Buprenorphine/naloxone film was developed to improve retention in treatment and reduce public health risks over the tablet formulation for opioid dependence. To compare patient persistence and resource utilization between formulations for the treatment of opioid dependence. A longitudinal, retrospective cohort analysis was conducted to compare persistence and healthcare costs in a private US insurance claims database. Previously untreated patients, who initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone following the introduction of the film, were classified in two groups according to the initial prescription. Persistence was defined as the proportion of patients continuing treatment for at least 6 months. Resource utilization and related costs were calculated over the 6- and 12-month periods after treatment initiation. Film and tablet groups included 2796 and 1510 patients enrolled over 9.76 and 13.76 months on average, respectively, from initiation of treatment. Patient characteristics were similar between groups. Mean prescribed doses were 14.62 and 14.26 mg/day in film and tablet groups. Among patients enrolled for at least 6 months from the initial treatment, persistence rates were 63.78% with film vs 58.13% with tablet. Time to treatment discontinuation was longer in the film group, with a hazard ratio of 0.818 (p = 0.0005, 95% CI = [0.730;0.916]) adjusted for baseline characteristics. Patients treated with film had significantly more outpatient visits (+4%, p = 0.0185) and lower probability to be hospitalized (-17%, p = 0.0158), resulting in lower total healthcare costs over the 12-month period after initiation (-27%, p < 0.0001). Patients treated with the film formulation of buprenorphine/naloxone appeared to stay longer on treatment, have a lower probability of hospital admission, and lower health care costs compared to patients treated with the tablet. This study, based on insurance claims data, has the advantage of reflecting real-world practice, but one cannot rule out the existence of bias due to differences in patient or prescriber profiles, despite adjustments made for observed characteristics at treatment initiation.

The Member State Coordination Group on Health Technology Assessment (HTACG) guidance on the validity of clinical studies

Objective: Currently there are no disease-specific approved therapies for non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH); however, several treatments are under development. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of hypothetical innovative therapies compared with lifestyle intervention alone and combined with pioglitazone, and assess the health economic consequences of their future availability for patients. Methods: A Markov cohort model was developed, considering fourteen disease health states and one absorbing state representing death. Transition probabilities, costs, utilities, and treatment efficacy were based on published data and assumptions. Four treatment strategies were considered, including two existing therapies (lifestyle intervention, small molecule treatment) and two hypothetical interventions (biological and curative therapy). The analysis was performed from the US third-party payer perspective. Results: The curative treatment with the assumed efficacy of 70% of patients cured and assumed price of $500,000 was the only cost-effective option. Although it incurred higher costs (a difference of $188,771 vs. lifestyle intervention and $197,702 vs. small molecule), it generated more QALYs (a difference of 1.58 and 1.38 QALYs, respectively), resulting in an ICER below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to variations in model parameters. Conclusions: This study highlighted the potential benefits of therapies aimed at curing a disease rather than stopping its progression. Nonetheless, each of the analyzed therapies could be cost-effective compared with lifestyle intervention at a relatively high price.

Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) are essential in the context of joint clinical assessments (JCAs) under Regulation (European Union [EU]) 2021/2282, bridging evidence gaps where head-to-head data are lacking and enabling assessment across diverse national patient, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) requirements. This paper critically reviews the EU Health Technology Assessment Coordination Group’s (HTACG) guidelines on direct and indirect comparisons, with particular focus on ITCs. While the guidelines promote transparency and rigorous evaluation of assumptions, they adopt a restrictive stance on assumption violations, the use of unanchored comparisons, and population-adjusted methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparisons (STC). The guidance shows limited support for Bayesian methods and undervalues meta-regression in favor of subgroup analyses. Operational implications for health technology developers (HTDs) are substantial, including new requirements for dual systematic reviews, multiple network structures, and shifted null hypothesis testing. Moreover, the exclusion of non-randomized comparisons in rare or rapidly evolving indications may inadvertently hinder access to effective treatments. Emerging practices such as external control arms (ECA) or target trial emulation are underdeveloped. Notably, there is no indication that the guidelines are grounded in systematic methodological validation studies. As JCAs evolve, greater methodological flexibility, empirical grounding, and clear operational guidance will be essential. Refining the guidelines along these principles would enhance their practical utility, mitigate intrinsic assessment variability, support consistent assessments across Member States (MS), and ultimately improve patient access to innovative therapies.

This review of the scope of the European Health Technology Assessment (EU HTA)’s guidance on clinical trial validity in its randomized controlled trials (RCTs) highlights several key issues that undermine its practical application and effectiveness, including misconceptions, errors, and inconsistencies

This paper summarizes an analysis of the Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) subgroup’s recommendations for systematic literature reviews (SLRs). While the JCA offers clear guidance on study classification, exclusion criteria reporting, and PRISMA diagram use, several of its recommendations diverge from established best practices in evidence-based medicine (EBM). A comparison with recognized guidelines, such as those from Cochrane and EUnetHTA, reveals that the JCA guidance may lack reliability, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility. Aligning JCA recommendations with gold standards in SLR methodology—would address these shortcomings and enhance methodological rigor.