Failure due to formal reasons within German benefit assessment of medicinal products: the dilemma between marketing authorization and HTA

References

• AMNOG. Act to reorganize the pharmaceuticals’ market in the SHI system (Arzneimittelneuordnungsgesetz-AMNOG). In: BGBl (Federal Law Gazette). I Nr. 67 . 2010. p. 2262–2277.
   Google Scholar
• Ruof J, Schwartz FW, Schulenburg JM, et al. Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(6):577–589.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassel D, Ulrich V. AMNOG auf dem ökonomischen Prüfstand. Funktionsweise, Ergebnisse und Reformbedarf der Preisregulierung für neue Arzneimittel in Deutschland. Gesundheitsökonomische Beiträge, Nr. 56. Nomos, Baden-Baden. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Rasch A, Werner S. Eignung der best verfügbaren Evidenz in der frühen Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln. In: A. Storm, editor. AMNOG-Report 2017. Heidelberg: medhochzwei Verlag GmbH; 2017. p. 114–133.
   Google Scholar
• Berkemeier F, Häussler B, Höer A, et al. Der Arzneimittel-Atlas 2018. Berlin: IGES; 2018. (eds. Häussler, B, Höer, A).
   Google Scholar
• Dintsios CM, Schlenkrich S. Industry’s experiences with the scientific advice offered by the federal joint committee within the early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34(2):196–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IQWiG. General Methods. Version 5.0 of 10 July 2017. IQWiG, Cologne; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• IQWiG. Validity of surrogate endpoints in oncology. Version 1.1. IQWiG, Cologne; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Skipka G, Wieseler B, Kaiser T, et al. Methodological approach to determine minor, considerable, and major treatment effects in the early benefit assessment of new drugs. Biom J. 2016;58(1):43–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouslouk M. G-BA benefit assessment of new orphan drugs in Germany: the first five years. Expert Opin Orphan Drugs. 2016;4(5):453–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worm F, Dintsios CM. Determinants of orphan drug prices in Germany. PharmacoEconomics. 2020. [Epub ahead of print]. DOI 10.1007/s40273-019-00872-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwig S, Dintsios CM. Arbitration board setting reimbursement amounts for pharmaceutical innovations in Germany when price negations between payers and manufacturers fail: an empirical analysis of 5 years’ experience. Value Health. 2016;19(8):1016–1025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hörn H, Nink K, McGauran N, et al. Early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany – results from 2011 to 2012. Health Policy. 2014;116(2–3):147–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer KE, Stargardt T. Early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany: manufacturers’ expectations versus the federal joint committee’s decisions. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(8):1030–1047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FJC. Supplement to the FJC rules of procedure. Chapter 5. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Niehaus I, Dintsios CM. Confirmatory versus explorative endpoint analysis: decision-making on the basis of evidence available from market authorization and early benefit assessment for oncology drugs. Health Policy. 2018;122(6):599–606.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruof J, Knoerzer D, Dünne AA, et al. Analysis of endpoints used in marketing authorisations versus value assessments of oncology medicines in Germany. Health Policy. 2014;118(2):242–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lebioda A, Gasche D, Dippel F-W, et al. Relevance of indirect comparisons in the German early benefit assessment and in comparison to HTA processes in England, France and Scotland. Health Econ Rev. 2014;4(1):31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bender H, Dintsios CM. [Health-related quality of life in the context of early benefit assessment of drugs according to section sign 35a of the German social code book V: a challenging endpoint for all the involved stakeholders]. Gesundheitswesen. 2018;80(2):132–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasch A, Dintsios CM. [Subgroups in the early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: a methodical review]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2015;109(1):69–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruof J, Dintsios C-M, Schwartz FW. Questioning patient subgroups for benefit assessment: challenging the German Gemeinsamer bundesausschuss approach. Value Health. 2014;17(4):307–309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IQWiG. IQWiG reports – commission no. A16-18: idelalisib (chronic lymphocytic leukaemia) – benefit assessment according to §35a social code book V. IQWiG, Cologne; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• IQWiG. IQWiG reports – commission no. A16-09: vismodegib – benefit assessment according to §35a social code book V. IQWiG, Cologne; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• IQWiG. IQWiG reports – commission no. A16-11: ramucirumab (lung cancer) – benefit assessment according to §35a social code book V. IQWiG, Cologne; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer KE, Heisser T, Stargardt T. Health benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals: an international comparison of decisions from Germany, England, Scotland and Australia. Health Policy. 2016;120(10):1115–1122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herpers M, Dintsios CM. Methodological problems in the method used by IQWiG within early benefit assessment of new pharmaceuticals in Germany. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(1):45–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dintsios CM, Worm F, Ruof J, et al. Different interpretation of additional evidence for HTA by the commissioned HTA body and the commissioning decision maker in Germany: whenever IQWiG and federal joint committee disagree. Health Econ Rev. 2019;9(1):35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaeske G. [Drug assessment: iQWiG, G-BA, and an international comparison]. Internist (Berl). 2016;57(1):94–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhnast S, Schiffner-Rohe J, Rahnenfuhrer J, et al. Evaluation of adjusted and unadjusted indirect comparison methods in benefit assessment. a simulation study for time-to-event endpoints. Methods Inf Med. 2017;56(3):261–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staab T, Isbary G, Amelung VE, et al. Inconsistent approaches of the G-BA regarding acceptance of primary study endpoints as being relevant to patients - an analysis of three disease areas: oncological, metabolic, and infectious diseases. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):651.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kvitkina T, Ten Haaf A, Reken S, et al. Patientenrelevante Endpunkte und Surrogate in der frühen Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln: erste Erfahrungen. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014;108(8–9):528–538.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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. 2017;18(2):181–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orben T, Rasch A, Dintsios C-M. Re: “early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany – results from 2011 to 2012” [health policy 116 (2–3) (2014) 147–153]. Health Policy. 2014;118(2):271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hörn H, Nink K, McGauran N, et al. Response to letter to the editor on “early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany – results from 2011 to 2012” [health policy 116(2–3) (2014) 147–153]. Health Policy. 2014;118(2):272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahlich J, Sindern J, Suppliet M. Cross-national drug price comparisons with economic weights in external reference pricing in Germany. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019;19(1):37–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanavos P, Angelis A, Drummond M. An EU-wide approach to HTA: an irrelevant development or an opportunity not to be missed? Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(3):329–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vella Bonanno P, Bucsics A, Simoens S, et al. Proposal for a regulation on health technology assessment in Europe - opinions of policy makers, payers and academics from the field of HTA. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019;19(3):251–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar