummondmichael howarehealthtechnologyassessmentbodiesrespondingtotheassessmentchallengesposedbycellandgenetherapy AT cianioriana howarehealthtechnologyassessmentbodiesrespondingtotheassessmentchallengesposedbycellandgenetherapy AT fornarogiulia howarehealthtechnologyassessmentbodiesrespondingtotheassessmentchallengesposedbycellandgenetherapy AT jommiclaudio howarehealthtechnologyassessmentbodiesrespondingtotheassessmentchallengesposedbycellandgenetherapy AT dietrichevasusanne howarehealthtechnologyassessmentbodiesrespondingtotheassessmentchallengesposedbycellandgenetherapy AT espinjaime howarehealthtechnologyassessmentbodiesrespondingtotheassessmentchallengesposedbycellandgenetherapy AT mossmanjean howarehealthtechnologyassessmentbodiesrespondingtotheassessmentchallengesposedbycellandgenetherapy AT depouvourvillegerard howarehealthtechnologyassessmentbodiesrespondingtotheassessmentchallengesposedbycellandgenetherapy |