The Iterative Development of Medicines Through the European Medicine Agency's Adaptive Pathway Approach

Advancing the role of real-world evidence in comparative effectiveness research

Aim: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is essential for making informed decisions about drug access. It provides insights into the effectiveness and safety of new drugs compared with existing treatments, thereby guiding better healthcare decisions and ensuring that new therapies meet the real-world needs of patients and healthcare systems. Objective: To provide a tool that assists analysts and decision-makers in identifying the most suitable analytical approach for answering a CER question, given specific data availability contexts. Methods: A systematic literature review of the scientific literature was performed and existing regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) guidance were evaluated to identify and compare recommendations and best practices. Based on this review a methods flowchart that synthesizes current practices and requirements was proposed. Results: The review did not find any papers that clearly identified the most appropriate analytical approach for answering CER questions under various conditions. Therefore, a methods flowchart was designed to inform analyst and decision makers choices starting from a well-defined scientific question. Conclusion: The proposed methods flowchart offers clear guidance on CER methodologies across a range of settings and research needs. It begins with a well-defined research question and considers multiple feasibility aspects related to CER. This tool aims to standardize methods, ensure rigorous and consistent research quality and promote a culture of evidence-based decision-making in healthcare.

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.

Preclinical Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Studies and Clinical Trials in the Drug Development Process of EMA-Approved Antibacterial Agents: A Review

Development of new antibacterial agents is necessary as drug-resistant bacteria are a threat to global health. In Europe, the European Medicines Agency has been guiding this development process for more than two decades. We investigated preclinical and clinical pre-approval studies to illuminate the current authorization process with emphasis on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic approaches and clinical phases. All centrally authorized systemic antibacterial and antimycobacterial drugs within the European Union were included without any time restriction. Additionally, US Food and Drug Administration-approved antibiotics of the previous 3 years, which were not yet approved by the European Medicines Agency, were included. We focused on preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies and phase II and phase III clinical trials. Furthermore, we looked at the recommended dosing regimens and approved indications. In this review, we designed tree diagrams as a new means of illustrating the development process of antibiotics to relate pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic phase II and III studies to approved indications. We included 23 (European Medicines Agency, 18; US Food and Drug Administration, 5) antimicrobial agents. Tetracyclines, carbapenems, and cephalosporins were the leading classes. The recommended dosing intervals were significantly shorter in time- vs exposure-dependent drugs (median 8 vs 12, p = 0.006). The majority of approved indications (i.e., acute bacterial skin and soft-tissue infection, community-acquired pneumonia, complicated intra-abdominal infection, complicated urinary tract infection, and complicated skin and soft-tissue infection) used non-inferiority trials. Phase II and III clinical trials investigating community-acquired pneumonia involved the fewest patients. Some promising drugs were marketed in recent years; the individual steps to their authorizations are illuminated. We confirmed the relevance of preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies in dosing optimization and decision making in antimicrobial drug development. Non-inferiority clinical trials predominated.

Integrating Real-World Evidence in the Regulatory Decision-Making Process: A Systematic Analysis of Experiences in the US, EU, and China Using a Logic Model

Real world evidence (RWE) and real-world data (RWD) are drawing ever-increasing attention in the pharmaceutical industry and drug regulatory authorities (DRAs) all over the world due to their paramount role in supporting drug development and regulatory decision making. However, there is little systematic documentary analysis about how RWE was integrated for the use by the DRAs in evaluating new treatment approaches and monitoring post-market safety. This study aimed to analyze and discuss the integration of RWE into regulatory decision-making process from the perspective of DRAs. Different development strategies to develop and adopt RWE by the DRAs in the US, Europe, and China were reviewed and compared, and the challenges encountered were discussed. It was found that different strategies on development of RWE were applied by FDA, EMA, and NMPA. The extent to which RWE was adopted in China was relatively limited compared to that in the US and EU, which was highly related to the national pharmaceutical environment and development stages. A better understanding of the overall goals, inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes in developing RWE will help inform actions to harness RWD and leverage RWE for better health care decisions.

Demonstrating the value of digital health: Guidance on contextual evidence gathering for companies in different stages of maturity

Application of value-based healthcare policies affects all actors in social and health care field, including the Digital Health Intervention (DHI) providers aiming to enter the industry or expand their market. Apparent lack of fit between evidence and expectations inhibits the growth of DHI companies. The companies need efficient and credible methods to access and demonstrate the value of their DHIs. Building on the stage-of-maturity logic presented in World Health Organization's (WHO) guide of monitoring and evaluating digital health interventions and Context-Intervention-Mechanism-Outcome (CIMO) logic, we provide a potential approach for DHI companies to assess the evidence needed in their current situation. The proposed approach takes into account the company's future development goals and the business environment, reflecting for every stage of technology maturity according to the WHO guidelines and through the CIMO lens. The focus is on specific intervention and its fit for different organizational and national contexts. The solution guides the research process of the company to understand which evidence-gathering topics should be addressed. This evidence can be beneficial for companies to enter into, occupy, expand or sustain in the domestic or international market.

Improving Interactions Between Health Technology Assessment Bodies and Regulatory Agencies: A Systematic Review and Cross-Sectional Survey on Processes, Progress, Outcomes, and Challenges

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.

International Experience in Therapeutic Value and Value-Based Pricing: A Rapid Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVES

To characterize at a global level the concept of therapeutic value (TV) and describe the experience of value-based pricing (VBP) policies in 6 reference countries.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review of the literature that addressed 2 exploratory research questions. A systematic and exhaustive search was carried out up to July 2018 in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science.

RESULTS

The concepts of TV and VBP are related; value frameworks for medicines should include social preferences, comparative effectiveness, safety, adoption viability, social impact, high quality of evidence, severity of illness, and innovation. The added therapeutic value (ATV) is the manner of measuring the therapeutic advantages of new medicines compared with existing ones in terms of comparative effectiveness and safety. There are variations in the mechanisms of reimbursement and drug pricing regulation between the countries of study.

CONCLUSION

In a VBP system it is essential to establish the TV and ATV of a new medicine. Although there are no methodological guidelines for the implementation of VBP policies, the process implies from the beginning the definition of TV categories that will be included in the drug pricing and reimbursement systems. Agreements between the pharmaceutical industry and governments have become a useful tool as a negotiating mechanism in most countries.

European Medicines Agency's Priority Medicines Scheme at 2 Years: An Evaluation of Clinical Studies Supporting Eligible Drugs

The Priority Medicines (PRIME) scheme was launched by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2016 to expedite the development and approval of promising products targeting conditions with high unmet medical need. Manufacturers of PRIME drugs receive extensive regulatory advice on their trial designs. Until June 2018, the EMA granted PRIME status to 39 agents, evaluated in 138 studies (102 initiated before and 36 after PRIME eligibility). A third of the studies forming the basis of PRIME designation were randomized controlled trials, and a quarter of the studies were blinded. There was no statistically significant difference between trials initiated before and after PRIME designation in terms of randomized design and use of blinding. However, significantly more efficacy studies included a clinical end point after PRIME designation than before, and significantly fewer included surrogate measures alone. There were no statistically significant differences between the trial designs of PRIME and non-PRIME-designated products.