Gentilini Arianna, Rana Alina
Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Department of Economics and Public Policy, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
Eur J Health Econ. 2024 Dec 27. doi: 10.1007/s10198-024-01748-1.
Patient organisations are increasingly involved in HTA. Given this, it is important to understand what these organisations contribute and how their voices are accounted for in the decision-making process. This study characterises inputs from patient organisations and/or their nominated patient experts in technology appraisals for ultra-rare diseases in England and Wales and seeks to understand how these are considered in NICE final recommendations. We thematically analysed all HST appraisals completed between January 2022 and August 2024 (N = 15). We appraised inputs from patient organisations' and experts' written submissions, the novelty of patient inputs, as well as financial ties between contributing organisations and the manufacturer of the technology being appraised. We compared themes identified with those found in the Final Evaluation Determination documents to understand how and to what extent patients' inputs were considered in NICE final recommendations. We found that patient submissions mainly focused on disease aspects (54%). Patients raised concerns on access challenges, caregiver burden, and mental health impacts. Most patient themes overlapped with manufacturers' submissions (82%) and doctors' testimonies (45%), with most novel insights focusing on access issues and mental health. Patient organisations reported receiving funding from the technology manufacturer in most appraisals, with amounts ranging from £5,000 to £74,113. Approximately half of patient inputs were explicitly mentioned in NICE final decision documents, with some considerations being neglected despite being raised by patients. While NICE incorporates many issues of importance to patients, there is room for improvement to ensure all aspects patients deem important are captured. Further research could pinpoint optimal areas for patient contributions and assess their impact.
患者组织越来越多地参与卫生技术评估(HTA)。鉴于此,了解这些组织的贡献以及它们的声音在决策过程中是如何被考虑的很重要。本研究描述了患者组织和/或其指定的患者专家在英格兰和威尔士超罕见疾病技术评估中的投入,并试图了解这些投入在英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)的最终建议中是如何被考虑的。我们对2022年1月至2024年8月期间完成的所有卫生技术评估(HST)进行了主题分析(N = 15)。我们评估了患者组织和专家书面提交材料中的投入、患者投入的新颖性,以及参与组织与被评估技术制造商之间的财务关系。我们将确定的主题与最终评估决定文件中的主题进行比较,以了解NICE最终建议中如何以及在多大程度上考虑了患者的投入。我们发现患者提交的材料主要集中在疾病方面(54%)。患者对获取挑战、照顾者负担和心理健康影响表示担忧。大多数患者提出的主题与制造商的提交材料(82%)和医生的证词(45%)重叠,大多数新颖的见解集中在获取问题和心理健康方面。患者组织报告称,在大多数评估中都从技术制造商那里获得了资金,金额从5000英镑到74113英镑不等。NICE最终决策文件中明确提到了大约一半的患者投入,尽管患者提出了一些考虑因素,但仍有一些被忽视了。虽然NICE纳入了许多对患者重要的问题,但仍有改进的空间,以确保涵盖患者认为重要的所有方面。进一步的研究可以确定患者贡献的最佳领域,并评估其影响。