Search

Abstract The efficacy of pembrolizumab in the treatment-naïve non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients was proved in the KEYNOTE-024 randomized trial. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify and summarize the real world evidence (RWE) of overall survival (OS) in previously untreated patients with NSCLC receiving pembrolizumab monotherapy. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed (MEDLINE®) and EMBASE databases. Analyses were focused on survival data (median OS and survival rates at specific time points). To explore the population comparable with the KEYNOTE-024 study, we focused on studies enrolling at least 50% of patients at stage IV of cancer and ECOG performance status 0–2. A total of 41 RWE studies covering over 7600 advanced NSCLC patients naïve to systemic treatment were identified. Overall, survival outcomes reported in those studies vary considerably (median OS range: 3.0–34.6 months). Most RWE studies reported median OS shorter to that reported in KEYNOTE-024 (26.3 months), but about half of reported OS medians were in range of 95% confidence interval for OS as reported in KEYNOTE-024 trial (18.3–40.4 months). Patients with similar characteristics of stage and performance status to those of KEYNOTE-024 trial benefited the same with pembrolizumab monotherapy as their survival outcomes (18.9–22.8 months) were consistent with those reported in the clinical trial. RWE data showed substantially worse outcomes in patients with ECOG-PS 2+ compared to ECOG-PS 0–1 patients.

Introduction: Our objective was to analyze and compare systematically and structurally reimbursement systems in Poland and other countries.Methods: The systems were selected based on recommendations issued by the Polish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Tariffication (AHTAPol), which explicitly referred to other countries and agencies). Consequently, apart from Poland, the countries included in the analysis were England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France, Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Relevant information and data were collected through a systematic search of PubMed (Medline), Embase and The Cochrane Library as well as competent authority websites and grey literature sources.Results and discussion: In most of the countries, the submission of a reimbursement application is initiated by a pharmaceutical company, and only a few countries allow it before a product is approved for marketing. All of the agencies analyzed are independent and some have regulatory function of reimbursement decision making body. A key criterion differentiating the various agencies in terms of HTA is the cost-effectiveness threshold. Most of the countries have specific mechanisms to improve access to expensive specialty drugs, including cancer drugs and those used for rare diseases. Reimbursement systems often lack consistency in appreciating the same stages, leading to heterogeneous decision-making processes. The analysis of recommendations issued in different countries for the same medicinal product will allow a better understanding of the relations between the reimbursement system, HTA assessment, stakeholders involvement and decision on reimbursement of innovative drugs.

IntroductionMeaningful patient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is essential in ensuring that the interests of the affected patient population, their families, and the general public are accurately reflected in coverage and reimbursement decisions. Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries are generally at less advanced stages of implementing HTA, which is particularly true for patient involvement activities. As part of the Horizon2020 HTx project, this research aimed to form recommendations for critical barriers to patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries.MethodsBuilt on previous research findings on potential barriers, a prioritisation survey was conducted online with CEE stakeholders. Recommendations for prioritised barriers were formed through a face-to-face workshop by CEE stakeholders and HTx experts.ResultsA total of 105 stakeholders from 13 CEE countries completed the prioritisation survey and identified 12 of the 22 potential barriers as highly important. The workshop had 36 participants representing 9 CEE countries, and 5 Western European countries coming together to discuss solutions in order to form recommendations based on best practices, real-life experience, and transferability aspects. Stakeholder groups involved in both phases included HTA organisation representatives, payers, patients, caregivers, patient organisation representatives, patient experts, health care providers, academic and non-academic researchers, health care consultants and health technology manufacturers/providers. As a result, 12 recommendations were formed specified to the CEE region’s context, but potentially useful for a broader geographic audience.ConclusionIn this paper, we present 12 recommendations for meaningful, systematic, and sustainable patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries. Our hope is that engaging more than a hundred CEE stakeholders in the study helped to spread awareness of the importance and potential of patient involvement and that the resulting recommendations provide tangible steps for the way forward. Future studies shall focus on country-specific case studies of the implemented recommendations.

This study examines the vaccine market access pathway in Poland to evaluate its efficiency and propose recommendations for its improvement. The research spans a comprehensive analysis of the vaccine assessment process, ranging from pre-registration to sustainability, encompassing critical components such as national immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs), health technology assessments, resource evaluations, and decision making. This investigation utilizes a multi-phase approach. Initial desk research aimed to collect accumulated evidence about each step of the vaccine access pathway. This constituted the background for an expert panel discussion (n = 13) and a final online questionnaire (n = 12), evaluating the timeframes, inclusiveness, transparency, and consistency of the elements of the process. Poland is a late adopter of new vaccines. The country faces budget constraints and lacks a formalized framework for the inclusion of vaccines into the national immunization program. Notably, NITAGs play a crucial role, yet their limited resources and dependence on public health stakeholders diminish their impact. A formal and well-supported advisory body may become a foundation for decision-making processes. The health technology assessment conducted by the national agency is recognized for its timeliness and transparency, though the absence of fiscal analyses in vaccine assessments is identified as a gap that limits the understanding of the value of vaccinations. Resources are key drivers of decision making, and recent changes in legislation offer increased flexibility in financing vaccines. Challenges in the procurement process include a limited consideration of non-acquisition costs and an increased absence of a documented general strategy for immunization program development in Poland, pointing to a need for strategic planning. In conclusion, this study recommends the establishment of a robust NITAG with enhanced resources, incorporating fiscal analyses, transparent resource allocation, and strategic planning for immunization program development. Addressing these recommendations is crucial for optimizing Poland’s vaccine market access pathway, ensuring timely and efficient population-wide vaccine access.

Introduction: The combination of immunotherapy and targeted therapy is currently marking a new era in the treatment of renal cancer. The latest clinical guidelines recommend the use of drug combinations for the first-line treatment of advanced renal cancer. The aim of this review is to compare the efficacy of combined cabozantinib + nivolumab therapy with other immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or monoclonal antibodies blocking the CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T cell antigen 4) in the first-line treatment of metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC).Methodology: A systematic literature search was carried out in the PubMed and EMBASE databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on therapies recommended by the latest EAU and ESMO guidelines for treatment-naïve metastatic RCC (i.e., lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, axitinib + pembrolizumab and nivolumab + ipilimumab) were searched. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed for data synthesis. The methodology of included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane RoB two tool. The data were analyzed in the overall population as well as in risk subgroups defined according to the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) i.e., patients with a favorable and intermediate or poor prognoses. The most recent cut-off dates from included studies were analyzed.Results: Four RCTs (CheckMate 9 ER, KEYNOTE-426, CLEAR and CheckMate 214) were included in the review. No studies directly comparing cabozantinib + nivolumab with any of the drug combinations included in this review were available. NMA showed that cabozantinib + nivolumab was superior compared to axitinib + pembrolizumab and nivolumab + ipilimumab in all analyzed comparisons (overall population and IMDC risk subgroups), both in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS). The advantage of cabozantinib + nivolumab was statistically significant only for PFS when compared to nivolumab + ipilimumab in the overall population. The results for the comparison of cabozantinib + nivolumab with lenvatinib + pembrolizumab showed numerical superiority of lenvatinib + pembrolizumab combination in terms of overall survival, but none of the results were statistically significant. The advantage of lenvatinib + pembrolizumab over cabozantinib + nivolumab in terms of PFS was statistically significant in the overall and favorable prognosis population.Conclusion: Inclusion of the most recent cut-off data from CheckMate 9 ER did not affect the role of the cabozantinib + nivolumab combination for treatment-naïve metastatic RCC. Cabozantinib + nivolumab is an effective therapeutic option for the first-line treatment of advanced renal cancer that is recommended both in the latest European and American guidelines for all IMDC risk groups.

BackgroundCatheter-directed therapies (CDT) are an alternative to systemic thrombolysis (ST) in pulmonary embolism (PE) patients, but the mortality benefit of CDT is unclear.ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of CDT and ST in intermediate-high and high-risk PE.MethodsWe included (P) participants, adult PE patients; (I) intervention, CDT; (C) comparison, ST; (O) outcomes, mortality, complications, in-hospital treatment, and length of hospital stay; (S) study design, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or cohort comparing CDT and ST. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatment-related complications including bleeding, the use of hospital resources, and length of hospital stay.ResultsEleven studies including 65,589 patients met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-day mortality was lower in the CDT group, compared to ST group [7.3 vs. 13.6%; odds ratio (OR) = 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38–0.69, p < 0.001]. The rates of myocardial injury, cardiac arrest, and stroke were lower in CDT group, compared to ST group (p < 0.001 for all). The rates of any major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, hemoptysis, and red blood cell transfusion were lower in patients treated with CDT, compared to ST (p ≤ 0.01 for all). Extracorporeal life support was used more often in patients treated with CDT, compared to ST (0.5 vs. 0.2%, OR = 2.52, 95% CI 1.88–3.39, p < 0.001). The use of hospital resources and length of hospital stay were comparable in both groups.ConclusionCDT might decrease mortality in patients with intermediate-high and high-risk PE and were associated with fewer complications, including major bleeding.