1
|
Vogler S, Habimana K, Haasis MA, Fischer S. Pricing, Procurement and Reimbursement Policies for Incentivizing Market Entry of Novel Antibiotics and Diagnostics: Learnings from 10 Countries Globally. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY 2024:10.1007/s40258-024-00888-y. [PMID: 38837100 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00888-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/05/2024] [Indexed: 06/06/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fostering market entry of novel antibiotics and enhanced use of diagnostics to improve the quality of antibiotic prescribing are avenues to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which is a major public health threat. Pricing, procurement and reimbursement policies may work as AMR 'pull incentives' to support these objectives. This paper studies pull incentives in pricing, procurement and reimbursement policies (e.g., additions to, modifications of, and exemptions from standard policies) for novel antibiotics, diagnostics and health products with a similar profile in 10 study countries. It also explores whether incentives for non-AMR health products could be transferred to AMR health products. METHODS This research included a review of policies in 10 G20 countries based on literature and unpublished documents, and the production of country fact sheets that were validated by country experts. Initial research was conducted in 2020 and updated in 2023. RESULTS Identified pull incentives in pricing policies include free pricing, higher prices at launch and price increases over time, managed-entry agreements, and waiving or reducing mandatory discounts. Incentives in procurement comprise value-based procurement, pooled procurement and models that delink prices from volumes (subscription-based schemes), whereas incentives in reimbursement include lower evidence requirements for inclusion in the reimbursement scheme, accelerated reimbursement processes, separate budgets that offer add-on funding, and adapted prescribing conditions. CONCLUSIONS While a few pull incentives have been piloted or implemented for antibiotics in recent years, these mechanisms have been mainly used to incentivize launch of certain non-AMR health products, such as orphan medicines. Given similarities in their product characteristics, transferability of some of these pull incentives appears to be possible; however, it would be essential to conduct impact assessments of these incentives. Trade-offs between incentives to foster market entry and thus potentially improve access and the financial sustainability for payers need to be addressed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sabine Vogler
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies, Pharmacoeconomics Department, Gesundheit Österreich (GÖG/Austrian National Public Health Institute), 1010, Vienna, Austria.
- Department of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin, 10623, Berlin, Germany.
| | - Katharina Habimana
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies, Pharmacoeconomics Department, Gesundheit Österreich (GÖG/Austrian National Public Health Institute), 1010, Vienna, Austria
| | - Manuel Alexander Haasis
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies, Pharmacoeconomics Department, Gesundheit Österreich (GÖG/Austrian National Public Health Institute), 1010, Vienna, Austria
| | - Stefan Fischer
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies, Pharmacoeconomics Department, Gesundheit Österreich (GÖG/Austrian National Public Health Institute), 1010, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Braun M, Lange C, Schatz P, Long B, Stanta J, Gorovits B, Tarcsa E, Jawa V, Yang TY, Lembke W, Miller N, McBlane F, Christodoulou L, Yuill D, Milton M. Preexisting antibody assays for gene therapy: Considerations on patient selection cutoffs and companion diagnostic requirements. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev 2024; 32:101217. [PMID: 38496304 PMCID: PMC10944107 DOI: 10.1016/j.omtm.2024.101217] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/19/2024]
Abstract
Recombinant adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors are the leading delivery vehicle used for in vivo gene therapies. Anti-AAV antibodies (AAV Abs) can interact with the viral capsid component of an AAV-based gene therapy (GT). Therefore, patients with preexisting AAV Abs (seropositive patients) are often excluded from GT trials to prevent treatment of patients who are unlikely to benefit1 or may have a higher risk for adverse events outweighing treatment benefits. On the contrary, unnecessary exclusion of patients with high unmet medical need should be avoided. Instead, a risk-benefit assessment that weighs the potential risks due to seropositivity vs. severity of disease and available treatment options, should drive the decision if patient selection is required. Assays for patient selection must be validated according to their intended use following national regulations/standards for diagnostic assays in appropriate laboratories. In this review, we summarize the current process of patient selection, including assay cutoff criteria and related assay validation approaches. We further provide considerations on regulatory requirements for the development of in vitro diagnostic tests supporting market authorization of a corresponding GT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manuela Braun
- Bayer AG, Pharmaceuticals R&D, 13342 Berlin, Germany
| | - Claudia Lange
- Bayer AG, Pharmaceuticals R&D, 13342 Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Brian Long
- BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc, Novato, CA, USA
| | | | - Boris Gorovits
- Sana Biotechnology, 100 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
| | - Edit Tarcsa
- Abbvie Bioresearch Center, Worcester, MA 01605, USA
| | - Vibha Jawa
- Bristol Myers Squibb, Lawrence Township, NJ 08648, USA
| | | | - Wibke Lembke
- Integrated Biologix GmbH, 4051 Basel, Switzerland
| | - Nicole Miller
- Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc, Novato, CA 94949, USA
| | | | | | - Daisy Yuill
- AstraZeneca, 1 Francis Crick Avenue, CB2 0AA Cambridge, UK
| | - Mark Milton
- Lake Boon Pharmaceutical Consulting, LLC, Hudson, MA 01749, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Liu S, Tan DS, Graves N, Chacko AM. Economic Evaluations of Imaging Biomarker-Driven Companion Diagnostics for Cancer: A Systematic Review. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY 2023; 21:841-855. [PMID: 37747620 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-023-00833-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/07/2023] [Indexed: 09/26/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION There is a boom in imaging biomarker-driven companion and complementary diagnostics (CDx) for cancer, which brings opportunity for personalized medicine. Whether adoption of these technologies is likely to be cost-effective is a relevant question, and studies on this topic are emerging. Despite the growing number of economic evaluations, no review of the methods used, quality of reporting, and potential risk of bias has been done. We report a systematic review to identify, summarize, and critique the cost-effectiveness evidence for the use of biomarker-driven and imaging-based CDx to inform cancer treatments. METHODS The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Systematic literature searches until 30 December 2022 were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and Scopus for economic evaluations of imaging biomarker-based CDx for cancer. The inclusion and exclusion of studies were determined by pre-specified eligibility criteria informed by the 'Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome' (PICO) framework. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) was used to assess the quality of reporting, and the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) was used to examine the potential risk of bias of included studies. RESULTS A total of 12 papers were included, with eight model-based and four trial-based studies. Implementing biomarker-driven, imaging-based CDx was reported to be cost-effective, cost saving, or dominant (cost saving and more effective) in ten papers. Inconsistent methods were found in the studies, and the quality of reporting was lacking against the CHEERS reporting guideline. Several potential sources of 'risk of bias' were identified. These should be acknowledged and carefully considered by researchers planning future health economic evaluations. CONCLUSION Despite favorable results towards the implementation of imaging biomarker-based CDx for cancer, there is room for improvement regarding the quantity and quality of economic evaluations, and that is expected as the awareness of current study limitations increases and more clinical data become available in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sibo Liu
- Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore, 169857, Singapore
| | - Daniel Sw Tan
- Cancer Therapeutics Research Laboratory, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 30 Hospital Boulevard, Singapore, 168853, Singapore
| | - Nicholas Graves
- Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore, 169857, Singapore.
| | - Ann-Marie Chacko
- Division of Cellular and Molecular Research, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 30 Hospital Boulevard, Singapore, 168853, Singapore.
- Laboratory for Translational and Molecular Imaging, Programme in Cancer & Stem Cell Biology, Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore, 169857, Singapore.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Simoens S, Abdallah K, Barbier L, Lacosta TB, Blonda A, Car E, Claessens Z, Desmet T, De Sutter E, Govaerts L, Janssens R, Lalova T, Moorkens E, Saesen R, Schoefs E, Vandenplas Y, Van Overbeeke E, Verbaanderd C, Huys I. How to balance valuable innovation with affordable access to medicines in Belgium? Front Pharmacol 2022; 13:960701. [PMID: 36188534 PMCID: PMC9523170 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.960701] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2022] [Accepted: 08/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Countries are struggling to provide affordable access to medicines while supporting the market entry of innovative, expensive products. This Perspective aims to discuss challenges and avenues for balancing health care system objectives of access, affordability and innovation related to medicines in Belgium (and in other countries). Methods: This Perspective focuses on the R&D, regulatory approval and market access phases, with particular attention to oncology medicines, precision medicines, orphan medicines, advanced therapies, repurposed medicines, generics and biosimilars. The authors conducted a narrative review of the peer-reviewed literature, of the grey literature (such as policy documents and reports of consultancy agencies), and of their own research. Results: Health care stakeholders need to consider various initiatives for balancing innovation with access to medicines, which relate to clinical and non-clinical outcomes (e.g. supporting the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials, treatment optimisation and patient preference studies, optimising the use of real-world evidence in market access decision making), value assessment (e.g. increasing the transparency of the reimbursement system and criteria, tailoring the design of managed entry agreements to specific types of uncertainty), affordability (e.g. harnessing the role of generics and biosimilars in encouraging price competition, maximising opportunities for personalising and repurposing medicines) and access mechanisms (e.g. promoting collaboration and early dialogue between stakeholders including patients). Conclusion: Although there is no silver bullet that can balance valuable innovation with affordable access to medicines, (Belgian) policy and decision makers should continue to explore initiatives that exploit the potential of both the on-patent and off-patent pharmaceutical markets.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven Simoens
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Khadidja Abdallah
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Liese Barbier
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - Alessandra Blonda
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Elif Car
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Zilke Claessens
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Thomas Desmet
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Evelien De Sutter
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Laurenz Govaerts
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Rosanne Janssens
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Teodora Lalova
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
- KU Leuven Centre for IT & IP Law (CiTiP), Leuven, Belgium
| | - Evelien Moorkens
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Robbe Saesen
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
- European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Elise Schoefs
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Yannick Vandenplas
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Eline Van Overbeeke
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Ciska Verbaanderd
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
- Anticancer Fund, Strombeek-Bever, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Isabelle Huys
- KU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Assessing, Pricing and Funding Point-of-Care Diagnostic Tests for Community-Acquired Acute Respiratory Tract Infections–Overview of Policies Applied in 17 European Countries. Antibiotics (Basel) 2022; 11:antibiotics11080987. [PMID: 35892377 PMCID: PMC9331460 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11080987] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2022] [Revised: 07/17/2022] [Accepted: 07/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Point-of-care diagnostic tests for community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections (CA-ARTI) can support doctors by improving antibiotic prescribing. However, little is known about health technology assessment (HTA), pricing and funding policies for CA-ARTI diagnostics. Thus, this study investigated these policies for this group of devices applied in the outpatient setting in Europe. Experts from competent authority responded to a questionnaire in Q4/2020. Information is available for 17 countries. Studied countries do not base their pricing and funding decision for CA-ARTI diagnostics on an HTA. While a few countries impose price regulation for some publicly funded medical devices, the prices of CA-ARTI diagnostics are not directly regulated in any of the surveyed countries. Indirect price regulation through public procurement is applied in some countries. Reimbursement lists of medical devices eligible for public funding exist in several European countries, and in some countries these lists include CA-ARTI diagnostics. In a few countries, the public payer funds the health professional for performing the service of conducting the test. Given low levels of regulation and few incentives, the study findings suggest room for strengthening pricing and funding policies of CA-ARTI diagnostics to contribute to increased acceptance and use of these point-of-care tests.
Collapse
|
6
|
Koleva-Kolarova R, Buchanan J, Vellekoop H, Huygens S, Versteegh M, Mölken MRV, Szilberhorn L, Zelei T, Nagy B, Wordsworth S, Tsiachristas A. Financing and Reimbursement Models for Personalised Medicine: A Systematic Review to Identify Current Models and Future Options. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY 2022; 20:501-524. [PMID: 35368231 PMCID: PMC9206925 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00714-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/28/2021] [Indexed: 05/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The number of healthcare interventions described as 'personalised medicine' (PM) is increasing rapidly. As healthcare systems struggle to decide whether to fund PM innovations, it is unclear what models for financing and reimbursement are appropriate to apply in this context. OBJECTIVE To review financing and reimbursement models for PM, summarise their key characteristics, and describe whether they can influence the development and uptake of PM. METHODS A literature review was conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Econlit to identify studies published in English between 2009 and 2021, and reviews published before 2009. Grey literature was identified through Google Scholar, Google and subject-specific webpages. Articles that described financing and reimbursement of PM, and financing of non-PM were included. Data were extracted and synthesised narratively to report on the models, as well as facilitators, incentives, barriers and disincentives that could influence PM development and uptake. RESULTS One hundred and fifty-three papers were included. Research and development of PM was financed through both public and private sources and reimbursed largely through traditional models such as single fees, Diagnosis-Related Groups, and bundled payments. Financial-based reimbursement, including rebates and price-volume agreements, was mainly applied to targeted therapies. Performance-based reimbursement was identified mainly for gene and targeted therapies, and some companion diagnostics. Gene therapy manufacturers offered outcome-based rebates for treatment failure for interventions including Luxturna®, Kymriah®, Yescarta®, Zynteglo®, Zolgensma® and Strimvelis®, and coverage with evidence development for Kymriah® and Yescarta®. Targeted testing with OncotypeDX® was granted value-based reimbursement through initial coverage with evidence development. The main barriers and disincentives to PM financing and reimbursement were the lack of strong links between stakeholders and the lack of demonstrable benefit and value of PM. CONCLUSIONS Public-private financing agreements and performance-based reimbursement models could help facilitate the development and uptake of PM interventions with proven clinical benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - James Buchanan
- Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Heleen Vellekoop
- Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Simone Huygens
- Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Matthijs Versteegh
- Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maureen Rutten-van Mölken
- Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - László Szilberhorn
- Syreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary
- Faculty of Social Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Tamás Zelei
- Syreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Balázs Nagy
- Syreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Sarah Wordsworth
- Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK
| | - Apostolos Tsiachristas
- Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Horgan D, Curigliano G, Rieß O, Hofman P, Büttner R, Conte P, Cufer T, Gallagher WM, Georges N, Kerr K, Penault-Llorca F, Mastris K, Pinto C, Van Meerbeeck J, Munzone E, Thomas M, Ujupan S, Vainer GW, Velthaus JL, André F. Identifying the Steps Required to Effectively Implement Next-Generation Sequencing in Oncology at a National Level in Europe. J Pers Med 2022; 12:72. [PMID: 35055387 PMCID: PMC8780351 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12010072] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2021] [Revised: 12/16/2021] [Accepted: 12/29/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) may enable more focused and highly personalized cancer treatment, with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines now recommending NGS for daily clinical practice for several tumor types. However, NGS implementation, and therefore patient access, varies across Europe; a multi-stakeholder collaboration is needed to establish the conditions required to improve this discrepancy. In that regard, we set up European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM)-led expert panels during the first half of 2021, including key stakeholders from across 10 European countries covering medical, economic, patient, industry, and governmental expertise. We describe the outcomes of these panels in order to define and explore the necessary conditions for NGS implementation into routine clinical care to enable patient access, identify specific challenges in achieving them, and make short- and long-term recommendations. The main challenges identified relate to the demand for NGS tests (governance, clinical standardization, and awareness and education) and supply of tests (equitable reimbursement, infrastructure for conducting and validating tests, and testing access driven by evidence generation). Recommendations made to resolve each of these challenges should aid multi-stakeholder collaboration between national and European initiatives, to complement, support, and mutually reinforce efforts to improve patient care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Denis Horgan
- European Alliance for Personalised Medicine, Avenue de l’Armee/Legerlaan 10, 1040 Brussels, Belgium
| | - Giuseppe Curigliano
- European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Giuseppe Ripamonti, 435, 20141 Milan, Italy; (G.C.); (E.M.)
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono, 7, 20122 Milan, Italy
| | - Olaf Rieß
- Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tuebingen, Calwerstrasse 7, 72070 Tuebingen, Germany;
| | - Paul Hofman
- Laboratory of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, University of Côte d’Azur, FHU OncoAge, Biobank BB-0033-00025, Pasteur Hospital, 30 Avenue de la voie Romaine, CEDEX 01, 06001 Nice, France;
| | - Reinhard Büttner
- Institute for Pathology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany;
| | - Pierfranco Conte
- The Veneto Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Gattamelata, 64, 35128 Padua, Italy;
- Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University of Padua, Via Giustiniani, 2, 35124 Padua, Italy
| | - Tanja Cufer
- Medical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Vrazov trg 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia;
| | - William M. Gallagher
- School of Biomolecular and Biomedical Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland;
| | - Nadia Georges
- Exact Sciences, Quai du Seujet 10, 1201 Geneva, Switzerland;
| | - Keith Kerr
- School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK;
| | - Frédérique Penault-Llorca
- Centre Jean Perrin, 58, Rue Montalembert, CEDEX 01, 63011 Clermont-Ferrand, France;
- Department of Pathology, University of Clermont Auvergne, INSERM U1240, 49 bd François Mitterrand, CS 60032, 63001 Clermont-Ferrand, France
| | - Ken Mastris
- Europa Uomo, Leopoldstraat 34, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium;
| | - Carla Pinto
- AstraZeneca, Rua Humberto Madeira 7, 1800 Oeiras, Portugal;
| | - Jan Van Meerbeeck
- Antwerp University Hospital, University of Antwerp, Wijlrijkstraat 10, 2650 Edegem, Belgium;
| | - Elisabetta Munzone
- European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Giuseppe Ripamonti, 435, 20141 Milan, Italy; (G.C.); (E.M.)
| | - Marlene Thomas
- F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Grenzacherstrasse 124, 4070 Basel, Switzerland;
| | - Sonia Ujupan
- Eli Lilly and Company, Rue du Marquis 1, Markiesstraat, 1000 Brussels, Belgium;
| | - Gilad W. Vainer
- Department of Pathology, Hadassah Hebrew-University Medical Center, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Kalman Ya’akov Man St, Jerusalem 91905, Israel;
| | - Janna-Lisa Velthaus
- University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20251 Hamburg, Germany;
| | - Fabrice André
- Institut Gustave Roussy, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 94805 Villejuif, France;
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Valla V, Alzabin S, Koukoura A, Lewis A, Nielsen AA, Vassiliadis E. Companion Diagnostics: State of the Art and New Regulations. Biomark Insights 2021; 16:11772719211047763. [PMID: 34658618 PMCID: PMC8512279 DOI: 10.1177/11772719211047763] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2021] [Accepted: 09/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Companion diagnostics (CDx) hail promise of improving the drug development
process and precision medicine. However, there are various challenges involved
in the clinical development and regulation of CDx, which are considered
high-risk in vitro diagnostic medical devices given the role they play in
therapeutic decision-making and the complications they may introduce with
respect to their sensitivity and specificity. The European Union (E.U.) is
currently in the process of bringing into effect in vitro Diagnostic Medical
Devices Regulation (IVDR). The new Regulation is introducing a wide range of
stringent requirements for scientific validity, analytical and clinical
performance, as well as on post-market surveillance activities throughout the
lifetime of in vitro diagnostics (IVD). Compliance with General Safety and
Performance Requirements (GSPRs) adopts a risk-based approach, which is also the
case for the new classification system. This changing regulatory framework has
an impact on all stakeholders involved in the IVD Industry, including Authorized
Representatives, Distributors, Importers, Notified Bodies, and Reference
Laboratories and is expected to have a significant effect on the development of
new CDx.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Saba Alzabin
- Department of Oncological Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.,Elm Scientific Ltd., London, UK
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Augustovski F, Alfie V, Alcaraz A, García Martí S, Drummond MF, Pichon-Riviere A. A Value Framework for the Assessment of Diagnostic Technologies: A Proposal Based on a Targeted Systematic Review and a Multistakeholder Deliberative Process in Latin America. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2021; 24:486-496. [PMID: 33840426 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.11.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2020] [Revised: 10/15/2020] [Accepted: 11/15/2020] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES there are very few value frameworks (VFs) to assess health technologies that are focused on diagnostic tests; they usually do not reflect a multistakeholder process; and they are all developed in high-income countries. Our project performed a targeted systematic review, with the objective of proposing an evidence-based, up-to-date VF informed by a multinational multistakeholder group working in the health technology assessment (HTA) space. METHODS (1) A targeted systematic review, with the aim to identify existing VFs and their dimensions; and (2) generation a VF proposal through a mixed-methods, qualitative-quantitative approach. RESULTS From 73 citations identified, 20 met our inclusion criteria and served to provide the initial list of dimensions for our VF. An initial list of criteria and subcriteria for a preliminary VF was proposed. After a full-day deliberative face-to-face meeting with 30 relevant stakeholders from seven Latin American countries and the United Kingdom, the final VF was defined, consisting of 15 criteria: five "essential or core," six highly relevant, three moderately relevant, and one of low relevance. Barriers and facilitators of value assessment of diagnostic technologies were also discussed. CONCLUSIONS We propose a VF oriented to diagnostic technologies based on a targeted systematic review and a participatory process with key HTA stakeholders. It is the first to be produced in a lower and middle income setting but can also be potentially useful in other contexts aimed to assist decision-making processes with these particularly complex health technologies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Federico Augustovski
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina; University of Buenos Aires School of Medicine, Buenos Aires, Argentina; CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Argentina.
| | - Veronica Alfie
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Andrea Alcaraz
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Sebastián García Martí
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | | | - Andrés Pichon-Riviere
- Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina; University of Buenos Aires School of Medicine, Buenos Aires, Argentina; CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Argentina
| |
Collapse
|