The Evolution of AIFA Registries to Support Managed Entry Agreements for Orphan Medicinal Products in Italy

The evolving value assessment of cancer therapies: Results from a modified Delphi study

The move toward early detection and treatment of cancer presents challenges for value assessment using traditional endpoints. Current cancer management rarely considers the full economic and societal benefits of therapies. Our study used a modified Delphi process to develop principles for defining and assessing value of cancer therapies that aligns with the current trajectory of oncology research and reflects broader notions of value. 24 experts participated in consensus-building activities across 5 months (16 took part in structured interactions, including a survey, plenary sessions, interviews, and off-line discussions, while 8 participated in interviews). Discussion focused on: 1) which oncology-relevant endpoints should be used for assessing treatments for early-stage cancer and access decisions for early-stage treatments, and 2) the importance of additional value components and how these can be integrated in value assessments. The expert group reached consensus on 4 principles in relation to the first area (consider oncology-relevant endpoints other than overall survival; build evidence for endpoints that provide earlier indication of efficacy; develop evidence for the next generation of predictive measures; use managed entry agreements supported by ongoing evidence collection to address decision-maker evidence needs) and 3 principles in relation to the second (routinely use patient reported outcomes in value assessments; assess broad economic impact of new medicines; consider other value aspects of relevance to patients and society).

Evolving assessment pathways for precision oncology medicines to improve patient access: a tumor-agnostic lens

BACKGROUND

Genomic and molecular alterations are increasingly important in cancer diagnosis, and scientific advances are opening new treatment avenues. Precision oncology (PO) uses a patient's genomic profile to determine optimal treatment, promising fewer side effects and higher success rates. Within PO, tumor-agnostic (TA) therapies target genomic alterations irrespective of tumor location. However, traditional value frameworks and approval pathways pose challenges which may limit patient access to PO therapies.

OBJECTIVES

This study describes challenges in assessing PO and TA medicines, explores possible solutions, and provides actionable recommendations to facilitate an iterative life-cycle assessment of these medicines.

METHODS

After reviewing the published literature, we obtained insights from key stakeholders and European experts across a range of disciplines, through individual interviews and an industry workshop. The research was guided and refined by an international expert committee through 2 sounding board meetings.

RESULTS

The current challenges faced by PO and TA medicines are multiple and can be demonstrated through real-world examples of the current barriers and opportunities. A life-cycle approach to assessment should be taken, including key actions at the early stages of evidence generation, regulatory and reimbursement stage, as well as payment and adoption solutions that make use of the evolving evidence base. Working toward these solutions to maximize PO medicine value is a shared responsibility and stands to benefit all stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

Our call to action is to expand access to comprehensive genomic testing, foster a learning health care system, enable fast and equitable access to cost-effective treatments, and ultimately improve health outcomes.

Can requests for real-world evidence by the French HTA body be planned? An exhaustive retrospective case-control study of medicinal products appraisals from 2016 to 2021

OBJECTIVES

In France, decisions for pricing and reimbursement for medicinal products are based on appraisals performed by the National authority for health (Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS)). During the appraisal process, additional real-world evidence can be requested as "Post-Registration Studies" (PRS) when there are uncertainties in evidence that could be resolved by additional data collection. To facilitate PRS planning, a retrospective exploratory analysis was conducted to identify the characteristics of medicinal products associated with a PRS request.

METHODS

This analysis encompassed all appraisals finalized between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2021 and compared products for which the appraisal led to a PRS request with those that did not.

RESULTS

Six hundred positive opinions for reimbursement were identified, with a PRS request present in 17 percent (n = 103) of cases. The independent characteristics associated with a PRS request were a mild or moderate clinical benefit score, a major to moderate or minor clinical added value score, previous availability under an early access program, and certain therapeutic areas (neurology, pulmonology, and endocrinology). These findings suggest two different profiles of PRS requests: (i) products for which there is uncertainty in the size of the clinical benefit and (ii) innovative products for which a substantial benefit is expected but uncertainties persist.

CONCLUSIONS

These results will assist health technology developers to better anticipate data generation to promptly address uncertainties identified by HAS. It may also help HAS and other assessment agencies to work together to improve postlaunch evidence generation according to the characteristics of the medicinal products.

High costs, low quality of life, reduced survival, and room for improving treatment: an analysis of burden and unmet needs in glioma

Gliomas are a group of heterogeneous tumors that account for substantial morbidity, mortality, and costs to patients and healthcare systems globally. Survival varies considerably by grade, histology, biomarkers, and genetic alterations such as IDH mutations and MGMT promoter methylation, and treatment, but is poor for some grades and histologies, with many patients with glioblastoma surviving less than a year from diagnosis. The present review provides an introduction to glioma, including its classification, epidemiology, economic and humanistic burden, as well as treatment options. Another focus is on treatment recommendations for IDH-mutant astrocytoma, IDH-mutant oligodendroglioma, and glioblastoma, which were synthesized from recent guidelines. While recommendations are nuanced and reflect the complexity of the disease, maximum safe resection is typically the first step in treatment, followed by radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy using temozolomide or procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine. Immunotherapies and targeted therapies currently have only a limited role due to disappointing clinical trial results, including in recurrent glioblastoma, for which the nitrosourea lomustine remains the de facto standard of care. The lack of treatment options is compounded by frequently suboptimal clinical practice, in which patients do not receive adequate therapy after resection, including delayed, shortened, or discontinued radiotherapy and chemotherapy courses due to treatment side effects. These unmet needs will require significant efforts to address, including a continued search for novel treatment options, increased awareness of clinical guidelines, improved toxicity management for chemotherapy, and the generation of additional and more robust clinical and health economic evidence.

Values, challenges, and responses associated with high-priced potential cures: perspectives of diverse stakeholders in South Korea

BACKGROUND

The emergence of high-priced potential cures has sparked significant health policy discussions in South Korea, where the healthcare system is funded through a single-payer National Health Insurance model. We conducted focus group interviews (FGIs) and accompanying surveys with diverse stakeholders to comprehensively understand related issues and find better solutions to the challenges brought by these technologies.

METHODS

From October to November 2022, 11 FGIs were conducted with stakeholders from various sectors, including government payers, policy and clinical experts, civic and patient organisations, and the pharmaceutical industry, involving a total of 25 participants. These qualitative discussions were supplemented by online surveys to effectively capture and synthesise stakeholder perspectives.

RESULTS

Affordability was identified as a critical concern by 84% of stakeholders, followed by clinical uncertainty (76%) and limited value for money (72%). Stakeholders expressed a preference for both financial-based controls and outcome-based pricing strategies to mitigate these challenges. Despite the support for outcome-based refunds, payers raised concerns about the feasibility of instalment payment models, whether linked to outcomes or not, due to the specific challenges of the Korean reimbursement system and the potential risk of 'cumulative liabilities' from ongoing payments for previously administered treatments. In addition, the FGIs highlighted the need for clear budgetary limits for drugs with high uncertainties, with mixed opinions on the creation of special silo funds (64.0% agreement). Less than half (48%) endorsed the use of external reference pricing, currently applied to such essential drugs in South Korea. A significant majority (84%), predominantly non-pharma stakeholders, advocated for addressing cost-effectiveness uncertainty through re-assessment once long-term clinical data become available.

CONCLUSIONS

This study uncovers a broad agreement among stakeholders on the need for more effective value assessment methodologies for high-priced potential cures, stressing the importance of more robust and comprehensive re-assessment supported by long-term data collection, rather than primarily relying on external reference pricing. Each type of stakeholders exhibited a cautious approach to their specific uncertainties, suggesting that new funding strategies should accommodate these uncertainties with predefined guidelines and agreements prior to the initiation of managed entry agreements.

From Indication-Based Pricing to Blended Approach: Evidence on the Price and Reimbursement Negotiation in Italy

BACKGROUND

New indications for existing medicines are increasing over time. In most countries, drug pricing and reimbursement conditions are renegotiated every time a new indication is approved. There is a growing interest in the price negotiation model for new indications, specifically comparing an indication-based versus blended approach. However, little evidence currently exists regarding the complexity of these negotiations and their impact on actual prices. Italy has recently transitioned from an indication-based approach to a blended price model. This study aims to measure the impact of price and reimbursement negotiation of new indications on discounts (i.e. actual prices) and on the negotiation duration, used as a proxy of its complexity.

METHODS

We considered new indications approved through a European centralized procedure from January 2013 to March 2022 for which the price and reimbursement status was approved in Italy between January 2015 and March 2022, amounting to 52 new indications. Data on the timeframe of the Italian price and reimbursement process and its phases were obtained from publicly available sources. Discounts for the first indication and their subsequent increases for new indications were estimated by comparing ex-factory prices and tendered prices. To calculate p-values, we employed the Mann-Whitney test, and multiple regression models were utilized to examine correlations between negotiation time and the characteristics of the medicines.

RESULTS

The mean time to reimbursement was 603 days, in contrast to 583 days for the first launch. Price negotiation took longer for rare diseases, cancer drugs, and in case of therapies with minor added therapeutic value. On average, the additional discount (on top of discounts for prior indications) was 13%, significantly lower than the mean discount for the first indications approved (24.9%). The discounts increment was lower, but negotiation took longer if a Managed Entry Agreement accompanied the final agreement. Additionally, discounts have increased over the years.

CONCLUSION

The negotiation for new indications takes longer than the first one, and provides, on average, an additional discount of 13%. While our findings bear the potential for significant policy implications, they necessitate prudent interpretation due to a limited number of observations. The increasing trend in additional discounts over time applied to all indications in recent negotiations, may suggest a descending trend of value for new indications and a shift from an indication-based pricing approach to a blended model. Otherwise, budget impact considerations might have outweighed a value-based approach in the recent negotiations. If so, two potential options for restoring a value-based approach are returning to an indication-based pricing or giving explicit and higher weight to value within a blended model.

Recovery of suspended reimbursements of high-cost drugs subjected to monitoring registries and negotiated agreements (MEAs): a tool for governance and clinical appropriateness in the Italian reality

The Monitoring Registries and negotiated agreements (MEAs) established by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) exemplify a pinnacle of excellence in Italian healthcare governance, playing a pivotal role in achieving economic sustainability and ensuring judicious allocation of financial resources. Within a local territorial health company catering to a populace of around 1 million individuals in Italy, an assessment of the meticulous implementation of all negotiation procedures was carried out by scrutinizing the monitoring records. This examination served to pinpoint and address potential issues in the platform management executed by healthcare professionals, including physicians and pharmacists. Such issues had the potential to result in economic setbacks owing to the non-reimbursement from pharmaceutical companies. Through diligent verification undertaken by the pharmacists, a financial recovery amounting to approximately €579,443.4 for the fiscal year 2022 was achieved. The essence of this analysis is to underscore how collaborative, multidisciplinary efforts between physicians and pharmacists yield tangible economic advantages. This collaborative approach ensures a streamlined healthcare system characterized by efficiency, devoid of unnecessary expenditures, and marked by the highest standards of care appropriateness, ultimately serving the best interests of the citizens.

Importance of aligning the implementation of new payment models for innovative pharmaceuticals in European countries

INTRODUCTION

The uptake of complex technologies and platforms has resulted in several challenges in the pricing and reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals. To address these challenges, plenty of concepts have already been described in the scientific literature about innovative value judgment or payment models, which are either (1) remaining theoretical; or (2) applied only in pilots with limited impact on patient access; or (3) applied so heterogeneously in many different countries that it prevents the health care industry from meeting expectations of HTA bodies and health care payers in the evidence requirements or offerings in different jurisdictions.

AREAS COVERED

This paper provides perspectives on how to reduce the heterogeneity of pharmaceutical payment models across European countries in five areas, including 1) extended evaluation frameworks, 2) performance-based risk-sharing agreements, 3) pooled procurement for low volume or urgent technologies, 4) alternative access schemes, and 5) delayed payment models for technologies with high upfront costs.

EXPERT OPINION

Whilst pricing and reimbursement decisions will remain a competence of EU member states, there is a need for alignment of European pharmaceutical payment model components in critical areas with the ultimate objective of improving the equitable access of European patients to increasingly complex pharmaceutical technologies.

The Italian experience with the use of monitoring registers attached to negotiated agreements (MEAs) of the Italian Medicines Agency is a tool for governance and clinical appropriateness

The use of monitoring registers with annexed negotiation agreements (MEAs) of the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) are the pillar of Italian healthcare governance to guarantee the correct allocation of economic healthcare resources. In Italy, an analysis was conducted in the context of a local health authority where all negotiation activities were implemented to verify the amount of reimbursements that can be recovered through the use of all available procedures on the monitoring registers. The purpose of this analysis was to highlight any criticalities which, if not properly addressed by doctors and pharmacists, can lead to considerable financial loss. Correct verification by the hospital pharmacy resulted in an economic recovery of approximately EUR 579,443.40 for the year 2022 and EUR 682,225.30 in the first 9 months of 2023. This analysis is intended to highlight how effective collaboration between doctors and pharmacists can lead to clear economic advantages with an efficient health system to the total benefit of citizens.

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.

Engaging European society at the forefront of cancer research and care: How discussions at the 5th Gago Conference on European Science policy led to the Heidelberg Manifesto

European cancer research stakeholders met in October 2022 in Heidelberg, Germany, at the 5th Gago conference on European Cancer Policy, to discuss the current cancer research and cancer care policy landscape in Europe. Meeting participants highlighted gaps in the existing European programmes focusing on cancer research, including Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP), the Mission on Cancer (MoC), Understanding Cancer (UNCAN.eu), and the joint action CRANE, and put forward the next priorities, in the form of the Heidelberg Manifesto for cancer research. This meeting report presents all discussions that shed light on how infrastructures can be effectively shaped for translational, prevention, clinical and outcomes cancer research, with a focus on implementation and sustainability and while engaging patients and the public. In addition, we summarize recommendations on how to introduce frameworks for the digitalization of European cancer research. Finally, we discuss what structures, commitment, and resources are needed to establish a collaborative cancer research environment in Europe to achieve the scale required for innovation.

How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy?

BACKGROUND

The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes.

METHODS

A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered.

RESULTS

The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses.

Impact of Prior Authorization on Patient Access to Cancer Care

Prior authorization (PA) is a type of utilization review that health insurers apply to control service delivery, payments, and reimbursements of health interventions. The original stated intent of PA was to ensure high-quality standards in treatment delivery while encouraging evidence-based and cost-effective therapeutic choices. However, as currently implemented in clinical practice, PA has been shown to affect the health workforce, adding administrative burden to authorize needed health interventions for patients and often requiring time-consuming peer-to-peer reviews to challenge initial denials. PA is presently required for a wide range of interventions, including supportive care medicines and other essential cancer care interventions. Patients who are denied coverage are commonly forced to receive second-choice options, including less effective or less tolerable options, or are exposed to financial toxicity because of substantial out-of-pocket expenditures, affecting patient-centric outcomes. The development of tools informed by national clinical guidelines to identify standard-of-care interventions for patients with specific cancer diagnoses and the implementation of evidence-based clinical pathways as part of quality improvement efforts of cancer centers have improved patient outcomes and may serve to establish new payment models for health insurers, thereby also reducing administrative burden and delays. The definition of a set of essential interventions and guidelines- or pathways-driven decisions could facilitate reimbursement decisions and thus reduce the need for PAs. Structural changes in how PA is applied and implemented, including a redefinition of its real need, are needed to optimize patient-centric outcomes and support high-quality care of patients with cancer.

Literature Review on Health Emigration in Rare Diseases-A Machine Learning Perspective

The article deals with one of the effects of health inequalities and gaps in access to treatments for rare diseases, namely health-driven emigration. The purpose of the paper is to systematize knowledge about the phenomenon of health emigration observed among families affected by rare diseases, for which reimbursed treatment is available, but only in selected countries. The topic proved to be niche; the issue of "health emigration in rare diseases" is an area for exploration. Therefore, the further analysis used text mining and machine learning methods based on a database selected based on keywords related to this issue. The results made it possible to systematize the guesses made by researchers in management and economic fields, to identify the most common keywords and thematic clusters around the perspective of the patient, drug manufacturer and treatment reimbursement decision-maker, and the perspective integrating all the others. Since the topic of health emigration was not directly addressed in the selected sources, the authors attempted to define the related concepts and discussed the importance of this phenomenon in managing the support system in rare diseases. Thus, they indicated directions for further research in this area.

Early access for innovative oncology medicines: a different story in each nation

BACKGROUND

As innovative oncology medicines are rapidly developed, there is increasing pressure on payers to offer patients timely access to life-saving therapies. The uncertainty surrounding these therapies when phase III clinical trials are pending has necessitated new, adapted pathways to market access, with timelines that greatly vary by country. Understanding differences between pathways may identify opportunities to expedite patient access universally.

OBJECTIVES

To describe early access pathways for new oncology medicines among selected countries with established health technology assessment (HTA) frameworks and publicly funded health systems, with a special focus on real-world evidence (RWE).

METHODS

We reviewed the HTA agency websites of the selected OECD countries: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for England and Wales; Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) for France; IQWiG and G-BA for Germany; Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) for Italy; Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) for Australia; and CADTH and Institut National d'Excellence en Santé et Services Sociaux (INESSS) for Canada as the primary source of evidence.

RESULTS

Processes for early patient access to innovative oncology therapies varied across selected countries; however, most countries have an established pathway for publicly funded early access (England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, and Australia). The utilization of RWE to support earlier access (coverage with evidence) also varied by country, with some HTA organizations being actively engaged in these agreements (NICE, AIFA, and HAS) and others having no established processes in place (G-BA and CADTH/INESSS).

CONCLUSIONS

This review of early access pathways for novel oncology medicines found substantial variability between countries of interest. Coverage with evidence frameworks may provide a unique opportunity for industry and payers to collaborate on earlier access to innovative cancer therapies with life-saving potential.

Outcome-based reimbursement in Central-Eastern Europe and Middle-East

Outcome-based reimbursement models can effectively reduce the financial risk to health care payers in cases when there is important uncertainty or heterogeneity regarding the clinical value of health technologies. Still, health care payers in lower income countries rely mainly on financial based agreements to manage uncertainties associated with new therapies. We performed a survey, an exploratory literature review and an iterative brainstorming in parallel about potential barriers and solutions to outcome-based agreements in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and in the Middle East (ME). A draft list of recommendations deriving from these steps was validated in a follow-up workshop with payer experts from these regions. 20 different barriers were identified in five groups, including transaction costs and administrative burden, measurement issues, information technology and data infrastructure, governance, and perverse policy outcomes. Though implementing outcome-based reimbursement models is challenging, especially in lower income countries, those challenges can be mitigated by conducting pilot agreements and preparing for predictable barriers. Our guidance paper provides an initial step in this process. The generalizability of our recommendations can be improved by monitoring experiences from pilot reimbursement models in CEE and ME countries and continuing the multistakeholder dialogue at national levels.

Value assessment of medicinal products by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and French National Authority for Health (HAS): Similarities and discrepancies

The evaluation of pharmaceutical innovation and therapeutic value is an increasingly complex exercise for which different approaches are adopted at the national level, despite the need for standardisation of processes and harmonisation of public health decisions. The objective of our analysis was to compare the approaches of the AIFA (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco) and the HAS (Haute Autorité de Santé) in assessing the same medicinal products. In Italy, the 1525/2017 AIFA Deliberation introduces a transparent scheme for the evaluation of innovative status (innovative, conditional, not innovative) based on the therapeutic added value (TAV), therapeutic need, and quality of evidence. In contrast, in France, the HAS makes judgements using the effective clinical benefit (Service Médical Rendu) and improvement of effective clinical benefit (Amélioration du Service Médical Rendu, ASMR). This analysis focused on medicinal products evaluated both by the AIFA and by the HAS from July 2017 to September 2021. Similarities between AIFA and HAS evaluations were investigated in terms of the TAV, recognition of innovativeness, and the ASMR. Both total and partial agreements were considered relevant. Therefore, raw agreement, Cohen's kappa (weighted and unweighted), and Bangdiwala's B-statistic were estimated. A total of 102 medicinal products were included in this study. Out of these, 38 (37.2%) were orphan drugs, while 56 (54.9%) had a clinical indication for the treatment of cancer. The AIFA and HAS reached a higher level of agreement on the innovativeness status compared with the TAV. A moderate total agreement emerged in the recognition of innovativeness (k = 0.463, p-value ≤0.0001), and partial agreement was substantial (equal weight k = 0.547, squared k = 0.638), while a lack of agreement resulted in a comparison of the TAV according to the AIFA and the ASMR recognised by the HAS. Indeed, whereas the AIFA determined the TAV to be important, the HAS considered it to be moderate. In addition, whereas the AIFA identified a bias towards a moderate TAV, the HAS identified a bias towards a minor ASMR. A higher level of agreement was reached, both on the TAV and on innovative status, for less critical medical products (non-cancer-related, or non-orphan, or with a standard European Medicines Agency approval). These results underline the importance of implementing European procedures that are more broadly aligned in terms of value definition criteria.

A Proposal for Value-Based Managed Entry Agreements in an Environment of Technological Change and Economic Challenge for Publicly Funded Healthcare Systems

Managed entry agreements (MEA) represent one of the main topics of discussion between the European National Payers Authorities. Several initiatives on the subject have been organized over the past few years and the scientific literature is full of publications on the subject. There is currently little international sharing of information between payers, mainly as a result of the confidentiality issues. There are potential benefits from the mutual sharing of information, both about the existence of MEAs and on the outcomes and results. The importance of involving all the players in the decision-making process on market access for a medicinal product (MP) is that it may help to make new therapies available to patients in a shorter time. The aim of this project is to propose a new pathway of value-based MEA (VBMEA), based on the analysis of the current Italian pricing and reimbursement framework. This requires elaboration of a transparent appraisal and MEA details with at least a 24-month contract. The price of the MP is therefore valued based on the analysis of the VBMEA registries of the Italian Medicines Agency. Although the proposal focuses on the Italian context, a similar approach could also be adapted in other nations, considering the particularities of the single health technology assessment (HTA)/payer system.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prescription of sacubitril/valsartan in Italy

AIMS

The present study sought to examine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures on the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) in Italy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) monitoring registries were analysed. The sacubitril/valsartan monitoring registry is based on 6-month prescriptions. A monthly aggregation on new activations throughout the observational period was computed. From March to December 2020, the initiation of new HF patients on sacubitril/valsartan decreased by nearly 40% with prescriptions dropping to values similar to 2018 when the registry was still operated off-line. A slight increase in prescriptions was observed after the lockdown measures were lifted, but prescriptions remained constantly below the pre-lockdown period.

CONCLUSION

A marked and worrisome decline during the COVID-19 pandemic in the activation of a life-saving treatment such as sacubitril/valsartan was observed. This decline was clearly linked to the lockdown measures instated to counteract the COVID-19 pandemic. Upcoming studies should analyse the occurrence of new cases of HF as well as the severity of patients admitted to hospitals and their mortality compared to pre-pandemic levels.

Postlaunch evidence generation practices among health technology assessment bodies in Europe

OBJECTIVES

The term Postlaunch Evidence Generation (PLEG) refers to evidence generated after the launch or licensing of a health technology. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the implementation of these practices in the European Union in order to explore cross-border cooperation opportunities.

METHODS

In December 2019, a survey composed of nine closed-ended questions with multiple choice answers about the PLEG practices in each country was sent to all twenty-five dedicated work package (WP5B) partners of the European Network of Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action 3. In addition to the survey, the national practices were discussed during a face-to-face meeting with WP5B partners.

RESULTS

Twelve Health TechnologyAssessment (HTA) bodies completed the survey. Of these, eleven reported procedures in place for official requests for PLEGs in their remit. In the large majority of cases, the requests are made at the time of the assessment/appraisal. Several agencies participate in the definition of the scope of the PLEG or review of its protocol. Data collection and analysis mainly lie with companies for pharmaceuticals, whereas it is more the responsibility of the HTA bodies for medical devices. Only one agency owns the data and is able to exchange them without asking permission.

CONCLUSIONS

Most agencies recommend European collaboration on PLEG commence once the evidence gaps have been defined or during the production of the HTA report in the case of European joint assessment.

Can We Afford to Exclude Patients Throughout Health Technology Assessment?

Health technology assessment (HTA) is intended to determine the value of health technologies and, once a technology is recommended for funding, bridge clinical research and practice. Understanding the values and beliefs expressed by patients and health professionals can help guide this knowledge transfer and work toward managing the expectations of end users. We gathered patient and patient group leader experiences to gain insights into the roles that patients and patient advocacy groups are playing. We argue that through partnerships and co-creation between HTA professionals, researchers and patient advocates we can strengthen the HTA process and better align with service delivery where person-centered care and shared decision making are key elements. Patient experiences and knowledge are important to the democratization of evidence and the legitimacy of HTAs. Patient preference studies are used to balance benefits with potential harms of technologies, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can measure what matters to patients over time. A change in culture in HTA bodies is occurring and with further transformative thinking patients can be involved in every step of the HTA process. Patients have a right to be involved in HTAs, with patients' values central to HTA deliberations on a technology and where patients can provide valuable insights to inform HTA decision-making; and in ensuring that HTA methodologies evolve. By evaluating the implementation of HTA recommendations we can determine how HTA benefits patients and their communities. Our shared commitment can positively effect the common good and provide benefits to individual patients and their communities.

Implementing Outcomes-Based Managed Entry Agreements for Rare Disease Treatments: Nusinersen and Tisagenlecleucel

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Enthusiasm for the use of outcomes-based managed entry agreements (OBMEAs) to manage uncertainties apparent at the time of appraisal/pricing and reimbursement of new medicines has waned over the past decade, as challenges in establishment, implementation and re-appraisal have been identified. With the recent advent of innovative treatments for rare diseases that have uncertainties in the clinical evidence base, but which could meet a high unmet need, there has been renewed interest in the potential of OBMEAs. The objective of this research was to review the implementation of OBMEAs for two case studies across countries in the European Union, Australia and Canada, to identify good practices that could inform development of tools to support implementation of OBMEAs.

METHODS

To investigate how OBMEAs are being implemented with rare disease treatments, we collected information from health technology assessment/payer experts in countries that had implemented OBMEAs for either nusinersen in spinal muscular atrophy or tisagenlecleucel in two cancer indications. Operational characteristics of the OBMEAs that were publicly available were documented. Then, the experts discussed issues in implementing these OBMEAs and specific approaches taken to overcome challenges.

RESULTS

The OBMEAs identified were based on individual outcomes to ensure appropriate use, manage continuation of treatment and in two cases linked to payment schedules, or they were population based, coverage with evidence development. For nusinersen, population-based OBMEAs are documented in Belgium, England and the Netherlands and individual-based schemes in Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy and Lithuania. For tisagenlecleucel, there were population-based schemes in Australia, Belgium, England and France and individual-based schemes in Italy and Spain. Comparison of the OBMEA constructs showed some clear published frameworks and clarity of the uncertainties to be addressed that were similar across countries. Agreements were generally made between the marketing authorisation holder and the payer with involvement of expert physicians. Only England and the Netherlands involved patients. Italy used its long-established, national, web-based, treatment-specific data collection system linked to reimbursement and Spain has just developed such a national treatment registry system. Other countries relied on a variety of data collection systems (including clinical registries) and administrative data. Durations of agreements varied for these treatments as did processes for interim reporting. The processes to ensure data quality, completeness and sufficiency for re-analysis after coverage with evidence development were not always clear, neither were analysis plans.

CONCLUSIONS

These case studies have shown that important information about the constructs of OBMEAs for rare disease treatments are publicly available, and for some jurisdictions, interim reports of progress. Outcomes-based managed entry agreements can play an important role not only in reimbursement, but also in treatment optimisation. However, they are complex to implement and should be the exception and not the rule. More recent OBMEAs have developed document covenants among stakeholders or electronic systems to provide assurances about data sufficiency. For coverage with evidence development, there is an opportunity for greater collaboration among jurisdictions to share processes, develop common data collection agreements, and share interim and final reports. The establishment of an international public portal to host such reports would be particularly valuable for rare disease treatments.