In July 2019, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) initiated a major review of its health technology evaluation methods to update its methods guide. This update has recently concluded with the publication of its health technology evaluation manual in January 2022. This paper reports the methods and findings of the review in relation to the recommended approach to use for the measurement and valuation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in submissions to NICE. Issues related to (i) the methods to use when NICE’s preferred measure (EQ-5D) is not appropriate or not available; (ii) adjusting health state utility values over time to account for age; (iii) measuring and valuing HRQoL in children and young people; and (iv) including carers’ QoL in economic evaluations were included in this review. This commentary summarises the methods used to undertake the review, its findings, and the changes to NICE methods that were proposed based on these findings. It also outlines topics where further research is needed before definitive methods guidance can be issued. The broad proposals described here were subject to a public consultation in 2020 and a further consultation on the updated methods guidance was completed in October 2021 before the publication of the manual in January 2022.

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionReimbursement decision making is based on a relative effectiveness assessment (REA), which may be combined with a cost-effectiveness assessment, by national Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies. These assessments are based on clinical data where new interventions are compared to the current standard of care, which may differ between countries. Since most pivotal trials only include a limited number of interventions, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can be used to compare multiple interventions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of ITCs in HTA decision making in the Netherlands and England.MethodsAll pharmaceutical assessments published between 2015 and 2019 by the National Health Care Institute (ZIN) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) were reviewed to determine whether an ITC had been used. For detailed analysis we included all assessments of ZIN using an ITC, and a random sample of assessments of NICE using an ITC (10 assessments per publication year).ResultsBetween 2015 and 2019 a total of 106 and 265 assessments were conducted by ZIN and NICE, respectively. Of these assessments 48 from ZIN and 150 from NICE included an ITC. The detailed analysis showed that pharmaceutical assessments including indirect comparative evidence led to the REA conclusion of similar therapeutic evidence in 57 percent of 48 assessments by ZIN and in 52 percent of 50 assessments by NICE. Reimbursement recommendations including indirect comparative evidence most often resulted in positive recommendations by ZIN (57% assessments), and in restricted recommendations by NICE (50% assessments). Different methods were employed to incorporate indirect comparative evidence, such as naïve ITCs and network meta-analysis.ConclusionsOur results showed a significant variability in the use of ITCs between NICE and ZIN, which may contribute to differences in their recommendations. Further analysis will provide deeper insight in these differences and may provide suggestions for a clearer international guidance on the use of ITCs for HTA.

IntroductionThe use of surrogate outcomes in health technology assessment (HTA) is increasing and methods for validating surrogate relationships have been published. However, these may not be fully applicable to ultra-rare diseases due to challenges such as scarcity of evidence and heterogenous populations. This study reviews and summarizes the use of surrogate outcomes and committee's considerations in the evaluations within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) Highly Specialised Technology (HST) programme, which was established in 2013 in response to the challenges associated with the assessment of ultra-rare diseases.MethodsAll HST evaluation documents published before November 2020 were reviewed. Data extracted included surrogate outcomes used, rationales, the committee's considerations on the validity and generalizability of the surrogate relationships, related uncertainties, and other factors considered in decision-making.ResultsSeven out of the eighteen published HST topics used surrogate outcomes. The rationale for most of the surrogate relationships focused on biological plausibility. Common concerns raised by the committee included the generalizability of the surrogate relationship to the condition of interest, the lack of validation, and inability to prove or quantify the magnitude of benefits associated with the surrogate relationships. In some topics, other aspects of the evidence and clinical/patient expert's opinions were also considered by the committee.ConclusionsThe use of surrogate outcomes is common in NICE HST evaluations and the challenges in supporting surrogate relationships with more than biological plausibility are recognized. However, our review indicates that, the committee considers more than just biological plausibility and will take into account other related factors.