Outcomes-based reimbursement for gene therapies in practice: the experience of recently launched CAR-T cell therapies in major European countries

How to optimize the CAR-T Cell therapy process? A group concept mapping analysis of preconditions for a frictionless process from a German multistakeholder perspective

Introduction

Treatment with chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cells involves a large number of interdisciplinary stakeholders and is associated with complex processes ranging from patient-specific production to follow-up care. Due to the complexity, maximum process optimization is required in order to avoid efficiency losses. This study aimed at systematically determining the preconditions for a frictionless flow of the CAR-T process by surveying the stakeholders involved.

Methods

A Group Concept Mapping (GCM) analysis, a mixed-methods participatory research, was conducted. CAR-T experts from different professional backgrounds went through three steps: 1) Brainstorming relevant aspects (statements) for a frictionless process, 2) Sorting the collected statements based on their similarity, and 3) Rating the importance and feasibility of each statement. A cluster map reflecting the overarching topics was derived, and mean ratings per statement and cluster were calculated.

Results

Overall, 20 CAR-T experts participated. A total of 80 statements were collected, resulting in a map of the following 10 clusters (mean importance/feasibility): Information for patients and physicians (4.16/3.77), Supportive network (4.03/3.53), Eligibility of patients (4.41/3.63), Evidence, transparency and communication (4.01/3.33), Paperwork (4.1/2.52), Interface with pharmaceutical manufacturer (4.03/2.85), Reimbursement (4.29/2.31), Quality Management (4.17/3.18), Infrastructure of CAR-T clinics (4.1/2.93), and Patient-oriented processes (4.46/3.32).

Discussion

The 80 statements underlined the complex and manifold nature of the CAR-T treatment process. Our results reflect the first step in overcoming hurdles: identifying potential hurdles and required preconditions. Decision-makers and stakeholders can use the results to derive strategies and measures to further promote a frictionless process.

Proposal of a Knowledge Management Model for Complex Systems: Case of the Supervision and Control Subsystem of the Colombian Health System

BACKGROUND

Considering regulatory, supervision, and control health policy, an innovative knowledge management model is proposed for the Colombian health system, which is recognized as a complex system.

METHODS

A model is constructed through a comparative analysis of various theoretical and conceptual frameworks, and an original methodology is proposed based on an analysis of the macroprocesses of the Supervision and Control System (SSC) of the Colombian General Social Security System in Health (SGSSS). After formulating hypotheses and conceptual references, information errors are determined within the different macroprocesses of the SGSSS, including those of governance and the SSC.

RESULTS

The risks of generating duplicate, wrong, hidden, or non-existent information arise when the associated regulations need more specificity to be applied in all cases, thus leading to the risk of different interpretations by some actors. In this way, it is possible to hinder the generation of unified information, as there is no clarity as to who is responsible for the generation or creation of certain data.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed model is characterized by its flexibility and adaptability, integrating several processes that can be executed simultaneously or cyclically (depending on the system's needs) and allowing for the generation and feedback of knowledge at different stages, with some processes simultaneously executed to complement each other.

Immunodeficiency: Gene therapy for primary immune deficiency

Current gene therapy for inborn errors of immunity have involved the use of gene addition approaches with viral delivery. This main strategy has had demonstrated success mainly in severe combined immune deficiency, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, and chronic granulomatous disease. Despite the increasing success of gene therapy, there are limitations of gene therapy, and, therefore, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation continues to be the preferred option. With improvements in viral delivery through next-generation lentiviral vectors and the advent of gene editing with CRISPR-Cas9, the efficacy and safety of gene therapy may soon surpass hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Furthermore, these advances improve the viability of gene therapy for inborn errors of immunity primarily through decreased risk of transplantation-related complications. Therefore, despite current limitations, gene therapy for inborn errors of immunity is poised to continue to expand to more patients and indications.

Obstacles to global implementation of CAR T cell therapy in myeloma and lymphoma

Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies are transforming the treatment of B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders and multiple myeloma, yet global access challenges and barriers for their implementation persist. Global access disparities persist, particularly for persons living in low and middle-income countries and for underserved populations in high income countries. In this review we address patient-related factors including age, comorbidities, fitness, race and ethnicity, and geographic location for CAR-T access. Also, we review disease-related and health system barriers like disease biology, potential for short and long-term toxicity, insurance access, referrals, supply and manufacturing, regulation, costs and treatment center capacity. Lastly, alternatives for overcoming these barriers exemplified by research efforts worldwide are discussed, emphasizing the need for a multifaceted approach from all stakeholders to improve global accessibility and ensure equitable access and improved outcomes for patients worldwide.

Costs of care during chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas

High upfront cost may be a barrier to adopting chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy for relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphoma. Data on the real-world costs are limited. Using the Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis database, we evaluated 271 commercially insured patients who received CAR-T therapy for B-cell lymphoma (median age = 58 years; men = 68%; diffuse large B-cell lymphoma = 87%; inpatient CAR-T therapy = 85%). Our peri-CAR-T period of interest was from 41 days before to 154 days after CAR-T therapy index divided into seven 28-day intervals. Median total costs were $608 100 (interquartile range, IQR = $534 100-$732 800); 8.5% of patients had total costs exceeding $1 million. The median cost of CAR-T therapy products was $402 500, and the median out-of-pocket copayment was $510. Monthly costs were highest during the month of CAR-T therapy administration (median = $521 500), with median costs below $25 000 in all other 28-day intervals. Costs of CAR-T therapy use were substantial, largely driven by product acquisition. Future studies should examine the relationship between costs, access, and financial outcomes.

Challenges for gene therapy in the financial sustainability of health systems: a scoping review

AIM

To review the available evidence about the strategies implemented or proposed for coverage or reimbursement for currently approved gene therapies.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to analyze the evidence published during the years 2016 to 2023. The main search criteria were coverage or reimbursement of gene therapy by healthcare systems. The eligible articles were those that described or proposed a financing model used to provide coverage in the various systems around the world.

RESULTS

The study identified 279 publications, and after removing duplicates and screening for eligibility, 10 were included in the study. The results show that various financing models have been proposed, including subscription-based payment models, outcome-based payment models, and amortization strategies. However, several barriers to implementing these models were identified, such as deficiencies in informatics systems for data collection, changes in laws or regulations, the lack of accessible clinical endpoints and administrative costs.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review provides an overview of financing strategies for gene therapies. Gene therapies can cure rare or previously intractable diseases, but their high cost can make access difficult. Publishing experiences with these models can help evaluate their use and gather more evidence for their effectiveness.

Comparative policy analysis of national rare disease funding policies in Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases pose immense challenges for healthcare systems due to their low prevalence, associated disabilities, and attendant treatment costs. Advancements in gene therapy, such as treatments for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), have introduced novel therapeutic options, but the high costs, exemplified by Zolgensma® at US$2.1 million, present significant financial barriers. This scoping review aimed to compare the funding approaches for rare disease treatments across high-performing health systems in Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US), aiming to identify best practices and areas for future research.

METHODS

In accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and the methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley and ensuing recommendations, a comprehensive search of electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane) and grey literature from health department websites and leading national organizations dedicated to rare diseases in these countries was conducted. Countries selected for comparison were high-income countries with advanced economies and high-performing health systems: Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the UK, and the US. The inclusion criteria focused on studies detailing drug approval processes, reimbursement decisions and funding mechanisms, and published from 2010 to 2024.

RESULTS

Based on a thorough review of 18 published papers and grey literature, various strategies are employed by countries to balance budgetary constraints and access to rare disease treatments. Australia utilizes the Life Saving Drugs Program and risk-sharing agreements. Singapore depends on the Rare Disease Fund, which matches public donations. South Korea's National Health Insurance Service covers specific orphan drugs through risk-sharing agreements. The UK relies on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to evaluate treatments for cost-effectiveness, supported by the Innovative Medicines Fund. In the US, a combination of federal and state programs, private insurance and non-profit support is used.

CONCLUSION

Outcome-based risk-sharing agreements present a practical solution for managing the financial strain of costly treatments. These agreements tie payment to actual treatment efficacy, thereby distributing financial risk and promoting ongoing data collection. Countries should consider adopting and expanding these agreements to balance immediate expenses with long-term benefits, ultimately ensuring equitable access to crucial treatments for patients afflicted by rare diseases.

Gene therapy for age-related macular degeneration: potential, feasibility, and pitfalls

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The landscape for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is rapidly changing with addition of biosimilars and now United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nonneovascular AMD (nnAMD) treatment options. These developments have inspired a burgeoning pipeline of gene therapy approaches focused on similar antivascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF) and complement related pathways. Historic and more recent setbacks in the gene therapy pipeline, including intraocular inflammatory reactions, have raised important concerns for adverse events related to AMD therapeutics both for gene and nongene approaches. The specific clinical profile of these therapeutics approaching later stage clinical trials are complex and under active investigation; however, these options hold promise to disrupt the current landscape and change management paradigms for one of the leading causes of vision loss worldwide.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review covers current gene therapy approaches for neovascular AMD (nAMD) and nnAMD. Intravitreal, suprachoroidal, and subretinal delivery routes are discussed with attention to technical procedure, capabilities for transgene delivery to target tissue, immunogenicity, and collateral effects. Suprachoroidal delivery is an emerging approach which may bridge some of the practical drawbacks for intravitreal and subretinal methods, though with less elaborated immunologic profile. In parallel to delivery modification, viral vectors have been cultivated to target specific cells, with promising enhancements in adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors and persistent interest in alternate viral and nonviral delivery vectors. Ongoing questions such as steroid or immunosuppressive regimen and economic considerations from a payer and societal perspective are discussed.

SUMMARY

The present review discusses emerging gene therapy options which could foster new, more durable nAMD and nnAMD therapeutics. These options will need refinement with regards to route, vector, and dosage, and specialists must decipher the specific clinical risk benefit profile for individual patients. Ongoing concerns for immunogenicity or dosage related adverse events could stifle progress, while further vector development and refined delivery techniques have the potential to change the safety and efficacy of currently options in the pipeline.

Values, challenges, and responses associated with high-priced potential cures: perspectives of diverse stakeholders in South Korea

BACKGROUND

The emergence of high-priced potential cures has sparked significant health policy discussions in South Korea, where the healthcare system is funded through a single-payer National Health Insurance model. We conducted focus group interviews (FGIs) and accompanying surveys with diverse stakeholders to comprehensively understand related issues and find better solutions to the challenges brought by these technologies.

METHODS

From October to November 2022, 11 FGIs were conducted with stakeholders from various sectors, including government payers, policy and clinical experts, civic and patient organisations, and the pharmaceutical industry, involving a total of 25 participants. These qualitative discussions were supplemented by online surveys to effectively capture and synthesise stakeholder perspectives.

RESULTS

Affordability was identified as a critical concern by 84% of stakeholders, followed by clinical uncertainty (76%) and limited value for money (72%). Stakeholders expressed a preference for both financial-based controls and outcome-based pricing strategies to mitigate these challenges. Despite the support for outcome-based refunds, payers raised concerns about the feasibility of instalment payment models, whether linked to outcomes or not, due to the specific challenges of the Korean reimbursement system and the potential risk of 'cumulative liabilities' from ongoing payments for previously administered treatments. In addition, the FGIs highlighted the need for clear budgetary limits for drugs with high uncertainties, with mixed opinions on the creation of special silo funds (64.0% agreement). Less than half (48%) endorsed the use of external reference pricing, currently applied to such essential drugs in South Korea. A significant majority (84%), predominantly non-pharma stakeholders, advocated for addressing cost-effectiveness uncertainty through re-assessment once long-term clinical data become available.

CONCLUSIONS

This study uncovers a broad agreement among stakeholders on the need for more effective value assessment methodologies for high-priced potential cures, stressing the importance of more robust and comprehensive re-assessment supported by long-term data collection, rather than primarily relying on external reference pricing. Each type of stakeholders exhibited a cautious approach to their specific uncertainties, suggesting that new funding strategies should accommodate these uncertainties with predefined guidelines and agreements prior to the initiation of managed entry agreements.

Real-world evidence for coverage determination of treatments for rare diseases

Health technology assessment (HTA) decisions for pharmaceuticals are complex and evolving. New rare disease treatments are often approved more quickly through accelerated approval schemes, creating more uncertainties about clinical evidence and budget impact at the time of market entry. The use of real-world evidence (RWE), including early coverage with evidence development, has been suggested as a means to support HTA decisions for rare disease treatments. However, the collection and use of RWE poses substantial challenges. These challenges are compounded when considered in the context of treatments for rare diseases. In this paper, we describe the methodological challenges to developing and using prospective and retrospective RWE for HTA decisions, for rare diseases in particular. We focus attention on key elements of study design and analyses, including patient selection and recruitment, appropriate adjustment for confounding and other sources of bias, outcome selection, and data quality monitoring. We conclude by offering suggestions to help address some of the most vexing challenges. The role of RWE in coverage and pricing determination will grow. It is, therefore, necessary for researchers, manufacturers, HTA agencies, and payers to ensure that rigorous and appropriate scientific principles are followed when using RWE as part of decision-making.

Surrogacy and the Valuation of ATMPs: Taking Our Place in the Evidence Generation/Assessment Continuum

Medical technology is advancing rapidly, but established methods for health technology assessment are struggling to keep up. This challenge is particularly stark for the assessment of advanced therapy medicinal products-therapies often launched on the basis of single-arm studies powered to a surrogate primary endpoint. The most robust surrogacy methods investigate trial-level correlations between the treatment effect on the surrogate and the outcome of ultimate interest. However, these methods are often impossible with the evidence usually available for advanced therapy medicinal products at the time of the launch (randomized controlled trials are necessary for these advanced methods). Additionally, these surrogacy relationships are usually considered to be technology specific, adding uncertainty for any approach that primarily relies on historic data to estimate the surrogacy relationship for novel interventions such as advanced therapy medicinal products. The literature has already highlighted the need for early dialogue, staged assessment processes, and pricing arrangements that responsibly share the risk between the manufacturer and payer. However, it is our view that in addition to these critical developments, the modeling methods employed could also improve. Currently, health technology assessment practitioners typically either ignore the surrogate and simply extrapolate the endpoint of greatest patient relevance irrespective of the degree of maturity or assume historic surrogate relationships apply to the novel technology. In this opinion piece, we outline an additional avenue. By drawing on the understanding of the mechanism of action and insights generated earlier in the evidence generation/assessment continuum, cost-effectiveness modelers can make better use of the wider data available. These efforts are expected to reduce uncertainty at the time of the initial launch of pharmaceutical products and increase the value of subsequent data collection efforts.

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.

The health economics of cell and gene therapies

The health economics of cell and gene therapies is complex; due to resource-intensive manufacturing, high prices are required for commercial viability that are challenging for healthcare systems to accommodate. Despite high prices, cell and gene therapies can provide value when they deliver substantial clinical benefits and displace long-term healthcare costs compared with existing treatment options. In this chapter, the cost utility approach of economic evaluation is discussed, focusing on the considerations that occur more commonly in cell and gene therapies compared to conventional medicines, how these considerations create challenges in interpreting the evidence and coming to conclusions on value, and what tools exist for understanding the level of decision uncertainty. A summary of the economic evaluation of onasemnogene abeparvovec for spinal muscular atrophy is provided as a real-world example that features the considerations discussed.

Is it enough just to demonstrate that the advanced therapy medicinal products do work or we would prefer to keep walking on the Moon?

After several decades of continuous yet bumpy progress the advanced therapy medicinal products reached the stage when the first drugs with well documented efficacy started to be registered. However, in the disturbing chain of events, many of them were discontinued because of the lack of return on investment. By comparing this phenomenon to the fact that humans did not return to the Moon for already 50 years, primarily because of the lack of dedicated funds, this commentary proposes strategies how to avoid menace of the dead end threating to suffocate progress of the advanced medical therapies. While treatments for rare diseases can be defended by mixture of altruistic, inspiring and rational reasons, mostly covered by the fact that regardless of the price of the newly developed therapy, the total burden remains low, common diseases should be addressed in a different way. This needs to include precise modelling of the benefits which advanced therapy medicinal products bring for every condition, taking in account reduction of the costs of long, often life-long support of patients affected by such diseases. Without intention to steal romantic view on the scientific progress, powerful yet very expensive tools of advanced therapy medicinal products require urgent top-down decisions which include selection of priorities based on the financial modelling. Instead of spontaneous exploration in all directions, this commentary proposes an arranged marriage between scientific community and big investors sustained by combination of governmental requirements in the form of real time data sharing, reimbursement warranties according to demonstrated efficacy and clear recognition of the primary targets with accompanying pre-defined financial frameworks.

Pricing and reimbursement mechanisms for advanced therapy medicinal products in 20 countries

Introduction: Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products are a type of therapies that, in some cases, hold great potential for patients without an effective current therapeutic approach but they also present multiple challenges to payers. While there are many theoretical papers on pricing and reimbursement (P&R) options, original empirical research is very scarce. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive international review of regulatory and P&R decisions taken for all ATMPs with centralized European marketing authorization in March 2022. Methods: A survey was distributed in July 2022 to representatives of 46 countries. Results: Responses were received from 20 countries out of 46 (43.5%). 14 countries reimbursed at least one ATMP. Six countries in this survey reimbursed no ATMPs. Conclusion: Access to ATMPs is uneven across the countries included in this study. This arises from regulatory differences, commercial decisions by marketing authorization holders, and the divergent assessment processes and criteria applied by payers. Moving towards greater equality of access will require cooperation between countries and stakeholders, for example, through the WHO Regional Office for Europe's Access to Novel Medicines Platform.

Analysis of the Gene Therapies Authorized by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency

BACKGROUND

Gene therapy, altering the genes inside human cells, has recently emerged as an alternative for preventing and treating disease. Concerns have been expressed about the clinical value and the high cost of gene therapies.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the characteristics of the clinical trials, authorizations, and prices of gene therapies in the United States and the European Union.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We collected regulatory information from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and manufacturer-listed prices from the United States, UK, and Germany. Descriptive statistics and t tests were conducted in the study.

RESULTS

As of January 1, 2022, the FDA and EMA authorized 8 and 10 gene therapies, respectively. The FDA and EMA granted orphan designation to all gene therapies except talimogene laherparepvec. Pivotal clinical trials were nonrandomized, open level, uncontrolled, phase I-III, and included a limited number of patients. Study primary outcomes were mainly surrogate endpoints without demonstration of direct patient benefit. The price of gene therapies at market entry ranged from $200,064 to $2,125,000 million.

CONCLUSIONS

Gene therapy is used to treat incurable diseases that affect only a small number of patients (orphan diseases). Based on this, they are approved by the EMA and FDA with insufficient clinical evidence to ensure safety and efficacy, in addition to the high cost.

Application of Nano-Delivery Systems in Lymph Nodes for Tumor Immunotherapy

Immunotherapy has become a promising research "hotspot" in cancer treatment. "Soldier" immune cells are not uniform throughout the body; they accumulate mostly in the immune organs such as the spleen and lymph nodes (LNs), etc. The unique structure of LNs provides the microenvironment suitable for the survival, activation, and proliferation of multiple types of immune cells. LNs play an important role in both the initiation of adaptive immunity and the generation of durable anti-tumor responses. Antigens taken up by antigen-presenting cells in peripheral tissues need to migrate with lymphatic fluid to LNs to activate the lymphocytes therein. Meanwhile, the accumulation and retaining of many immune functional compounds in LNs enhance their efficacy significantly. Therefore, LNs have become a key target for tumor immunotherapy. Unfortunately, the nonspecific distribution of the immune drugs in vivo greatly limits the activation and proliferation of immune cells, which leads to unsatisfactory anti-tumor effects. The efficient nano-delivery system to LNs is an effective strategy to maximize the efficacy of immune drugs. Nano-delivery systems have shown beneficial in improving biodistribution and enhancing accumulation in lymphoid tissues, exhibiting powerful and promising prospects for achieving effective delivery to LNs. Herein, the physiological structure and the delivery barriers of LNs were summarized and the factors affecting LNs accumulation were discussed thoroughly. Moreover, developments in nano-delivery systems were reviewed and the transformation prospects of LNs targeting nanocarriers were summarized and discussed.

High Cost of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cells: Challenges and Solutions

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells are a cellular immunotherapy with remarkable efficacy in treating multiple hematologic malignancies but they are associated with extremely high prices that are, for many countries, prohibitively expensive. As their use increases both for hematologic malignancies and other indications, and large numbers of new cellular therapies are developed, novel approaches will be needed both to reduce the cost of therapy, and to pay for them. We review the many factors that lead to the high cost of CAR T-cells and offer proposals for reform.

Long-term response to autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T cells in relapsed or refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is an effective treatment approach for patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL). However, identifying the factors that influence long-term response to this therapy is necessary to optimize patient selection and treatment allocation. We conducted a literature review and meta-analysis to investigate the use of autologous anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapy in both pediatric and adult patients with R/R B-ALL, using several databases including MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Journals@Ovid, Embase, and clinicaltrial.gov. A total of 38 reports were analyzed, which enrolled 2134 patients. Time-to-event endpoints were estimated using reconstructed patient survival data. The study explored key modulators of response, including costimulatory domains, disease status, age, and lymphodepletion. The median overall survival and event-free survival were 36.2 months [95% CI 28.9, NR] and 13.3 months [95% CI 12.2, 17], respectively. The overall response rate was 76% [95% CI 71, 81]. The use of 4-1BB costimulatory domain in the CAR construct, administration of low-dose cyclophosphamide lymphodepletion, and pretreatment morphologic remission were associated with better overall survival, with hazard ratios of 0.72, 0.56, and 0.66, respectively. Morphologic remission and 4-1BB domain were associated with better event-free survival, with hazard ratios of 0.66 and 0.72, respectively. These findings suggest that CAR T cell therapy may offer long-term benefits to patients with R/R B-ALL. However, further research is needed to optimize patient selection and better understand the impact of various factors on the outcome of CAR T cell therapy.

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.

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.

CAR-T Cells in Canada; Perspective on How to Ensure We Get Our Value’s Worth

New therapies in a publicly funded healthcare system are first appraised by health technology assessment agencies that provide funding recommendations to the payers. Treatment with Chimeric Antigen Receptor-T cell (CAR-T) therapy is revolutionizing the management of patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma by providing an effective alternative to the standard of care. Yet, the implementation of CAR-T treatment has a substantial impact on the healthcare system due to its high cost, complex manufacturing process, and requirement for highly specialized services and expertise. CAR-T Cells, as a “living drug”, are fundamentally different from usual medications, and their approvals and funding recommendations pose unique challenges to the health technology agency. In this paper, we explore the specific challenges that face the health technology agencies in reviewing reimbursement recommendations for CAR-T therapy. We take a Canadian perspective and use CAR-T treatment of relapse/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma as an example.

Clinical Impression of Severity Index for Parkinson's Disease and Its Association to Health-Related Quality of Life

Background

Clinical Impression of Severity Index for Parkinson's Disease (CISI-PD) is a simple tool that can easily be used in clinical practice. Few studies have investigated the relationship between health-related quality of life and the CISI-PD.

Objective

To analyze the association of CISI-PD scores with those of generic (EQ-5D-5L) and Parkinson's disease (PD) disease-specific (Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-8 [PDQ-8]) health-related quality of life assessments.

Methods

Persons with idiopathic PD in the Swedish Parkinson's Disease registry with simultaneous registrations of CISI-PD and EQ-5D-5L and/or PDQ-8 were included. Correlations with EQ-5D dimensions were analyzed. The relationships between the CISI-PD, EQ-5D-5L, and PDQ-8 were estimated by linear mixed models with random intercept.

Results

In the Swedish Parkinson's Disease registry, 3511 registrations, among 2168 persons, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The dimensions self-care, mobility, and usual activities correlated moderately with the CISI-PD (r s = 0.60, r s = 0.54, r s = 0.57). Weak correlations were found for anxiety/depression and pain/discomfort (r s = 0.39, r s = 0.29) (P values < 0.001). The fitted model included the CISI-PD, age, sex, and time since diagnosis. The CISI-PD had a statistically significant impact on the EQ-5D and PDQ-8 (P values < 0.001).

Conclusions

The CISI-PD provides a moderate correlation with the EQ-5D and could possibly be useful as a basis for defining health states in future health economic models and serving as outcomes in managed entry agreements. Nonetheless, the limitation of capturing nonmotor symptoms of the disease remains a shortcoming of clinical instruments, including the CISI-PD.

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.

Barriers to Treg therapy in Europe: From production to regulation

There has been an increased interest in cell based therapies for a range of medical conditions in the last decade. This explosion in novel therapeutics research has led to the development of legislation specifically focused on cell and gene based therapies. In Europe, the European medicines agency (EMA) designates any medicines for human use which are based on genes, tissues, or cells as advanced therapy medicinal products or advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). In this article we discuss the hurdles to widespread adoption of ATMPs in Europe, with a focus on regulatory T cells (Tregs). There are numerous barriers which must be overcome before mainstream adoption of Treg therapy becomes a reality. The source of the cells, whether to use autologous or allogenic cells, and the methods through which they are isolated and expanded, must all meet strict good manufacturing practice (GMP) standards to allow use of the products in humans. GMP compliance is costly, with the equipment and reagents providing a significant cost barrier and requiring specialized facilities and personnel. Conforming to the regulations set centrally by the EMA is difficult, and the different interpretations of the regulations across the various member states further complicates the regulatory approval process. The end products then require a complex and robust distribution network to ensure timely delivery of potentially life saving treatments to patients. In a European market whose logistics networks have been hammered by COVID and Brexit, ensuring rapid and reliable delivery systems is a more complex task than ever. In this article we will examine the impact of these barriers on the development and adoption of Tregs in Europe, and potential approaches which could facilitate more widespread use of Tregs, instead of its current concentration in a few very specialized centers.

Cell and gene therapy regulatory, pricing, and reimbursement framework: With a focus on South Korea and the EU

Ever since relevant bioengineering technologies have sufficiently matured to the platformizable commercialization stage, a slew of money has flocked to the cell and gene therapy market over the last few years, resulting in an abundance of clinical studies in the field. Newer modalities have brought up a string of regulatory and legislative tasks, such as developing guidelines and legislative rules to systematically regulate newer pharmaceutical products. Accordingly, another layer of legislation and guidelines tailored for cell and gene therapies has been introduced and is expected to evolve on par with technological progress. Furthermore, authorities have shifted to pricing and reimbursement policies that can share risks for cost and outcome among stakeholders altogether, such as developers and the government, while expanding the accessibility of patients to innovative cell and gene therapies. This review attempts to capture the salient regulatory features of the cell and gene therapy market in the context of South Korea and the European Union and points out where two sovereign entities currently stand on each policy element and how each tackles regulatory challenges. We can observe the converging trend where regulatory, pricing and reimbursement rules of adjoining countries in the supranational union or member countries of a consortium are getting more aligned. Evidently, concerted efforts to share regulatory science knowledge and embrace reference pricing have played their parts. The authors argue that policy priorities should be placed on initiatives to harmonize with other medical authorities to better the rights of patients and clear out the uncertainties of developers, ultimately to share and advance regulatory science and layout forward-looking policies at opportune times.

Pricing and Market Access Challenges in the Era of One-Time Administration Cell and Gene Therapies

With a large number of one-time administration cell and gene therapies expected to come to the market in the coming years, there is a renewed need to understand the existing and future challenges that such modalities bring about, especially as it relates to their assessment of value, pricing and access. Payer, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and manufacturers alike are faced with a number of unprecedented challenges stemming from the fact that such therapies are 'one-time' and/or have curative intent, but often lack sufficient evidence to support such claims at the time of launch (i.e., during pricing and access negotiations). There are a number of different approaches to assessing economic value for cell and gene therapies across regions (e.g., US vs Europe), which ultimately lead to further disconnect in pricing and reimbursement outcomes across countries; yet, in many cases, affordability concerns relating to high upfront costs are raised by providers. To that end, cell and gene therapies have been frequently criticized by payers for their 'high sticker price' based on relatively limited evidence to support durability claims. New contracting solutions are increasingly being employed to overcome concerns specifically relating to the durability of clinical benefit, the comparative effectiveness of a therapy and affordability (i.e., the one-time high cost of therapy). Indeed, recent launches of cell and gene therapies have often leveraged outcome-based agreements, instalments, coverage with evidence generation, subscription models, stop-loss and payer reinsurance, etc. to mitigate concerns from payers and providers and drive access. In this paper, we aim to review challenges for cell and gene therapies from a pricing and access perspective and explore the growing role of innovative contracting solutions to overcome aforementioned challenges.

Financing and Reimbursement Models for Personalised Medicine: A Systematic Review to Identify Current Models and Future Options

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.

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.

Barriers and solutions to improve access for chimeric antigen receptor therapies

Chimeric antigen receptor T cells are a potentially curative new therapeutic option, but access challenges remain. The limited number of certified treatment centers and the need to travel to these centers, the expenses of travel and lodging and the out-of-pocket costs associated with treatment pose a challenge for patients. Further, the logistics of follow-up coupled with an ad hoc reimbursement environment make chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment an unattractive proposition for many providers. The patient-specific nature of these gene therapies has made scaling up production difficult for manufacturers. Providing expanded financial assistance for patients and education for community oncologists, and addressing reimbursement challenges, can alleviate some of these access barriers.

Process, resource and success factors associated with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for multiple myeloma

Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy represents a new frontier in multiple myeloma. It is important to understand critical success factors (CSFs) that may optimize its use in this therapeutic area. Methods: We estimated the CAR-T process using time-driven activity-based costing. Information was obtained through interviews at four US oncology centers and with payer representatives, and through publicly available data. Results: The CAR-T process comprises 13 steps which take 177 days; it was estimated to include 46 professionals and ten care settings. CSFs included proactive collaboration, streamlined reimbursement and CAR-T administration in alternative settings when possible. Implementing CSFs may reduce episode time and costs by 14.4 and 13.2%, respectively. Conclusion: Our research provides a blueprint for improving efficiencies in CAR-T therapy, thereby increasing its sustainability for multiple myeloma.

Preparing for tomorrow: Defining a future agenda

Gene therapy will be the first long-term therapy with potential to produce a functional cure for haemophilia. As a single dose ('once-and-done') therapy with significant uncertainties regarding impact and duration of factor expression, flexibility and adaptability of (1) value framework, (2) health technology assessment (HTA) methodology, and (3) development of alternative payment models will be needed for adoption of this new technology and to facilitate transparent decision-making to support its implementation. The responsibility for each of these currently lies with distinct entities, underscoring a need for enhanced collaboration between all stakeholders, as expanded engagement by key stakeholders will be critical to optimizing the assessment of value, enabling an optimised approach to HTA, and opening receptivity to new and innovative payment models. This supplement issue describes important considerations for a gene therapy 'toolkit', highlighting key considerations for each of the aforementioned tools, which will be useful for guiding decision-making regarding gene therapy as a novel treatment modality. In this article, we outline how the tools presented in this supplement can be applied as part of a framework to address the requirements of the relevant stakeholders, including payers, manufacturers, treaters, and patients. The paper also provides an illustrative example of how to understand the features of alternative payment models depending on the organization of and payment for healthcare.

Compliance and cost control for cryopreservation of cellular starting materials: An industry perspective

Over the last decade, cancer immunotherapy has progressed from an academically interesting field to one of the most promising forms of new treatments in which not the cancer but the immune system is treated. In particular, genetic modification for purposeful redirection of autologous T cells is providing hope to many treatment-resistant patients. This personalized form of medicine is radically different from more traditional oncologic drugs. With these evolving medical advancements and more cellular therapies becoming available, some regulatory agencies have created new regulatory requirements to manage the production of these types of products. The regulations are specifically suited for the manufacture of gene and cell therapy products, as they use a risk-based approach towards product development and manufacturing, when there is limited characterization available. The correct interpretation of how and when requirements apply is crucial, since theoretical approaches to implementing GMP can easily lead to disproportionate and unwarranted restrictions that may not address the specific risks that regulators were intending to control. This is especially relevant for cell collection and biopreservation preceding the manufacturing process for products manufactured from autologous T cells. Both the fresh and cryopreserved apheresis materials can be filed as minimally manipulated starting materials to the authorities. The preservation of such cellular material can then routinely be managed using the available regulations for tissues and cells, allowing for a more fit-for-purpose approach to the control measures implemented.

Facilitating [corrected] More Efficient Negotiations for Innovative Therapies: A Value-Based Negotiation Framework

OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of innovative therapies (e.g., gene- and cell-based treatments) have been developed in the past 20 years. Despite the significant clinical potential of these therapies, access delays may arise because of differing perspectives of manufacturers and payers regarding issues such as the value of the product, clinical and financial uncertainties, and sustainability.Managed entry agreements (MEAs) can enable access to treatments that would not be reimbursed by conventional methods because of such concerns. However, although MEA typologies exist, there is currently no structured process to come to agreements on MEAs, which can be difficult to decide upon and implement.To facilitate more structured MEA negotiations, we propose a conceptual "value-based negotiation framework" with corresponding application tools.

METHODS

The framework was developed based on an iterative process of scientific literature review and expert input.

RESULTS

The framework aims to (i) systematically identify and prioritize manufacturer and payer concerns about a new treatment, and (ii) select a mutually acceptable combination of MEA terms that can best address priority concerns, with the lowest possible implementation burden.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed framework will be tested in practice, and is a step toward supporting payers and manufacturers to engage in more structured, transparent negotiations to balance the needs of both sides, and enabling quicker, more transparent MEA negotiations and patient access to innovative products.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel vs. Tisagenlecleucel for the Management of Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in Spain

The study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) vs. tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) after ≥2 lines of systemic therapy in Spain. A lifetime partitioned survival mixture cure model, which comprises pre-progression, post-progression, and death health states, was used to estimate the accumulated costs and outcomes in terms of life years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was used to reweight patient-level data from ZUMA-1, the pivotal clinical trial for axi-cel, to aggregate-level data from the pivotal tisa-cel trial, JULIET. The analysis was performed from the National Health System perspective, thus only direct costs were included. Sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed. Axi-cel yielded 2.74 incremental LYG and 2.31 additional QALY gained per patient compared to tisa-cel. Total incremental lifetime costs for axi-cel versus tisa-cel were €30,135/patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of axi-cel versus tisa-cel resulted in €10,999/LYG and the incremental cost-utility ratio in €13,049/QALY gained. SA proved robustness of the results. Considering the frequently assumed willingness-to-pay thresholds in Spain (€22,000/QALY and €60,000/QALY), axi-cel is a cost-effective treatment vs. tisa-cel for adult patients with R/R DLBCL in Spain.

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.

Access and pricing of medicines for patients with rare diseases in the European Union: an industry perspective

INTRODUCTION

The EU Orphan Regulation has successfully stimulated R&D of medicines for rare diseases, resulting in substantial increase of orphan designations and authorized orphan medicinal products in the EU during the last decade. Despite such important advances, access to treatment across the 27 EU Member States is still highly variable.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an overview of the current situation of patient access to orphan drugs in the EU. We discuss the EU policy landscape regarding joint assessment and pricing & reimbursement negotiations of medicinal products, price and sustainability of orphan drugs for health care systems and the importance of Real-World Data and registry infrastructures for rare diseases. Additionally, we provide recommendations for areas of improvement throughout the lifecycle of orphan drugs, aiming to preserve a positive R&D climate for rare diseases in the EU and accelerate patient access.

EXPERT OPINION

The EU needs to maintain a strong patient-centric pharmaceutical ecosystem that encourages long-term investments and rewards innovation in areas of high unmet medical need. Areas of potential improvement range from enhanced alignment of regulatory and HTA evidence requirements and use of specific value frameworks for the assessment of orphan drugs to the development of registry infrastructures and innovative performance-based pricing agreements.

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.

Associação Brasileira de Hematologia, Hemoterapia e Terapia Celular Consensus on genetically modified cells. III: anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy for patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma

The treatment and evolution of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) has undergone important changes in the last years with the emergence of targeted therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies, small molecules, antibody-drug conjugates, and bispecific antibodies. Nevertheless, a significant portion of patients remains refractory or relapsed (R/R) to the new therapeutic modalities, representing thus an unmet medical need. The use of CAR-T cells for the treatment of B-NHL patients has shown to be a promising therapy with impressive results in patients with R/R disease. The expectations are as high as the imminent approval of CAR-T cell therapy in Brazil, which it is expected to impact the prognosis of R/R B-NHL. The aim of this manuscript is to offer a consensus of specialists in the field of onco-hematology and cellular therapy, working in Brazil and United States, in order to discuss and offer recommendations in the present setting of the use of CAR-T cells for patients with B-NHL.

Challenges raised by the economic evaluation of CAR-T-cell therapies. The review by the French National Authority for Health

Since 2013, the process of pricing of innovative drugs by the French National Health Insurance has considered both cost-effectiveness and budget impact. CAR-T cell therapies were first subject to economic evaluation from 2019 in France. We aim to describe the process and results of the economic evaluation of tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel as well as the challenges these evaluations raised. Evaluations submitted by the firms were reviewed by HAS and submitted to the Committee of Economic Evaluation and Public Health (CEESP). The CEESP issued opinions related to: (1) the methodological quality of economic evidence and, (2) the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the drugs. The CEESP invalidated the estimated incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of tisagenlecleucel due to the insufficient clinical evidence and methodological quality to extrapolate the long-term progression of the disease after treatment and compare tisagenlecleucel with alternatives. The CEESP concluded that tisagenlecleucel was not proven cost-effective. The estimated ICUR of axicabtagene ciloleucel at €114,509/QALY vs. chemotherapies was associated with an acceptable level of methodological quality despite being based on a weak indirect comparison and limited data on quality of life. The CEESP considered axicabtagene ciloleucel ICUR to be "very high" and questioned the societal/community willingness-to-pay of the claimed price. The primary source of uncertainty surrounding the ICUR estimates of both drugs was the lack of hindsight on effectiveness. The economic evaluation of CAR-T cell therapies highlights the risk of inefficient resource allocation driven by limited clinical data. It calls for payment schemes accounting for this risk and effective collection of post-marketing data.

Moving somatic gene editing to the clinic: routes to market access and reimbursement in Europe

Somatic gene editing (SGE) holds great promise for making genetic therapy possible for many monogenic conditions very soon. Is our current system of European market authorization and reimbursement ready for the expected tsunami of gene therapies? At a recent workshop of the Netherlands ZonMw consortium on ethical, legal, and social implications of personalized medicine, we discussed the current possibilities for bringing new gene therapies to the clinic. In Europe, it is not yet clear whether the route via the European medicines agency as an advanced therapy medicinal product is the most appropriate for evaluation of highly personalized SGE applications, although this may optimally guarantee safety and effectiveness. Compassionate use may ensure faster access than the centralized procedure but does not stimulate the commercial development of products. Prescription to named patients may only provide adequate access for single patients. Temporary authorization of use may allow access to medication half a year before formal market authorization has been granted, but may also have large budget impacts. Magistral compounding under a hospital exemption may be an attractive solution for rare, tailor-made applications at an acceptable price. To approve local experimental use of a therapy on a case-by-case basis may be fast, but does not guarantee optimal safety, effectiveness, and broad implementation. We argue that alternative routes should be considered for products developed for a market of large groups of patients versus unique personalized treatments. A balance between scientific evidence for safety and effectiveness, affordability, and fast access may demand a range of alternative solutions.

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.

Implementing Outcomes-Based Managed Entry Agreements for Rare Disease Treatments: Nusinersen and Tisagenlecleucel

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Enthusiasm for the use of outcomes-based managed entry agreements (OBMEAs) to manage uncertainties apparent at the time of appraisal/pricing and reimbursement of new medicines has waned over the past decade, as challenges in establishment, implementation and re-appraisal have been identified. With the recent advent of innovative treatments for rare diseases that have uncertainties in the clinical evidence base, but which could meet a high unmet need, there has been renewed interest in the potential of OBMEAs. The objective of this research was to review the implementation of OBMEAs for two case studies across countries in the European Union, Australia and Canada, to identify good practices that could inform development of tools to support implementation of OBMEAs.

METHODS

To investigate how OBMEAs are being implemented with rare disease treatments, we collected information from health technology assessment/payer experts in countries that had implemented OBMEAs for either nusinersen in spinal muscular atrophy or tisagenlecleucel in two cancer indications. Operational characteristics of the OBMEAs that were publicly available were documented. Then, the experts discussed issues in implementing these OBMEAs and specific approaches taken to overcome challenges.

RESULTS

The OBMEAs identified were based on individual outcomes to ensure appropriate use, manage continuation of treatment and in two cases linked to payment schedules, or they were population based, coverage with evidence development. For nusinersen, population-based OBMEAs are documented in Belgium, England and the Netherlands and individual-based schemes in Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy and Lithuania. For tisagenlecleucel, there were population-based schemes in Australia, Belgium, England and France and individual-based schemes in Italy and Spain. Comparison of the OBMEA constructs showed some clear published frameworks and clarity of the uncertainties to be addressed that were similar across countries. Agreements were generally made between the marketing authorisation holder and the payer with involvement of expert physicians. Only England and the Netherlands involved patients. Italy used its long-established, national, web-based, treatment-specific data collection system linked to reimbursement and Spain has just developed such a national treatment registry system. Other countries relied on a variety of data collection systems (including clinical registries) and administrative data. Durations of agreements varied for these treatments as did processes for interim reporting. The processes to ensure data quality, completeness and sufficiency for re-analysis after coverage with evidence development were not always clear, neither were analysis plans.

CONCLUSIONS

These case studies have shown that important information about the constructs of OBMEAs for rare disease treatments are publicly available, and for some jurisdictions, interim reports of progress. Outcomes-based managed entry agreements can play an important role not only in reimbursement, but also in treatment optimisation. However, they are complex to implement and should be the exception and not the rule. More recent OBMEAs have developed document covenants among stakeholders or electronic systems to provide assurances about data sufficiency. For coverage with evidence development, there is an opportunity for greater collaboration among jurisdictions to share processes, develop common data collection agreements, and share interim and final reports. The establishment of an international public portal to host such reports would be particularly valuable for rare disease treatments.

Economic Evidence on Potentially Curative Gene Therapy Products: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to summarize all available evidence on the cost effectiveness of potentially curative gene therapies and identify challenges that economic evaluations face in this area.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of four databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, EconLit) and grey literature sources. We conducted the search on August 23, 2019 and updated it on November 26, 2020. We included all English, French and Spanish language studies that addressed a gene therapy that had received regulatory approval or had entered a phase III trial, and also reported on costs related to the therapy. Critical appraisal was conducted to assess quality of reporting in included studies.

RESULTS

Fifty-six studies were identified. Of the 42 full economic evaluations, 71% (n = 30) evaluated chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, most used either a Markov model (n = 17, 40%) and/or a partitioned survival model (n = 17, 40%), and 76% (n = 32) adopted a public or private payer perspective. The model characteristics with the greatest impact on cost effectiveness included assumptions about the efficacy of the treatment and the comparators used.

CONCLUSION

All gene therapies in this review were shown to be more effective than their comparators, although due to high costs not all were considered cost effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds. Despite their high cost, some gene therapies have the potential to dominate the alternatives in conditions with high mortality/disability. The choice of comparator and assumptions regarding long-term effectiveness had substantial impacts on cost-effectiveness estimates and need to be carefully considered. Both the quality of inputs and the quality of reporting were highly variable.