Propelling Healthcare with Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products: A Policy Discussion

Exploring the readiness of the Irish healthcare system to adopt advanced therapies: a scoping review protocol

Aim: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are medicines for human use that are based on genes, tissues or cells. They offer groundbreaking new opportunities for the treatment of disease and injury. However, ATMP adoption requires adjustments to current clinical practices and frameworks. This study investigates the readiness of the Irish healthcare system to adopt licensed ATMPs. Materials & methods: Scoping review, guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses - scoping review extension. A systematic search of English articles from 2013 to 2023 (published and grey literature) will be conducted. Results: Findings will be presented via narrative summary, graphical and tabular formats. Discussion: Review findings will be discussed in the context of recommendations that will inform national policy and strategy on the adoption of ATMPs in Ireland.

New regulatory thinking is needed for AI-based personalised drug and cell therapies in precision oncology

Until recently the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in precision oncology was confined to activities in drug development and had limited impact on the personalisation of therapy. Now, a number of approaches have been proposed for the personalisation of drug and cell therapies with AI applied to therapy design, planning and delivery at the patient's bedside. Some drug and cell-based therapies are already tuneable to the individual to optimise efficacy, to reduce toxicity, to adapt the dosing regime, to design combination therapy approaches and, preclinically, even to personalise the receptor design of cell therapies. Developments in AI-based healthcare are accelerating through the adoption of foundation models, and generalist medical AI models have been proposed. The application of these approaches in therapy design is already being explored and realistic short-term advances include the application to the personalised design and delivery of drugs and cell therapies. With this pace of development, the limiting step to adoption will likely be the capacity and appropriateness of regulatory frameworks. This article explores emerging concepts and new ideas for the regulation of AI-enabled personalised cancer therapies in the context of existing and in development governance frameworks.

Health inequity in genomic personalized medicine in underrepresented populations: a look at the current evidence

Improvements in sequencing technology coupled with dramatic declines in the cost of genome sequencing have led to a proportional growth in the size and number of genetic datasets since the release of the human genetic sequence by The Human Genome Project (HGP) international consortium. The HGP was undeniably a significant scientific success, a turning point in human genetics and the beginning of human genomics. This burst of genetic information has led to a greater understanding of disease pathology and the potential of employing this data to deliver more precise patient care. Hence, the recognition of high-penetrance disease-causing mutations which encode drivers of disease has made the management of most diseases more specific. Nonetheless, while genetic scores are becoming more extensively used, their application in the real world is expected to be limited due to the lack of diversity in the data used to construct them. Underrepresented populations, such as racial and ethnic minorities, low-income individuals, and those living in rural areas, often experience greater health disparities and worse health outcomes compared to the general population. These disparities are often the result of systemic barriers, such as poverty, discrimination, and limited access to healthcare. Addressing health inequity in underrepresented populations requires addressing the underlying social determinants of health and implementing policies and programs which promoted health equity and reduce disparities. This can include expanding access to affordable healthcare, addressing poverty and unemployment, and promoting policies that combat discrimination and racism.

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.

Towards Better Pharmaceutical Provision in Europe—Who Decides the Future?

Significant progress has been achieved in human health in the European Union in recent years. New medicines, vaccines, and treatments have been developed to tackle some of the leading causes of disease and life-threatening illnesses. It is clear that investment in research and development (R&D) for innovative medicines and treatments is essential for making progress in preventing and treating diseases. Ahead of the legislative process, which should begin by the end of 2022, discussions focus on how Europe can best promote the huge potential benefits of new science and technology within the regulatory framework. The challenges in European healthcare were spelled out by the panellists at the roundtable organised by European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM). Outcomes from panellists’ discussions have been summarized and re-arranged in this paper under five headings: innovation, unmet medical need, access, security of supply, adapting to progress, and efficiency. Some of the conclusions that emerged from the panel are a call for a better overall holistic vision of the future of pharmaceuticals and health in Europe and a collaborative effort among all stakeholders, seeing the delivery of medicines as part of a broader picture of healthcare.

Meeting the Need for a Discussion of Unmet Medical Need

As Europe and the world continue to battle against COVID, the customary complacency of society over future threats is clearly on display. Just 30 months ago, such a massive disruption to global lives, livelihoods and quality of life seemed unimaginable. Some remedial European Union action is now emerging, and more is proposed, including in relation to tackling “unmet medical need” (UMN). This initiative—directing attention to the future of treating disease and contemplating incentives to stimulate research and development—is welcome in principle. But the current approach being considered by EU officials merits further discussion, because it may prove counter-productive, impeding rather than promoting innovation. This paper aims to feed into these ongoing policy discussions, and rather than presenting research in the classical sense, it discusses the key elements from a multistakeholder perspective. Its central concern is over the risk that the envisaged support will fail to generate valuable new treatments if the legislation is phrased in a rigidly linear manner that does not reflect the serpentine realities of the innovation process, or if the definition placed on unmet medical need is too restrictive. It cautions that such an approach presumes that “unmet need” can be precisely and comprehensively defined in advance on the basis of the past. It cautions that such an approach can reinforce the comfortable delusion that the future is totally predictable—the delusion that left the world as easy prey to COVID. Instead, the paper urges reflection on how the legislation that will shortly enter the pipeline can be phrased so as to allow for the flourishing of a culture capable of rapid adaptation to the unexpected.

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.

Evolution of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy as an Advanced Therapeutic Medicinal Product (ATMP)-An Indian Perspective

Stem cells can be defined as the cells that have the capacity to both self-renew and give rise to differentiated cells. Under the right conditions and signals, depending on their origin and bio-plasticity, stem cells can differentiate into multiple cell lineages and develop into various mature cells. Stem cell therapy is a fast-developing branch of medicine that includes the most innovative regenerative therapies for the restoration of cell and tissue function in individuals with severe diseases. Stem cell research has resulted in the emergence of cell-based therapies for disorders that are resistant to conventional drugs and therapies, and they are considered under the category of an Advanced Therapeutic Medicinal Product (ATMP). The FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) devised a new strategy in 2017 with the aim of unifying the standards for development of ATMPs such that it is easy to exchange information at the international level. In this review, we discuss the evolution of mesenchymal stem cell-based therapy as an ATMP in the global and Indian scenarios, along with the guidelines governing their usage and clinical application of these therapeutics.

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.

Cell and gene therapy products in Malaysia: a snapshot of the industry's current regulation preparedness

BACKGROUND AIMS

Cell and gene therapy products (CGTPs) are anticipated to bring many benefits for the treatment of conditions with limited or no satisfactory treatment options. However, they are associated with concerns of potential safety risks because of their high complexity. The National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA) of Malaysia took the first step toward the regulation of CGTPs by publishing the Malaysian Guidance Document and Guidelines for CGTPs in 2016. As mandatory registration and enforcement of CGTPs were scheduled to begin January 1, 2021, the aim of this study was to ascertain the industry's readiness for the regulation of CGTPs in terms of awareness of the guidelines, challenges and acceptance of the regulatory requirements.

METHODS

The authors invited 48 CGTP companies to participate in the survey between October 2019 and June 2020, and 30 companies responded.

RESULTS

The majority of respondents were aware of the mandatory CGTP regulatory control and the availability of the guidelines. Many CGTPs were in the early development phase, and the most difficult registration barriers were dossier preparation and compliance with the pre-clinical and clinical requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings represent the current CGTP landscape in Malaysia from the industry's viewpoint, enabling the NPRA to implement initiatives to facilitate registration and enforcement.