Value based healthcare and Health Technology Assessment for emerging market countries: joint efforts to overcome barriers.

INTRODUCTION: This paper summarizes the results from a forum of healthcare experts, academia representatives, and public agency officials from emerging and established market countries on Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Presentations from experts provided insights into current developments and challenges, followed by interactive roundtable discussions. Emerging markets have unique healthcare systems, patient populations, resource constraints and needs. AREAS COVERED: Each roundtable explored specific topics including the role of HTA and Real-world evidence (RWE) in healthcare decision-making, challenges in biosimilar value assessment and incorporating non-price criteria reflecting context-related specifications of emerging markets such as the multifaceted nature of value in healthcare decision-making, emphasizing stakeholder perspectives and system complexities. EXPERT OPINION: RWE emerged as important in understanding biosimilar value recognition and decision-making processes, with insights into its applications and challenges. Recommendations were provided for utilizing Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in pharmaceutical procurement, particularly for off-patent medicines, underscoring the importance of comprehensive evaluation frameworks and adherence to value-based principles. Overall findings suggest avenues for collaboration between industry, academia, and public agencies to address implementation barriers and promote equitable, efficient, and high-quality healthcare systems in emerging markets through public-private partnerships, joint capacity building and training initiatives, and knowledge transfers.

Budget Impact of Disease-Modifying Treatments and a CRISPR Gene-Edited Therapy for Sickle Cell Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD) has traditionally focused on symptomatic and preventative care. Recent advances in novel therapeutic developments, likely to be orphan-designated, are anticipated to carry a substantial price tag. This study assesses the potential budget impact of adopting disease-modifying treatments, crizanlizumab and voxelotor, and pioneering CRISPR gene-edited therapy, CTX001, in the Belgian healthcare system. METHODS: The perspective of the Belgian healthcare payer (RIZIV-INAMI including patient copayments), a 5-year horizon with a 2-10% uptake of disease-modifying interventions, and a 2% uptake of CTX001 were considered. Data, encompassing target population, current (chronic and acute management, curative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation) and new (crizanlizumab, voxelotor, and CTX001) interventions, clinical effectiveness, adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs, were gathered through a comprehensive literature review (first phase) and two Delphi panels involving hematologists (second phase). The cost difference between a "world with and without crizanlizumab, voxelotor, and CTX001" was calculated to obtain the budget impact. Three scenario analyses were conducted: a 5-13% and 4% uptake analysis, a 10-18% and 8% uptake analysis, respectively for disease-modifying treatments (crizanlizumab and voxelotor) and CTX001, and a 0% crizanlizumab uptake and managed entry agreements analysis . A ± 20% univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the analysis. RESULTS: The total five-year cumulative budget impact was estimated at €30,024,968, with 91% attributed to drug acquisition costs. The largest budget impact share was for CTX001 (€25,575,150), while crizanlizumab (€2,301,095) and voxelotor (€2,148,723) was relatively small. In scenarios one and three, a two-fold increase of the cumulative budget impact to €60,731,772 and a four-fold increase to €120,846,256 from the base case was observed. In scenario three, this budget impact decreased by 63% to €11,212,766. Patient population size, number of treated patients, and drug costs influenced the analysis the most, while discontinuation, acute crisis, and adverse event rates had comparatively minimal impact. CONCLUSIONS: Belgian decision-makers may consider alternative financing models, such as outcome-based risk-sharing agreements or annuities, to ensure sustainable coverage of these treatments. This study adheres to recommended practices for assessing budget impact of orphan drugs, distinguishing it from earlier studies with potentially weaker methodologies.

The broader benefits of vaccines: methodologies for inclusion in economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: As the societal value of vaccines is increasingly recognized, there is a need to examine methodological approaches that could be used to integrate these various benefits in the economic evaluation of a vaccine. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A literature review and two expert panel meetings explored methodologies to value herd immunity, health spillover effects (beyond herd immunity), impact on antimicrobial resistance, productivity, and equity implications of vaccines. RESULTS: The consideration of broader benefits of vaccines in economic evaluation is complicated and necessitates technical expertise. Whereas methodologies to account for herd immunity and work productivity are relatively well established, approaches to investigate equity implications are developing and less frequently applied. Modeling the potential impact on antimicrobial resistance not only depends on the multi-faceted causal relationship between vaccination and resistance but also on data availability. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods are available to value the broad impact of vaccines, and it is important that analysts are aware of their strengths and limitations and justify their choice of method. In the future, we expect that an increasing number of economic evaluations will consider the broader benefits of vaccines as part of their base-case analysis or in sensitivity analyses.

Mapping Health Technology Assessment Agency Approaches for Biosimilar Value Assessment: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic literature review undertaken by the ISPOR Biosimilar Special Interest Group highlighted that limited guidance exists on how to assess biosimilars value and on appropriate economic evaluation techniques. This study described current health technology assessment (HTA) agency approaches for biosimilar value assessment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (n = 16) were carried out with HTA experts in Africa, America, Asia, Australia, and Europe to investigate current HTA practices for biosimilars. Data categorization was based on a thematic analysis approach. Findings from the qualitative data analysis were interpreted in view of relevant published literature. RESULTS: Our research suggests that in systems in which frameworks for biosimilar regulatory approval are well established, HTA agencies can accept the regulators' comparability exercise, and reimbursement decisions can generally be based on price comparisons. This approach is accepted in practice and allows streamlining of biosimilars value assessment. Nevertheless, conducting HTAs for biosimilars can be relevant when (1) the originator is not reimbursed, (2) the biosimilar marketing authorization holder seeks reimbursement for indications/populations, pharmaceutical forms, methods and routes of administration that differ with respect to the originator, and (3) a price premium is sought for a biosimilar based on an added-value claim. Further, HTA agencies' role conducting class-review updates following biosimilar availability can support greater patients' access to biologics. CONCLUSIONS: Internationally, there are differences in how national competent authorities on pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals perceive HTA's role for biosimilars. Therefore, HTA agencies are encouraged to issue clear guidance on when and how to conduct HTAs for biosimilars, and on which economic techniques to apply.

Implementing the EU HTA regulation: Insights from semi-structured interviews on patient expectations, Belgian and European institutional perspectives, and industry outlooks.

Introduction: The goal of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Regulation 2021/2282 is to establish a more harmonized HTA framework, fostering member states cooperation and enabling equal patient access to innovative health technologies in Europe. This research aimed to assess the impact of the regulation on national HTAs, the strategic implications for health technology developers, and its influence on price and reimbursement negotiations. Methods: A scoping literature review encompassing peer-reviewed literature as well as grey literature was conducted. Between February and March 2023, semi-structured interviews (n = 20) were performed with stakeholders from Belgian governmental institutions, European institutions, advanced therapy medicinal product developers, academics, and sickness funds. The interviews were analyzed using the framework analysis method. Results: Numerous steps, such as the development of implementing acts and procedural guidelines remain to be taken. At member state level, national/regional HTA bodies and payers must act to adopt the new concepts of Joint Scientific Consultations (JSC) and Joint Clinical Assessments (JCA) within their national legislation, as well as revise their timelines and prepare for interactions at a European level. Compiling a harmonized PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome), adapting local procedures, and increasing capacity to actively take part in the JSC and JCA are seen as primary barriers by several stakeholders. Training and education will help HTA bodies, payers, and health technology developers to participate in the European processes. Conclusion: While practical and legal challenges were identified, recommendations (such as actively preparing for the upcoming changes and increasing capacity while providing training) were provided to adapt national and European procedures to the needs of the HTA Regulation 2021/2282. The importance of fostering collaborations and aligning local HTA procedures with the new way of working set out by the Regulation was demonstrated with this study.

An Inclusive Civil Society Dialogue for Successful Implementation of the EU HTA Regulation: Call to Action to Ensure Appropriate Involvement of Stakeholders and Collaborators.

OBJECTIVES: Stakeholder involvement has long been considered a success factor for a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) process, and its relevance is now anchored in the EU HTA Regulation's (EU HTAR) legislative wording. Therefore, we aimed to explore the roles, challenges, and most important activities to increase the level of involvement per stakeholder group. METHODS: At the 2022 Fall Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), working groups addressed the involvement of patients, clinicians, regulators, health technology developers (HTD), and national HTA bodies and payers within the EU HTA process. Each working group revisited the pre-convention survey results, determined key role characteristics for each stakeholder, and agreed on the most important activities to fulfill the role profile. Finally, the activities suggested per group were prioritized by plenary group. RESULTS: The prioritized actions for patients included training and capacity building, the establishment of a patient involvement committee, and the establishment of a patient unit at the EC secretariat. For clinicians, it included alignment on evidence assessment from a clinical vs. HTA point of view, capacity building, and standardization of processes. The most important actions for regulators are to develop joint regulatory-HTA guidance documents, align processes and interfaces under the regulation, and share discussions on post-licensing evidence generation. HTDs prioritized scientific advice capacity and the review of the scoping process, and further development of the scope of the assessment report fact checks. The top three actions for national HTA bodies and payers included clarification on the early HTD dialogue process, political support and commitment, and clarification on financial support. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the activities identified as the most important for stakeholders/collaborators in the EU HTA process (e.g., in the implementation of the EU HTA Stakeholder Network and of the guidance documents developed by the EUnetHTA 21 consortium) will be key to starting an "inclusive civil society dialogue", as suggested by the European Commission's Pharmaceutical Strategy.

Can Endangered Biosimilar Markets be Rescued? The Need to Bridge Competing Interests for Long-Term Gain.

Market signals such as: (1) the limited number of biosimilars in the development pipeline, (2) the focus of biosimilar development on high-profit therapeutic areas only, and (3) the increase in the number of biosimilar discontinuations and withdrawals, are indicative of sustainability threats facing biosimilar markets in Europe. Two prominent factors that undermine sustainability are: competing interests between the various stakeholders and a preferential focus on short-term gains, disregarding future sustainability threats, hence the need for effective policies that create sustainable competition in biologic markets. Thus far, measures implemented to foster biosimilar adoption have not been necessarily complied with and have had mixed success. Further, these policies have not consistently led to improving access to affordable biologics. In this commentary, we aim to raise awareness of vulnerabilities of biosimilar markets and of difficulties relating to reaching an agreement on policy solutions with a long-term vision. We propose to build on knowledge from collective action theory to advance in reconciling stakeholder interests. This first-of-its-kind approach can inform long-term solutions for biosimilar markets.

Drug pricing and transparency in Europe and the United States: what is it and how does it work?

INTRODUCTION: As drug prices are viewed to be opaque, there have been increasing societal demands on policy and decision makers to implement initiatives that promote drug price transparency. AREAS COVERED: This Perspective discusses what drug price transparency is and how it works in theory and in practice. EXPERT OPINION: Transparency on drug prices may target payers, patients and health care professionals; and may relate to prices at each stage in a drug's distribution system. Although proponents claim that drug price transparency will reduce prices and increase patient access, others expect the opposite effect. Nevertheless, a number of international organizations, countries and consumer groups have taken steps to enhance drug price transparency. This has occurred despite a lack of theoretical clarity and of evidence about its likely impact. Policy and decision makers need to consider how payers and pharmaceutical companies are likely to react to drug price transparency and need to be aware that transparency may produce different effects depending on the country to which it is applied. Even though we believe that full drug price transparency is elusive, various incremental measures can be taken to move toward it.

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.

Overview and quality assessment of health economic evaluations for homeopathic therapy: an updated systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Likewise other medical interventions, economic evaluations of homeopathy contribute to the evidence base of therapeutic concepts and are needed for socioeconomic decision-making. A 2013 review was updated and extended to gain a current overview. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the terms 'cost' and 'homeopathy' from January 2012 to July 2022 was performed in electronic databases. Two independent reviewers checked records, extracted data, and assessed study quality using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. RESULTS: Six studies were added to 15 from the previous review. Synthesizing both health outcomes and costs showed homeopathic treatment being at least equally effective for less or similar costs than control in 14 of 21 studies. Three found improved outcomes at higher costs, two of which showed cost-effectiveness for homeopathy by incremental analysis. One found similar results and three similar outcomes at higher costs for homeopathy. CHEC values ranged between two and 16, with studies before 2009 having lower values (Mean ± SD: 6.7 ± 3.4) than newer studies (9.4 ± 4.3). CONCLUSION: Although results of the CHEC assessment show a positive chronological development, the favorable cost-effectiveness of homeopathic treatments seen in a small number of high-quality studies is undercut by too many examples of methodologically poor research.

To help make decisions about homeopathy in healthcare, it is important, as with other medical treatments, to look at whether this treatment is effective in relation to its costs; in other words, to see if it is cost-effective. The aim of the current work was to update the picture of scientific studies available on this topic until 2012. To this purpose, two different researchers screened electronic literature databases for studies between January 2012 and July 2022 which assessed both the costs and the effects of a homeopathic treatment. They did this according to strict rules to make sure that no important study was missed. They reviewed the search results, gathered information from the studies, and assessed the quality of the studies using a set of criteria. They detected six additional new studies to the 15 already known from the previous work. Overall, they found that in 14 out of 21 studies, homeopathic treatment was at least equally effective for less or similar costs. For the remaining seven studies, costs were equal or higher for homeopathy. Of these seven, two were shown to be advantageous for homeopathy: indeed, specific economic analyses demonstrated that the benefit of the homeopathic treatment compensated for the higher costs. For the remaining five studies, the higher or equal costs of homeopathic treatment were not compensated by a better effect. The quality of the studies varied, with older studies generally being of lower quality compared to newer ones. The authors concluded that although the quality of research on homeopathy's cost-effectiveness has improved over time, and some high-quality studies show that it can be a cost-effective option, there are still many poorly conducted studies which make it difficult to offer a definitive statement. In other words, while there is some evidence that homeopathy can be effective in relation to its costs, there are still many studies that are not very reliable, which means that interested parties need to be cautious about drawing conclusions.

Cost-Utility of an Exercise Referral Scheme Versus Doing Nothing in Flemish Adults: Exploring the Impact of Key Assumptions.

BACKGROUND: This health-economic evaluation assessed the cost-effectiveness of an exercise referral scheme (ERS) versus doing nothing in the Flemish region (Belgium), with a particular focus on the impact of several scenarios. METHODS: A 14-state Markov model was applied to compare the expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 2 alternatives: the Flemish ERS (2019 data, mean age 52 y, 69.1% women) and doing nothing. A health care payer perspective was adopted and a lifetime time horizon was applied. A set of 18 scenario analyses is presented. In addition, univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Under the assumptions selected for the base-case analysis, the Flemish ERS is moderately cost-effective compared with doing nothing, with an incremental cost-utility ratio of €28,609/QALY. Based on the scenario analyses, the results largely depend on the assumptions regarding the continuation of the intervention effect and the frequency with which the intervention is repeated. The greatest health gains can be made when a sustainable behavioral change is achieved among participants. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that the cost-effectiveness results were not robust. CONCLUSIONS: If it is possible to induce a sustainable behavioral change with an intervention delivered at 2- or 5-year intervals, then the Flemish ERS is potentially cost-effective compared with doing nothing (given a €40,000/QALY threshold). These results suggest the importance of repeated implementation of the program together with careful monitoring of the adherence and the sustainability of the observed effects in a real-world setting.

Reply to Standaert, B. Comment on "Postma et al. Predicted Public Health and Economic Impact of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination with Variable Duration of Protection for Adults ≥60 Years in Belgium".

We have read the commentary from Baudouin Standaert [...].

New pricing models for generic medicines to ensure long-term sustainable competition in Europe.

Background: Price erosion of generic medicines over time as a result of existing pricing policies in combination with increasing operational costs of these products due to high inflation, undermine long-term sustainable competition in European off-patent medicines markets. Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify new potential pricing models for retail generic medicines in Europe, examine their pros and cons, and illustrate them with examples inside or outside the pharmaceutical sector. Methods: A targeted literature review, one-to-one interviews and a joint advisory board meeting with experts from five European countries were carried out to assess potential pricing models for generic medicines. Results: We identified ten pricing models that can be applied to generic medicines. The tiered pricing model is viewed as a sustainable solution ensuring competitiveness, but requires market monitoring using a supportive IT infrastructure. De-linking the price of generic medicines from that of the off-patent originator medicine prevents the originator from forcing generic medicines' prices to unsustainable levels. Higher costs due to inflation can be compensated in the automatic indexation model. Other pricing models that have less implementation potential include the one-in-one/multiple-out model, tax credits, value-based pricing, volume for savings and guaranteed margin/fee models. The hypothecated tax and cost allocation models, which add a patient fee to generic medicines prices, are not likely to be socially acceptable. Conclusion: When considering a new pricing model for generic medicines, the impact on innovative medicines and the characteristics of the healthcare system in a given country need to be taken into account. Also, there is a need to continuously follow up the level of competition in off-patent medicines markets and to identify sustainability risks.

Not one, but many: developing a multi-indication pricing model for medicines in Belgium.

Back ground: Current pricing and reimbursement models that focus on one indication at a time are not suited to address the market access of multi-indication medicines. Therefore, the aim of this study is to co-create with Belgian stakeholders a multi-indication pricing model and procedural pathway, to identify conditions for implementation, and to illustrate the multi-indication pricing model with a case study. Methods: Different multi-indication pricing models were identified from the literature, case studies and pilots in other countries. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 representatives from the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance, insurance funds, clinicians, patients, the policy cell of the Minister of Health, pharmaceutical industry and academia. These provided insight in the opinions of stakeholders about possible multi-indication pricing models and their feasibility in the Belgian context. Agreement on the preferred multi-indication pricing model and procedural pathway was reached in a multi-stakeholder round table. Results: The international review generated four main multi-indication pricing models that vary in terms of whether a uniform price or differential prices are applied, whether prices are adjusted for the volume and/or value of the medicine in each indication, and whether a proactive or retroactive dynamic pricing approach is used. However, Belgian stakeholders preferred a fifth model, which sets a single price as the volume- and value-weighted average price across all indications at launch. Over time, the price is adapted based on volume and value of the medicine in real-life practice for each indication. To implement this model, a legal framework, horizon scanning and early dialogue, data infrastructure, an evidence plan for the medicine, technical expertise and governance model need to be developed. Conclusion: Although the multi-indication pricing model preferred by Belgian stakeholders raises the administrative burden, it allows for the price of a medicine to vary during the lifecycle based on its initial and real-life performance in multiple indications.

An international comparative analysis and roadmap to sustainable biosimilar markets.

Background: Although biosimilar uptake has increased (at a variable pace) in many countries, there have been recent concerns about the long-term sustainability of biosimilar markets. The aim of this manuscript is to assess the sustainability of policies across the biosimilar life cycle in selected countries with a view to propose recommendations for supporting biosimilar sustainability. Methods: The study conducted a comparative analysis across 17 countries from North America, South America, Asia-Pacific, Europe and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Biosimilar policies were identified and their sustainability was assessed based on country-specific reviews of the scientific and grey literature, validation by industry experts and 23 international and local non-industry experts, and two advisory board meetings with these non-industry experts. Results: Given that European countries tend to have more experience with biosimilars and more developed policy frameworks, they generally have higher sustainability scores than the other selected countries. Existing approaches to biosimilar manufacturing and R&D, policies guaranteeing safe and high-quality biosimilars, exemption from the requirement to apply health technology assessment to biosimilars, and initiatives counteracting biosimilar misconceptions are considered sustainable. However, biosimilar contracting approaches, biosimilar education and understanding can be ameliorated in all selected countries. Also, similar policies are sometimes perceived to be sustainable in some markets, but not in others. More generally, the sustainability of the biosimilar landscape depends on the nature of the healthcare system and existing pharmaceutical market access policies, the experience with biosimilar use and policies. This suggests that a general biosimilar policy toolkit that ensures sustainability does not exist, but varies from country to country. Conclusion: This study proposes a set of elements that should underpin sustainable biosimilar policy development over time in a country. At first, biosimilar policies should guarantee the safety and quality of biosimilars, healthy levels of supply and a level of cost savings. As a country gains experience with biosimilars, policies need to optimise uptake and combat any misconceptions about biosimilars. Finally, a country should implement biosimilar policies that foster competition, expand treatment options and ensure a sustainable market environment.

Rule of Prevention: a potential framework to evaluate preventive interventions for rare diseases.

Background: The benefits of preventive interventions lack comprehensive evaluation in standard health technology assessments (HTA), particularly for rare and transmissible diseases. Objective: To identify possible considerations for future HTA using analogies between the treatment and prevention of rare diseases. Study design: An Expert panel meeting assessed whether one HTA assessment framework can be applied to assess both rare disease treatments and preventive interventions. Experts also evaluated the range of value elements currently included in HTAs and their applicability to rare, transmissible, and/or preventable diseases. Results: A broad range of value should be considered when assessing rare, transmissible disease prevention. Although standard HTA can be applied to transmissible diseases, the risk of local outbreaks and the need for large-scale prevention programs suggest a modified assessment framework, capable of incorporating prevention-specific value elements in HTAs. A 'Rule of Prevention' framework was proposed to allow broader value considerations anchored to severity, equity, and prevention benefits in decision-making for preventive interventions for rare transmissible diseases. Conclusion: The proposed prevention framework introduces an explicit initial approach to consistently assess rare transmissible diseases, and to incorporate the broader value of preventive interventions compared with treatment.

The impact of policy interventions to promote the uptake of biosimilar medicines in Belgium: a nationwide interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Belgian government has taken several measures to increase the uptake of biosimilars in past years. However, no formal evaluation of the impact of these measures has been made yet. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the implemented measures on biosimilar uptake. METHODS: An interrupted time series analysis was performed using an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model with the Box-Jenkins method. All data were expressed as defined daily doses (DDD) per month/quarter and obtained from the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI). Three molecules were included in the analysis: etanercept (ambulatory), filgrastim (hospital), and epoetin (hospital). A significance level of 5% was used for all analyses. RESULTS: In the ambulatory care, the effect of a financial prescriber incentive of 2019 was investigated. After this intervention, 44.504 (95% CI -61.61 to -14.812; P < 0.001) fewer etanercept biosimilar DDDs were dispensed monthly than expected in the absence of the intervention. Two interventions were modelled for biosimilars in the hospital setting. The first intervention of 2016 includes prescription targets for biosimilars and monitoring of hospitals on adequate tendering. The second intervention involves an information campaign on biosimilars. After the first intervention, a small decrease in quarterly epoetin biosimilar uptake of 449.820 DDD (95% CI -880.113 to -19.527; P = 0.05) was observed. The second intervention led to a larger increase in quarterly epoetin biosimilar uptake of 2733.692 DDD (95% CI 1648.648-3818.736; P < 0.001). For filgrastim, 1809.833 DDD (95% CI 1354.797-2264.869; P < 0.001) more biosimilars were dispensed immediately after the first intervention and 151.639 DDD (95% CI -203.128 to -100.150; P < 0.001) fewer biosimilars each quarter after the first intervention. An immediate and sustained increase of 700.932 DDD (95% CI 180.536-1221.328; P = 0.016) in quarterly biosimilar volume was observed after the second intervention. All other parameter estimates were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the impact of past policy interventions to increase the uptake of biosimilars has been variable and limited. A holistic policy framework is required to develop a competitive and sustainable off-patent biologicals market in Belgium.

Public health impact and return on investment of Belgium's pediatric immunization program.

Objective: We evaluated the public health impact and return on investment of Belgium's pediatric immunization program (PIP) from both healthcare-sector and societal perspectives. Methods: We developed a decision analytic model for 6 vaccines routinely administered in Belgium for children aged 0-10 years: DTaP-IPV-HepB-Hib, DTaP-IPV, MMR, PCV, rotavirus, and meningococcal type C. We used separate decision trees to model each of the 11 vaccine-preventable pathogens: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis, Haemophilus influenzae type b, measles, mumps, rubella, Streptococcus pneumoniae, rotavirus, and meningococcal type C; hepatitis B was excluded because of surveillance limitations. The 2018 birth cohort was followed over its lifetime. The model projected and compared health outcomes and costs with and without immunization (based on vaccine-era and pre-vaccine era disease incidence estimates, respectively), assuming that observed reductions in disease incidence were fully attributable to vaccination. For the societal perspective, the model included productivity loss costs associated with immunization and disease in addition to direct medical costs. The model estimated discounted cases averted, disease-related deaths averted, life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years gained, costs (2020 euros), and an overall benefit-cost ratio. Scenario analyses considered alternate assumptions for key model inputs. Results: Across all 11 pathogens, we estimated that the PIP prevented 226,000 cases of infections and 200 deaths, as well as the loss of 7,000 life-years and 8,000 quality-adjusted life-years over the lifetime of a birth cohort of 118,000 children. The PIP was associated with discounted vaccination costs of €91 million from the healthcare-sector perspective and €122 million from the societal perspective. However, vaccination costs were more than fully offset by disease-related costs averted, with the latter amounting to a discounted €126 million and €390 million from the healthcare-sector and societal perspectives, respectively. As a result, pediatric immunization was associated with overall discounted savings of €35 million and €268 million from the healthcare-sector and societal perspectives, respectively; every €1 invested in childhood immunization resulted in approximately €1.4 in disease-related cost savings to the health system and €3.2 in cost savings from a societal perspective for Belgium's PIP. Estimates of the value of the PIP were most sensitive to changes in input assumptions for disease incidence, productivity losses due to disease-related mortality, and direct medical disease costs. Conclusion: Belgium's PIP, which previously had not been systematically assessed, provides large-scale prevention of disease-related morbidity and premature mortality, and is associated with net savings to health system and society. Continued investment in the PIP is warranted to sustain its positive public health and financial impact.

A Systematic Literature Review of Gaps and Challenges in Value Assessment of Biosimilars: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to provide an overview of the gaps and challenges in the value assessment of biosimilars and to identify potential approaches to address them. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, international team of biosimilar experts identified gaps and challenges. A systematic review was conducted of the peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; and of the gray literature. Preliminary results were presented at ISPOR conferences and this article benefited from 2 review rounds among ISPOR Biosimilar Special Interest Group members. RESULTS: Given that a biosimilar is highly similar to its reference biologic, health technology assessment agencies should accept the comparability exercise approved by regulatory authorities and, thus, conduct a price comparison when biosimilar reimbursement is requested for the same indication as the reference biologic. If the reference biologic is not reimbursed or is not the standard of care, a full economic evaluation of the biosimilar versus a relevant comparator needs to be conducted. To date, little consideration has been given to specific challenges, such as how biosimilar value assessment can account for the nocebo effect, potential differences between biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients, the availability of intravenous and subcutaneous administration forms or different administration devices for the same active compound, value-added services, and the contribution of biosimilars for generating health gain at the population level. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to gather further insights in the methodology of value assessment for biosimilars, and health technology assessment agencies need to develop more elaborate guidance on biosimilar value assessment in specific circumstances.