Leveraging EUnetHTA's conceptual framework to compare HTA decision drivers in France, Italy, and Germany from a manufacturer's point of view

Real-world evidence in the reassessment of oncology therapies: payer perceptions from five countries

Aim: This study explored the perceived value of real-world evidence (RWE) in the reassessment of oncology therapies by collecting the perspectives of health technology assessment/payer decision-makers. Materials & methods: A web-based survey was conducted using the Market Access Transformation Rapid Payer Response online portal. 30 participants from France, Germany, Spain, the UK and the USA were recruited based on their expertise. Results: Participants agreed that the most common uses of RWE are to confirm efficacy and safety results from randomized controlled trials and to reevaluate the projected utilization of an oncology therapy. We found variability in other reported uses of RWE. Conclusion: The organizations developing RWE should ensure that their plans recognize the heterogeneity in payer perceptions.

Strengthening the Interface of Evidence-Based Decision Making Across European Regulators and Health Technology Assessment Bodies

OBJECTIVES

Access to medicines in Europe depends on a benefit-risk decision taken by regulators and a relative effectiveness assessment performed by health technology assessment bodies (HTABs) to inform, as one element, a reimbursement decision. Although various similarities in evidence needs exist, understanding of their needs is currently suboptimal and therefore the evidence generated does not always meet their needs. Subsequently, delays in decision making can be expected, negatively affecting access. To overcome this, this study reviewed the evidentiary needs of European regulators and HTABs at European level and analyzed how their collaboration can further facilitate optimal evidence generation plans, evidence use, and evidence presentation.

METHODS

Through systematic literature review, expert interviews, and pairwise comparison of assessment reports by the European Medicines Agency and European network for health technology assessment, respective clinical evidence requirements and impact of product-specific collaboration between European Medicines Agency and HTABs were established.

RESULTS

Clinical evidence needs are quite similar but differences exist in comparator choice, preferred efficacy endpoints, and target population. Results of the impact of collaboration to date were mixed: preapproval joint advice procedures were successful and highly valued by all stakeholders; information exchange at the time of regulatory decision is coming together, yet the European Public Assessment Report can be further optimized; and collaboration on postlicensing evidence generation requirements shows potential but needs solidifying.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate the potential to further improve the evidence utilization across stakeholders to avoid duplication and streamline decision making, to ultimately improve access to medicines for European patients.

Companies' Health Technology Assessment Strategies and Practices in Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain: An Industry Metrics Study

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) has increased in importance in supporting payer decision making by assessing the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of new medicines. Thus, pharmaceutical companies need to address the HTA requirements early during development to improve reimbursement outcomes. Currently, there is a lack of research to assess the impact of HTA on development and jurisdictional outcome from companies’ perspectives. This study aimed to assess companies’ HTA strategy and characterise HTA practice in seven jurisdictions.

Methods: A multi-year, annual study collected information for individual products, focusing on development activities regarding inclusion of HTA requirements and selection of global comparators. The generation of local contextual information, submission strategies and predictability of HTA outcomes was examined jurisdictionally in Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The study questionnaire was built into a secure online data collection platform and data were provided annually by participating companies.

Results: Data for 169 compounds were provided by nine international companies between 2014 and 2018. HTA requirements were implemented in evidence generation plan for 63% of products during development. Global comparators were accepted by HTA bodies for more than half of studied products; Spain showed the highest acceptance rate (85%). Companies took advantages of parallel process in Australia and Canada to shorten product rollout time. Australia demonstrated general consistency in HTA review time, and England had the longest variation (interquartile range, 216 days). Requirements for additional information after submission occurred at all HTA bodies. Germany and Italy showed the highest percentage of products being reimbursed as per regulatory label (80 and 68%, respectively). Canada was the most predictable jurisdiction, with the highest proportion of review outcome (90%) that met companies’ expectations.

Conclusion: Companies are addressing HTA requirements during development for many products; however, they are challenged by varying requirements and practices and product success ultimately depends on how HTA organisations and payers assess added value in the context of the national healthcare systems. This ongoing study created a baseline to help capture fact-based changes for company HTA strategies and HTA body practices.

Review of Relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of pharmaceuticals at the European network for health technology assessment (EUnetHTA): A first step towards a consolidated European perspective on comparative effectiveness & safety?

OBJECTIVES

REAs from Joint Action (JA1-3) were reviewed and compared versus Health Technology Assessments (HTA) in France, Germany, UK, Italy.

METHODS

EUnetHTA REAs published until end of 2019 were identified. Leveraging information derived from the HTA bodies' website key process (population; timing; national HTA bodies involved) and content characteristics (evidence base; comparative therapy, endpoints, subgroups) were determined and compared against national appraisals.

RESULTS

All twelve pharmaceutical EUnetHTA assessment finalized until end of 2019 were included with Ustekinumab being the most recent (October 2019) and Pazopanib the first assessment (September 2012). In all but three assessments EUnetHTA's assessment did not cover the full EMA indication. Since JA3 time intervals between EMA approval and EUnetHTA assessment were < 80 days. Number of (co-)authoring HTA bodies ranged between 2 (in 6 REAs) and > 10 (Pazopanib). EUnetHTA did consider non - RCT evidence in 7 procedures; take a rather inclusive approach regarding appropriate comparative treatments; approach endpoints less restrictively than e.g. the German IQWiG/GBA; not apply a predetermined set of subgroups analyses. In seven REAs, national appraisal showed inhomogeneities across the 4 countries. National appraisals for Sotagliflozin and Ustekinumab were not yet available.

CONCLUSIONS

A joint European HTA assessment has the potential to address the challenge of heterogeneity across the various national European HTA bodies and to determine joint European clinical development data standards that are aligned with regulatory requirements.

Association of Disease Progression With Health-Related Quality of Life Among Adults With Breast, Lung, Pancreatic, and Colorectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Mortality, morbidity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are patient-relevant end points generally considered in the early benefit assessments of new cancer treatments. Progression-related end points, such as time to progression or progression-free survival, are not included, although patients and physicians testify to the detrimental association of disease progression with HRQoL.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association of disease progression and HRQoL in 4 prevalent solid-cancer entities in routine clinical practice.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study evaluated data from 4 prospective, nonintervention, multicenter registries collected between 2011 and 2018 in 203 centers in Germany. Patients' HRQoL was assessed regularly for up to 5 years. The change in HRQoL scores after disease progression was examined with linear mixed models, adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. Patients with metastatic breast, pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancer were recruited at the start of systemic first-line treatment. Data analysis was performed from February 2019 to April 2019.

EXPOSURES

All patients received systemic, palliative first-line treatment according to their physician's choice.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was deterioration of HRQoL associated with disease progression, as measured by 4 validated questionnaires: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General version 4, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 version 3.0, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C15-PAL version 1, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

RESULTS

More than 8000 questionnaires from 2314 patients with 2562 documented disease progressions were analyzed. In total, 464 patients had breast cancer (464 [100.0%] female; median [range] age, 61.6 [26.4-90.1] years), 807 patients had pancreatic cancer (352 [43.6%] female; median [range] age, 70.0 [39.0-93.0] years), 341 patients had lung cancer (118 [34.6%] female; median [range] age, 65.9 [28.4-88.2] years), and 702 patients had colorectal cancer (248 [35.3%] female; median [range] age, 66.9 [26.9-92.1] years). The first disease progression was associated with a statistically significant worsening of 37 of 45 HRQoL scales; for 17 of these scales, the worsening was clinically meaningful. Scale scores for appetite loss (pancreatic cancer, 10.2 points [95% CI, 6.8-13.5 points]; lung cancer, 10.8 points [95% CI, 5.4-16.2 points]; colorectal cancer, 8.8 points [95% CI, 5.5-12.2]; all P < .001), physical functioning (pancreatic cancer, 6.2 points [95% CI, 3.8-8.5 points]; lung cancer, 8.4 points [95% CI, 5.4-11.5 points]; colorectal cancer, 5.0 points [95% CI, 3.0-7.0 points]; all P < .001), and fatigue (pancreatic cancer, 5.5 points [95% CI, 3.0-7.9 points]; lung cancer, 7.7 points [95% CI, 4.3-11.1]; colorectal cancer, 4.5 points [95% CI, 2.1-6.9 points]; all P < .001) were most affected, irrespective of the type of cancer. The association with global HRQoL was most pronounced in lung cancer (6.7 points [95% CI, 3.5-9.9 points]; P < .001) and pancreatic cancer (5.4 points [95% CI, 3.3-7.5 points]; P < .001) and less in colorectal cancer (3.5 points [95% CI, 1.3-5.7 points]; P = .002) and breast cancer (2.4 points [95% CI, 1.0-3.9 points]; P = .001). The second progression was associated with an even larger decrease in HRQoL.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that disease progression is associated with a deterioration in HRQoL among patients with metastatic breast, pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancer. This evidence highlights the importance of progression-related end points, such as time to progression and progression-free survival, as additional patient-relevant end points when evaluating the benefit of new treatments for patients with metastatic cancer.