Reimbursement decision making is based on a relative effectiveness assessment (REA), which may be combined with a cost-effectiveness assessment, by national Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies. These assessments are based on clinical data where new interventions are compared to the current standard of care, which may differ between countries. Since most pivotal trials only include a limited number of interventions, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can be used to compare multiple interventions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of ITCs in HTA decision making in the Netherlands and England.

All pharmaceutical assessments published between 2015 and 2019 by the National Health Care Institute (ZIN) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) were reviewed to determine whether an ITC had been used. For detailed analysis we included all assessments of ZIN using an ITC, and a random sample of assessments of NICE using an ITC (10 assessments per publication year).

Between 2015 and 2019 a total of 106 and 265 assessments were conducted by ZIN and NICE, respectively. Of these assessments 48 from ZIN and 150 from NICE included an ITC. The detailed analysis showed that pharmaceutical assessments including indirect comparative evidence led to the REA conclusion of similar therapeutic evidence in 57 percent of 48 assessments by ZIN and in 52 percent of 50 assessments by NICE. Reimbursement recommendations including indirect comparative evidence most often resulted in positive recommendations by ZIN (57% assessments), and in restricted recommendations by NICE (50% assessments). Different methods were employed to incorporate indirect comparative evidence, such as naïve ITCs and network meta-analysis.

Our results showed a significant variability in the use of ITCs between NICE and ZIN, which may contribute to differences in their recommendations. Further analysis will provide deeper insight in these differences and may provide suggestions for a clearer international guidance on the use of ITCs for HTA.

This study aimed to provide insight into the congruity of acute cystitis (AC) diagnosis in women, measured both by the Acute Cystitis Symptom Score (ACSS) questionnaire and urine test(s).

The ACSS questionnaire was developed as a self-administering tool for assessing urinary symptoms, quality of life (QoL) and treatment outcomes in healthy, nonpregnant female patients.

This prospective observational cohort study compared AC diagnosis based on the questionnaire with a GP diagnosis based on dipstick/dipslide test(s). ACSS questionnaire form A (typical and differential symptoms, QoL and relevant conditions) was filled in by the patient group, women suspected for AC visiting a GP practice with a urine sample, and the reference group, women visiting a community pharmacy for any medication. Analyses were performed assuming that the GP diagnosis based on urine test(s) was correct. Divergent result(s) of urine test(s) and ACSS questionnaire were analysed for scores of all individual questionnaire domains. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics and the positive predictive value (PPV) and the negative predictive value (NPV) of the ACSS questionnaire and the urine test(s).

In the patient group, 59 women were included, 38 of whom a GP positively diagnosed for AC. The reference group included 70 women. The PPV of the ACSS questionnaire was 77.3%, and the NPV was 73.3%. Analysis of patient data for divergent results showed that differential symptoms, QoL and relevant conditions explained false-positive and false-negative results. Revised results (most probable diagnosis) based on this analysis showed a PPV and NPV of 88.6% and 73.3% for the ACSS questionnaire and 100% and 76.2% for the urine test(s). For use in primary care, a reduction in false-positive and false-negative results can be achieved by including scores for differential symptoms, QoL and relevant conditions, alongside a total typical symptoms score of 6 or higher.

Although health technology assessment (HTA) and healthcare quality improvement are distinct processes, a greater level of alignment in outcome measures used may increase the quality and efficiency of data collection. This study evaluates the agreement in outcome measures used in oncology for healthcare quality improvement and HTAs, and how these align to the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) standard sets.

We conducted a cross-sectional comparative analysis of ICHOM sets focusing on oncological indications and publicly available measures for healthcare quality and HTA reports published by the National Health Care Institute from the Netherlands and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence from the United Kingdom.

All ICHOM sets and HTAs used overall survival, whereas quality improvement used different survival estimates. Different progression estimates for cancer were used in HTAs, ICHOM sets, and quality improvement. Data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was recommended in all ICHOM sets and all HTAs, but selectively for quality improvement. In HTAs, generic HRQoL questionnaires were preferred, whereas, in quality improvement and ICHOM sets, disease-specific questionnaires were recommended. Unfavorable outcomes were included in all HTAs and all ICHOM sets, but not always for quality improvement.

Although HTA and quality improvement use outcome measures from the same domains, a greater level of alignment seems possible. ICHOM may provide input on standardized outcome measures to support this alignment. However, residual discrepancies will remain due to the different objectives of HTA and quality improvement.

In previous research, lapses in dosing of paroxetine or sertraline were associated with significantly more discontinuation symptoms and deterioration of depressive symptomatology compared with fluoxetine.

To evaluate dosing lapses in patients chronically treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in uncontrolled circumstances.

In a prospective observational study we evaluated compliance data in chronic users of SSRIs using electronic drug exposure monitors.

During a 3-month follow-up we found that 50/69 (72.5%) patients missed at least one dosing day and 20/69 (29.0%) missed two or more consecutive days.

About 30% of patients treated with short-acting SSRIs had dosing lapses of 2 or more days, which, as described in prior studies, is long enough to result in clinically relevant deterioration of mental status.