1
|
Abstract
The high prices of new anticancer drugs and the marginal added benefit perceived by some stakeholders have fuelled a debate on the value of anticancer drugs in the European Union, even though an agreed definition of what constitutes a drug's value does not exist. In this Perspective, we discuss the value of drugs from different viewpoints and objectives of decision makers: for regulators, assessment of the benefit-risk balance of a drug is a cornerstone for approval; payers rely on cost-effectiveness analyses carried out by health technology assessment agencies for reimbursement decisions; for patients, treatment choices are based on personal preferences and attitudes to risk; and clinicians can use several scales (such as the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS)) that have been developed as an attempt to measure value objectively. Although a unique definition that fully captures the concept of value is unlikely to emerge, herein we discuss the importance of understanding different perspectives, and how regulators can help to inform different decision makers.
Collapse
|
2
|
Quinn C, Garrison LP, Pownell AK, Atkins MB, de Pouvourville G, Harrington K, Ascierto PA, McEwan P, Wagner S, Borrill J, Wu E. Current challenges for assessing the long-term clinical benefit of cancer immunotherapy: a multi-stakeholder perspective. J Immunother Cancer 2021; 8:jitc-2020-000648. [PMID: 32661115 PMCID: PMC7359062 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2020-000648] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/12/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Immuno-oncologics (IOs) differ from chemotherapies as they prime the patient’s immune system to attack the tumor, rather than directly destroying cancer cells. The IO mechanism of action leads to durable responses and prolonged survival in some patients. However, providing robust evidence of the long-term benefits of IOs at health technology assessment (HTA) submission presents several challenges for manufacturers. The aim of this article was to identify, analyze, categorize, and further explore the key challenges that regulators, HTA agencies, and payers commonly encounter when assessing the long-term benefits of IO therapies. Insights were obtained from an international, multi-stakeholder steering committee (SC) and expert panels comprising of payers, economists, and clinicians. The selected individuals were tasked with developing a summary of challenges specific to IOs in demonstrating their long-term benefits at HTA submission. The SC and expert panels agreed that standard methods used to assess the long-term benefit of anticancer drugs may have limitations for IO therapies. Three key areas of challenges were identified: (1) lack of a disease model that fully captures the mechanism of action and subsequent patient responses; (2) estimation of longer-term outcomes, including a lack of agreement on ideal methods of survival analyses and extrapolation of survival curves; and (3) data limitations at the time of HTA submission, for which surrogate survival end points and real-world evidence could prove useful. A summary of the key challenges facing manufacturers when submitting evidence at HTA submission was developed, along with further recommendations for manufacturers in what evidence to produce. Despite almost a decade of use, there remain significant challenges around how best to demonstrate the long-term benefit of checkpoint inhibitor-based IOs to HTA agencies, clinicians, and payers. Manufacturers can potentially meet or mitigate these challenges with a focus on strengthening survival analysis methodology. Approaches to doing this include identifying reliable biomarkers, intermediate and surrogate end points, and the use of real-world data to inform and validate long-term survival projections. Wider education across all stakeholders—manufacturers, payers, and clinicians—in considering the long-term survival benefit with IOs is also important.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Louis P Garrison
- CHOICE Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Phil McEwan
- Centre for Health Economics, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| | | | | | - Elise Wu
- Bristol-Myers Squibb, New York, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
The Qualitative Value of Facilitated Regulatory Pathways in Europe, USA, and Japan: Benefits, Barriers to Utilization, and Suggested Solutions. Pharmaceut Med 2021; 35:113-122. [PMID: 33537899 PMCID: PMC7858039 DOI: 10.1007/s40290-020-00372-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/15/2020] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
Background Despite the growing application of facilitated regulatory pathways (FRPs), little attention has focused on assessing the perception of pharmaceutical companies regarding their usefulness beyond increasing timeliness. Objectives The aim of this study was to characterize the perceived value of four key FRPs, based on industry experiences in using these pathways. In addition, we sought to characterize the perceived impact based on benefits and barriers as well as suggested solutions for their use and recommendations as identified by companies, to outline how these FRPs may be further evolved as tools for expediting the development and regulatory review of important medicines. Methods A study was undertaken to characterize the perceived value and impact of US FDA (i.e., Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Fast Track), European Medicines Agency (i.e., PRIME), and Japanese Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency (i.e., Sakigake) FRPs through a comprehensive analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) as well as suggested solutions based on industry experiences with their use. The finalized survey comprised six questions and was sent to senior management in regulatory affairs departments at 22 multinational pharmaceutical companies in March 2019, with a deadline for completion by April 2019. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. SWOT and free-text responses were reviewed and manually grouped into key themes according to high concordance. Results Survey results were returned by 11 pharmaceutical companies. Based on their perceived value and positive impact, the evaluated FRPs seem to be generally recognized as helpful tools for ensuring timely development and review of important medicines while ensuring multistakeholder involvement. Respondents overwhelmingly felt that the Breakthrough Therapy Designation carried a positive influence, both within and outside their organizations. Following closely with a positive although varied perception was Sakigake, but respondents exhibited more ambivalence about Fast Track and PRIME. Companies felt the impact of the FRPs was generally positive for most stakeholders except for health technology assessors/payers, highlighting the need to better align FRPs with flexible access and reimbursement pathways to expedite the equitable availability of high‐quality, safe, effective medicines. Conclusions This study highlighted common recommendations across all four FRPs (relating to resource optimization, education, alignment, and communication to improve effective use), as well as agency-specific recommendations, some of which are already being addressed by the regulators. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40290-020-00372-7.
Collapse
|
4
|
Ofori-Asenso R, Hallgreen CE, De Bruin ML. Improving Interactions Between Health Technology Assessment Bodies and Regulatory Agencies: A Systematic Review and Cross-Sectional Survey on Processes, Progress, Outcomes, and Challenges. Front Med (Lausanne) 2020; 7:582634. [PMID: 33178721 PMCID: PMC7596325 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2020.582634] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2020] [Accepted: 08/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
The need to optimize drug development and facilitate faster access for patients has ignited discussions around the importance of improving interactions between health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and regulatory agencies. In this study, we conducted a systematic review to examine processes, progress, outcomes, and challenges of harmonization/interaction initiatives between HTA bodies and regulatory agencies. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts database were searched up to 21 October 2019. Searches for gray literature (working papers, commissioned reports, policy documents, etc.) were performed via Google scholar and several institutional websites. An online cross-sectional survey was also conducted among HTA (n = 22) and regulatory agencies (n = 6) across Europe to supplement the systematic review. Overall, we found that while there are areas of divergence, there has been progress over time in narrowing the gap in evidentiary requirements for HTA bodies and regulatory agencies. Most regulatory agencies (4/6; 67%) and half (11/22, 50%) of the HTA bodies reported having a formal link for “collaborating” with the other. Several mechanisms such as early tripartite dialogues, parallel submissions (reviews), adaptive licensing pathways, and postauthorization data generation have been explored as avenues for improving collaboration. A number of pilot initiatives have shown positive effects of these models to reduce the time between regulatory and HTA decisions, which may translate into faster access for patients to life-saving therapies. Thus, future approaches aimed at improving harmonization/interaction between HTA bodies and regulatory agencies should build on these existing models/mechanisms while examining their long-term impacts. Several barriers including legal, organizational, and resource-related factors were also identified, and these need to be addressed to achieve greater alignment in the current regulatory and reimbursement landscape.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard Ofori-Asenso
- Copenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science (CORS), Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.,Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Christine E Hallgreen
- Copenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science (CORS), Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Marie Louise De Bruin
- Copenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science (CORS), Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.,Division of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Broes S, Saesen R, Lacombe D, Huys I. Past, Current, and Future Cancer Clinical Research Collaborations: The Case of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Clin Transl Sci 2020; 14:47-53. [PMID: 32799428 PMCID: PMC7877867 DOI: 10.1111/cts.12863] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2020] [Accepted: 07/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Although collaborations between academic institutions and industry have led to important scientific breakthroughs in the discovery stage of the pharmaceutical research and development process, the role of multistakeholder partnerships in the clinical development of anticancer medicines necessitates further clarification. The benefits associated with such cooperation could be undercut by the conflicting goals and motivations of the actors included. The aim of this review was to identify and characterize past, present, and future stakeholder partnership models in cancer clinical research through the lens of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Based on the analysis of several landmark EORTC trials performed across the span of three decades, four existing models of stakeholder cooperation were delineated and characterized. Additionally, a hypothetical fifth model representing a potential future collaborative framework for cancer clinical research was formulated. These models mainly differ in terms of the nature and responsibilities of the partners included and show that clinical research partnerships in oncology have evolved over time from small‐scale academia‐industry collaborations to complex interdisciplinary cooperation involving many different stakeholders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefanie Broes
- European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.,Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Robbe Saesen
- European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.,Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Denis Lacombe
- European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Isabelle Huys
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Laverty H, Meulien P. The Innovative Medicines Initiative -10 Years of Public-Private Collaboration. Front Med (Lausanne) 2019; 6:275. [PMID: 31850354 PMCID: PMC6902875 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2019.00275] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2019] [Accepted: 11/11/2019] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) is a public-private partnership between the European Union and the European pharmaceutical industry. Born of the necessity to foster collaboration between different stakeholders in order to address growing challenges in bringing new medicines to market and the rapidly evolving healthcare landscape, IMI has successfully delivered the radical collaboration needed to address these challenges. In this article we reflect on some of the major achievements of the programme by highlighting a few of the key projects funded and the progress they have made, as well as some of the lessons learnt in delivering such an ambitious partnership. Those that drove the foundation of IMI recognized that to address these challenges required not just ambitious scientific approaches, but also an awareness of societal needs. Therefore, actors from beyond the traditional pharmaceutical research communities would be needed. One of the key successes of IMI has been to foster radical collaboration between diverse public and private partners of all types, including large pharmaceutical companies, SMEs, regulators, patient organizations and public research institutions. It has achieved this by being a neutral platform where all partners are bound by the same rights and responsibilities. Since it began there has been an evolution in the understanding of what is considered “pre-competitive,” resulting in IMI projects now addressing all of the steps within the pharmaceutical development value chain. With this expansion in the types of projects supported by IMI, different actors from beyond the traditional pharmaceutical research family have been attracted to participate, enriching further the collaboration at the heart of the programme. Finally, such a complex programme brings with it challenges, and we reflect on some of the important learnings that should be applied to future collaborative models to ensure that they are as successful as possible and deliver the expected impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hugh Laverty
- Head of Scientific Operations, Innovative Medicines Initiative, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Pierre Meulien
- Executive Director, Innovative Medicines Initiative, Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Eichler HG, Bedlington N, Boudes M, Bouvy JC, Broekmans AW, Cerreta F, Faulkner SD, Forda SR, Joos A, Le Cam Y, Mayer MH, Pirard V, Corriol-Rohou S. Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients: Why, When, and How to Engage? Clin Pharmacol Ther 2018; 105:1148-1155. [PMID: 29901216 PMCID: PMC6585618 DOI: 10.1002/cpt.1121] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2018] [Accepted: 05/01/2018] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients (MAPPs) seeks to foster access to novel beneficial treatments for the right patient groups at the earliest appropriate time in the product life-span, in a sustainable fashion. We summarize the MAPPs engagement process and critical questions to be asked at each milestone of the product life-span. These considerations are of relevance for regulatory and access pathways that strive to address the "evidence vs. access" conundrum.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Jacoline C Bouvy
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London, UK
| | | | | | - Stuart D Faulkner
- Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Medical Innovation (CASMI), Headington Oxford, UK
| | | | | | - Yann Le Cam
- EURORDIS-Rare Diseases Europe, Paris, France
| | - Mark H Mayer
- Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Role of Payers in the Development of Cardiovascular Therapeutics. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70:2822-2830. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2017] [Revised: 10/12/2017] [Accepted: 10/16/2017] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|
9
|
Hirsch G, Trusheim M, Cobbs E, Bala M, Garner S, Hartman D, Isaacs K, Lumpkin M, Lim R, Oye K, Pezalla E, Saltonstall P, Selker H. Adaptive Biomedical Innovation: Evolving Our Global System to Sustainably and Safely Bring New Medicines to Patients in Need. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2016; 100:685-698. [PMID: 27626610 PMCID: PMC5129677 DOI: 10.1002/cpt.509] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2016] [Revised: 08/24/2016] [Accepted: 08/31/2016] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
The current system of biomedical innovation is unable to keep pace with scientific advancements. We propose to address this gap by reengineering innovation processes to accelerate reliable delivery of products that address unmet medical needs. Adaptive biomedical innovation (ABI) provides an integrative, strategic approach for process innovation. Although the term "ABI" is new, it encompasses fragmented "tools" that have been developed across the global pharmaceutical industry, and could accelerate the evolution of the system through more coordinated application. ABI involves bringing stakeholders together to set shared objectives, foster trust, structure decision-making, and manage expectations through rapid-cycle feedback loops that maximize product knowledge and reduce uncertainty in a continuous, adaptive, and sustainable learning healthcare system. Adaptive decision-making, a core element of ABI, provides a framework for structuring decision-making designed to manage two types of uncertainty - the maturity of scientific and clinical knowledge, and the behaviors of other critical stakeholders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Hirsch
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
| | - M Trusheim
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
| | - E Cobbs
- Merck, Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA
| | - M Bala
- Sanofi, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - S Garner
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), London, UK
| | - D Hartman
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - K Isaacs
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
| | - M Lumpkin
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - R Lim
- Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - K Oye
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
| | | | - P Saltonstall
- National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD), Danbury, Connecticut, USA
| | - H Selker
- Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Brand A, Evangelatos N, Satyamoorthy K. Public Health Genomics: the essential part for good governance in public health. Int J Public Health 2016; 61:401-3. [PMID: 27177507 PMCID: PMC4909794 DOI: 10.1007/s00038-016-0828-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2016] [Accepted: 04/28/2016] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Angela Brand
- Faculty of Humanities and Sciences, MERIT (Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology), Maastricht University, Boschstraat 24, 6211AX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| | - Nikolaos Evangelatos
- Faculty of Humanities and Sciences, MERIT (Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology), Maastricht University, Boschstraat 24, 6211AX, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- University Clinic for Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University (PMU), Nuremberg, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|