以藥品為目標的醫療技術申請 是由出版商Urch Publishing, Ltd.在2006年04月所出版的。
這份英文市場調查報告書包含139 pages 價格從美金3100起跳。
處方集申請準則這十年來急速普及,因此藥品與生技企業在臨床層面與成本效益層面開始需要更嚴格的基準來依歸。
提供醫藥業經營高層參考資訊,獲得高度評價的英國市調公司 Urch Publishing, Ltd. (總公司:倫敦),調查分析了以藥品為目標的醫療技術申請狀況後,出版了一本綜合報告書"Preparing Health Technology Submissions for Pharmaceutical Products"。
報告書內容包括:目前施行的基準、全球處方集申請相關概要、醫療技術評估(HTA)、藥品生命週期、Compliance Bias、成本效益於申請中的不確定性、ICER 的解釋、產品資訊等等,內容綱要摘記如下:
摘要
第1章 全球處方集申請要項
- 前言
- 目前基準
- 臨床實證的階層
- 處方集的推薦與任務
- 準則的角色
- 成本效益與預算影響的連結
第2章 全球準則展望
- 全球性準則概要
- 處方集申請準則
- 醫療技術評估(HTA)與藥品的生命週期
- 疾病領域與治療類別
- Compliance Bias
- 技術性展望
- 全球文件
- 全球文件提出概要
第3章 不確定性:毛利、產品層級、例證
- 成本效益於申請時的不確定性
- 治療介入層級
- ICER 與毛利估算
- ICER 的解釋
- 毛利
- 精確率感應度分析
- 成本效益的容許曲線推算
- 申請解釋、檢測、評估
- NICE 的例證
- 例證中的要項意義
- 概要
第4章 臨床成果
- 文獻搜尋
- Bias 與 System 考察
- 臨床實證階層
- 臨床研究總結
- 品質評分臨床研究
- 整合臨床資訊與大項分析
- 有害現象與副作用資訊
- 對照藥物定義
- 流行病學
- 於治療的利用
- 產品資訊
- 治療介入策略
- 大項分析與模型化申請的連結
- 臨床申請的檢測與評估
第5章 醫療領域的經濟面:成本效益的申請模型化
- 模型化種類
- 決定模型的框架
- Resource Unit 與直接成本
- Resource Unit 的數值化
- 間接成本
- 結果測定
- 模型化分析、感應度分析、模擬分析
- Meta-models
第6章 醫療領域的經濟面 II:系統影響的推算
- 用語定義
- 產品消費預測
- 患者交換與對象人口
- 預算影響
- 藥局預算影響推算
- 醫療預算影響推算
- 整體預算影響推算
第7章 疾病領域與治療層級的因應
- 產品生命週期評估
- 評估事項
- 合約要求事項
- 實驗做法:自然治療實驗計畫
- 非治療實驗計畫
- 各種實踐模式
第8章 總括與總論
- 技術評估的未來
- 短期觀察的技術評估
- 長期觀察的技術評估
用語
圖表
Abstract
Summary
"it must be acknowledged that few pharmaceutical manufacturers, let along
biotech companies are equipped to meet these new health technology assessment
guidelines"
This essential report will help you:
- Prepare a global dossier to ensure successful formulary listing
- Understand formulary submission guidelines in Australia, UK and USA
- Respond to emerging evidentiary and analytical standards
- Structure your organisation to make a convincing case to the regulators
The rapid uptake of formulary submission guidelines in the last decade is
forcing pharmaceutical manufacturers and biotechnology companies to comply
with more rigorous evidentiary and analytical standards in clinical and
cost-effectiveness evaluations.
Two developments in 2004 further transformed the situation:
- 1. The introduction of a revised health technology assessment guideline by
the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK; and
- 2. The introduction of revised technology assessment guidelines for new
products and for the re-evaluation of products by WellPoint Pharmacy
Management (WPM) in the USA.
Where the NICE and WPM guidelines represent a major change in requirements
with the need:
- (i) to accommodate adequately uncertainty in modelled cost-effectiveness
claims and the requirement for a reference case (NICE); and
- (ii) the requirement for naturalistic, active comparator trials together
with ongoing monitoring and validation of claims for cost-effectiveness and
systems impact (WPM).
Put together, the NICE and WPM guidelines present formidable challenges to
manufacturers in both the UK market and in the US managed care sector. If
other health technology assessment and reimbursement gatekeepers adopt these
new evidentiary and analytical standards, then manufacturers will have to
rethink seriously not only how they adapt their clinical development programs
to accommodate the reference case and active comparator requirements in Phase
III trials, but the ways in which they present cost-effectiveness and system
impact claims to meet monitoring and validation standards.
Preparing health technology submissions for pharmaceutical products - Meeting
Formulary Submission Requirements for New Product Assessments and Disease Area
and Therapeutic Class Reviews, considers how manufacturers should respond to
emerging evidentiary and analytical standards as exemplified by the NICE and
WPM guidelines for formulary submissions.
The report considers, in particular, the implications of the standards
required in the NICE and WPM guidelines for manufacturers preparing
reimbursement submissions and it goes beyond being simply a review of
evidentiary and analytical standards required by reimbursement and pricing
authorities that have mandated a formulary submission dossier as part of the
technology assessment of new products, to establishing the standards required
of a global dossier. Meeting the NICE and WPM requirements ensures that
specific or targeted dossiers can be assembled to satisfy the requirements of
other jurisdictions. A global dossier, therefore, if structured to meet the
standards of NICE and WPM, will also meet the requirements of other
jurisdictions - where individual formulary submissions are customized to meet
the needs of individual health systems.
"a poorly constructed and self-serving case, where the modelled case has
clearly been driven by the need to justify cost-effectiveness, seldom stands
up to a critical review."
Reasons you company should invest in this report:
- Understand the published guidelines from the major evaluation agencies
- Benefit from over 40 detailed case studies of technology appraisal
guidelines
- Learn to prepare an excellent global dossier to ensure formulary acceptance
- Forecast how technology appraisals will develop over the next few years
Table of Contents
- Background
- Overview
- Chapter 1: Global Formulary Submission Requirements
- Chapter outline
- 1.1 Introduction
- 1.1.1 Key documents
- 1.1.2 The second level
- 1.1.3 Health technology assessments (HTAs)
- 1.1.4 The emergence of formulary submission guidelines
- 1.2 Current formulary submission standards
- 1.2.1 PBAC: standards for clinical assessment
- Case study 1.1: The PBAC guidelines
- 1.2.2 England and Wales, NICE: standards for modeled
cost-effectiveness claims
- Case study 1.2: The NICE guidelines
- 1.2.3 WellPoint: standards for monitoring and validating claims
- Case study 1.3: The WellPoint guidelines
- 1.2.4 The Scottish Medicines Consortium
- Case study 1.4: The SMC guidelines
- 1.2.5 US: AMCP - an interim standard
- Case study 1.5: The AMCP guidelines
- 1.2.6 Process and dossier submissions
- Case study 1.6: Identifying reimburser requirements
- 1.2.7 Transparency and process
- 1.3 Hierarchy of clinical evidence
- 1.4 Formulary recommendations and assignments
- 1.5 The role of guidelines
- Case study 1.7: The future of NICE - what could be NICER?
- 1.6 Linking cost-effectiveness and budget-impact claims
- Case study 1.8: Viagra versus the PBAC
- 1.7 Overview: managing patient populations
- Chapter 2: Guidelines from a Global Perspective
- Chapter outline
- 2.1 A global guideline overview
- Case study 2.1: The ISPOR guidelines summary
- 2.2 Formulary submission guidelines: documentation and process
- 2.3 Health technology assessments (HTAs) and the life cycle of a drug
- 2.4 Disease area and therapeutic class reviews
- 2.5 Bias and compliance
- 2.6 Technology scoping
- 2.7 The global dossier: meeting evidentiary and analytical standards
- 2.2: Proposed outline for a global dossier
- Chapter 3: Uncertainty - Net Benefits, Product Ranking and the Reference
Case
- Chapter outline
- 3.1 Uncertainty in cost-effectiveness claims
- 3.2 Ranking therapy interventions
- 3.3 ICERs and net benefit measures
- 3.4 Defining net benefits
- 3.5 Interpreting ICERs
- 3.6 Net monetary benefit
- 3.7 Probabilistic sensitivity analysis
- 3.8 Estimating cost-effectiveness acceptability curves
- Case study 3.1: Modelling a probabilistic sensitivity analysis
- 3.9 Interpreting, monitoring and validating claims
- 3.10 The NICE reference case
- Case study 3.2: NICE reference case requirements
- Case study 3.3: The EQ-5D and the SF-6D in liver transplant patients
- 3.11 Implications of the reference case requirements
- 3.12 Overview: thresholds and evidentiary standards
- Chapter 4: The Clinical Outcomes Case
- Chapter overview
- 4.1 Literature searches
- 4.1.1 Key databases
- 4.1.2 Reference inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Case study 4.1: PBAC requirements for literature searches
- 4.2 Bias and systematic reviews
- 4.2.1 Randomisation
- 4.2.2 Follow-up
- 4.2.3 Blinding
- Case study 4.2: Bias assessment in clinical trials
- 4.2.4 Filtering studies
- 4.3 Hierarchies of clinical evidence
- Case study 4.3: The PBAC and WellPoint hierarchies of clinical evidence
- 4.4 Summarising clinical studies
- Case study 4.4: Meeting PBAC trial summary requirements
- 4.5 Quality-scoring clinical studies
- Case study 4.5: The Jadad quality-scoring algorithm
- 4.6 Pooled clinical data and meta-analyses
- Case study 4.6: The PBAC requirements for meta-analysis
- 4.6.1 Identifying relevant studies
- 4.6.2 Eligibility criteria
- 4.6.3 Abstracting data
- 4.6.4 Statistical models
- 4.7 Adverse events and side-effect profiles
- Case study 4.7: Pharmacoepidemiology
- 4.8 Defining comparator products 4
- Case study 4.8: Comparator therapies in the PBAC guidelines
- 4.9 Epidemiology
- Case study 4.9: WellPoint epidemiology profiling requirements
- 4.10 Place of product in therapy
- Case study 4.10: The PBAC and expert opinion
- 4.11 Product profile
- Case study 4.11: WellPoint product profile requirements
- 4.12 Therapy intervention strategies
- Case study 4.12: NICE recommendations for Relenza in the treatment of
influenza
- 4.13 Linking meta-analyses to modelled claims
- Case study 4.13: Defining clinical parameters for cost-effectiveness
modelling
- 4.14 Monitoring and validating clinical claims
- Case study 4.14: The NICE appraisal of beta interferon and glatiramer
for multiple sclerosis
- Notes
- Chapter 5: The Health Economics Case I - Generating Modelled
Cost-effectiveness Claims
- Chapter outline
- 5.1 Types of modelled claim
- Case study 5.1: Modeling criteria in the PBAC guidelines
- 5.2 Decision-model frameworks
- 5.3 Resource units and direct costs
- Case study 5.2: Current procedure terminology (CPT) codes
- 5.4 Valuing resource units
- 5.5 Indirect costs
- Case study 5.3: Demonstrating workplace productivity benefits
- 5.6 Measuring outcomes
- 5.7 Modelling, sensitivity and simulation analyses
- 5.8 Spreadsheet models
- 5.9 Monitoring and validating cost-outcome claims
- Case study 5.4: The impact of inhaler type on monthly treatment costs
of asthma - a retrospective study
- 5.10 Meta-models
- Case Study 5.5: The CORE diabetes meta-model
- Notes
- Chapter 6: The Health Economics Case II - Estimating System Impacts
- Chapter outline
- 6.1 Defining terms
- 6.2 Forecasting product uptake
- Case study 6.1: SMC requirements for product uptake projections
- 6.3 Patient switching and target populations
- 6.3.1 Defining a target population
- 6.3.2 Market segmentation
- 6.4 Budget-impact claims
- 6.4.1 Resource units and unit pricing
- 6.5 Estimated pharmacy budget impact
- 6.6 Estimated medical budget impact
- 6.7 Estimated total budget impact
- Case study 6.2: PBAC requirements for financial impact assessment
- Note
- Chapter 7: Responding to Disease Area and Therapeutic Class Reviews
- Chapter outline
- 7.1 Life-cycle product assessment
- 7.1.1 Clinical assessments
- 7.1.2 Anticipating requests for monitoring and validation
- 7.2 Assessing claims
- 7.3 Contractual requirements
- 7.4 Experimental approaches: naturalistic trial designs
- Case study 7.1: The role of naturalistic trials
- 7.5 Non-experimental designs
- 7.5.1 Case-control studies
- 7.5.2 Cohort studies
- 7.6 Practice pattern variations
- Case study 7.2: The WellPoint agenda
- Notes
- Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions
- Chapter outline
- 8.1 The future of technology appraisals
- 8.2 Technology appraisals in the short term
- 8.3 Technology appraisals in the longer term
- List of Figures
- Figure 3.1 Benefit and willingness to pay
- Figure 3.2 Cost-effectiveness plane
- Figure 3.3 Net monetary benefit
- Figure 3.4 Ranking net monetary benefits
- Figure 3.5 Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve
- Figure 3.6 Decision model: Therapy A versus Therapy B
- Figure 3.7 Simulated distribution of differences in costs
- Figure 3.8 Simulated distribution of differences in outcomes
- Figure 3.9 Distribution of cost and outcome difference coordinates in
the cost-effectiveness plane
- Figure 3.10 Simulated cost-effectiveness acceptability curve
- List of Tables
- Table 2.1 Key formulary submission guidelines: documentation and process
- Table 3.1 Parameter values: Therapies A, B and C
- Table 3.2 Simulation pairs of cost and outcome differences
- Table 3.3 Simulated proportion of coordinate cost and outcome difference
by willingness-to-pay threshold
- Table 4.1 Grading of clinical studies