Search

Regulators and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies are increasingly familiar with, and publishing guidance on, external controls derived from real-world data (RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE). We recently conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) evaluating publicly available information on the use of RWD-derived external controls to contextualize outcomes from uncontrolled trials submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and/or select HTA bodies. The review identified several key operational and methodological aspects for which more detailed guidance and alignment within and between regulatory agencies and HTA bodies is necessary. This paper builds on the SLR findings by delineating a set of key takeaways for the responsible generation of fit-for-purpose RWE. Practical methodological and operational guidelines for designing, conducting, and reporting RWD-derived external control studies are explored and discussed. These considerations include: (i) early engagement with regulators and HTA bodies during the study planning phase; (ii) consideration of the appropriateness and comparability of external controls across multiple dimensions, including eligibility criteria, temporality, population representation, and clinical evaluation; (iii) ensuring adequate sample sizes, including hypothesis testing considerations; (iv) implementation of a clear and transparent strategy for assessing and addressing data quality, including data missingness across trials and RWD; (v) selection of comparable and meaningful endpoints that are operationalized and analyzed using appropriate analytic methods; and (vi) conduct of sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of findings in the context of uncertainty and sources of potential bias., (© 2023 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc and The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Real-world data (RWD)-derived external controls can be used to contextualize efficacy findings for investigational therapies evaluated in uncontrolled trials. As the number of submissions to regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies using external controls rises, and in light of recent regulatory and HTA guidance on the appropriate use of RWD, there is a need to address the operational and methodological challenges impeding the quality of real-world evidence (RWE) generation and the consistency in evaluation of RWE across agencies. This systematic review summarizes publicly available information on the use of external controls to contextualize outcomes from uncontrolled trials for all indications from January 1, 2015, through August 20, 2021, that were submitted to the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and/or select major HTA bodies (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), and Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA)). By systematically reviewing submissions to regulatory and HTA bodies in the context of recent guidance, this study provides quantitative and qualitative insights into how external control design and analytic choices may be viewed by different agencies in practice. The primary operational and methodological aspects identified for discussion include, but are not limited to, engagement of regulators and HTA bodies, approaches to handling missing data (a component of data quality), and selection of real-world endpoints. Continued collaboration and guidance to address these and other aspects will inform and assist stakeholders attempting to generate evidence using external controls., (© 2023 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc and The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Objectives: Key challenges for a joint European Health Technology Assessment (HTA) include consolidated approaches towards the choice of adequate comparator(s), selection of endpoints that are relevant to patients with a given disease, dealing with remaining uncertainties as well as transparent and consistent management of related processes. We aimed to further crystallize related core domains within these four areas that warrant further research and scrutiny., Methods: Building on the outcomes of a previously conducted questionnaire survey, four key areas, processes, uncertainty, comparator choice and endpoint selection, were identified. At the inaugural convention of the European Access Academy dedicated working groups were established defining and prioritizing core domains for each of the four areas. The working groups consisted of ~ 10 participants each, representing all relevant stakeholder groups (patients/ clinicians/ regulators/ HTA & payers/ academia/ industry). Story books identifying the work assignments were shared in advance. Two leads and one note taker per working group facilitated the process. All rankings were conducted on an ordinal Likert Response Scale scoring from 1 (low priority) to 7 (high priority)., Results: Identified key domains include for processes: i) address (resource-) challenge of multiple PICOs (Patient/ Intervention/ Comparator/ Outcomes), ii) time and capacity challenges, iii) integrating all involved stakeholders, iv) conflicts and aligning between different multi-national stakeholders, v) interaction with health technology developer; for uncertainty: i) early and inclusive collaboration, ii) agreement on feasibility of RCT and acceptance of uncertainty, iii) alignment on closing evidence gaps, iv) capacity gaps; for comparator choice: i) criteria for the choice of comparator in an increasingly fragmented treatment landscape, ii) reasonable number of comparators in PICOs, iii) shape Early Advice so that comparator fulfils both regulatory and HTA needs, iv) acceptability of Indirect Treatment Comparisons (ITC), v) ensure broad stakeholder involvement in comparator selection; for endpoint selection: i) approaching new endpoints; ii) patient preferences on endpoints; iii) position of HTA and other stakeholders; iv) long-term generation and secondary use of data; v) endpoint challenges in RCTs., Conclusions: The implementation of a joint European HTA assessment is a unique opportunity for a stronger European Health Union. We identified 19 domains related to the four key areas, processes, uncertainty, comparator choice and endpoint selection that urgently need to be addressed for this regulation to become a success., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Drug reimbursement decisions that spark public controversy are potential signals that processes used to reach such decisions do not adequately reflect society's goals. Such controversial decisions appear to be a characteristic of Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY)-based Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER)-dominated decision-making systems. QALY-based ICER-heavy systems have several known weaknesses that lead to individual and societal preferences being either ignored or considered in an unsystematic and inconsistent manner., Areas Covered: We reprise some of the key inadequacies of QALY-based ICER analyses and suggest that there are other means including multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and cost-benefit analysis based on willingness to pay (WTP) measures by which to partially mitigate these weaknesses., Expert Opinion: For long, the inadequacies of QALY-based ICER-heavy decision-making systems have been rationalized with the answer: 'while the method is a second best, it is the best we currently have.' In light of the equally well-developed and widely utilized alternatives available, this resistance to improve assessment processes should not be accepted by policy makers. Health technology assessment bodies should consider and, with appropriate modifications, adopt these alternatives as they have the potential to result in more comprehensive, systematic, and accountable decision-making.

Objectives: We conducted a multi-stakeholder survey to determine key areas where a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) could provide 'additional benefit' compared to the status quo of many parallel independent national and subnational assessments., Methods: Leveraging three iterative Delphi cycles, a semiquantitative questionnaire was developed covering evidence challenges and heterogeneity of value drivers within HTAs across Europe with a focus on hematology/oncology. The questionnaire consisted of five sections: i) background information; ii) value drivers in HTA assessments today; iii) evolving evidence challenges; iv) heterogeneity of value drivers across Europe; v) impact of Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). The questionnaire was circulated across n = 189 stakeholder institutions comprising HTA and regulatory bodies, clinical oncology associations, patient representatives, and industry associations., Results: N = 30 responses were received (HTA bodies: 9; regulators: 10; patients' and physicians' associations: 3 each; industry: 5). Overall, 17 countries and EU level institutions were represented in the responses. Consistency across countries and stakeholder groups was high. Most relevant value drivers in HTAs today (scale 1, low to 5, high) were clinical trial design (mean 4.45), right endpoints (mean 4.40), and size of comparative effect (mean 4.33). Small patient numbers (mean 4.28) and innovative study designs (mean 4.1) were considered the most relevant evolving evidence challenges. Heterogeneity between regulatory and HTA evidence requirements and heterogeneity of the various national treatment standards and national HTA evidence requirements was high. All clinical and patient participants stated to have been with EBCP initiatives., Conclusions: For a European HTA to provide an 'additional benefit' over the multitude of existing national assessments key methodological and process challenges need to be addressed. These include approaches to address uncertainty in clinical development; comparator choice; consistency in approaching patient-relevant endpoints; and a transparent and consistent management of both HTA and regulatory procedures as well as their interface, including all involved stakeholder groups., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis [CEA] using cost per QALY thresholds may counteract other incentives introduced to foster development of treatments for rare and ultra-rare diseases. Therefore, alternative economic evaluation methods were explored, namely Discrete Choice Experiment Willingness to Pay (DCE-WTP) and Relative Social Willingness to Pay (RS-WTP), to value interventions for an ultra-rare childhood disease, Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis type 2 (CLN2)., Research Design and Methods: Treatment for CLN2 was valued from a citizen's ('social') perspective using DCE-WTP and RS-WTP in a survey of 4,009 United Kingdom [UK] adults. Three attributes (initial quality of life, treatment effect, and life expectancy) were used in both analyses. For DCE-WTP, a cost attribute (marginal income tax increase) was also included. Optimal econometric models were identified., Results: DCE-WTP indicated that UK adults are willing to pay incremental increases through taxation for improvements in CLN2 attributes. RS-WTP identified a willingness to allocate >40% of a pre-assigned healthcare budget to prevent child mortality and approximately 15% for improved health status., Conclusions: Both techniques illustrate substantive social WTP for CLN2 interventions, despite the small number of children benefitting. This highlights a gap between UK citizens' willingness to spend on rare disease interventions and current funding policies.

With gene replacement therapies (GRTs) increasingly and rapidly reaching the healthcare marketplace, the vast potential for improving patient health is matched by the potential budgetary impact for healthcare payers. GRTs are highly valuable given their potential life-extending or even curative benefits and may provide significant cost-offsets compared with standard of care. Current healthcare systems are, however, struggling to fund such valuable but costly therapies. Some payers have already implemented specific financing models to account for the new treatment paradigms, but these do not address the budget impact in the year of acquisition or administration of these costly technologies. This health policy analysis aimed to assess the rationale and feasibility of amortization, within the context of financing healthcare technologies, and specifically GRTs. Amortization is an accounting concept applied to intangible assets that allows for spreading the cost an intangible asset over time, allowing for repayment to occur via interest and principal payments sufficient to repay the intangible asset in full by its maturity. Our systematic scoping review on the amortization of healthcare technologies found a very small literature base with even that being unclear and inconsistent in its understanding of the issues. Where amortization was proposed as a solution for funding costly, but highly valuable GRTs, the concept was not fully investigated in detail, nor was the feasibility of the approach fully challenged. However, by providing clear definitions of relevant concepts along with an example of amortization models applied to some example GRTs, we propose that amortization can offer a promising method for funding of extraordinarily high-value healthcare technologies, thereby increasing market and patient access for these technologies. Nonetheless, healthcare accounting principles and financing guidelines must evolve to apply amortization to the rapidly developing GRTs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest We declare no conflicts of interest in the development of this research and manuscript., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

People with metastatic breast cancer face many challenges and disparities in obtaining optimal cancer care. These challenges are accentuated in underserved patient populations across Europe, who are less likely to receive quality healthcare for reasons including socioeconomic inequalities, educational or cultural status, or geographic location. While there are many local and national initiatives targeted to address these challenges, there remains a need to reduce disparities and improve access to healthcare to improve outcomes, with a focus on multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement. In October 2019, a range of experts in metastatic breast cancer, including healthcare professionals, patient representatives, policymakers and politicians, met to discuss and prioritize the critical needs of underserved patient populations with metastatic breast cancer in Europe. Six key challenges faced by these communities were identified: the need for amplification of the metastatic breast cancer patient voice, better and wider implementation of high-quality guidelines for metastatic breast cancer, more collaboration between stakeholders, tailored support for patients from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, improved data sharing, and work-related issues. The Expert Panel then conceived and discussed potential actionable goals to address each key challenge. Their conclusions present a set of interrelated approaches to address the different challenges and could serve as the basis for concerted improvement of the lives of patients with metastatic breast cancer in Europe., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Emilio Alba: None. Concepción Biurrún: None. Fatima Cardoso:. Consultancy role for Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Macrogenics, Medscape, Merck-Sharp, Merus BV, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seattle Genetics, Teva. PierFranco Conte: Speaker (Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca); Travel grant (Novartis, Celgene, Tesaro); Institutional research grant (Novartis, Merck KGa, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb) Rosanna D’Antona: None. Jacques De Grève: None. Joseph Gligorov: None. Françoise Meunier: None. Carlo Palmieri: Advisory boards and funding for clinical studies (Pfizer). Oriol Sola-Morales: Dr. Sola-Morales has consulted for most of the multinational pharmaceutical companies, including all ‘top 10’. He has received fees and honoraria for such consultancies and is currently engaged in several projects with many of these companies. He holds ownership of several start-up companies in the healthcare field and has had in the past stock ownership of ‘Top 10’ pharmaceutical companies. Luzia Travado: None. Catherine Ubaysi: Compensation for representing Patients en réseau at events. Roberta Ventura: None. Eduard Vrdoljak: Support for clinical trials and scientific projects (Pfizer, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca); Speaker fees and consulting (Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, PharmaSwiss, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, MSD, Merck). Andrew Walker: Pharmaceutical & biotechnology companies (Abbvie, Akcea, Albireo, Alexion, Allergan, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Autolus, Avexis, Biocrysta, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calico, Celgene, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, GSK, GW Pharma, Intercept, Ipsen, Janssen, Jazz, Kite/Gilead, Les Laboratories Servier, Lundbeck, Merck Serono, Mundibiopharma, Mylan, Norgine, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, RegenXBio, Takeda, UCB, Vertex). Consultancy companies (Adeptfield, Atheneum Partners, Bresmed, CB Partners, Charles Rivers Associates, Creativ Ceutical, Datamonitor, de Facto Research, Dolon, DRG, Evidera, Executive Insight, Fiecon, Fingerpost Consulting, Galbraith Wight, Guidehouse, Health Advances, HiTT, Huron Consulting Group, Inbeeo, Informa/Data Monitor, IQVIA, M2Econ, Market Access Transformation, Miller Economics, Mirador, Mtech Access, Navigant, Open Access, Pagoda S&L Int. Services, Parexel, Partners 4 Access, Plich Advisory Services, Precision Xtract, PRMA, PWC, QualWorld, Remap, Research Partnership, RJW Partners, SAI Med Partners, Simon Kucher, Therapeutic Challenges, Two Labs, Valid Insight, Verto, Wellmera, Windrose, ZS Associates). Public sector: University of Aberdeen. Theresa Wiseman: None. Lieve Wierinck: None. Rachel Wuerstlein: Agendia, Amgen, Aristo, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Clinsol, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Genomic Health, GlaxoSmithKline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Onkowissen, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro, Teva., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) represent a diverse group of 20 communicable diseases that occur in tropical and subtropical areas in 149 countries, affecting over 1 billion people and costing developing economies billions of dollars every year. Within these diseases, those that present lesions on the skin surface are classified as skin NTDs (sNTDs). Mobile health interventions are currently being used worldwide to manage skin diseases and can be a good strategy in the epidemiological and clinical management of sNTDs., Objective: We aimed to analyze existing evidence about mobile health interventions to control and manage sNTDs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and make recommendations for what should be considered in future interventions., Methods: A systematic review was conducted of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases over 10 years up to April 30, 2020. All types of clinical studies were considered. Data were synthesized into evidence tables. Apps were selected through a comprehensive systematic search in the Google Play Store and Apple App Store conducted between March 20 and April 15, 2020., Results: From 133 potentially relevant publications, 13 studies met our criteria (9.8%). These analyzed eight different interventions (three SMS text messaging interventions and five app interventions). Six of the 13 (46%) studies were community-based cross-sectional studies intended to epidemiologically map a specific disease, mainly lymphatic filariasis, but also cutaneous leishmaniasis, leprosy, and NTDs, as well as sNTDs in general. Most of the studies were considered to have a high (5/13, 39%) or moderate (4/13, 31%) risk of bias. Fifteen apps were identified in the Google Play Store, of which three were also in the Apple App Store. Most of the apps (11/15, 73%) were targeted at health care professionals, with only four targeted at patients. The apps focused on scabies (3/15, 20%), lymphatic filariasis (3/15, 20%), cutaneous leishmaniasis (1/15, 7%), leprosy (1/15, 7%), yaws and Buruli ulcer (1/15, 7%), tropical diseases including more than one sNTDs (3/15, 20%), and NTDs including sNTDs (2/15, 13%). Only 1 (7%) app focused on the clinical management of sNTDs., Conclusions: All mobile health interventions that were identified face technological, legal, final user, and organizational issues. There was a remarkable heterogeneity among studies, and the majority had methodological limitations that leave considerable room for improvement. Based on existing evidence, eight recommendations have been made for future interventions., (©Carme Carrion, Noemí Robles, Oriol Sola-Morales, Marta Aymerich, Jose Antonio Ruiz Postigo. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 31.12.2020.)

Background:  The launch of hepatitis C (HCV) drugs such as sofosbuvir or ledipasvir has fostered the question of affordability of novel high budget impact therapies even in countries with high domestic product. European countries have developed a variety of mechanisms to improve affordability of such therapies, including 'affordability thresholds', price volume agreements or caps on individual product sales, and special budgets for innovative drugs. While some of these mechanisms may help limit budget impact, there are still significant progresses to be made in the definition and implementation of approaches to ensure affordability, especially in health systems where the growth potential in drug spending and/or in the patient contribution to health insurance are limited.  Objectives:  In this article, we will review how seven countries in western Europe are approaching the question of affordability of novel therapies and are developing approaches to continue to reward new sciences while limiting budget impact. We will also discuss the question of affordability of cost-effective but hugely expensive therapies and the implications for payers and for the pharmaceutical industry. Results:  There is clearly not one solution that is used consistently across countries but rather a number of 'tools' that are combined differently in each country. This illustrates the difficulty of managing affordability within different legal frameworks and within different health care system architectures.

Indication value-based pricing (IBP) has been proposed in the United States as a tool to capture the differential value of drugs across indications or patient groups and is in the early phases of implementation. In Europe, no major country has experimented with IBP or is seriously discussing its use. We assessed how the reimbursement and pricing environment allows for IBP in seven European countries, evaluating both incentives and hurdles. In price setting countries such as France and Germany, the Health Technology Assessment and pricing process already accounts for differences of value across indications. In countries where differential value drives coverage decisions such as the United Kingdom and Sweden, IBP is likely to be used, at least partially, but not in the short-term. Italy is already achieving some form of differential value through managed entry agreements, whereas in Spain the electronic prescription system provides the infrastructure necessary for IBP but other hurdles exist.