Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Four years of early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany: a qualitative study on methodological requirements for quality of life data

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Since 2011, an early benefit assessment (EBA) of new drugs constricts free price setting in Germany. According to the Pharmaceutical Market Restructuring Act (AMNOG), pharmaceutical companies are obliged to demonstrate added benefit of new drugs over comparative treatment. Benefit is usually evaluated by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). The final appraisal is made by the Federal Joint Committee, Germany’s highest-ranking decision body in the health sector, triggering drug prize negotiations between companies and statutory health insurance funds. One of four evaluation criteria is quality of life (QoL). QoL outcomes have, however, only rarely been pivotal in EBAs.

Objective

This study determined methodological requirements for QoL measurement and data presentation in the EBA.

Design

In a qualitative content analysis, documents of all EBAs completed by 2014 were searched for the term QoL. Relevant passages of all EBAs of 2011–2013 were independently extracted and reduced to key content by two researchers. Recurring patterns were identified and verified through comparison with EBAs of 2014.

Results

We identified a range of requirements regarding QoL assessment, analysis, presentation, and interpretation, which go beyond official regulations. Disease-specific questionnaires are preferred and have to be validated according to certain standards and in the respective patient group. Effects must exceed the minimal important difference, which in turn must be validated in compliance with specific requirements. Often, instruments were not accepted as QoL measures, sometimes inconsistently across EBAs. Another frequent reason for non-acceptance of QoL data was that more than 30 % of randomized patients could not be analyzed due to missing data.

Conclusions

Non-compliance with methodological requirements for QoL evidence impairs chances for positive benefit evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Franken, M., Le Polain, M., Cleemput, I., Koopmanschap, M.: Similarities and differences between five European drug reimbursement systems. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 28(4), 349–357 (2012)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Henschke, C., Sundmacher, L., Busse, R.: Structural changes in the German pharmaceutical market: price setting mechanisms based on the early benefit evaluation. Health Policy 109(3), 263–269 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fischer, K.E., Stargardt, T.: Early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany: manufacturers’ expectations versus the Federal Joint Committee’s decisions. Med. Decis. Making 34(8), 1030–1047 (2014)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hörn, H., Nink, K., McGauran, N., Wieseler, B.: Early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany—results from 2011 to 2012. Health Policy 116(2–3), 147–153 (2014)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Leopold, C., Vogler, S., Mantel-Teeuwisse, A.K., de Joncheere, K., Leufkens, H.G.M., Laing, R.: Differences in external price referencing in Europe: a descriptive overview. Health Policy 104(1), 50–60 (2012)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahmed, S., Berzon, R.A., Revicki, D.A., Lenderking, W.R., Moinpour, C.M., Basch, E., Reeve, B.B., Wu, A.W.: The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Med. Care 50(12), 1060–1070 (2012)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kreis, J., Busse, R.: From evidence assessments to coverage decisions? The case example of glinides in Germany. Health Policy 104(1), 27–31 (2012)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG): General Methods (Benefit Assessment). https://www.g-ba.de/informationen/nutzenbewertung/ (2015). Accessed 25 March 2015

  9. Schipper, H., Clinch, J.J., Olweny, C.L.: Quality of life studies: definitions and conceptual issues. In: Spilker, B. (ed.) Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd edn, pp. 15–18. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mayring, P.: Qualitative content analysis. In: Flick, U., Kardorff, E.V., Steinke, I. (eds.) A Companion to Qualitative Research, pp. 266–269. Sage Publications, London (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Meyer, T., Karbach, U., Holmberg, C., Güthlin, C., Patzelt, C., Stamer, M.: Qualitative Studien in der Versorgungsforschung—Diskussionspapier, Teil 1: gegenstandsbestimmung [Qualitative research in health services research—discussion paper, part 1: what is the idea?]. Gesundheitswesen 74(8–9), 510–515 (2012)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA): Übersicht der Wirkstoffe. https://www.g-ba.de/informationen/nutzenbewertung/ (2015). Accessed 25. March 2015

  13. The EuroQol Group: EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16(3), 199–208 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ware, J.E.: The SF-36 health survey. In: Spilker, B. (ed.) Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, pp. S337–S346. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Aaronson, N.K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., et al.: The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 85(5), 365–376 (1993)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cella, D.F., Tulsky, D.S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., Silberman, M., Yellen, S.B., Winicour, P., Brannon, J., et al.: The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J. Clin. Oncol. 11(3), 570–579 (1993)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Esper, P., Mo, F., Chodak, G., Sinner, M., Cella, D., Pienta, K.J.: Measuring quality of life in men with prostate cancer using the functional assessment of cancer therapy-prostate instrument. Urology 50(6), 920–928 (1997)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McKenna, S.P., Doward, L.C., Twiss, J., et al.: International development of the patient-reported outcome indices for multiple sclerosis (PRIMUS). Value Health 13, 946–951 (2010)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brady, M., Cella, D.F., Mo, F., Bonomi, A.E., Tulsky, D.S., Lloyd, S.R., Deasy, S., Cobleigh, M., Shiomoto, G.: Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy—breast quality-of-life instrument. J. Clin. Oncol. 15, 974–986 (1997)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Perleth, M., Gibis, B., Göhlen, B.: A short history of health technology assessment in Germany. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 25(1), 112–119 (2009)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sattelmeier, J., Prenzler, A., Frank, M.: Das Arzneimittelmarktneuordnungsgesetz (AMNOG) in der Praxis—erste Erfahrungen, Kritikpunkte und Weiterentwicklungsmöglichkeiten. Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement 18, 213–220 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Klose, K., Witte, J., Kreimeier, S., Greiner, W.: Lebensqualität als Wettbewerbsvorteil in der frühen Nutzenbewertung [Quality of life as advantage in competition within the early benefit assessment]. Public Health Forum 21(4), 14. e1–14. e3 (2013)

  23. Ruof, J., Schwartz, F., Schulenburg, J.-M., Dintsios, C.-M.: Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation. Eur. J. Health Econ. 15(6), 577–589 (2014)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Luise Geithner, Joris Lehmann, and Nicole Wehber for their help with data collection and Mario Gehoff and Verena Heimann for assistance in manuscript preparation and submission.

Financial support

This study was financially supported by Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Neuss, Germany.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German Center for Health Services Research in Dermatology (CVderm), Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

    Christine Blome, Matthias Augustin & David Lohrberg

  2. Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Neuss, Germany

    Hidayet Metin

Authors
  1. Christine Blome
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthias Augustin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hidayet Metin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Lohrberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Blome.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

M Augustin has served as consultant and/or paid speaker for and/or participated in clinical trials sponsored by companies that manufacture drugs including Janssen-Cilag. The Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP) has received lecture and consultancy fees from Janssen-Cilag. H Metin is an employee of Janssen-Cilag. C Blome and D Lohrberg declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blome, C., Augustin, M., Metin, H. et al. Four years of early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany: a qualitative study on methodological requirements for quality of life data. Eur J Health Econ 18, 181–193 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0765-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0765-6

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation