Perspectives to mitigate payer uncertainty in health technology assessment of novel oncology drugs

The evolving value assessment of cancer therapies: Results from a modified Delphi study

The move toward early detection and treatment of cancer presents challenges for value assessment using traditional endpoints. Current cancer management rarely considers the full economic and societal benefits of therapies. Our study used a modified Delphi process to develop principles for defining and assessing value of cancer therapies that aligns with the current trajectory of oncology research and reflects broader notions of value. 24 experts participated in consensus-building activities across 5 months (16 took part in structured interactions, including a survey, plenary sessions, interviews, and off-line discussions, while 8 participated in interviews). Discussion focused on: 1) which oncology-relevant endpoints should be used for assessing treatments for early-stage cancer and access decisions for early-stage treatments, and 2) the importance of additional value components and how these can be integrated in value assessments. The expert group reached consensus on 4 principles in relation to the first area (consider oncology-relevant endpoints other than overall survival; build evidence for endpoints that provide earlier indication of efficacy; develop evidence for the next generation of predictive measures; use managed entry agreements supported by ongoing evidence collection to address decision-maker evidence needs) and 3 principles in relation to the second (routinely use patient reported outcomes in value assessments; assess broad economic impact of new medicines; consider other value aspects of relevance to patients and society).

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.

How can a joint European health technology assessment provide an 'additional benefit' over the current standard of national assessments? : Insights generated from a multi-stakeholder survey in hematology/oncology

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a multi-stakeholder survey to determine key areas where a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) could provide 'additional benefit' compared to the status quo of many parallel independent national and subnational assessments.

METHODS

Leveraging three iterative Delphi cycles, a semiquantitative questionnaire was developed covering evidence challenges and heterogeneity of value drivers within HTAs across Europe with a focus on hematology/oncology. The questionnaire consisted of five sections: i) background information; ii) value drivers in HTA assessments today; iii) evolving evidence challenges; iv) heterogeneity of value drivers across Europe; v) impact of Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). The questionnaire was circulated across n = 189 stakeholder institutions comprising HTA and regulatory bodies, clinical oncology associations, patient representatives, and industry associations.

RESULTS

N = 30 responses were received (HTA bodies: 9; regulators: 10; patients' and physicians' associations: 3 each; industry: 5). Overall, 17 countries and EU level institutions were represented in the responses. Consistency across countries and stakeholder groups was high. Most relevant value drivers in HTAs today (scale 1, low to 5, high) were clinical trial design (mean 4.45), right endpoints (mean 4.40), and size of comparative effect (mean 4.33). Small patient numbers (mean 4.28) and innovative study designs (mean 4.1) were considered the most relevant evolving evidence challenges. Heterogeneity between regulatory and HTA evidence requirements and heterogeneity of the various national treatment standards and national HTA evidence requirements was high. All clinical and patient participants stated to have been with EBCP initiatives.

CONCLUSIONS

For a European HTA to provide an 'additional benefit' over the multitude of existing national assessments key methodological and process challenges need to be addressed. These include approaches to address uncertainty in clinical development; comparator choice; consistency in approaching patient-relevant endpoints; and a transparent and consistent management of both HTA and regulatory procedures as well as their interface, including all involved stakeholder groups.

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 Impasse on Overall Survival in Oncology Reimbursement Decision-Making: How Can We Resolve This?

Mature overall survival (OS) data are often unavailable at the time of regulatory and reimbursement decisions for a new cancer treatment. For patients with early-stage cancers treated with potentially curative treatments, demonstrating an OS benefit may take years and may be confounded by subsequent lines of therapy or crossover to the investigational treatment. For patients with advanced-stage cancers, mature OS data may be available but difficult to interpret for similar reasons. There are strong opinions about approval and reimbursement in the absence of mature OS data, with concerns over delay in patient access set against concerns about uncertainty in long-term benefit. This position paper reflects our individual views as patient advocate, clinician or health economist on one aspect of this debate. We look at payer decisions in the absence of mature OS data, considering when and how non-OS trial outcomes could inform decision-making and how uncertainty can be addressed beyond the trial, supporting these views with evidence from the literature. We consider when it is reasonable for payers to expect or not expect mature OS data at the initial reimbursement decision (based on criteria such as cancer stage and treatment efficacy) acknowledging that there are settings in which mature OS data are expected. We propose flexible strategies for generating and appraising patient-relevant evidence, including context-relevant endpoints and quality of life measures, when survival rates are good and mature OS data are not expected. We note that fair reimbursement is important; this means valuing patient benefit as shown through prespecified endpoints and reappraising if there is ongoing uncertainty or failure to show a sustained benefit. We suggest that reimbursement systems continue to evolve to align with scientific advances, because innovation is only meaningful if readily accessible to patients. The proposed strategies have the potential to promote thorough assessment of potential benefit to patients and lead to timely access to effective medicines.

Critical Factors Shaping Strategy Development of an Innovative Medicine in Oncology

Innovative medicinal products are required to achieve progress in oncology; however, these are associated with high financial investments, extensive development times, and significant risk of potential failure in the pivotal clinical trials required for marketing authorization. With increasing budgetary constraints and requirements to demonstrate value, effective strategies to develop and commercialize innovative oncology products are more important than ever. Strategies that have proved successful in other industries require major revision for use in the oncology field, both during preclinical and clinical development as well as in the post approval value chain. This paper will examine how medicinal product strategy development differs from other industries. In particular, it will look at how the global trend toward value-based healthcare requires strategies that are based on an in-depth scientific understanding of the disease area and product-specific characteristics supported by clinical evidence. The findings are complemented by a review of the available literature and a survey of industry representatives.

Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Managed entry agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high-priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was 'What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?' This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior-level co-authors including key South American markets. It also involved senior-level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on the potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%) and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes.

CONCLUSIONS

We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high-priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome-based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines, there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences, and practices across countries is crucial to guide high- and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs.

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.