Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments

Clinical Value of Molecular Targets and FDA-Approved Genome-Targeted Cancer Therapies

Importance

The number of new genome-targeted cancer drugs has increased, offering the possibility of personalized therapy, often at a very high cost.

Objective

To assess the validity of molecular targets and therapeutic benefits of US Food and Drug Administration-approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on the outcomes of their corresponding pivotal clinical trials.

Design and Settings

In this cohort study, all genome-targeted cancer drugs that were FDA-approved between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed. From FDA drug labels and trial reports, key characteristics of pivotal trials were extracted, including the outcomes assessed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit for their approved indications was evaluated using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Substantial clinical benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for curative intent and 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. Molecular targets qualifying for ESCAT category level I-A and I-B associated with substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS were rated as high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

Results

A total of 50 molecular-targeted drugs covering 84 indications were analyzed. Forty-five indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or phase 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials, and 48 (57%) were approved on the basis of subgroup analyses. By each indication, 46 of 84 primary end points (55%) were overall response rate (median [IQR] overall response rate, 57% [40%-69%]; median [IQR] duration of response, 11.1 [9.2-19.8] months). Among the 84 pivotal trials supporting these 84 indications, 38 trials (45%) had I-A ESCAT targetability, and 32 (38%) had I-B targetability. Overall, 24 of 84 trials (29%) demonstrated substantial clinical benefit via ESMO-MCBS. Combining these ratings, 24 of 84 indications (29%) were associated with high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cohort study demonstrate that among recently approved molecular-targeted cancer therapies, fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial patient benefits at approval. Benefit frameworks such as ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT can help physicians, patients, and payers identify therapies with the greatest clinical potential.

The Critical Intersect of Regulations, Health Technology Assessment, and Drug Safety Assessments

Health technology assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process that determines the value of health technology at different points in its lifecycle. Safety issues have become more important since regulatory authorities are increasingly adopting flexible standards, processes, and evidentiary requirements for drug approval. In this article, we compared the different role of regulatory authorities and HTA agencies. Additionally, the experience of regulatory-HTA collaboration for assessment and/or decision-making on safety issues in the lifecycle of a health technology is illustrated, including olmesartan (angiotensin II receptor antagonist) and the direct-acting hepatitis C virus (HCV) antiviral agents. Post-licensing data can be derived from various sources such as electronic health records, medical claims, drug and disease registries, post-authorization safety studies (PASS) or post-authorization safety efficacy studies (PAES), periodic benefit-risk assessment reports, as well as HTA reassessment reports, which incorporate utilization information from patients in a real-world setting and provide crucial evidence for various purposes. With the ongoing accumulation of safety and efficacy information during post-regulatory approval, a standardized process for continuous data collection and active reassessment of risk and benefit becomes crucial for managing the lifecycle of health technologies. In order to define evidence requirements clearly, reduce uncertainty, and minimize delays in HTA approval, early engagement and collaboration of HTA agencies in the regulatory review processes have become more common. However, there is currently limited interaction and collaboration between regulatory authorities and HTA agencies. This article aims to identify the challenges faced by regulators and HTA agencies today, emphasizing the significance of conducting regulatory reviews and health technology assessments throughout a technology's lifecycle, underlining the value of utilizing real-world data and evidence, and emphasizing the necessity of enhancing collaboration between regulatory authorities and HTA agencies, all within the overarching context of drug safety.

The impact of level of documentation on the accessibility and affordability of new drugs in Norway

Introduction: Over the preceding decade, an increasing number of drugs have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with limited knowledge of their relative efficacy. This is due to the utilization of non-randomized, single-arm studies, surrogate endpoints, and shorter follow-up time. The impact of this trend on the accessibility and affordability of newly approved drugs in Europe remains uncertain. The primary objective of this study is to provide insights into the issues of accessibility and affordability of new drugs in the Norwegian healthcare system. Method: The presented study entails an analysis of all reimbursement decisions for hospital drugs in Norway spanning 2021-2022. The included drugs were approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2022, with the majority (91%) receiving approval between 2018 and 2022. The drugs were categorized based on the level of documentation of relative efficacy. Approval rates and costs (confidential net-prices) were compared. Results: A total of 35% (70/199) of the reimbursement decisions were characterized by limited certainty regarding relative efficacy and as a consequence the Norwegian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body did not present an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the HTA report. Within this category, a lower percentage of drugs (47%) gained reimbursement approval compared to those with a higher certainty level, which were presented with an ICER (58%). On average, drugs with an established relative efficacy were accepted with a 4.4-fold higher cost (confidential net-prices). These trends persisted when specifically examining oncology drugs. Conclusion: Our study underscores that a substantial number of recently introduced drugs receive reimbursement regardless of the level of certainty concerning relative efficacy. However, the results suggest that payers prioritize documented over potential efficacy. Given that updated information on relative efficacy may emerge post-market access, a potential solution to address challenges related to accessibility and affordability in Europe could involve an increased adoption of market entry agreements. These agreements could allow for price adjustments after the presentation of new knowledge regarding relative efficacy, potentially resolving some of the current challenges.

Do France, Germany, and Italy agree on the added therapeutic value of medicines?

OBJECTIVES

The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medicines is performed separately at the country level with some differences, but Italy, France, and Germany have implemented price and reimbursement systems strongly focused on the Added Therapeutic Value (ATV). This study investigates the level of agreement on ATV assessments by Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), and Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA).

METHODS

A database was created collecting all information about drugs with innovativeness status requests in Italy from July 2017 to December 2022 and populated with the corresponding HAS and G-BA ATV assessments. The primary comparative analysis was conducted by grouping the ATV ratings into "higher added value" and "lower or no added value", while a secondary analysis considered the Italian innovativeness status as a criterion to include the quality of evidence assessment. The concordance between ATV assessments was investigated through percentage agreement and unweighted Cohen k-value.

RESULTS

189 medicines/indications were included. The greatest agreement was found when comparing G-BA versus HAS (82 percent; k = 0.61, substantial agreement). Lower levels of agreements were observed for AIFA versus HAS and AIFA versus G-BA (respectively 52 percent; k = 0.17 and 57 percent; k = 0.25). The secondary analysis led to a reconciliation to moderate agreement for AIFA versus HAS (72 percent; k = 0.45) and AIFA versus G-BA (74 percent; k = 0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

A high degree of concordance between HTA organizations is reached when considering jointly ATV and quality of evidence, suggesting that the system is extensively mature to make a Joint Clinical Assessment, avoiding duplications and reducing access inequalities.

Mapping the characteristics, concepts and methodologies of matching-adjusted indirect comparison studies assessing pharmacological therapies in oncology: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) studies are a subtype of indirect comparison, which uses propensity score weighting to enhance comparability. This method adjusts aggregated data based on covariables from individual patient data from studies to produce population-adjusted indirect comparisons. Some national Health Technology Assessment agencies have recently received submissions containing MAIC models. However, there can be a lack of confidence in its estimates when they are poorly reported and inconsistent with other techniques. The objective of this study is to map the characteristics, concepts and methodology of MAIC studies used for pharmacological therapies in the field of oncology.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A scoping review methodology will be applied following the Joanna Briggs Institute framework and the results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Studies that used MAIC to compare treatments in oncology conditions will be considered eligible. A systematic search will be conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. No restriction of location or language will be applied. Study screening will be documented and presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. Data will be extracted and recorded on a predefined data form and will be presented in a tabular form accompanied by a descriptive summary.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval is required for this study. The results of this scoping review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.

Marketing authorisation and pricing of FDA-approved cancer drugs in Brazil: a retrospective analysis

Background

Most cancer drugs enter the US market first. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of new cancer drugs may influence regulatory decisions in other settings. The study examined whether characteristics of available evidence at FDA approval influenced time-to-marketing authorisation (MA) in Brazil, and price differences between the two countries.

Methods

All new FDA-approved cancer drugs from 2010 to 2019 were matched to drugs with MA and prices approved in Brazil by December 2020. Characteristics of main studies, availability of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), overall survival (OS) benefit, added therapeutic benefit, and prices were compared.

Findings

Fifty-six FDA-approved cancer drugs with matching indications received a MA at the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa) after a median of 522 days following US approval (IQR: 351-932). Earlier authorisation in Brazil was associated with availability of RCT (median: 506 vs 760 days, p = 0.031) and evidence of OS benefit (390 vs 543 days, p = 0.019) at FDA approval. At Brazilian marketing authorisation, a greater proportion of cancer drugs had main RCTs (75% vs 60.7%) and OS benefit (42.9% vs 21.4%) than that in the US. Twenty-eight (50%) drugs did not demonstrate added therapeutic benefit over drugs for the same indication in Brazil. Median approved prices of new cancer drugs were 12.9% lower in Brazil compared to the US (adjusted by Purchasing Power Parity). However, for drugs with added therapeutic benefit median prices were 5.9% higher in Brazil compared to the US, while 17.9% lower for those without added benefit.

Interpretation

High-quality clinical evidence accelerated the availability of cancer medicines in Brazil. The combination of marketing and pricing authorisation in Brazil may favour the approval of cancer drugs with better supporting evidence, and more meaningful clinical benefit albeit with variable degree of success in achieving lower prices compared to the US.

Funding

None.

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.