Patient-reported data informing early benefit assessment of rare diseases in Germany: A systematic review

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelForschungPeer-Review

Autoren

  • Ana Babac
  • Kathrin Damm
  • J. Matthias Graf Von Der Schulenburg
Forschungs-netzwerk anzeigen

Details

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Seitenumfang17
FachzeitschriftHealth Economics Review
Jahrgang9
Ausgabenummer34
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 12 Dez. 2019

Abstract

Background: Since the implementation of the Regulation on Patient Integration (2003), the Act on the Reorganization of the Pharmaceutical Market (2011), and the Patient Rights Law (2013), the inclusion of patient perspectives has been further anchored in the German early benefit assessment process. During the assessment of rare disease interventions, patient perspectives are particularly important, as clinical studies are often designed acknowledging small samples and patients suffering from severe symptoms and the chronic course of the disease. Therefore, our research question is whether patient perspectives are considered as part of early benefit assessments for rare diseases. We also strive to examine how patient perspectives are methodologically elicited and presented. Methods: Our empirical evidence comes from a systematic review of orphan drug value dossiers submitted to the German Federal Joint Committee as well as the corresponding evaluations conducted between January 1, 2011 and March 1, 2019 (n = 81). Data on patient perspective integration were extracted using the following patient-reported outcome subcategories: clinical patient-reported outcomes, health-related quality of life, patient preferences, and patient satisfaction. Results: The analysis demonstrates the specific relevance of patient-reported outcomes raised as part of the medical data set and presented during the early benefit assessment process. They are predominantly presented in the form of health-related quality of life data (n = 75%) and clinical outcomes (n = 49%). Preferences (n = 2%) and satisfaction (n = 1%) are still rarely presented, although the heated methodological discussion in Germany would suggest otherwise. While various methodologies for the integration of clinical outcomes and quality of life data were found, presenting data on satisfaction and preferences still lacks methodological rigor. The German Federal Joint Committee has not yet integrated these data in their decision text. Clinical outcomes and quality of life have been included in 46% and 73% of the cases, respectively. Conclusions: The underlying analysis demonstrates that there is still a relative high potential for the regular and systematic inclusion of patient perspectives within the early benefit assessment process for rare diseases. In particular, patient preferences and patient satisfaction are still rarely included suggesting the need for a clear-cut methodological foundation and incentives.

ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete

Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung

Zitieren

Patient-reported data informing early benefit assessment of rare diseases in Germany: A systematic review. / Babac, Ana; Damm, Kathrin; Graf Von Der Schulenburg, J. Matthias.
in: Health Economics Review, Jahrgang 9, Nr. 34, 12.12.2019.

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelForschungPeer-Review

Babac A, Damm K, Graf Von Der Schulenburg JM. Patient-reported data informing early benefit assessment of rare diseases in Germany: A systematic review. Health Economics Review. 2019 Dez 12;9(34). doi: 10.1186/s13561-019-0251-9, https://doi.org/10.15488/9332
Babac, Ana ; Damm, Kathrin ; Graf Von Der Schulenburg, J. Matthias. / Patient-reported data informing early benefit assessment of rare diseases in Germany : A systematic review. in: Health Economics Review. 2019 ; Jahrgang 9, Nr. 34.
Download
@article{60a8f6a5bf454e2cb356219e152f629d,
title = "Patient-reported data informing early benefit assessment of rare diseases in Germany: A systematic review",
abstract = "Background: Since the implementation of the Regulation on Patient Integration (2003), the Act on the Reorganization of the Pharmaceutical Market (2011), and the Patient Rights Law (2013), the inclusion of patient perspectives has been further anchored in the German early benefit assessment process. During the assessment of rare disease interventions, patient perspectives are particularly important, as clinical studies are often designed acknowledging small samples and patients suffering from severe symptoms and the chronic course of the disease. Therefore, our research question is whether patient perspectives are considered as part of early benefit assessments for rare diseases. We also strive to examine how patient perspectives are methodologically elicited and presented. Methods: Our empirical evidence comes from a systematic review of orphan drug value dossiers submitted to the German Federal Joint Committee as well as the corresponding evaluations conducted between January 1, 2011 and March 1, 2019 (n = 81). Data on patient perspective integration were extracted using the following patient-reported outcome subcategories: clinical patient-reported outcomes, health-related quality of life, patient preferences, and patient satisfaction. Results: The analysis demonstrates the specific relevance of patient-reported outcomes raised as part of the medical data set and presented during the early benefit assessment process. They are predominantly presented in the form of health-related quality of life data (n = 75%) and clinical outcomes (n = 49%). Preferences (n = 2%) and satisfaction (n = 1%) are still rarely presented, although the heated methodological discussion in Germany would suggest otherwise. While various methodologies for the integration of clinical outcomes and quality of life data were found, presenting data on satisfaction and preferences still lacks methodological rigor. The German Federal Joint Committee has not yet integrated these data in their decision text. Clinical outcomes and quality of life have been included in 46% and 73% of the cases, respectively. Conclusions: The underlying analysis demonstrates that there is still a relative high potential for the regular and systematic inclusion of patient perspectives within the early benefit assessment process for rare diseases. In particular, patient preferences and patient satisfaction are still rarely included suggesting the need for a clear-cut methodological foundation and incentives.",
keywords = "AMNOG, early benefit assessment, Germany, health economic evaluation, Patient perspective, patient-reported outcomes",
author = "Ana Babac and Kathrin Damm and {Graf Von Der Schulenburg}, {J. Matthias}",
year = "2019",
month = dec,
day = "12",
doi = "10.1186/s13561-019-0251-9",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
number = "34",

}

Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient-reported data informing early benefit assessment of rare diseases in Germany

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Babac, Ana

AU - Damm, Kathrin

AU - Graf Von Der Schulenburg, J. Matthias

PY - 2019/12/12

Y1 - 2019/12/12

N2 - Background: Since the implementation of the Regulation on Patient Integration (2003), the Act on the Reorganization of the Pharmaceutical Market (2011), and the Patient Rights Law (2013), the inclusion of patient perspectives has been further anchored in the German early benefit assessment process. During the assessment of rare disease interventions, patient perspectives are particularly important, as clinical studies are often designed acknowledging small samples and patients suffering from severe symptoms and the chronic course of the disease. Therefore, our research question is whether patient perspectives are considered as part of early benefit assessments for rare diseases. We also strive to examine how patient perspectives are methodologically elicited and presented. Methods: Our empirical evidence comes from a systematic review of orphan drug value dossiers submitted to the German Federal Joint Committee as well as the corresponding evaluations conducted between January 1, 2011 and March 1, 2019 (n = 81). Data on patient perspective integration were extracted using the following patient-reported outcome subcategories: clinical patient-reported outcomes, health-related quality of life, patient preferences, and patient satisfaction. Results: The analysis demonstrates the specific relevance of patient-reported outcomes raised as part of the medical data set and presented during the early benefit assessment process. They are predominantly presented in the form of health-related quality of life data (n = 75%) and clinical outcomes (n = 49%). Preferences (n = 2%) and satisfaction (n = 1%) are still rarely presented, although the heated methodological discussion in Germany would suggest otherwise. While various methodologies for the integration of clinical outcomes and quality of life data were found, presenting data on satisfaction and preferences still lacks methodological rigor. The German Federal Joint Committee has not yet integrated these data in their decision text. Clinical outcomes and quality of life have been included in 46% and 73% of the cases, respectively. Conclusions: The underlying analysis demonstrates that there is still a relative high potential for the regular and systematic inclusion of patient perspectives within the early benefit assessment process for rare diseases. In particular, patient preferences and patient satisfaction are still rarely included suggesting the need for a clear-cut methodological foundation and incentives.

AB - Background: Since the implementation of the Regulation on Patient Integration (2003), the Act on the Reorganization of the Pharmaceutical Market (2011), and the Patient Rights Law (2013), the inclusion of patient perspectives has been further anchored in the German early benefit assessment process. During the assessment of rare disease interventions, patient perspectives are particularly important, as clinical studies are often designed acknowledging small samples and patients suffering from severe symptoms and the chronic course of the disease. Therefore, our research question is whether patient perspectives are considered as part of early benefit assessments for rare diseases. We also strive to examine how patient perspectives are methodologically elicited and presented. Methods: Our empirical evidence comes from a systematic review of orphan drug value dossiers submitted to the German Federal Joint Committee as well as the corresponding evaluations conducted between January 1, 2011 and March 1, 2019 (n = 81). Data on patient perspective integration were extracted using the following patient-reported outcome subcategories: clinical patient-reported outcomes, health-related quality of life, patient preferences, and patient satisfaction. Results: The analysis demonstrates the specific relevance of patient-reported outcomes raised as part of the medical data set and presented during the early benefit assessment process. They are predominantly presented in the form of health-related quality of life data (n = 75%) and clinical outcomes (n = 49%). Preferences (n = 2%) and satisfaction (n = 1%) are still rarely presented, although the heated methodological discussion in Germany would suggest otherwise. While various methodologies for the integration of clinical outcomes and quality of life data were found, presenting data on satisfaction and preferences still lacks methodological rigor. The German Federal Joint Committee has not yet integrated these data in their decision text. Clinical outcomes and quality of life have been included in 46% and 73% of the cases, respectively. Conclusions: The underlying analysis demonstrates that there is still a relative high potential for the regular and systematic inclusion of patient perspectives within the early benefit assessment process for rare diseases. In particular, patient preferences and patient satisfaction are still rarely included suggesting the need for a clear-cut methodological foundation and incentives.

KW - AMNOG

KW - early benefit assessment

KW - Germany

KW - health economic evaluation

KW - Patient perspective

KW - patient-reported outcomes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076538563&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13561-019-0251-9

DO - 10.1186/s13561-019-0251-9

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85076538563

VL - 9

JO - Health Economics Review

JF - Health Economics Review

IS - 34

ER -