Appraisal of cancer drugs: a comparison of the French health technology assessment with value frameworks of two oncology societies

Analysis of oncological drugs authorised in Spain in the last decade: association between clinical benefit and reimbursement

BACKGROUND

Our study aimed to assess whether there was a relationship between clinical benefits and reimbursement decisions as well as the inclusion of economic evaluations in  therapeutic positioning reports (IPTs) and to explore factors influencing reimbursement decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed all anti-cancer drugs approved in Spain from 2010 to September 2022. The clinical benefit of each drug were evaluated using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) 1.1. The characteristics of these drugs were obtained from the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices. Reimbursement status information was obtained using BIFIMED, a web resource available in Spanish and consulted the agreements of the Interministerial Committee on Pricing of Medicines (CIPM).

RESULTS

In total, 73 drugs were included involving 197 indications. Almost half of the indications had substantial clinical benefit (49.8% yes vs. 50.3% no). Of the 153 indications with a reimbursement decision, 61 (56.5%) reimbursed indications had substantial clinical benefit compared to 14 (31.1%) of the non-reimbursed (p < 0.01). The median gain of overall survival was 4.9 months (2.8-11.2) for reimbursed indications and 2.9 months (1.7-5) in non-reimbursed (p < 0.05). Only six (3%) indications had an economic evaluation in the IPT.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that there is a relationship between substantial clinical benefit and the reimbursement decision in Spain. However, we also found that the overall survival gain was modest, and a significant proportion of the reimbursed indications had no substantial clinical benefit. Economic evaluations in IPTs are infrequent and cost-effectiveness analysis is not provided by CIPM.

HTA and Reimbursement Status of Metastatic Hormone‑Sensitive Prostate Cancer, Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer, and Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treatments in Europe: A Patient Access Landscape Review

Background: Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men, with up to one-third of men being diagnosed in their lifetime. Recently, novel therapies have received regulatory approval with significant improvement in overall survival for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. To improve decision-making regarding the value of anticancer therapies and support standardized assessment for use by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed a Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS). Objective: This review aimed to map HTA status, reimbursement restrictions, and patient access for 3 advanced prostate cancer indications across 23 European countries during 2011-2021. Methods: HTA, country reimbursement lists, and ESMO-MCBS scorecards were reviewed for evidence and data across 26 European countries. Results: The analysis demonstrated that only in Greece, Germany, and Sweden was there full access across all included prostate cancer treatments. Treatments available for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were widely reimbursed, with both abiraterone and enzalutamide accessible in all countries. In 3 countries (Hungary, the Netherlands, and Switzerland), there was a statistically significant difference (P<.05) between status of reimbursement and ESMO-MCBS "substantial benefit" (score of 4 or 5) vs "no substantial benefit" (score <4). Conclusion: Overall, the impact of the ESMO-MCBS on reimbursement decisions in Europe is unclear, with significant variation across the countries included in this review.

Value assessment of medicinal products by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and French National Authority for Health (HAS): Similarities and discrepancies

The evaluation of pharmaceutical innovation and therapeutic value is an increasingly complex exercise for which different approaches are adopted at the national level, despite the need for standardisation of processes and harmonisation of public health decisions. The objective of our analysis was to compare the approaches of the AIFA (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco) and the HAS (Haute Autorité de Santé) in assessing the same medicinal products. In Italy, the 1525/2017 AIFA Deliberation introduces a transparent scheme for the evaluation of innovative status (innovative, conditional, not innovative) based on the therapeutic added value (TAV), therapeutic need, and quality of evidence. In contrast, in France, the HAS makes judgements using the effective clinical benefit (Service Médical Rendu) and improvement of effective clinical benefit (Amélioration du Service Médical Rendu, ASMR). This analysis focused on medicinal products evaluated both by the AIFA and by the HAS from July 2017 to September 2021. Similarities between AIFA and HAS evaluations were investigated in terms of the TAV, recognition of innovativeness, and the ASMR. Both total and partial agreements were considered relevant. Therefore, raw agreement, Cohen's kappa (weighted and unweighted), and Bangdiwala's B-statistic were estimated. A total of 102 medicinal products were included in this study. Out of these, 38 (37.2%) were orphan drugs, while 56 (54.9%) had a clinical indication for the treatment of cancer. The AIFA and HAS reached a higher level of agreement on the innovativeness status compared with the TAV. A moderate total agreement emerged in the recognition of innovativeness (k = 0.463, p-value ≤0.0001), and partial agreement was substantial (equal weight k = 0.547, squared k = 0.638), while a lack of agreement resulted in a comparison of the TAV according to the AIFA and the ASMR recognised by the HAS. Indeed, whereas the AIFA determined the TAV to be important, the HAS considered it to be moderate. In addition, whereas the AIFA identified a bias towards a moderate TAV, the HAS identified a bias towards a minor ASMR. A higher level of agreement was reached, both on the TAV and on innovative status, for less critical medical products (non-cancer-related, or non-orphan, or with a standard European Medicines Agency approval). These results underline the importance of implementing European procedures that are more broadly aligned in terms of value definition criteria.

Survival, cost and added therapeutic benefit of drugs granted early access through the French temporary authorization for use program in solid tumors from 2009 to 2019

Decisions on market authorization (MA) and reimbursement have different durations across countries because of health technology assessment (HTA) procedures and negotiations between manufacturers and national authorities. To overcome this delay, France has implemented a Temporary Authorization for Use (ATU) program that allows early access to drugs before MA, in order to treat patients with unmet medical needs. The objectives of our study were to establish the added therapeutic benefit (ATB) of ATUs for solid tumors and to investigate the correlations between three tools evaluating ATB and survival outcomes and drug costs. Data on ATUs granted from January 2009 to December 2019 to treat solid tumors were analyzed. An assessment of their ATB was conducted using the American Society of Clinical Oncology‐Value Framework (ASCO‐VF), the European Society for Medical Oncology‐Magnitude Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO‐MCBS) and the French HTA criterion, clinical added value (CAV). The latter score determines reimbursement and national market access. Thirty‐five drugs in 39 indications were granted ATUs. All of them obtained MA and derived a clinical benefit to be reimbursed by the Social Security. Twenty‐eight (71.8%) had CAV compared to preexisting therapies. 24/38 (63.2%) had a 4‐5 ESMO‐MCBS score and 19/33 (57.6%) had an ASCO‐VF score over 45. No correlations were found between cost, PFS, OS, CAV and ASCO‐VF score, while high ESMO‐MCBS scores were correlated to OS. In conclusion, many patients were treated with innovations before MA thanks to ATU, although there are discrepancies between ATB scales, hence the importance of international collaboration in the evaluation of innovative therapies.

Key drivers of innovativeness appraisal for medicines: the Italian experience after the adoption of the new ranking system

OBJECTIVE

In 2017, the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA) introduced a standardised process to appraise innovativeness of medicines. Innovative medicines are provided speeder market access and dedicated funds. Innovativeness criteria are: unmet therapeutic need, added therapeutic value and quality of the evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method). We investigated the role played by these three criteria on the final decision aimed to understand how the new Italian innovativeness appraisal framework was implemented.

DESIGN

A desk research gathered AIFA's appraisal reports on innovativeness and data analyses were conducted. No patients were directly involved in this study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We scrutinised all 77 appraisal reports available on AIFA's website (2017-2020).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The impact of the three domains on final decision was investigated through a series of univariate analyses.

RESULTS

Among 77 appraisal reports on innovativeness available, 49 (64%) and 28 (36%) were for oncology and non-oncology medicines, respectively. The appraisals were equally distributed among 'fully innovative' (36%), 'conditionally innovative' (30%) and 'not innovative' (34%). Added therapeutic value was the most important driver on innovativeness decision, followed by quality of the evidence. Drugs for rare diseases and with paediatric/mixed indications were appraised 'innovative' by a larger proportion, but no statistical significance was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some limitations, including the moderate number of appraisals, this paper provides an insight into the determinants of innovativeness appraisals for medicines in Italy and the accuracy of the appraisal process. This has important implications in terms of transparency and accountability in the prioritisation process applied to innovative medicines.