Relative effectiveness assessments of oncology medicines for pricing and reimbursement decisions in European countries

BACKGROUND

There is a debate on the added clinical value of new, expensive, anticancer treatments. Among European decision makers, the relevance of commonly used end points in trials, especially overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL), varies, leading to the available evidence being valued differently. This research studies the extent to which the value of end points for cancer medicines differs among European decision makers.

METHODS

We compared guidelines and relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of medicines for pricing or reimbursement decisions in England, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, and Scotland. Anticancer medicines that received marketing authorization in Europe between 2011 and 2013 with at least four available national REAs were evaluated. A total of 79 REAs were included.

RESULTS

Health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines indicate a preference for clinically and patient relevant end points such as OS and QoL above surrogate end points. Most guidelines do not specify whether PFS is considered a surrogate or patient-relevant end point. The number of REAs included per jurisdiction varied between 7 (The Netherlands) and 18 (Germany). OS data were included in all REAs and were the preferred end point by HTA agencies, but these data were not always mature or robust. QoL data are included in only 54% of the REAs, with a limited impact on the recommendations. PFS data are included in 70% of the REAs, but the extent to which HTA agencies find PFS relevant varies.

CONCLUSIONS

European decision-making on relative effectiveness of anticancer medicines is affected by a gap in requested versus available clinical evidence, mainly because the regulator is willing to accept some degree of clinical uncertainty. A multi-stakeholder debate would be essential to align concrete robust evidence requirements in oncology and a collectively shared definition for relevant clinical benefit, which will benefit patients and society in general.

[Benefit assessment of drugs]

In Germany, new drugs are subject to a benefit assessment at the time of their market access. This "early benefit assessment" is the method primarily used for the benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany. While for the authorization of a drug a positive risk-benefit ratio is sufficient, early benefit assessment examines whether the new drug has an added benefit compared with other therapies, and thus differs significantly from authorization. For the evaluation, the manufacturer is required to submit a dossier, which must contain all the relevant studies. Early benefit assessment is very transparent in international comparisons, because all the relevant data and the evaluation report will be published. The assessment is carried out with regard to the evidence-based standard of care (the "appropriate comparator"). If the new drug is found to have an additional benefit, the extent of this added benefit is assessed. In addition, groups of patients should be identified with the particular extent of the added benefit. Therefore, subgroup analyses have to be carried out frequently. Often, for new drugs, only registration studies are available. General requirements for such studies (e.g., placebo comparison, endpoints) and decisions regarding the approval process (e.g., dosage regimens) can affect the level of confidence of these studies in the benefit assessment. Joint scientific advice by regulatory authorities and HTA (health technology assessment) agencies are provided to solve this problem. However, this is not possible without additional expense for the pharmaceutical companies.