Health Technology Assessment Challenges in Oncology: 20 Years of Value in Health

Developing and validating a discrete-event simulation model of multiple myeloma disease outcomes and treatment pathways using a national clinical registry

Multiple myeloma is a haematological malignancy typically characterised by neoplastic plasma cell infiltration of the bone marrow. Treatment for multiple myeloma consists of multi-line chemotherapy with or without autologous stem cell transplantation and has been rapidly evolving in recent years. However, clinical trials are unable to provide patients and clinicians with long-term prognostic information nor policymakers with the full body of evidence needed to perform economic evaluation of new therapies or make reimbursement decisions. To address these limitations of the available evidence, this study aimed to develop and validate the EpiMAP Myeloma model, a discrete-event simulation model of multiple myeloma disease outcomes and treatment pathways. Risk equations were estimated using the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma & Related Diseases Registry after multiple imputation of missing data. Risk equation coefficients were combined with multiple myeloma patients at diagnosis from the Registry to perform the simulation. The model was validated with 100 bootstraps of an out-of-sample prediction analysis using a 70/30 split of the 4,121 registry patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2023, resulting in 2,884 and 1,237 patients in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. For 90% of the 120 months in the 10-year post-diagnosis period, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the validation and simulated cohorts. These results highlight that the EpiMAP Myeloma model is robust at predicting multiple myeloma disease outcomes and treatment pathways in Australia & New Zealand. In the future, clinicians will be able to use the EpiMAP Myeloma model to provide personalised estimates of life expectancy to patients based on their specific characteristics, disease stage, and response to treatment. Policymakers will also be able to use the model to perform economic evaluation, to forecast the number of patients receiving treatment at different stages, and to determine the downstream impact of listing new, effective therapies.

Valuing quality of life for economic evaluations in cancer: navigating multiple methods

INTRODUCTION

Utility values offer a quantitative means to evaluate the impact of novel cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL). However, the multiple methods available for valuing QoL present challenges in selecting the most appropriate method across different contexts.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides cancer clinicians and researchers with an overview of methods to value QoL for economic evaluations, including standalone and derived preference-based measures (PBMs) and direct preference elicitation methods. Recent developments are described, including the comparative performance of cancer-specific PBMs versus generic PBMs, measurement of outcomes beyond health-related QoL, and increased use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Recommendations and considerations are provided to guide the choice of method for cancer research.

EXPERT OPINION

We foresee continued adoption of the QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in cancer clinical trials given the extensive use of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G in cancer research. While these cancer-specific PBMs offer the convenience of eliciting utility values without needing a standalone PBM, researchers should consider potential limitations if they intend to substitute them for generic PBMs. As the field advances, there is a greater need for consensus on the approach to selection and integration of various methods in cancer clinical trials.

Cancer-related Fatigue and the Additive Effect of Treatment in the Context of Lymphoma: An Analysis of the Lymphoma Coalition's 2022 Global Patient Survey

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) continues to be a challenging phenomenon that is often under-reported and poorly understood. With etiologies in both disease and treatment manifesting as a symptom and a side effect respectively, CRF is highly incident and presents a significant clinical problem that impacts survivorship. We conducted a survey to ascertain the patient reported incidence of symptoms and side effects for people with lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We found that CRF was enhanced in those who received more intense therapies that coincided with more aggressive lymphoma subtypes. These data illuminate an unmet need among patients with lymphoma and provides an opportunity to further refine treatment regimens to reduce the burden of CRF in this vulnerable population.

SIGNIFICANCE

CRF is a highly incident phenomenon in lymphoma that can be ascribed to a combination of causes. We have demonstrated substantial variability across various subtypes of lymphoma and have estimated that nearly half of the reported fatigue comes from treatment. Increased screening for and monitoring of fatigue will yield favorable health-related quality of life that will benefit health technology assessment activities and yield improved outcomes for patients.

Understanding health-related quality of life measures used in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer clinical trials: A review

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important consideration in cancer clinical research, which can be substantially influenced by cancer treatment procedures and medications. The treatment landscape for early-stage (stage I-III) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is rapidly evolving. In this light, it is important to evaluate the most suitable instruments for HRQoL assessment and timing. Given there is often a requirement for patients with early-stage disease to receive long-term treatment to reduce the risk of disease recurrence after surgery, maintenance or improvement in HRQoL is an important goal of both neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments. Key challenges with assessing HRQoL relate to the suitability of existing instruments to measure relevant treatment-related adverse effects, consistency in HRQoL assessment approach between similar studies, gaps in data collection and reporting, and interpretation of longitudinal data. Frequent assessments during and after treatment are warranted to capture the true impact of treatment and disease progression on HRQoL, and changes in the relative importance of these factors over time. There is scope for improving existing HRQoL approaches, including ease of use and integration of digital tools to facilitate analysis and interpretation, to enhance the experience of both patients and healthcare professionals. In this narrative review, we discuss key considerations for HRQoL assessment and evaluate the tools currently available to measure HRQoL in NSCLC, many of which were designed with advanced disease in mind. We focus on the key challenges of measuring HRQoL for the specific needs of patients with early-stage disease, and consider future perspectives, to determine the most appropriate HRQoL instruments and analysis methods to use in early-stage NSCLC clinical trials.1.

Patients' perspectives on the relevance of biosimilars' outcomes in oncology: qualitative study with nominal group technique

PURPOSE

We aimed to rate the importance of outcomes from a systematic review about biosimilars in oncology from patients' perspective.

METHODS

This is a qualitative research with nominal group technique. Patients with cancer were selected by convenience sampling and invited for two mediated virtual meetings in 2022. Twelve outcomes from a systematic review on biosimilars for oncology developed following a protocol were explained in plain language to participants who classified them as critical, important, or not important according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We employed Iramuteq software for lexical categorization of the meeting transcripts, and content analysis for interpretation.

RESULTS

Five women participated (three had metastatic cancer, one non-metastatic, one recurrent). Six outcomes were classified as critical: duration of response, progression-free survival, pathological complete response, overall survival, severe adverse events, and quality of life; three as important: mortality, event-free survival, and objective response; and three as non-important: neutralizing anti-drug antibody, any adverse event, and non-neutralizing anti-drug antibody. Duration of response, pathological complete response, severe adverse events, and quality of life were considered secondary in the review protocol, but critical by the patients. The main themes influencing the importance classification were related to the disease (progression and control) and treatment (recognition and healthcare setting).

CONCLUSION

Patients rated most outcomes as critical or important, some of them previously regarded as secondary by the researchers, which reinforces the need to include stakeholders' perspectives in oncology research. Aspects of the disease progression and treatment effects influenced participants' judgment on outcomes' relevance.

Precision oncology medicines and the need for real world evidence acceptance in health technology assessment: Importance of patient involvement in sustainable healthcare

Precision oncology has made remarkable strides in improving clinical outcomes, offering hope to patients with historically difficult-to-treat, as well as rare or neglected cancers. However, despite rapid advancement, precision oncology has reached a critical juncture, where patient access to these life-saving medicines may be hampered by strict requirements by Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for assessing new medicines against appropriate comparator. The very nature of precision oncology-matching a tumour's unique molecular alterations to targeted therapies predicted to elicit response-can make the use of RCTs very difficult, as only a very small number of patients might qualify for a given therapy within a traditional clinical trial setting. Real-world evidence (RWE) has been accepted for regulatory decision-making but has yet to reach widespread acceptance by HTA bodies. As the oncology treatment landscape has evolved towards favouring the concept of precision oncology, there is a growing need for flexibility in the way HTA bodies evaluate new medicines. We must acknowledge that current assessment methodologies can limit access to life-changing medicines for many patients who have no alternative options and that a growing number of precision oncology medicines with proven clinical benefits in rare tumours cannot be reasonably evaluated using traditional methodologies. The objectives of this paper are to advocate a change in mindset regarding best practices in drug assessment models and to propose alternative approaches when considering indications for which RWE is the most compelling data source available.

Mapping the characteristics, concepts and methodologies of matching-adjusted indirect comparison studies assessing pharmacological therapies in oncology: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) studies are a subtype of indirect comparison, which uses propensity score weighting to enhance comparability. This method adjusts aggregated data based on covariables from individual patient data from studies to produce population-adjusted indirect comparisons. Some national Health Technology Assessment agencies have recently received submissions containing MAIC models. However, there can be a lack of confidence in its estimates when they are poorly reported and inconsistent with other techniques. The objective of this study is to map the characteristics, concepts and methodology of MAIC studies used for pharmacological therapies in the field of oncology.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A scoping review methodology will be applied following the Joanna Briggs Institute framework and the results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Studies that used MAIC to compare treatments in oncology conditions will be considered eligible. A systematic search will be conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. No restriction of location or language will be applied. Study screening will be documented and presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. Data will be extracted and recorded on a predefined data form and will be presented in a tabular form accompanied by a descriptive summary.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval is required for this study. The results of this scoping review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.

An Investigation into the Relationship Between Choice of Model Structure and How to Adjust for Subsequent Therapies Using a Case Study in Oncology

BACKGROUND

A common challenge in health technology assessments (HTAs) of cancer treatments is how subsequent therapy use within the trial follow-up may influence cost-effectiveness model outcomes. Although overall survival (OS) is often a key driver of model results, there are no guidelines to advise how to adjust for this potential confounding, with different approaches available dependent on the model structure.

OBJECTIVE

We compared a partitioned survival analysis (PartSA) with a semi-Markov multi-state model (MSM) structure, with and without attempts to adjust for the impact of subsequent therapies on OS using a case study describing outcomes for people with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

METHODS

Both model structures included three health states: pre-progression, progressed disease and death. Three traditional crossover methods were considered within the context of the PartSA, whereas for the MSM, the probability of post-progression death was pooled across arms. Impacts on the model incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were recorded.

RESULTS

The unadjusted PartSA produced an ICER of £623,563, and after adjustment yielded an ICER range of £381,340-£386,907. The unadjusted MSM produced an ICER of £1,283,780. Adjusting OS in the MSM resulted in an ICER of £345,486.

CONCLUSIONS

The simplicity of the PartSA is lost when the decision problem becomes more complex (for example, when OS data are confounded by subsequent therapies). In this setting, the MSM structure may be considered more flexible, with fewer and less restrictive assumptions required versus the PartSA. Researchers should consider important study design features that may influence the generalisability of data when undertaking model conceptualisation.

Cancer treatments touch a wide range of values that count for patients and other stakeholders: What are the implications for decision-making?

BACKGROUND

Cancer rates and expenditures are increasing, resulting in debates on the exact value of this care. Perspectives on what exactly constitutes worthwhile values differ. This study aims to explore all values-elements regarding new oncological treatments for patients with cancer and all stakeholders involved and to assess their implications in different decision-making procedures.

METHOD

Thirty-one individual in-depth interviews were conducted with different stakeholders to identify values within oncology. A focus group with seven experts was performed to explore its possible implications in decision-making procedures.

RESULTS

The overarching themes of values identified were impact on daily life and future, costs for patients and loved ones, quality of life, impact on loved ones, societal impact and quality of treatments. The expert panel revealed that the extended exploration of values that matter to patients is deemed useful in patient-level decision-making, information provision, patient empowerment and support during and after treatment. For national reimbursement decisions, implications for the broad range of values seems less clear.

CONCLUSION

Clinical values are not the only ones that matter to oncological patients and the stakeholders in the field. We found a much broader range of values. Proper recognition of values that count might add to patient-level decision-making, but implications for reimbursement decisions are less clear. The results could be useful to guide clinicians and policymakers when it comes to decision-making in oncology. Making more explicit which values counts for whom guarantees a more systematic approach to decision-making on all levels.

Outcome-based reimbursement in Central-Eastern Europe and Middle-East

Outcome-based reimbursement models can effectively reduce the financial risk to health care payers in cases when there is important uncertainty or heterogeneity regarding the clinical value of health technologies. Still, health care payers in lower income countries rely mainly on financial based agreements to manage uncertainties associated with new therapies. We performed a survey, an exploratory literature review and an iterative brainstorming in parallel about potential barriers and solutions to outcome-based agreements in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and in the Middle East (ME). A draft list of recommendations deriving from these steps was validated in a follow-up workshop with payer experts from these regions. 20 different barriers were identified in five groups, including transaction costs and administrative burden, measurement issues, information technology and data infrastructure, governance, and perverse policy outcomes. Though implementing outcome-based reimbursement models is challenging, especially in lower income countries, those challenges can be mitigated by conducting pilot agreements and preparing for predictable barriers. Our guidance paper provides an initial step in this process. The generalizability of our recommendations can be improved by monitoring experiences from pilot reimbursement models in CEE and ME countries and continuing the multistakeholder dialogue at national levels.

Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments

Background: Advances in cancer medicines have resulted in tangible health impacts, but the magnitude of benefits of approved cancer medicines could vary greatly. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process used to inform resource allocation through a systematic value assessment of health technology. This paper reviews the challenges in conducting HTA for cancer medicines arising from oncology trial designs and uncertainties of safety-efficacy data. Methods: Multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar) and grey literature (public health agencies and governmental reports) were searched to inform this policy narrative review. Results: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data from clinical trials and other relevant sources of evidence has made HTA for cancer medicines challenging. The approval of cancer medicines through expedited pathways has increased in recent years, in which surrogate endpoints or biomarkers for patient selection have been widely used. Using these surrogate endpoints has created uncertainties in translating surrogate measures into patient-centric clinically (survival and quality of life) and economically (cost-effectiveness and budget impact) meaningful outcomes, with potential effects on diverting scarce health resources to low-value or detrimental interventions. Potential solutions include policy harmonization between regulatory and HTA authorities, commitment to generating robust post-marketing efficacy-safety data, managing uncertainties through risk-sharing agreements, and using value frameworks. Conclusion: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data is a central problem for conducting HTA of cancer medicines, potentially resulting in misinformed resource allocation.

Cancer Medicines: What Is Essential and Affordable in India?

PURPOSE

The WHO essential medicines list (EML) guides selection of drugs for national formularies. Here, we evaluate which medicines are considered highest priority by Indian oncologists and the extent to which they are available in routine practice.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of an electronic survey developed by the WHO EML Cancer Medicine Working Group. The survey was distributed globally using a hierarchical snowball method to physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy. The survey captured the 10 medicines oncologists considered highest priority for population health and their availability in routine practice.

RESULTS

The global study cohort included 948 respondents from 82 countries; 98 were from India and 67 were from other low- and middle-income countries. Compared with other low- and middle-income countries, the Indian cohort was more likely to be medical oncologist (70% v 31%, P < .001) and work exclusively in the private health system (52% v 17%, P < .001). 14/20 most commonly selected medicines were conventional cytotoxic drugs. Universal access to these medicines was reported by a minority of oncologists; risks of significant out-of-pocket expenditures for each medicine were reported by 19%-58% of oncologists. Risk of catastrophic expenditure was reported by 58%-67% of oncologists for rituximab and trastuzumab. Risks of financial toxicity were substantially higher within the private health system compared with the public system.

CONCLUSION

Most high-priority cancer medicines identified by Indian oncologists are generic chemotherapy agents that provide substantial improvements in survival and are already included in WHO EML. Access to these treatments remains limited by major financial burdens experienced by patients. This is particularly acute within the private health system. Strategies are urgently needed to ensure that high-quality cancer care is affordable and accessible to all patients in India.

Current Issues in Health Technology Assessment of Cancer Therapies: A Survey of Stakeholders and Opinion Leaders in Australia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to find ways of bridging the gap in opinions concerning health technology assessment (HTA) in reimbursement submission between manufacturers and payers to avoid access delays for patients of vital medicines such as oncology drugs. This was done by investigating differences and similarities of opinion among key stakeholders in Australia.

METHODS

The survey comprised of nine sections: background demographics, general statements on HTA, clinical claim, extrapolations, quality of life, costs and health resource utilization, agreements, decision making, and capability/capacity. Responses to each question were summarized using descriptive statistics and comparisons were made using chi-square statistics.

RESULTS

There were ninety-seven respondents in total, thirty-seven from the public sector (academia/government) and sixty from the private sector (industry/consultancies). Private and public sector respondents had similar views on clinical claims. They were divided when it came to extrapolation of survival data and costs and health resource utilization. However, they generally agreed that rebates are useful, outcomes-based agreements are difficult to implement, managed entry schemes are required when data are limited, and willingness to pay is higher in cancer compared to other therapeutic areas. They also agreed that training mostly takes place through on the job training and that guideline updates were a least favored opportunity for continued training.

CONCLUSIONS

Private sector respondents favor methods that reduce the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio when compared to the public sector respondents. There still exist a number of challenges for HTA in oncology and many research opportunities as a result of this study.

Oncology drugs and added benefit: insights from 3 European health technology assessment agencies on the role of efficacy endpoints

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to understand the impact of different efficacy endpoints on reimbursement decisions made by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

European Medicines Agency (EMA) oncology product marketing authorizations were screened to identify products that completed review by 3 HTA bodies during 2016-2019: United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Germany's Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, and France's Haute Autorité de Santé. Each decision's endpoint information, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), was extracted. Each endpoint's influence on added benefits rating (the degree of added benefit as judged by the HTA agency) and full reimbursement (i.e. reimbursed population to label) decisions was tested using bivariate analyses.

RESULTS

An increasing trend was observed toward HTA submissions with immature OS data (36.8% and 71.4% in 2016 and 2019, respectively), which was a predictor of limited added benefit (p < .001). Regarding data availability, 63% of submissions provided OS, 2% provided PFS without OS; and 35% provided neither. OS availability significantly influenced added benefit (p < .001) but not full reimbursement (p > .05) decisions, whereas PFS without OS had no significant impact compared with either OS or PFS data for either outcome (p = .99).

CONCLUSIONS

The trend toward fewer products filing mature OS data over time suggests sponsors may be increasingly confident achieving reimbursement with surrogate endpoint data, although mature OS data provided the strongest correlation to positive reimbursement decisions. Notably, in some locally advanced settings, OS data maturity will take a long time to obtain. To expedite patient access to new medicines, payers should consider the acceptance of surrogate endpoints predictive of clinical benefit.

The Potential for Early Health Economic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment and Reimbursement Decision-Making Comment on "Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modeling"

Grutters et al recently investigated the role of early health economic modelling of health technologies by undertaking a secondary analysis of health economic modelling assessments performed by their group. Our commentary offers a broad perspective on the potential utility of early health economic modelling to inform health technology assessment (HTA) and decision-making around reimbursement of new health technologies. Further we provide several examples to compliment Grutters and colleagues' observations.

Uncertainty tolerance among experts involved in drug reimbursement recommendations: Qualitative evidence from HTA committees in Canada and Poland

OBJECTIVES

Drug reimbursement decisions often rely on health technology assessment (HTA). Increasingly, new drugs have limited clinical evidence and uncertain clinical benefit. Our goal was to describe how members of drug advisory committees and other stakeholders conceptualize and tolerate uncertainty and how they rationalize uncertainty tolerance.

METHODS

Our triangulated parallel design applied two qualitative methods. We interviewed 31 members of drug advisory committees in Canada and Poland about their information needs and included hypothetical scenarios with uncertain clinical benefits. Respondents speculated about their likely reimbursement recommendation. We analyzed written recommendations of the pan Canadian Oncology Drug Review for drugs with uncertain benefit and compared initial recommendations to the responses from patient and clinician groups.

RESULTS

Uncertainty tolerance varied among committee members and across jurisdictions. In the scenario analysis, 7 Canadian and 11 Polish respondents leaned against recommending a hypothetical drug with uncertain clinical benefit, whereas 5 Canadian and 5 Polish respondents leaned in favour. Those against rationalized that uncertainty increases potential harm; those in favour rationalized that patients often have no alternatives. The document analysis revealed that patients had higher uncertainty tolerance in general.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty tolerance varies among committee members and other stakeholders depending on their backgrounds and on the decision contexts. We argue that policy guidance around uncertainty management could improve the transparency and consistency of recommendations.

Barriers and Opportunities for Implementation of Outcome-Based Spread Payments for High-Cost, One-Shot Curative Therapies

Background: The challenging market access of high-cost one-time curative therapies has inspired the development of alternative reimbursement structures, such as outcome-based spread payments, to mitigate their unaffordability and answer remaining uncertainties. This study aimed to provide a broad overview of barriers and possible opportunities for the practical implementation of outcome-based spread payments for the reimbursement of one-shot therapies in European healthcare systems. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed investigating published literature and publicly available documents to identify barriers and implementation opportunities for both spreading payments and for implementing outcome-based agreements. Data was analyzed via qualitative content analysis by extracting data with a reporting template. Results: A total of 1,503 publications were screened and 174 were included. Main identified barriers for the implementation of spread payments are reaching an agreement on financial terms while considering 12-months budget cycles and the possible violation of corresponding international accounting rules. Furthermore, outcome correction of payments is currently hindered by the need for additional data collection, the lack of clear governance structures and the resulting administrative burden and cost. The use of spread payments adjusted by population- or individual-level data collected within automated registries and overseen by a governance committee and external advisory board may alleviate several barriers and may support the reimbursement of highly innovative therapies. Conclusion: High-cost advanced therapy medicinal products pose a substantial affordability challenge on healthcare systems worldwide. Outcome-based spread payments may mitigate the initial budget impact and alleviate existing uncertainties; however, their effective implementation still faces several barriers and will be facilitated by realizing the required organizational changes.

Cost-effectiveness and financial risks associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy

The reimbursement of immune checkpoint inhibitors is challenging. Funding these technologies involves the careful balance between awarding innovation and ensuring affordability as increases in drug spending compete directly with other health care and social expenditure. This narrative review examines the recommendations of 2 health technology assessment agencies-the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and the British National Institute of Clinical Excellence-to determine the factors that contribute to the approval and rejection of immune checkpoint inhibitors as well as the use of manage entry schemes and risk management strategies to control expenditure. Reimbursement decisions from 6 immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs (ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, avelumab) covering 10 different cancers were examined. The extrapolation of survival beyond the clinical trial and lack of head-to-head evidence are some of the main issues relating to cost effectiveness. Payers managed financial risks using different mechanisms such as risk share agreements and financial caps. This review of the reimbursement decisions and subsequent financial impact in Australia and the UK suggests budgets for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy have been well managed so far. Through risk agreements and managed entry programmes, the example of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies illustrates that industry and payers can effectively collaborate to ensure that innovative, but expensive, drugs can be made readily available to patients.