Advanced therapy medicinal products and health technology assessment principles and practices for value-based and sustainable healthcare

Managed Entry Agreements for High-Cost, One-Off Potentially Curative Therapies: A Framework and Calculation Tool to Determine Their Suitability

OBJECTIVE

To construct a framework and calculation tool to compare the consequences of implementing different payment models for high-cost, one-off potentially curative therapies and enable decision making to ultimately enhance timely patient access to innovative health interventions.

METHODS

A framework outlining steps to determine potentially suitable payment models was developed. Based on the framework, a supporting calculation tool operationalised as an Excel-based model was constructed to quantify the associated costs for an average patient during the timeframe of the intended payment agreement, the total budget impact and associated benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life-years for the total expected lifetime of the patient population. To demonstrate the potential of the framework, three case studies were used: onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma®), brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus®) and etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix®). A hypothetical case study was used to illustrate the output of the calculation tool.

RESULTS

Part 1 of the framework presents steps for matching a suitable reimbursement and payment model with the disease and treatment characteristics. The reimbursement and payment models are further specified in Part 2. Part 3 guides end users through the setup of a calculation tool with which the financial impact can be calculated of two payment models: a price discount model and an outcome-based spread payment model with a discount. Part 4 concerns the output of the calculation tool, showing how different payment models lead to different financial consequences under three assumptions of longer term effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented framework provides decision makers with insight into the financial consequences of their chosen payment model under different assumptions. This can aid reimbursement negotiations by clarifying the optimal choice given a therapy's characteristics.

Uncertainty in Long-Term Relative Effectiveness of Medicines in Health Technology Assessment

OBJECTIVES

Uncertainty regarding the long-term relative effectiveness is an important factor in health technology assessment (HTA) of medicines. This study investigated how different HTA bodies address this uncertainty in their assessments.

METHODS

A total of 49 HTA reports from 6 national HTA bodies, assessing 9 medicines for spinal muscular atrophy, cystic fibrosis, and hypercholesterolemia, were included. In these reports, 81 relative effectiveness assessments and 45 cost-effectiveness assessments were performed on an indication level. We collected information on included trials, assessment outcomes, uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness, proposed managed entry agreements, and reassessments.

RESULTS

Uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness was an important consideration in almost all cost-effectiveness assessments (91%) and three-quarters of relative effectiveness assessments (74%), despite differences in methodologies among HTA bodies. There were considerable differences in the amount and type of long-term effectiveness data included by HTA bodies due to timing and inclusion criteria. In total 23 managed entry agreements were proposed of which 14 were linked to uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness. In addition, 13 reassessments were performed of which 4 led to an increase in patient access because of more available long-term effectiveness data.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness is an important challenge for HTA bodies. There are large differences in the acceptance of evidence among HTA bodies, which leads to heterogeneity in the inclusion of available long-term effectiveness data for decision making. In cases with large uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness, outcome-based agreements and reassessments are used by HTA bodies, but differently between HTA bodies and indications.

Market Access Challenges and Solutions in Cell and Gene Therapy in The Netherlands

With the increasing pipeline of cell and gene therapies (CGTs) and the expected surge in the number of approvals, understanding the market access landscape becomes crucial for timely patient access. This study evaluates the challenges Dutch stakeholders encounter in CGT market access, offering insights for improving time-to-patient access. A traditional literature review was conducted to identify market access challenges and solutions for CGTs. Based on the findings, participants for semi-structured interviews, designed using an interview guide adapted to the Dutch context, were selected to capture diverse perspectives on market access. This review included 124 relevant articles out of 2449, covering several aspects of market access of CGTs. Subsequently, interviews with 16 stakeholders from academia, patient advocacy groups, manufacturers, health insurers, payers, hospital pharmacists, healthcare practitioners, and the Association of Innovative Medicines were conducted. Stakeholders identified challenges and proposed solutions for reimbursement package management, clinical trials, health economics, payment models, and procedural and organisational aspects. Thematic analysis revealed unique country-specific challenges and solutions in the Netherlands. This research provides insights into these challenges and potential solutions, emphasising the need for collaborative efforts among stakeholders to develop practical and multidisciplinary measures to improve the market access landscape for CGTs in the country.

Illustrating the Financial Consequences of Outcome-Based Payment Models From a Payers Perspective: The Case of Autologous Gene Therapy Atidarsagene Autotemcel (Libmeldy®)

OBJECTIVES

To illustrate the financial consequences of implementing different managed entry agreements (managed entry agreements for the Dutch healthcare system for autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel [Libmeldy]), while also providing a first systematic guidance on how to construct managed entry agreements to aid future reimbursement decision making and create patient access to high-cost, one-off potentially curative therapies.

METHODS

Three payment models were compared: (1) an arbitrary 60% price discount, (2) an outcome-based spread payment with discounts, and (3) an outcome-based spread payment linked to a willingness to pay model with discounts. Financial consequences were estimated for full responders (A), patients responding according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (B), and unstable responders (C). The associated costs for an average patient during the time frame of the payment agreement, the total budget impact, and associated benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life-years of the patient population were calculated.

RESULTS

When patients responded according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in health technology assessment reports (scenario B), implementing outcome-based reimbursement models (models 2 and 3) had lower associated budget impacts while gaining similar benefits compared with the discount (scenario 1, €8.9 million to €6.6 million vs €9.2 million). In the case of unstable responders (scenario C), costs for payers are lower in the outcome-based scenarios (€4.1 million and €3.0 million, scenario 2C and 3C, respectively) compared with implementing the discount (€9.2 million, scenario 1C).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome-based models can mitigate the financial risk of reimbursing atidarsagene autotemcel. This can be considerably beneficial over simple discounts when clinical performance was similar to or worse than predicted.

A systematic review on the appropriate discounting rates for the economic evaluation of gene therapies: whether a specific approach is justified to tackle the challenges?

OBJECTIVES

Discounting the cost and effect for health intervention is a controversial topic over the last two decades. In particular, the cost-effectiveness of gene therapies is especially sensitive to the discount rate because of the substantial delay between the upfront cost incurred and long-lasing clinical benefits received. This study aims to investigate the influence of employing alternative discount rates on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of gene therapies.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to include health economic evaluations of gene therapies that were published until April 2023.

RESULTS

Sensitivity or scenario analysis indicated that discount rate represented one of the most influential factors for the ICERs of gene therapies. Discount rate for cost and benefit was positively correlated with the cost-effectiveness of gene therapies, that is, a lower discount rate significantly improves the ICERs. The alternative discount rate employed in some cases could be powerful to alter the conclusion on whether gene therapies are cost-effective and acceptable for reimbursement.

CONCLUSIONS

Although discount rate will have substantial influence on the ICERs of gene therapies, there lacks solid evidence to justify a different discounting rule for gene therapies. However, it is proposed that the discount rate in the reference case should be updated to reflect the real-time preference, which in turn will affect the ICERs and reimbursement of gene therapies more profoundly than conventional therapies.

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products as Potential Therapeutic Strategy against COVID-19 and Immune-Related Disorders

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) comprise a heterogenous class of innovative medicinal products, which further require extensive preclinical and clinical assessments before their broader use in the general population [...].

Strategies to decrease inequalities in cancer therapeutics, care and prevention: Proceedings on a conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the European Academy of Cancer Sciences, Vatican City, February 23-24, 2023

Analyses of inequalities related to prevention and cancer therapeutics/care show disparities between countries with different economic standing, and within countries with high Gross Domestic Product. The development of basic technological and biological research provides clinical and prevention opportunities that make their implementation into healthcare systems more complex, mainly due to the growth of Personalized/Precision Cancer Medicine (PCM). Initiatives like the USA-Cancer Moonshot and the EU-Mission on Cancer and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan are initiated to boost cancer prevention and therapeutics/care innovation and to mitigate present inequalities. The conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in collaboration with the European Academy of Cancer Sciences discussed the inequality problem, dependent on the economic status of a country, the increasing demands for infrastructure supportive of innovative research and its implementation in healthcare and prevention programs. Establishing translational research defined as a coherent cancer research continuum is still a challenge. Research has to cover the entire continuum from basic to outcomes research for clinical and prevention modalities. Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) are of critical importance for integrating research innovations to preclinical and clinical research, as for ensuring state-of-the-art patient care within healthcare systems. International collaborative networks between CCCs are necessary to reach the critical mass of infrastructures and patients for PCM research, and for introducing prevention modalities and new treatments effectively. Outcomes and health economics research are required to assess the cost-effectiveness of new interventions, currently a missing element in the research portfolio. Data sharing and critical mass are essential for innovative research to develop PCM. Despite advances in cancer research, cancer incidence and prevalence is growing. Making cancer research infrastructures accessible for all patients, considering the increasing inequalities, requires science policy actions incentivizing research aimed at prevention and cancer therapeutics/care with an increased focus on patients' needs and cost-effective healthcare.

Cost of implementing CAR-T activity and managing CAR-T patients: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) represent an innovation but raise issues for healthcare payers because of the uncertainty on impact at market launch, high cost and important organisational impact. The literature has focused on their assessment, appraisal and market access solutions. No evidence on the costs sustained to implement CAR-T is available and a few studies reported the cost of the CAR-T clinical pathway, including the activities that are remunerated through inpatient or outpatient fee-for-service/episode. This paper aims at filling the information gap, assessing the cost of implementing CAR-T activity and the full cost of managing the CAR-T clinical pathway.

METHODS

Cost analysis relied on the Activity Based Costing approach, which was applied to two Italian healthcare organisations, both CAR-T Centres authorized by the regional governments with a minimum of 20 patients treated with the first two CAR-T therapies launched on the market.

RESULTS

The cost of implementing CAR-T was estimated at €1.31 million (calculated for one of the organizations with complete data). Most of these costs (77%) were generated by quality assurance activity. The mean cost per patient entering the CAR-T pathway (59 and 27) and surviving at follow-up (21 and 5) ranges from €48K to €57K and from €96K to €106K, respectively. Fees for hospitalization and infusion of gene therapy accounts for more than 70% of these costs. The actual hospitalisation cost varies greatly across patients and is in general lower than the fee-for-episode paid by the region to the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its limitations (exploratory nature; the time spent by staff on activities which are not remunerated through fees was estimated through interviews with the CAR-T coordinators; cost items are not fully comparable), this research highlighted the relevant organisational and economic impact of CAR-T and provided important insights for policy makers and healthcare managers: the necessity to invest resources in CAR-T implementation; the need for assessing activities which are not remunerated through fees for service / episode; the opportunity to shift from fee-for-episode / service to bundled payments for CAR-T clinical pathway.

Confronting High Costs And Clinical Uncertainty: Innovative Payment Models For Gene Therapies

Gene therapies offer potentially life-changing benefits for patients, but their unprecedented high prices exacerbate challenges for reimbursement. Payers must confront high budgetary impacts, as a large up-front payment for each patient makes it difficult to predict and absorb costs. Payers also face considerable clinical uncertainty, as evidence for efficacy and durability is limited at approval. Alternative payment models may address these reimbursement problems and ensure equitable patient access. We developed a taxonomy of possible payment mechanisms for gene therapies, including installments, risk pools, reinsurance, price-volume agreements, expenditure caps, subscriptions, outcomes-based payments and rebates, warranties, population outcomes-based agreements, and coverage with evidence development. We illustrate how these payment models take three main approaches: amortization, which mitigates initial budget impact by spreading payments over time; risk spreading, which makes budgets more predictable by pooling costs with other payers or capping costs based on expected volume; and performance-based payment, which addresses clinical uncertainty by tying prices to patient- or population-level outcomes. We discuss each payment model, its advantages and challenges, and considerations for US payers.

Evaluating the Value for Money of Precision Medicine from Early Cycle to Market Access: A Comprehensive Review of Approaches and Challenges

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to perform a comprehensive review of modeling approaches and methodological and policy challenges in the economic evaluation (EE) of precision medicine (PM) across clinical stages.

METHODS

First, a systematic review was performed to assess the approaches of EEs in the past 10 years. Next, a targeted review of methodological articles was conducted for methodological and policy challenges in performing EEs of PM. All findings were synthesized into a structured framework that focused on patient population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Time, Equity and ethics, Adaptability and Modeling aspects, named the "PICOTEAM" framework. Finally, a stakeholder consultation was conducted to understand the major determinants of decision making in PM investment.

RESULTS

In 39 methodological articles, we identified major challenges to the EE of PM. These challenges include that PM applications involve complex and evolving clinical decision space, that clinical evidence is sparse because of small subgroups and complex pathways in PM settings, a one-time PM application may have lifetime or intergenerational impacts but long-term evidence is often unavailable, and that equity and ethics concerns are exceptional. In 275 EEs of PM, current approaches did not sufficiently capture the value of PM compared with targeted therapies, nor did they differentiate Early EEs from Conventional EEs. Finally, policy makers perceived the budget impact, cost savings, and cost-effectiveness of PM as the most important determinants in decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need to modify existing guidelines or develop a new reference case that fits into the new healthcare paradigm of PM to guide decision making in research and development and market access.

Financing and Reimbursement of Approved Advanced Therapies in Several European Countries

OBJECTIVES

The uncertainty in the cost-benefit of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) is a current challenge for their reimbursement in health systems. This study aimed to provide a comparative analysis of the National Health Authorities (NHAs) reimbursement recommendations issued in different European countries.

METHODS

The NHA reimbursement recommendations for the approved ATMPs were compared among 8 European Union (EU) Countries (EU8: Ireland, England/Wales, Scotland, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy). The search was carried out until December 31, 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 19 approved ATMPs and 76 appraisal reports were analyzed. The majority of the ATMPs were reimbursed, although with uncertainty in added therapeutic value. No relationship between the type of the European Medicines Agency approval and reimbursement was found. Managed entry agreements, such as payment by results, were necessary to ensure market access. The main issue during the evaluation was to base the cost-effectiveness analyses on assumptions because of the limited long-term data. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio among countries reveals high variability. Overall, the median time to NHA recommendation for the EU8 is in the range of 9 to 17 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Transparent, harmonized, and systematic assessments across the EU NHAs in terms of cost-effectiveness, added therapeutic value, and grade of innovativeness are needed. This could lead to a more aligned access, increasing the EU market attractiveness and raising public fairness in terms of patient access and pricing.

Capturing the Impact of Constraints on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cell and Gene Therapies: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Decision-makers need to resolve constraints on delivering cell and gene therapies to patients as these treatments move into routine care. This study aimed to investigate if, and how, constraints that affect the expected cost and health consequences of cell and gene therapies have been included in published examples of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs).

METHOD

A systematic review identified CEAs of cell and gene therapies. Studies were identified from previous systematic reviews and by searching Medline and Embase until 21 January 2022. Constraints described qualitatively were categorised by theme and summarised by a narrative synthesis. Constraints evaluated in quantitative scenario analyses were appraised by whether they changed the decision to recommend treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-two CEAs of cell (n = 20) and gene therapies (n = 12) were included. Twenty-one studies described constraints qualitatively (70% cell therapy CEAs; 58% gene therapy CEAs). Qualitative constraints were categorised by four themes: single payment models; long-term affordability; delivery by providers; manufacturing capability. Thirteen studies assessed constraints quantitatively (60% cell therapy CEAs; 8% gene therapy CEAs). Two types of constraint were assessed quantitatively across four jurisdictions (USA, Canada, Singapore, The Netherlands): alternatives to single payment models (n = 9 scenario analyses); improving manufacturing (n = 12 scenario analyses). The impact on decision-making was determined by whether the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios crossed a relevant cost-effectiveness threshold for each jurisdiction (outcome-based payment models: n = 25 threshold comparisons made, 28% decisions changed; improving manufacturing: n = 24 threshold comparisons made, 4% decisions changed).

CONCLUSION

The net health impact of constraints is vital evidence to help decision-makers scale up the delivery of cell and gene therapies as patient volume increases and more advanced therapy medicinal products are launched. CEAs will be essential to quantify how constraints affect the cost-effectiveness of care, prioritise constraints to be resolved, and establish the value of strategies to implement cell and gene therapies by accounting for their health opportunity cost.

How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy?

BACKGROUND

The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes.

METHODS

A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered.

RESULTS

The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses.

"I just wanted to speak to someone- and there was no one…": using Burden of Treatment Theory to understand the impact of a novel ATMP on early recipients

BACKGROUND

Advanced therapy medicinal products such as Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy offer ground-breaking opportunities for the treatment of various cancers, inherited diseases, and chronic conditions. With development of these novel therapies continuing to increase it's important to learn from the experiences of patients who were among the first recipients of ATMPs. In this way we can improve the clinical and psychosocial support offered to early patient recipients in the future to support the successful completion of treatments and trials.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a qualitative investigation informed by the principles of the key informant technique to capture the experience of some of the first patients to experience CAR-T therapy in the UK. A directed content analysis was used to populate a theoretical framework informed by Burden of Treatment Theory to determine the lessons that can be learnt in supporting their care, support, and ongoing self-management.

RESULTS

A total of five key informants were interviewed. Their experiences were described within the three domains of the burden of treatment framework; (1) The health care tasks delegated to patients, Participants described the frequency of follow-up and the resources involved, the esoteric nature of the information provided by clinicians; (2) Exacerbating factors of the treatment, which notably included the lack of understanding of the clinical impacts of the treatment in the broader health service, and the lack of a peer network to support patient understanding; (3) Consequences of the treatment, in which they described the anxiety induced by the process surrounding their selection for treatment, and the feeling of loneliness and isolation at being amongst the very first recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

If ATMPs are to be successfully introduced at the rates forecast, then it is important that the burden placed on early recipients is minimised. We have discovered how they can feel emotionally isolated, clinically vulnerable, and structurally unsupported by a disparate and pressured health service. We recommend that where possible, structured peer support be put in place alongside signposting to additional information that includes the planned pattern of follow-up, and the management of discharged patients would ideally accommodate individual circumstances and preferences to minimize the burden of treatment.

The Ethical Implications of Tissue Engineering for Regenerative Purposes: A Systematic Review

Tissue Engineering (TE) is a branch of Regenerative Medicine (RM) that combines stem cells and biomaterial scaffolds to create living tissue constructs to restore patients' organs after injury or disease. Over the last decade, emerging technologies such as 3D bioprinting, biofabrication, supramolecular materials, induced pluripotent stem cells, and organoids have entered the field. While this rapidly evolving field is expected to have great therapeutic potential, its development from bench to bedside presents several ethical and societal challenges. To make sure TE will reach its ultimate goal of improving patient welfare, these challenges should be mapped out and evaluated. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the ethical implications of the development and application of TE for regenerative purposes, as mentioned in the academic literature. A search query in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and PhilPapers yielded 2451 unique articles. After systematic screening, 237 relevant ethical and biomedical articles published between 2008 and 2021 were included in our review. We identified a broad range of ethical implications that could be categorized under 10 themes. Seven themes trace the development from bench to bedside: (1) animal experimentation, (2) handling human tissue, (3) informed consent, (4) therapeutic potential, (5) risk and safety, (6) clinical translation, and (7) societal impact. Three themes represent ethical safeguards relevant to all developmental phases: (8) scientific integrity, (9) regulation, and (10) patient and public involvement. This review reveals that since 2008 a significant body of literature has emerged on how to design clinical trials for TE in a responsible manner. However, several topics remain in need of more attention. These include the acceptability of alternative translational pathways outside clinical trials, soft impacts on society and questions of ownership over engineered tissues. Overall, this overview of the ethical and societal implications of the field will help promote responsible development of new interventions in TE and RM. It can also serve as a valuable resource and educational tool for scientists, engineers, and clinicians in the field by providing an overview of the ethical considerations relevant to their work. Impact statement To our knowledge, this is the first time that the ethical implications of Tissue Engineering (TE) have been reviewed systematically. By gathering existing scholarly work and identifying knowledge gaps, this review facilitates further research into the ethical and societal implications of TE and Regenerative Medicine (RM) and other emerging biomedical technologies. Moreover, it will serve as a valuable resource and educational tool for scientists, engineers, and clinicians in the field by providing an overview of the ethical considerations relevant to their work. As such, our review may promote successful and responsible development of new strategies in TE and RM.

A review of economic issues for gene-targeted therapies: Value, affordability, and access

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences' virtual 2021 conference on gene-targeted therapies (GTTs) encouraged multidisciplinary dialogue on a wide range of GTT topic areas. Each of three parallel working groups included social scientists and clinical scientists, and the three major sessions included a presentation on economic issues related to their focus area. These experts also coordinated their efforts across the three groups. The economics-related presentations covered three areas with some overlap: (1) value assessment, uncertainty, and dynamic efficiency; (2) affordability, pricing, and financing; and (3) evidence generation, coverage, and access. This article provides a synopsis of three presentations, some of their key recommendations, and an update on related developments in the past year. The key high-level findings are that GTTs present unique data and policy challenges, and that existing regulatory, health technology assessment, as well as payment and financing systems will need to adapt. But these adjustments can build on our existing foundation of regulatory and incentive systems for innovation, and much can be done to accelerate progress in GTTs. Given the substantial unmet medical need that exists for these oft-neglected patients suffering from rare diseases, it would be a tragedy to not leverage these exciting scientific advances in GTTs.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Tisagenlecleucel Versus Blinatumomab in Children and Young Adults with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Partitioned Survival Model to Assess the Impact of an Outcome-Based Payment Arrangement

OBJECTIVE

This research assesses the impact of an outcome-based payment arrangement (OBA) linking complete remission (CR) to survival as a means of maintaining cost-effectiveness for a chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy in young patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model (PSM) was used to model the cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel versus blinatumomab in ALL from the Australian healthcare system perspective. A decision tree modeled different OBAs by funneling patients into a series of PSMs based on response. Outcomes were informed by individual patient data, while costs followed Australian treatment practices. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were combined to calculate a single incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), reported in US dollars (2022) at a discount rate of 5% on costs and outcomes.

RESULTS

For the base case, incremental costs and benefit were $379,595 and 4.27 QALYs, giving an ICER of $88,979. The ICER was most sensitive to discount rate ($57,660-$75,081), "cure point" ($62,718-$116,206) and extrapolation method ($76,018-$94,049). OBAs had a modest effect on the ICER when response rates varied. A responder-only payment was the most effective arrangement for maintaining the ICER ($88,249-$89,434), although this option was associated with the greatest financial uncertainty. A split payment arrangement (payment on infusion followed by payment on response) reduced variability in the ICER ($82,650-$99,154) compared with a single, upfront payment ($77,599-$107,273).

CONCLUSION

OBAs had a modest impact on reducing cost-effectiveness uncertainty. The value of OBAs should be weighed against the additional resources needed to administer such arrangements, and importantly overall cost to government.

Health inequity in genomic personalized medicine in underrepresented populations: a look at the current evidence

Improvements in sequencing technology coupled with dramatic declines in the cost of genome sequencing have led to a proportional growth in the size and number of genetic datasets since the release of the human genetic sequence by The Human Genome Project (HGP) international consortium. The HGP was undeniably a significant scientific success, a turning point in human genetics and the beginning of human genomics. This burst of genetic information has led to a greater understanding of disease pathology and the potential of employing this data to deliver more precise patient care. Hence, the recognition of high-penetrance disease-causing mutations which encode drivers of disease has made the management of most diseases more specific. Nonetheless, while genetic scores are becoming more extensively used, their application in the real world is expected to be limited due to the lack of diversity in the data used to construct them. Underrepresented populations, such as racial and ethnic minorities, low-income individuals, and those living in rural areas, often experience greater health disparities and worse health outcomes compared to the general population. These disparities are often the result of systemic barriers, such as poverty, discrimination, and limited access to healthcare. Addressing health inequity in underrepresented populations requires addressing the underlying social determinants of health and implementing policies and programs which promoted health equity and reduce disparities. This can include expanding access to affordable healthcare, addressing poverty and unemployment, and promoting policies that combat discrimination and racism.

Towards Green and Sustainable Healthcare: A Literature Review and Research Agenda for Green Leadership in the Healthcare Sector

The health sector is one of the keys to sustainable development. Although it is directly related to only one Sustainable Development Goal (Goal 3, "Ensuring a healthy life and promoting well-being at all ages"), the sector itself, which aims to protect health, is paradoxically at the same time the main emitter of environmental pollutants that have a negative impact on health itself. Therefore, sustainability has become a key priority for health sector organizations, and leadership in this area is essential at all levels. Scientific research plays a particular role here, helping to more clearly define the links between environmental sustainability and the health effects of a polluted environment and climate change as well as indicating the direction of actions needed and disseminating good practices that can help accelerate the adoption of efforts towards climate neutrality and sustainable development of health sector organizations. The aim of this article is to present the current state of the art and future research scenarios in the field of green and sustainable healthcare through a literature review by using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method to perform a bibliometric analysis of papers published in 2012-2022. The Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database is used for this purpose. A total of 144 papers are included for analysis, categorized based on eight fields: author(s), title, year of publication, country, journal, scientific category, and number of citations. Based on the results, themes for future research on green leadership in the healthcare sector are identified and recommended.

Challenges for Economic Evaluations of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are drugs for human use for the treatment of chronic, degenerative, or life-threatening diseases that are based on genes, tissues, or cells. This article aimed to identify and critically review published economic analyses of ATMPs.

METHODS

A systematic review of economic analyses of ATMPs was undertaken. Study characteristics, design, sources of data, resources and unit costs, modeling and extrapolation methods, study results, and sensitivity analyses were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 46 economic analyses of ATMP (from 45 articles) were included; 4 were cell therapy medicinal products, 33 gene therapy medicinal products, and 9 tissue-engineered products. 30 therapies had commercial marketing approval; 39 studies were cost-utility analysis, 5 were cost-effectiveness analysis, and 2 were cost only studies. Four studies predicted that the ATMP offered a step change in the management of the condition and 10 studies estimated that the ATMP would offer a lower mean cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparison with historical controls, pooling of data, and use of techniques such as mixture cure fraction models should be used cautiously. Sensitivity analyses should be used across a plausible range of prices. Clinical studies need to be designed to align with health technology assessment requirements, including generic quality of life, and payers should aim for clarity of criteria. Regulators and national payers should aim for compatibility of registers to allow interchange of data. Given the increasing reliance on industry-funded economic analyses, careful critical review is recommended.

Gene Therapy for Neuromuscular Diseases: Health Economic Challenges and Future Perspectives

Highly efficacious, potentially curative gene therapies holds immense clinical promise, but also present complex challenges. At the time of regulatory approval and health technology assessment (HTA), evidence of efficacy and safety of gene therapies is often uncertain. In addition, research, development, and manufacturing costs, small pools of eligible patients, and the fact that many gene therapies are administered only once means that they frequently are associated with very high “one-off” price points. Although only a limited number of products have been brought to market globally, hundreds of clinical trials of gene therapies, including several of monogenetic neuromuscular diseases, are currently ongoing. Over time, as more and more conditions become amendable to gene therapy, the number of transformative, high-cost treatments is likely to increase considerably. For these reasons, concerns have been raised regarding the suitability of current health policy systems, including HTA frameworks, in ensuring appropriate access to these therapeutic innovations while simultaneously safeguarding value for taxpayers’ money, as well as affordability and sustainability. This review provides a summary overview of current challenges and future perspectives of gene therapies for neuromuscular diseases from a health economic point of view.

Real-world use of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) in rare disease (RD) patients: A population-based registry study

Background: Despite calls for the use of real-world data, the rare diseases (RD) treatment landscape suffers from a scarcity of data referred to orphan medicinal products (OMP) use at the population level.

Objectives: We aim to describe the characteristics and patterns of utilization of OMP in a sizable group of RD patients globally monitored by an area-based rare diseases registry located in the Veneto region, Italy, during a 3-year period (1 January 2019 to 31 December 2021).

Methods: A list of OMP (n = 60) was assembled for study purposes, according to extensive criteria with regard to the status of orphan designation and of national reimbursement decisions.

Results: OMP prescriptions involved 1,010 patients, corresponding to the 2.3% of all the patients monitored by the RD registry. Nearly one out of five (22.8%) was a pediatric patient at the time of the first prescription. OMP use interested a limited proportion (17.5%) of diseases approaching the rarity threshold, having a prevalence of less than five per 10,000, while individuals affected by these more common rare conditions represented 49% of all the patients receiving an OMP prescription. A clustering effect of OMP use was observed in selected groups of diseases, mainly, neurological, hematological, and hereditary metabolic ones. Medication plans including an OMP show in the 45.9% of the cases a high level of complexity, both in terms of nature and number of co-prescribed treatments. Off-label use interested 15.3% (n = 155) of all the RD patients with at least an OMP prescription during the study period.

Conclusion: Data collected in a real-world setting through population-based registries globally monitoring RD patients, including related medication plans, have the potential to identify which diseases, and thus patients, have less benefit from the advent of OMP so far. Furthermore, in the rapidly evolving RD therapeutic landscape, they can help understand which therapeutic areas are most in need of investment to address existing unmet care needs.

The future of oncology policy

To ensure the previous progress seen in cancer survival rates continues as we move through the 21st Century it is important to determine future effective policy related to oncology healthcare delivery and funding. Recent successes with, for example, the COVID vaccine response, the decision-making agility exhibited by governments and healthcare systems and the effective use of telehealth and real-world evidence highlight the progress that can be made with pooled efforts and innovative thinking. This shared approach is the basis for the European Beating Cancer Plan which outlines action points for governments and health systems for the period 2021-2025. It focuses on a whole government approach, centred on patients, maximising the potential of new technologies and insights across policy areas including employment, education, transport and taxation, enabling the tackling of cancer drivers in schools, workplaces, research labs, towns and cities and rural communities. Despite the plan there are still concerns that oncology policy has not adequately responded to the pace of innovation and the unique challenges generated by innovative oncological technologies. There needs to be focus on: gaining consensus on the most appropriate methods to assess and price combination therapies and cell and gene therapies, developing effective outcome-based payment models for personalised medicine and developing consensus on the ideal approach for multiple indication pricing. Finally, future policy needs to ensure pharmaceutical companies and other research organisations are adequately rewarded for innovation to ensure continued R&D and the development of innovative oncological products.

Critical Reflections on Reimbursement and Access of Advanced Therapies

Background: The health economic literature has questioned the cost-effectiveness and affordability of advanced therapies, proposed adjustments to value assessment frameworks, and discussed the use of outcome-based managed entry agreements and staggered payments in the last few years. The aim of this manuscript is to conduct a critical reflection on assessment criteria and access conditions for reimbursement of advanced therapies.

Methods: A narrative review of the peer-reviewed literature and grey literature was conducted in April 2021 by searching PubMed; Google Scholar; policy and legislative documents; websites of health technology assessment agencies, advanced therapy organisations, governmental advanced therapy innovation programmes, consultancy agencies; ISPOR conference abstracts and presentations.

Results: Based on the available evidence, this manuscript argues that: a) advanced therapies can be cost-effective at high prices set by manufacturers; b) the economic evaluation framework adopted by many payers under-values these products; c) advanced therapies can be affordable and may not require spread payments; d) outcome-based managed entry agreements are theoretically attractive, but challenging in practice; e) the cost-effectiveness of advanced therapies depends on the outcome-based managed entry agreement and payment approach; f) there is a role for multinational collaborations to manage reimbursement and access of advanced therapies.

Conclusions: This manuscript shows that there is no single approach to reimbursement and access of advanced therapies. Instead, we support a more tailored assessment of health economic aspects of advanced therapies, which considers the heterogeneity of these products and their target populations.

How Sensitive is Sensitivity Analysis?: Evaluation of Pharmacoeconomic Submissions in Korea

Purpose: We aimed to describe the types of uncertainties examined in the economic evaluations submitted for reimbursement in Korea and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Method: Fifty dossiers were submitted by pharmaceutical companies to the economic subcommittee of the Pharmaceutical Benefit Coverage Advisory Committee (PBCAC) from January 2014 to December 2018. The types of uncertainties were categorized as structural and parametric, and the frequencies of the sensitivity analysis per variables were analyzed. The impact of uncertainties was measured by the percent variance of the ICER relative to that of the base case analysis.

Results: Of the 50 submissions, varying discount rate (44 submissions), followed by time horizon (38 submissions) and model assumptions (29 submissions), were most frequently used to examine structural uncertainty, while utility (42 submissions), resource use (41 submissions), and relative effectiveness (26 submissions) were used to examine parametric uncertainty. A total of 1,236 scenarios (a scenario corresponds to a case where a single variable is varied by a single range) were presented in the one-way sensitivity analyses, where parametric and structural sensitivity analyses comprised 679 and 557 scenarios, respectively. Varying drug prices had the highest impact on ICER (median variance 19.9%), followed by discount rate (12.2%), model assumptions (11.9%), extrapolation (11.8%), and time horizon (10.0%).

Conclusions: Variables related to long-term assumptions, such as model assumptions, time horizon, extrapolation, and discounting rate, were related to a high level of uncertainty. Caution should be exercised when using immature data.

Reported Challenges in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies

OBJECTIVES

With complex health technologies entering the market, methods for health technology assessment (HTA) may require changes. This study aimed to identify challenges in HTA of complex health technologies.

METHODS

A survey was sent to European HTA organizations participating in European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA). The survey contained open questions and used predefined potentially complex health technologies and 7 case studies to identify types of complex health technologies and challenges faced during HTA. The survey was validated, tested for reliability by an expert panel, and pilot tested before dissemination.

RESULTS

A total of 22 HTA organizations completed the survey (67%). Advanced therapeutic medicinal products (ATMPs) and histology-independent therapies were considered most challenging based on the predefined complex health technologies and case studies. For the case studies, more than half of the reported challenges were "methodological," equal in relative effectiveness assessments as in cost-effectiveness assessments. Through the open questions, we found that most of these challenges actually rooted in data unavailability. Data were reported as "absent," "insufficient," "immature," or "low quality" by 18 of 20 organizations (90%), in particular data on quality of life. Policy and organizational challenges and challenges because of societal or political pressure were reported by 8 (40%) and 4 organizations (20%), respectively. Modeling issues were reported least often (n = 2, 4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most challenges in HTA of complex health technologies root in data insufficiencies rather than in the complexity of health technologies itself. As the number of complex technologies grows, the urgency for new methods and policies to guide HTA decision making increases.

Value assessment frameworks: who is valuing the care in healthcare?

Many healthcare agencies are producing evidence-based guidance and policy that may determine the availability of particular healthcare products and procedures, effectively rationing aspects of healthcare. They claim legitimacy for their decisions through reference to evidence-based scientific method and the implementation of just decision-making procedures, often citing the criteria of 'accountability for reasonableness'; publicity, relevance, challenge and revision, and regulation. Central to most decision methods are estimates of gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), a measure that combines the length and quality of survival. However, all agree that the QALY alone is not a sufficient measure of all relevant aspects of potential healthcare benefits, and a number of value assessment frameworks have been suggested. I argue that the practical implementation of these procedures has the potential to lead to a distorted assessment of value. Undue weight may be ascribed to certain attributes, particularly those that favour commercial or political interests, while other attributes that are highly valued by society, particularly those related to care processes, may be omitted or undervalued. This may be compounded by a lack of transparency to relevant stakeholders, resulting in an inability for them to participate in, or challenge, the decisions. The makes it likely that costly new technologies, for which inflated prices can be justified by the current value frameworks, are displacing aspects of healthcare that are highly valued by society.

Assessing the value of orphan drugs using conventional cost-effectiveness analysis: Is it fit for purpose?

Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis—i.e., assessing pharmaceuticals through a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) framework—originated from a societal commitment to maximize population health given limited resources. This "extra-welfarist" approach has produced pricing and reimbursement systems that are not well- aligned with the unique considerations of orphan drugs. This framework has been slow to evolve along with our increased understanding of the impact of rare diseases, which in turn has complicated the assessment of orphan drugs meant to treat rare diseases. Herein, we (i) discuss the limitations of conventional cost-effectiveness analysis as applied to assessing access to, as well as the pricing and reimbursement of, orphan drugs, (ii) critically appraise alternative and supplemental approaches, and (iii) offer insights on plausible steps forward.

Evaluation of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): An Updated Review

This review discusses the methodological challenges to the evaluation of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). We analysed the health technology appraisals (both published and in development) of ATMPs conducted by NICE in England until July 2021. A total of 14 health technology appraisals of ATMPs were included, of which two were in development and 12 had been published. There were ten gene therapy products (talimogene laherparepvec [TA410], strimvelis [HST7], tisagenlecleucel [TA554 and TA567], axicabtagene ciloleucel [TA559], voretigene neparvovec [HST11], autologous anti-CD19-transduced CD3+ cells [TA677], betibeglogene autotemcel [ID968], onasemnogene abeparvovec [HST15] and OTL-200 [ID1666]), one tissue engineered product (holoclar [TA467]) and three somatic cell therapy products (darvadstrocel [TA556] and autologous chondrocyte implantation [ACI] [TA477 and TA508]). Only three of these technologies were not recommended by NICE, although four were only recommended within the Cancer Drugs Fund. There was large uncertainty in the assessment of clinical effectiveness, as evidence relied mostly on small, single-arm, open-label studies. There were also several concerns in the cost-effectiveness evaluations, such as limited information on health-related quality of life, immature survival data due to short follow-up, and unclear curative potential. Substantial risk may be incurred with ATMPs, which have high upfront and possibly irrecoverable costs but uncertain long-term benefits. In conclusion, the challenges raised by the economic appraisal of ATMPs, albeit not unique, may be exacerbated by the uncertainty related to the often scant evidence base. Adaptations of the conventional decision-making process rather than completely new methods may improve appraisals of ATMPs.

Value-based pricing for advanced therapy medicinal products: emerging affordability solutions

The emergence of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), a disruptive class of health technologies, is generating important challenges in terms of value assessment and their high prices introduce critical access and affordability concerns. The aim of this article is to analyze the challenges of traditional value assessment and price and reimbursement methods in the evaluation of ATMPs and to characterize the current and prospective financing solutions that may ensure patient access and affordability for these health technologies. Standard Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is not designed for ATMPs, and may delay access to these health technologies, thus a broader concept of value is required. As a consequence, value-based pricing methodologies have been gaining terrain to cope with the specific challenges of ATMPs. The pricing and reimbursement framework should ensure the balance between encouragements to innovation and maximization of value for money for payers, through the attribution of a fair price to new health technologies. Early scientific advice by regulatory and HTA bodies to developers is key, as it will contribute to diminish the perspective gap between developers, regulators and payers. The high efficacy/high price dynamic of many advanced therapies will demand novel financing models, both in the EU and US. Managed entry agreements (MEA), with financing being conditional to the submission of additional evidence, associated with methods of leased payments, may offer effective strategies to address the uncertainties caused by the evidence gap associated with ATMPs, ensuring affordable and sustained access.

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products' Translation in Europe: A Developers' Perspective

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) comprising cell, gene, and tissue-engineered therapies have demonstrated enormous therapeutic benefits. However, their development is complex to be managed efficiently within currently existing regulatory frameworks. Legislation and regulation requirements for ATMPs must strike a balance between the patient safety while promoting innovations to optimize exploitation of these novel therapeutics. This paradox highlights the importance of on-going dynamic dialogue between all stakeholders and regulatory science to facilitate the development of pragmatic ATMP regulatory guidelines.

Real World Data in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies

The available evidence on relative effectiveness and risks of new health technologies is often limited at the time of health technology assessment (HTA). Additionally, a wide variety in real-world data (RWD) policies exist among HTA organizations. This study assessed which challenges, related to the increasingly complex nature of new health technologies, make the acceptance of RWD most likely. A questionnaire was disseminated among 33 EUnetHTA member HTA organizations. The questions focused on accepted data sources, circumstances that allowed for RWD acceptance and barriers to acceptance. The questionnaire was validated and tested for reliability by an expert panel, and pilot-tested before dissemination via LimeSurvey. Twenty-two HTA organizations completed the questionnaire (67%). All reported accepting randomized clinical trials. The most accepted RWD source were patient registries (19/22, 86%), the least accepted were editorials and expert opinions (8/22, 36%). With orphan treatments or companion diagnostics, organizations tended to be most likely to accept RWD sources, 4.3-3.2 on a 5-point Likert scale, respectively. Additional circumstances were reported to accept RWD (e.g., a high disease burden). The two most important barriers to accepting RWD were lacking necessary RWD sources and existing policy structures. European HTA organizations seem positive toward the (wider) use of RWD in HTA of complex therapies. Expanding the use of patient registries could be potentially useful, as a large share of the organizations already accepts this source. However, many barriers still exist to the widespread use of RWD. Our results can be used to prioritize circumstances in which RWD might be accepted.

Gene Therapy Evidence Generation and Economic Analysis: Pragmatic Considerations to Facilitate Fit-for-Purpose Health Technology Assessment

Gene therapies (GTs) are considered to be a paradigm-shifting class of treatments with the potential to treat previously incurable diseases or those with significant unmet treatment needs. However, considerable challenges remain in their health technology assessment (HTA), mainly stemming from the inability to perform robust clinical trials to convince decision-makers to pay the high prices for the potential long-term treatment benefits provided. This article aims to review the recommendations that have been published for evidence generation and economic analysis for GTs against the feasibility of their implementation within current HTA decision analysis frameworks. After reviewing the systematically identified literature, we found that questions remain on the appropriateness of GT evidence generation, considering that additional, broader values brought by GTs seem insufficiently incorporated within proposed analytic methods. In cases where innovative methods are proposed, HTA organizations remain highly conservative and resistant to change their reference case and decision analysis framework. Such resistances are largely attributed to the substantial evidence uncertainty, resource-consuming administration process, and the absence of consensus on the optimized methodology to balance all the advantages and potential pitfalls of GTs.

Exploring the nexus of equality and efficiency in healthcare

Purpose

This study aims to explore the nexus of equality and efficiency by considering public hospitals' development dynamics, capacity and technology indicators.

Design/methodology/approach

Data was collected from the Ministry of Health Public Hospital Almanacs from 2014 to 2017. The Gini index (GI) is used to estimate the inequality of distribution of hospital performance indicators. A bias-corrected efficiency analysis is calculated to obtain efficiency scores of public hospitals for the year 2017. A path analysis is then constructed to better identify patterns of causation among a set of development, equality and efficiency variables.

Findings

A redefined path model highlights that development dynamics, equality and efficiency are causally related and health technology (path coefficient = 0.57; t = 19.07; p < 0.01) and health services utilization (path coefficient = 0.24; t = 8; p < 0.01) effects public hospital efficiency. The final path model fit well (X2/df = 50.99/8 = 6; RMSEA = 0.089; NFI = 0.95; CFI = 0.96; GFI = 0.98; AGFI = 0.94). Study findings indicate high inequalities in distribution of health technologies (GI > 0.85), number of surgical operations (GI > 0.70) and number of inpatients (GI > 0.60) among public hospitals for the years 2014–2017.

Originality/value

Study results highlight that, hospital managers should prioritize equal distribution of health technology and health services utilization indicators to better orchestrate equity-efficiency trade-off in their operations.

Challenges in the market access of regenerative medicines, and implications for manufacturers and decision-makers: a systematic review

Aim: Regenerative medicines (RMs) are expected to transform the treatment paradigm of rare, life-threatening diseases, while substantial challenges impede its market access. This study aimed to present these challenges. Materials & methods: Publications identified in the Medline and Embase databases until December 2020 were included. Results: Uncertainties around the relative effectiveness and long-term benefits of RMs are most scrutinized. A new reference case for RMs is questionable, but examining impacts of study perspective, time horizon, discount rate and extrapolation methods on estimates is advised. Establishing reasonable prices of RMs requires increased transparency in the development costs and better values measurements. Outcome-based payments require considerable investments and potential legislative adjustments. Conclusion: Greater flexibility for health technology assessment and economic analyses of RMs is necessary. This comprehensive review may prompt more multi-stakeholder conversations to discuss the optimized strategy for value assessment, pricing and payment in order to accelerate the market access of RMs.

Measurement and valuation of the attributes of innovation of healthcare technologies: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Innovative technologies (e.g. treatments) play a pivotal role in improving patient's well-being and in consequence population health outcomes. However, there is lack of consensus and comprehensive summary what constitutes innovation. Additionally, valuing them using traditional cost-effectiveness analysis is unlikely to capture the full range of benefits of these innovative technologies. This review aims to understand how innovation attributes were measured and/or valued in healthcare.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systemically searched four databases, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Econlit, from inception to April 2021. Studies were included if they measured and/or valued the attributes of innovation for healthcare identified in our previous systematic review. Any other potential recommended methods to measure and/or value the innovation attributes were also extracted.

RESULTS

Of 546 articles, a total of 17 articles were finally included in this review. If attributes were measured and traded-off relative to costs, then it was considered as valuation of those attributes. Two specific attributes of innovation, i.e. substantial benefits and convenience and/or adherence were measured using adherence rate and life year or QALY gain. When innovation attribute was non-specific it was described as "overall innovation" and measured using overall innovativeness scale (e.g. point/binary scale). QALY-based cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was commonly used to assess and value substantial benefit attribute. Other valuation approaches were (i) rating, (ii) the economic value of life year gain, (iii) multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), (iv) incremental net health benefit (INHB), and (v) quality-adjusted cost of care (QACC). ICER threshold adjustment and multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) are two common recommended approaches to capture the innovation comprehensively. We found that MCDA approaches often promoted and discussed but were sub-optimally used to incorporate different value attributes into decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing methods used by payers to measure and value the innovation component of a new product do not reflect the full range of health and cost impacts. They generally do not consider the alternative perspectives of patients, providers, caregivers, and society. Key challenges remain to appropriately measure and value innovation attributes and incorporate them into HTA decision making.

Perspectives, Expectations, and Concerns of European Patient Advocates on Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products

This paper presents the results of a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews of 10 expert patient advocates on several different issues around Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs). The interviews were conducted between February and May 2020 based on a guideline with a list of 8 topics that covered concerns about safety and ethics, access problems and limitations, pricing of ATMPs and educational needs for patient communities. Overall, the interviewees expressed a high degree of convergence of opinions on most of the topics and especially on the identification of the reasons for concern. Conversely, when asked about possible solutions, quite a wide range of solutions were proposed, although with many common points. However, it highlights that the debate is still in its infancy and that there are not yet consolidated positions across the whole community. A general concern emerging from all the interviews is the potential limitation of access to approved ATMPs, both due to the high prices and to the geographical concentration of treatment centers. However, patients recognize the value of a model with a limited number of specialized clinical centers administering these therapies. On the ethical side, patients do not show particular concern as long as ATMPs and the underlying technology is used to treat severe diseases. Finally, patients are asking for both more education on ATMPs as well as for a more continuous involvement of patient representatives in the whole “life-cycle” of a new ATMP, from the development phase to the authorization, from the definition of the reimbursement scheme to the collection of Real Word Data on safety and long-term efficacy of the treatment.

Reinforcing Collaboration and Harmonization to Unlock the Potentials of Advanced Therapy Medical Products: Future Efforts Are Awaited From Manufacturers and Decision-Makers

Some advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) hold great promises for life-threatening diseases with high unmet needs. However, ATMPs are also associated with significant challenges in market access, which necessitates the joint efforts between all relevant stakeholders to navigate. In this review, we will elaborate on the importance of collaborations and harmonization across different stakeholders, to expedite the market access of promising ATMPs. Manufacturers of ATMPs should proactively establish collaborations with other stakeholders throughout the whole lifecycle of ATMPs, from early research to post-market activities. This covered engagements with (1) external developers (i.e., not-for-profit organizations and commercial players) to obtain complementary knowledge, technology, or infrastructures, (2) patient groups and healthcare providers to highlight their roles as active contributors, and (3) decision-makers, such as regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, and payers, to communicate the uncertainties in evidence package, where parallel consultation will be a powerful strategy. Harmonization between decision-makers is desired at (1) regulatory level, in terms of strengthening the international standardization of regulatory framework to minimize discrepancies in evidence requirements for market authorization, and (2) HTA level, in terms of enhancing alignments between regional and national HTA agencies to narrow inequity in patient access, and cross-border HTA cooperation to improve the quality and efficiency of HTA process. In conclusion, manufacturers and decision-makers shared the common goals to safeguard timely patient access to ATMPs. Collaboration and harmonization will be increasingly leveraged to enable the value delivery of ATMPs to all stakeholders.

An overview of health technology assessments of gene therapies with the focus on cost-effectiveness models

BACKGROUND

Gene therapies can treat, prevent, or cure a disease by changing the expression of a person's genes. They are an innovative strategy for treating genetic disorders; however, they are still emerging on the market access and in the healthcare system. Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have not yet elaborated any standardised approach for assessing gene therapies; therefore, significant differences can be seen during HTAs carried out in various countries. In this review, we focused on submitted economic models of gene therapies approved for use by the US FDA and EMA with the aim to provide a comprehensive summary of how selected HTA bodies assessed the cost-effectiveness of gene therapies. An additional objective was to examine and discuss differences in the methods used in economic models across countries and drugs.

METHODS

We identified economic models of gene therapies from six countries (NICE, IQWiG, SMC, HAS, CADTH, ICER) and focused on nine agents (Glybera, Imlygic, Strimvelis, Yescarta, Kymriah, Luxturna, Zynteglo, Zolgensma, Tecartus). Details of cost-utility evaluations and budget impact models were reviewed and extracted.

RESULTS

Overall, 983 publications were identified, and 17 studies were included for the analysis. Reviewed evaluations of gene therapies differed in terms of the study perspective, discounting, extrapolation of outcomes based on limited and immature data, time horizon, and adequate estimation of benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. Methods of economic evaluations were in line with the current recommendations; however, long-term follow-up studies are still missing.

CONCLUSIONS

Discrepancies in an economic evaluation of gene therapies between different HTA bodies are rooted in a lack of general assessment frameworks specific to gene therapies. Although challenges were resolved by adjustments to the currently used value assessment framework, new methodological approaches would be useful. In addition, to improve the methods and quality of an evaluation, further research would be valuable.

Variation in market access decisions for cell and gene therapies across the United States, Canada, and Europe

Transformative cell and gene therapies have now launched worldwide, and many potentially curative cell and gene therapies are in development, offering the prospect of significant health gains for patients. Access to these therapies depend on decisions made by health technology assessment (HTA) and payer organizations. We sought to describe the emerging cell and gene therapies market access landscape by analyzing 17 US commercial payer medical policies, and HTA reports from five European countries and Canada. We found that some US health plans applied coverage restrictions more often than others (four plans applied restrictions in all decisions, while four plans applied restrictions in <30% of decisions). The European and Canadian HTA bodies recommend access to fewer therapies than US health plans, reflecting a more stringent approach in the context of limited evidence and high scientific uncertainty that is commonly associated with these treatments. Our findings suggest that patient access to approved cell and gene therapies is restricted in all regions studied, though the nature of these restrictions differs between US health plans and the European/Canada HTA recommendations. Payers, HTA groups, pharmaceutical companies, and other stakeholders should collaborate to more clearly define the "uncertainties" and develop market access policies that balance benefits of early access with ongoing data collection to close evidence gaps over time.

Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the Patient preferences to Assess Value IN Gene therapies (PAVING) study was to investigate trade-offs that adult Belgian people with haemophilia (PWH) A and B are willing to make when choosing between prophylactic factor replacement therapy (PFRT) and gene therapy.

METHODS

The threshold technique was used to quantify the minimum acceptable benefit (MAB) of a switch from PFRT to gene therapy in terms of 'Annual bleeding rate' (ABR), 'Chance to stop prophylaxis' (STOP), and 'Quality of life' (QOL). The design was supported by stakeholder involvement and included an educational tool on gene therapy. Threshold intervals were analysed using interval regression models in Stata 16.

RESULTS

A total of 117 PWH completed the survey. Mean thresholds were identified for all benefits, but substantial preference heterogeneity was observed; especially for the STOP thresholds, where the distribution of preferences was bimodal. Time spent on the educational tool and residence were found to impact MAB thresholds. The most accepted (88% of PWH) gene therapy profile investigated in this study comprised of zero bleeds per year (vs. six for PFRT), 90% chance to stop prophylaxis, no impact on QoL, and 10 years of follow-up on side effects (vs. 30 for PFRT).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this study proved the value of educating patients on novel treatments. Moreover, preference heterogeneity for novel treatments was confirmed in this study. In gene therapy decision-making, preference heterogeneity and the impact of patient education on acceptance should be considered.

Health Technology Assessment of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products: Comparison Among 3 European Countries

Even for centrally approved products, each European country is responsible for the effective national market access. This step can result in inequalities in terms of access, due to different opinions about the therapeutic value assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies. Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) represent a major issue with regard to the HTA in order to make them available at a national level. These products are based on genes, tissues, or cells, commonly developed as one-shot treatment for rare or ultrarare diseases and mandatorily authorized by the EMA with a central procedure. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of HTA recommendations issued by European countries (France, Germany, and Italy) following EMA approval of ATMPs. We found a low rate of agreement on the therapeutic value (in particular the "added value" compared to the standard of care) of ATMPs. Despite the differences in terms of clinical assessment, the access has been usually guaranteed, even with different timing and limitations. In view of the importance of ATMPs as innovative therapies for unmet needs, it is crucial to understand and act on the causes of disagreement among the HTA. In addition, the adoption of the new EU regulation on HTA would be useful to reduce disparities of medicine's assessment among European countries.

New Therapeutic Perspectives in the Treatment of Uveal Melanoma: A Systematic Review

Uveal melanoma (UM) is a rare disease, but the most common primary intraocular cancer, mostly localized in the choroid. Currently, the first-line treatment options for UM are radiation therapy, resection, and enucleation. However, although these treatments could potentially be curative, half of all patients will develop metastatic disease, whose prognosis is still poor. Indeed, effective therapeutic options for patients with advanced or metastatic disease are still lacking. Recently, the development of new treatment modalities with a lower incidence of adverse events, a better disease control rate, and new therapeutic approaches, have merged as new potential and promising therapeutic strategies. Additionally, several clinical trials are ongoing to find new therapeutic options, mainly for those with metastatic disease. Many interventions are still in the preliminary phases of clinical development, being investigated in phase I trial or phase I/II. The success of these trials could be crucial for changing the prognosis of patients with advanced/metastatic UM. In this systematic review, we analyzed all emerging and available literature on the new perspectives in the treatment of UM and patient outcomes; furthermore, their current limitations and more common adverse events are summarized.

Do Advanced Therapies Have a Future in the Low- and Middle-Income Countries - The Case of Bulgaria, Romania, and Poland

Introduction: The significant therapeutic potential of the advanced therapies (ATs) has predetermined the increased interests in their development mainly in the context of rare diseases most of which are genetically determined. However, there are still many challenges in front of the health insurance funds related to the cost-effectiveness and budget impact issues of these therapies. Our aim was to review and analyze the potential of low- and middle-income countries for health technology assessment (HTA) of advanced therapies focusing on Bulgaria, Romania and Poland as reference countries. A literature review of the existing good practices related to HTA of advanced therapies across the world and comparison with the national reality were performed. A list of challenges and issues from the point of view of the payer institution of all analyzed countries was performed. Pilot recommendations on how to overcome the barriers were created based on the existing practices and the potential of the national system.

Discussion: 15 out of 80 articles identified in PubMed were found as applicable to the study scope as most of them were published in the period 2019–2021. Undoubtedly, the main challenges correspond to the high treatment costs, the uncertainty in clinical effectiveness, and poor HTA methodological approaches applicable for ATs worldwide. The issues identified for low and middle-income countries are similar having as well the lack of enough qualified health economists for the purposes of assessment and appraisal of HTA dossiers of the advanced therapies, lack of adequate existing separate financial programs for those therapies, and not preparedness of the health system and the society as a whole for such therapies.

Conclusions: Despite the difficulties and challenges, the advanced therapies can be defined as a futuristic therapy for which great discoveries are yet to come. Therefore, each country should consider the implementation of reliable and nationally oriented programs for HTA and adequate financial coverage of these therapies.

Cost-effectiveness of a Multicomponent Intervention for Hypertension Control in Low-Income Settings in Argentina

IMPORTANCE

Hypertension is highly prevalent in low- and middle-income countries, and it is an important preventable risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Understanding the economic benefits of a hypertension control program is valuable to decision-makers.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent hypertension management program compared with usual care among patients with hypertension receiving care in public clinics in Argentina from a health care system perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation used a Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a hypertension management program among adult patients with uncontrolled hypertension in a low-income setting. Patient-level data (743 individuals for multicomponent intervention; 689 for usual care) from the Hypertension Control Program in Argentina trial (HCPIA) were used to estimate treatment effects and the risk of CVD. Three health states were included in each strategy: (1) low risk of CVD, (2) high risk of CVD, and (3) death. The total time horizon was the lifetime, and each cycle lasted 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Model inputs were based on trial data and other published sources. Cost and utilities were discounted at a rate of 5% annually. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the multicomponent intervention and usual care was calculated using the difference in costs in 2017 international dollars (INT $) divided by the difference in effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the uncertainty and robustness of the results.

RESULTS

In the original trial, the 743 participants in the intervention group (349 [47.0%] men) had a mean (SD) age of 56.2 (12.0) years, and the 689 participants in the control group (311 [45.1%] men) had a mean (SD) age of 56.2 (11.7) years. In the base-case analysis, the HCPIA program yielded 8.42 discounted QALYs and accrued INT $3096 discounted costs, while usual care yielded 8.29 discounted QALYs and accrued INT $2473 discounted costs. The ICER for the HCPIA program was INT $4907/QALY gained. The model results remained robust in sensitivity analyses, and the model was most sensitive to parameters of program costs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, the HCPIA multicomponent intervention vs usual care was a cost-effective strategy to improve hypertension management and reduce the risk of associated CVD among patients with hypertension who received services at public clinics in Argentina. This intervention program is likely transferable to other settings in Argentina or other lower- and middle-income countries.