Perspectives, Expectations, and Concerns of European Patient Advocates on Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products

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.

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.

"I just wanted to speak to someone- and there was no one…": using Burden of Treatment Theory to understand the impact of a novel ATMP on early recipients

BACKGROUND

Advanced therapy medicinal products such as Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy offer ground-breaking opportunities for the treatment of various cancers, inherited diseases, and chronic conditions. With development of these novel therapies continuing to increase it's important to learn from the experiences of patients who were among the first recipients of ATMPs. In this way we can improve the clinical and psychosocial support offered to early patient recipients in the future to support the successful completion of treatments and trials.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a qualitative investigation informed by the principles of the key informant technique to capture the experience of some of the first patients to experience CAR-T therapy in the UK. A directed content analysis was used to populate a theoretical framework informed by Burden of Treatment Theory to determine the lessons that can be learnt in supporting their care, support, and ongoing self-management.

RESULTS

A total of five key informants were interviewed. Their experiences were described within the three domains of the burden of treatment framework; (1) The health care tasks delegated to patients, Participants described the frequency of follow-up and the resources involved, the esoteric nature of the information provided by clinicians; (2) Exacerbating factors of the treatment, which notably included the lack of understanding of the clinical impacts of the treatment in the broader health service, and the lack of a peer network to support patient understanding; (3) Consequences of the treatment, in which they described the anxiety induced by the process surrounding their selection for treatment, and the feeling of loneliness and isolation at being amongst the very first recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

If ATMPs are to be successfully introduced at the rates forecast, then it is important that the burden placed on early recipients is minimised. We have discovered how they can feel emotionally isolated, clinically vulnerable, and structurally unsupported by a disparate and pressured health service. We recommend that where possible, structured peer support be put in place alongside signposting to additional information that includes the planned pattern of follow-up, and the management of discharged patients would ideally accommodate individual circumstances and preferences to minimize the burden of treatment.

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.