BackgroundIn 2010, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) initiated a pilot project on parallel scientific advice with Health Technology Assessment bodies (HTABs) that allows manufacturers to receive simultaneous feedback from both the European Union (EU) regulators and HTABs on their development plans for medicines.AimsThe present retrospective qualitative analysis aimed to explore how the parallel scientific advice system is working and levels of commonality between the EU regulators and HTABs, and among HTABs, when applicants obtain parallel scientific advice from both a regulatory and an HTA perspective.MethodsWe analysed the minutes of discussion meetings held at the EMA between 2010, when parallel advice was launched, and 1 May 2015, when the cutoff date for data extraction was set. The analysis was based on predefined criteria and conducted at two different levels of comparison: the answers of the HTABs vs. those of the regulators, and between the answers of the participating HTA agencies.ResultsThe analysis was based on 31 procedures of parallel scientific advice. The level of full agreements was highest for questions on patient population (77%), while disagreements reached a peak for questions on the study comparator (30%). With regard to comparisons among HTABs, there was a high level of agreement for all domains.ConclusionsThere is evident commonality, in terms of evidence requirements between the EU regulators and participating HTABs, as well as among HTABs, on most aspects of clinical development. Indeed, regardless of the question content, the analysis showed that a high level of overall agreement was reached through the process of parallel scientific advice.

BackgroundPostnatal and antenatal anti-D prophylaxis have dramatically reduced maternal sensitisations and cases of rhesus disease in babies born to women with RhD negative blood group. Recent scientific advances mean that non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD), based on the presence of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma, could be used to target prophylaxis on "at risk" pregnancies where the fetus is RhD positive. This paper provides the first assessment of cost-effectiveness of NIPD-targeted prophylaxis compared to current policies.MethodsWe conducted an economic analysis of NIPD implementation in England and Wales. Two scenarios were considered. Scenario 1 assumed that NIPD will be only used to target antenatal prophylaxis with serology tests continuing to direct post-delivery prophylaxis. In Scenario 2, NIPD would also displace postnatal serology testing if an RhD negative fetus was identified. Costs were estimated from the provider's perspective for both scenarios together with a threshold royalty fee per test. Incremental costs were compared with clinical implications.ResultsThe basic cost of an NIPD in-house test is £16.25 per sample (excluding royalty fee). The two-dose antenatal prophylaxis policy recommended by NICE is estimated to cost the NHS £3.37 million each year. The estimated threshold royalty fee is £2.18 and £8.83 for Scenarios 1 and 2 respectively. At a £2.00 royalty fee, mass NIPD testing would produce no saving for Scenario 1 and £507,154 per annum for Scenario 2. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that, at a test sensitivity of 99.7% and this royalty fee, NIPD testing in Scenario 2 will generate one additional sensitisation for every £9,190 saved. If a single-dose prophylaxis policy were implemented nationally, as recently recommended by NICE, Scenario 2 savings would fall.ConclusionsCurrently, NIPD testing to target anti-D prophylaxis is unlikely to be sufficiently cost-effective to warrant its large scale introduction in England and Wales. Only minor savings are calculated and, balanced against this, the predicted increase in maternal sensitisations may be unacceptably high. Reliability of NIPD assays still needs to be demonstrated rigorously in different ethnic minority populations. First trimester testing is unlikely to alter this picture significantly although other emerging technologies may.

No abstract

One of the key findings of this analysis is that manufacturers tend to implement changes to the development programme based on both regulatory and HTA advice with regards to the choice of primary endpoint and comparator. It also confirms the challenging choice of the study comparator, for which manufacturers seem to be more inclined to satisfy the regulatory advice. Continuous research efforts in this area are of paramount importance from a public health perspective.

An electronic version of this title, in Adobe Acrobat format, is available for downloading free of charge for personal use from the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk). A fully searchable DVD is also available (see below).Printed copies of HTA journal series issues cost £20 each (post and packing free in the UK) to both public and private sector purchasers from our despatch agents.Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per issue and for the rest of the world £3 per issue. How to order:-fax (with credit card details) -post (with credit card details or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you to either print out your order or download a blank order form. Contact details are as follows:Synergie UK (HTA Department) Digital House, The Loddon Centre Wade Road Basingstoke Hants RG24 8QW Email: orders@hta.ac.uk Tel: 0845 812 4000 -ask for 'HTA Payment Services' (out-of-hours answer-phone service) Fax: 0845 812 4001 -put 'HTA Order' on the fax header Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to University of Southampton and drawn on a bank with a UK address.Paying by credit card You can order using your credit card by phone, fax or post. SubscriptionsNHS libraries can subscribe free of charge. Public libraries can subscribe at a reduced cost of £100 for each volume (normally comprising 40-50 titles). The commercial subscription rate is £400 per volume (addresses within the UK) and £600 per volume (addresses outside the UK). Please see our website for details. Subscriptions can be purchased only for the current or forthcoming volume.How do I get a copy of HTA on DVD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd/index.shtml). HTA on DVD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTADasatinib, nilotinib and standard-dose imatinib for the first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia: systematic reviews and economic analyses NIHR Health Technology Assessment programmeThe Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care. The research findings from the HTA programme directly influence decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC). HTA findings also help to improve the quality of clinical practice in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service' . The HTA programme is needs led in that it fills ...

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Articles reporting the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive prenatal diagnostic (NIPD) tests for RHD genotyping using fetal material extracted from maternal blood have been published steadily for over a decade. Health care providers in Europe have started to use this technology for management of the small number of sensitised pregnancies (ca. 220-600 per annum in the Netherlands, Germany, France and the UK). Scientists and clinicians are also advocating widespread implementation for the far larger number of non-sensitised RhD-negative pregnancies (ca. 34,000-125,000 per annum in the same countries). Largescale, prospective trials are only now underway. Estimates of the technical performance of these tests are currently based on results from small-scale studies, together with formal meta-analysis. The issue of early assessment of test performance is one faced by many new genetic tests. As part of a wider study we have investigated the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy in publications and produced guidelines for future studies.A systematic search of the literature identified 27 papers which met predefined inclusion criteria. All 27 papers were, first, assessed against an international quality (STARD) checklist for reporting of diagnostic accuracy and, second, against our own in-house NIPD proforma to assess the implications of the quality of reporting specifically for the RhD NIPD test. Authors were found to generally present an optimistic view of NIPD, bearing in mind weaknesses identified in reporting and conduct of their studies and the analysis of results, as evidenced by the low STARD scores. The NIPD proforma identified that specific biases were potentially introduced through selective population sampling and/or failure to report the make-up of the population tested, omission of inconclusive results, inconsistencies in the handling of repeat results on a sample, and lack of adequate controls. These factors would inevitably affect the validity of diagnostic accuracy as reported in individual publications, as well as any subsequent meta-analyses. Together, published reports to date may provide a biased picture of the actual potential of NIPD testing for fetal RHD genotyping. Generalisation of the available evidence on diagnostic accuracy, especially to large-scale implementation of NIPD testing of non-sensitised women, will also require that decision makers consider further aspects such as test reliability and cost of routine testing in clinical practice.It is recommended that all studies of diagnostic accuracy of NIPD tests adhere to the STARD quality checklist in order to improve reporting, thereby, minimising bias and increasing the comparability of studies. Researchers should also consider specific shortcomings for NIPD and avoid selective participant sampling; report population characteristics; report handling of replicate sampling as well as their failure rates; and include controls for genotypes tested in the study. Furthermore, meta-analyses should consider the quality, as well as the sample s...

To date, a small number of appraisals by NICE based on non-RCT data did not result in substantially different treatment decisions. The majority of the technologies appraised on the basis of non-RCT data either received a positive recommendation or a positive recommendation with restrictions. The methods used to calculate comparative clinical effectiveness estimates varied, highlighting the need to establish clear guidance.