title: Do different clinical evidence bases lead to discordant health-technology assessment decisions? An in-depth case series across three jurisdictions.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Health-technology assessment (HTA) plays an important role in informing drug-reimbursement decision-making in many countries. HTA processes for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in Australia, the Common Drug Review (CDR) in Canada, and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales are among the most established in the world. In this study, we performed nine in-depth case studies to assess whether different clinical evidence bases may have influenced listing recommendations made by PBAC, CDR, and NICE.
  
  
  METHODS
  Nine drugs were selected for which the three agencies had provided listing recommendations for the same indication between 2007 and 2010. We reviewed the evidence considered for each listing recommendation, identified the similarities and differences among the clinical evidence bases considered, and evaluated the extent to which different clinical evidence bases could have contributed to different decisions based on HTA body comments and public assessment of the evidence.
  
  
  RESULTS
  HTA agencies reached the same recommendation for reimbursement (recommended for listing) for four drugs and different recommendations for five drugs. In all cases, each agency used different evidence bases in their recommendations. The agencies considered overlapping sets of clinical comparators and trials when evaluating the same drug. While PBAC and NICE considered indirect and/or mixed-treatment comparisons, CDR did not. In some cases, CDR and/or NICE excluded trials from review if the drug and/or the comparator were not administered according to the relevant marketing authorization.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In the listing recommendations reviewed, considerable variability exists in the clinical evidence considered by PBAC, CDR, and NICE for drug-listing recommendations. Differences in evidence resulted from differences in the consideration of indirect and mixed-treatment comparison data and differences in medical practice in each jurisdiction.
authors: RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
authors: Daryl S
authors: DS
authors: Spinner
authors: Julie
authors: J
authors: Birt
authors: Jeffrey W
authors: JW
authors: Walter
authors: Lee
authors: L
authors: Bowman
authors: Josephine
authors: J
authors: Mauskopf
authors: Michael F
authors: MF
authors: Drummond
authors: Catherine
authors: C
authors: Copley-Merriman
keywords: evidence; health-technology assessment; reimbursement decisions
references: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011 Jul;27(3):261-70
references: 21756414
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2012 Mar;30(3):229-46
references: 22283689
references: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Summer;24(3):244-58; discussion 362-8
references: 18601792
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(8):685-93
references: 17640110
references: Health Policy. 2011 Oct;102(2-3):126-35
references: 21071107
references: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Fall;24(4):511-7
references: 18828948
references: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011 Jan;27(1):71-6
references: 21262069
references: Am J Manag Care. 2008 Sep;14(9):581-8
references: 18778173
references: Health Aff (Millwood). 2006 Mar-Apr;25(2):337-47
references: 16522575
references: JAMA. 2009 Oct 7;302(13):1437-43
references: 19809025
references: Med Decis Making. 2008 Sep-Oct;28(5):713-22
references: 18378939
references: Health Econ. 2004 May;13(5):437-52
references: 15127424
references: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Oct;25(4):455-62
references: 19845975
references: Health Policy. 2003 Feb;63(2):121-32
references: 12543525