Creating win-win-win situations with managed entry agreements? Prioritizing gene and cell therapies within the window of opportunity.

Outcome-based reimbursement models are gaining attention for managing the clinical uncertainties and financial impact of gene and cell therapies. Little guidance exists on how such models can create win-win-win situations, benefiting health-care payers, health-technology developers and patients. Our innovative approach prospectively prioritizes therapies for which a 'window of opportunity' might occur through the analysis of health-technology assessments and product characteristics. Within this window, one size does not fit all, and depending on the extent of clinical uncertainty and potential added benefit levels, different win-win-win situations exist in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Dutch Horizon scanning data prioritized etranacogene dezaparvovec (Hemgenix) and mozafancogene autotemcel for their potential to benefit from outcome-based reimbursement models. These insights extend beyond gene and cell therapies, and could help to provide sustainable health care and patient access to innovative therapies.

Healthcare decision-making for tumour-agnostic therapies in Europe: lessons learned.

The tumour-agnostic authorisations of larotrectinib and entrectinib shifted the paradigm for indication setting. European healthcare decision-makers agreed on their therapeutic potential but diverged primarily in identified uncertainties concerning basket trial designs and endpoints, prognostic value of neurotrophic tropomyosin receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions, and resistance mechanisms. In addition, assessments of relevant comparators, unmet medical needs (UMNs), and implementation of NTRK-testing strategies diverged. In particular, the tumour-specific reimbursement recommendations and guidelines do not reflect tumour-agnostic thinking. These differences indicate difficulties experienced in these assessments and provide valuable lessons for future disruptive therapies. As we discuss here, early multistakeholder dialogues concerning minimum evidence requirements and involving clinicians are essential.

Illustrating the financial consequences of outcome-based payment models from a payers perspective- the case of autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel (Libmeldy®).

OBJECTIVE: To illustrate the financial consequences of implementing different managed entry agreements ((MEA) for the Dutch healthcare system for autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel (AA, Libmeldy®), while also providing a first systematic guidance on how to construct MEAs to aid future reimbursement decision-making and create patient access to high-cost, one-off potentially curative therapies. METHODS: Three payment models were compared: (1) an arbitrary 60% price discount, (2) an outcome-based spread payment with discounts, and (3) an outcome-based spread payment linked to a willingness to pay model with discounts. Financial consequences were estimated for full responders (A), patients responding according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in HTA reports (B), and unstable responders (C). The associated costs for an average patient during the timeframe of the payment agreement, the total budget impact, and associated benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life-years of the patient population were calculated. RESULTS: When patients responded according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in HTA reports (Scenario B), implementing outcome-based reimbursement models (models 2 and 3) had lower associated budget impacts while gaining similar benefits compared to the discount (Scenario 1, €8,9 million to €6,6 million vs. €9.2 million). In the case of unstable responders (Scenario C), costs for payers are lower in the outcome-based scenarios (€4.1 million and €3.0 million, Scenario 2.C and 3.C, respectively) compared to implementing the discount (€9.2 million, Scenario 1.C). CONCLUSION: Outcome-based models can mitigate the financial risk of reimbursing AA. This can be considerably beneficial over simple discounts when clinical performance was similar to or worse than predicted.

Added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 1995 and 2020: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs, explore their association, and investigate potential discrepancies between added benefit and revenues across different approval pathways of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Oncology drugs and their indications approved by the EMA between 1995 and 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Added benefit was evaluated using ratings published by seven organisations: health technology assessment agencies from the United States, France, Germany, and Italy, two medical oncology societies, and a drug bulletin. All retrieved ratings were recategorised using a four point ranking scale to indicate negative or non-quantifiable, minor, substantial, or major added benefit. Revenue data were extracted from publicly available financial reports and compared with published estimates of research and development (R&D) costs. Finally, the association between added benefit and revenue was evaluated. All analyses were performed within the overall study cohort, and within subgroups based on the EMA approval pathway: standard marketing authorisation, conditional marketing authorisation, and authorisation under exceptional circumstances. RESULTS: 131 oncology drugs with 166 indications were evaluated for their added benefit by at least one organisation within the required timeframe, yielding a total of 458 added benefit ratings; 189 (41%) were negative or non-quantifiable. The median time to offset the median R&D costs ($684m, £535m, €602m, adjusted to 2020 values) was three years; 50 of 55 (91%) drugs recovered these costs within eight years. Drugs with higher added benefit ratings generally had greater revenues. Negative or non-quantifiable added benefit ratings were more frequent for conditional marketing authorisations and authorisations under exceptional circumstances than for standard marketing authorisations (relative risk 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.89). Conditional marketing authorisations generated lower revenues and took longer to offset R&D costs than standard marketing authorisations (four years compared with three years). CONCLUSIONS: While revenues seem to align with added benefit, most oncology drugs recover R&D costs within a few years despite providing little added benefit. This is particularly true for drugs approved through conditional marketing authorisations, which inherently appear to lack comprehensive evidence. Policy makers should evaluate whether current regulatory and reimbursement incentives effectively promote development of the most effective drugs for patients with the greatest needs.

A literature review of quality assessment and applicability to HTA of risk prediction models of coronary heart disease in patients with diabetes.

This literature review had two objectives: to identify models for predicting the risk of coronary heart diseases in patients with diabetes (DM); and to assess model quality in terms of risk of bias (RoB) and applicability for the purpose of health technology assessment (HTA). We undertook a targeted review of journal articles published in English, Dutch, Chinese, or Spanish in 5 databases from 1st January 2016 to 18th December 2022, and searched three systematic reviews for the models published after 2012. We used PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool) to assess RoB, and used findings from Betts et al. 2019, which summarized recommendations and criticisms of HTA agencies on cardiovascular risk prediction models, to assess model applicability for the purpose of HTA. As a result, 71 % and 67 % models reporting C-index showed good discrimination abilities (C-index >= 0.7). Of the 26 model studies and 30 models identified, only one model study showed low RoB in all domains, and no model was fully applicable for HTA. Since the major cause of high RoB is inappropriate use of analysis method, we advise clinicians to carefully examine the model performance declared by model developers, and to trust a model if all PROBAST domains except analysis show low RoB and at least one validation study conducted in the same setting (e.g. country) is available. Moreover, since general model applicability is not informative for HTA, novel adapted tools may need to be developed.

Tools for assessing quality of studies investigating health interventions using real-world data: a literature review and content analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify existing appraisal tools for non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) and to compare the criteria that the tools provide at the quality-item level. DESIGN: Literature review through three approaches: systematic search of journal articles, snowballing search of reviews on appraisal tools and grey literature search on websites of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search: Medline; Snowballing: starting from three articles (D'Andrea et al, Quigley et al and Faria et al); Grey literature: websites of European HTA agencies listed by the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Appraisal tools were searched through April 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included a tool, if it addressed quality concerns of NRSIs and was published in English (unless from grey literature). A tool was excluded, if it was only for diagnostic, prognostic, qualitative or secondary studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent researchers searched, screened and reviewed all included studies and tools, summarised quality items and scored whether and to what extent a quality item was described by a tool, for either methodological quality or reporting. RESULTS: Forty-nine tools met inclusion criteria and were included for the content analysis. Concerns regarding the quality of NRSI were categorised into 4 domains and 26 items. The Research Triangle Institute Item Bank (RTI Item Bank) and STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) were the most comprehensive tools for methodological quality and reporting, respectively, as they addressed (n=20; 17) and sufficiently described (n=18; 13) the highest number of items. However, none of the tools covered all items. CONCLUSION: Most of the tools have their own strengths, but none of them could address all quality concerns relevant to NRSIs. Even the most comprehensive tools can be complemented by several items. We suggest decision-makers, researchers and tool developers consider the quality-item level heterogeneity, when selecting a tool or identifying a research gap. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF registration DOI (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KCSGX).

Disease severity-based subgrouping of type 2 diabetes does not parallel differences in quality of life: the Maastricht Study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Type 2 diabetes is a highly heterogeneous disease for which new subgroups ('clusters') have been proposed based on disease severity: moderate age-related diabetes (MARD), moderate obesity-related diabetes (MOD), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD) and severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD). It is unknown how disease severity is reflected in terms of quality of life in these clusters. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the cluster characteristics and cluster-wise evolution of quality of life in the previously defined clusters of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We included individuals with type 2 diabetes from the Maastricht Study, who were allocated to clusters based on a nearest centroid approach. We used logistic regression to evaluate the cluster-wise association with diabetes-related complications. We plotted the evolution of HbA1c levels over time and used Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression to evaluate the cluster-wise time to reach adequate glycaemic control. Quality of life based on the Short Form 36 (SF-36) was also plotted over time and adjusted for age and sex using generalised estimating equations. The follow-up time was 7 years. Analyses were performed separately for people with newly diagnosed and already diagnosed type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: We included 127 newly diagnosed and 585 already diagnosed individuals. Already diagnosed people in the SIDD cluster were less likely to reach glycaemic control than people in the other clusters, with an HR compared with MARD of 0.31 (95% CI 0.22, 0.43). There were few differences in the mental component score of the SF-36 in both newly and already diagnosed individuals. In both groups, the MARD cluster had a higher physical component score of the SF-36 than the other clusters, and the MOD cluster scored similarly to the SIDD and SIRD clusters. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Disease severity suggested by the clusters of type 2 diabetes is not entirely reflected in quality of life. In particular, the MOD cluster does not appear to be moderate in terms of quality of life. Use of the suggested cluster names in practice should be carefully considered, as the non-neutral nomenclature may affect disease perception in individuals with type 2 diabetes and their healthcare providers.

Regulatory, health technology assessment and company interactions: the current landscape and future ecosystem for drug development, review and reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Multi-stakeholder interactions have evolved at product and policy levels. There is a need to assess the current and future landscape of interactions between companies, and regulatory and HTA agencies to address challenges and identify areas for improvement. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to review the current interactions within and across regulatory and HTA agencies, and companies' experiences in engaging in these activities; to assess the added value of interactions as well as limitations; to explore the future ecosystem for stakeholder interactions. METHOD: Three separate questionnaires were developed for companies, regulators and HTA agencies, respectively, to assess their experiences and perceptions. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and discussed at a multi-stakeholder workshop. Key outcomes from the surveys and workshop discussion were reported. RESULTS: All seven regulators and seven HTA agencies in the survey indicated that they had stakeholder interactions. More formal collaboration occurred with regulators compared with HTA agencies. All nine companies have taken early advice but indicated the need for future prioritization. Success indicators can be built at the product and therapy levels, with the added value of faster patient access. Four principles were proposed for the future ecosystem: separate remit and functions between regulators and HTA; align processes; converge evidence requirements where possible; increase transparency. CONCLUSIONS: This research brought together regulators, HTA agencies, companies to examine how they interact with one another. We propose measures of value and make recommendations on future evolution to enable better evidence generation and improve regulatory and HTA decision-making.

Synergy between health technology assessments and clinical guidelines for multiple sclerosis.

Decision-making for reimbursement and clinical guidelines (CGs) serves different purposes although the decision-criteria and required evidence largely overlap. This study aimed to assess similarities and discrepancies between health technology assessment (HTA) reports as compared to CGs for multiple sclerosis (MS) medicines. All HTA reports and corresponding CGs for MS from the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and the European Union were assessed to identify synergies in recommendations for MS medicines (approved 1995-2020). A content analysis of HTA reports and CGs was performed to identify similarities and discrepancies in wording of treatment recommendations across documents. We assessed 132 HTA reports and 9 CGs for 16 MS treatments. Final recommendations for reimbursement and inclusion in CGs were mostly similar (90%), albeit with considerable differences in treatment lines and subindications. Since 2010, HTA reports refer to the use of CGs in 42% (55/132) and to consultations with clinicians in 43% (57/132) of cases. Six of nine CGs referred to HTA reports and two referred to HTA consultations, in one case having a formal relation to the HTA organization. CGs referenced pharmacoeconomic studies (4/9) for costs and cost-effectiveness. To date, not all new HTA recommendations for MS treatments are included in CGs. Some synergy exists between treatment recommendations in HTA reports and CGs, although discrepancies were seen in timelines and in recommended treatment lines and subindications. More stakeholder dialogue and/or consultation of each other's publications may further improve synergy, facilitate transparency, and enhance patient access.

Reimbursement and payment models in Central and Eastern European as well as Middle Eastern countries: A survey of their current use and future outlook.

There is growing interest in innovative reimbursement and payment models in Central and Eastern European (CEE) and Middle Eastern (ME) countries. A questionnaire was sent to payers from CEE and ME countries regarding the current use of, future preferences for and perceived barriers with these models. Twenty-seven healthcare payers from 11 countries completed the survey. Results showed participants preferred using outcome-based reimbursement models and delayed payment models more often; however, currently they are rarely applied. Barriers hindering implementation were mostly related to IT and data infrastructure, measurement issues, transaction costs and the administrative burden. Given these barriers highlighted in our study, policymakers should focus on the development of an implementation framework with contract templates for the preferred reimbursement and payment schemes to aid the feasibility of a successful implementation.

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.

Challenges and Opportunities for Companies to Build HTA/Payer Perspectives Into Drug Development Through the Use of a Dynamic Target Product Profile.

Background: The target product profile (TPP) outlines the desired profile of a target product aimed at a particular disease and is used by companies to plan clinical development. Considering the increasing importance of health technology assessment (HTA) in informing reimbursement decisions, a robust TPP needs to be built to address HTA needs, to guide an integrated evidence generation plan that will support HTA submissions. This study assessed current practices and experiences of companies in building HTA considerations into TPP development. Methods: An opinion survey was designed and conducted in 2019, as a cross-sectional questionnaire consisting of multiple-choice questions. The questionnaire provided a qualitative assessment of companies' strategies and experiences in building HTA considerations into the TPP. Eligible survey participants were the senior management of Global HTA/Market Access Departments at 18 top international pharmaceutical companies. Results: 11 companies responded to the survey. All companies included HTA requirements in TPP development, but the timing and process varied. The key focus of HTA input related to health problems and treatment pathways, clinical efficacy/effectiveness, and safety. Variance of HTA methods and different value frameworks were identified as a challenge for development plans. Stakeholder engagement, such as HTA scientific advice, was used to pressure test the TPP. Conclusion: This research provides insight into current practice and potential opportunities for value-based drug development. It demonstrates the evolution of the TPP to encompass HTA requirements and suggests that the TPP could have a role as an iterative communication tool for use with HTA agencies to enhance an integrated evidence generation plan.

Delayed payment schemes in Central-Eastern Europe and Middle-East.

The need for innovative payment models for health technologies with high upfront costs has emerged due to affordability concerns across the world. Early technology adopter countries have been experimenting with delayed payment schemes. Our objective included listing potential barriers for implementing delayed payment models and recommendations on how to address these barriers in lower income countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Middle East (ME). We conducted a survey, an exploratory literature review and an iterative brainstorming about potential barriers and solutions to implement delayed payment models in these two regions. A draft list of recommendations was validated in a virtual workshop with payer experts from the two regions. Eight barriers were identified in 4 areas, including transaction costs and administrative burden, payment schedule, information technology and data infrastructure, and governance. Fifteen practical recommendations were prepared to address these barriers, including recommendations that are specific to lower income countries, and recommendations that can be applied more universally, but are more crucial in countries with severe budget constraints. Conclusions of this policy research can be considered as an initial step in a multistakeholder dialogue about implementing delayed payment schemes in CEE and ME countries.

Reported Challenges in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies.

OBJECTIVES: With complex health technologies entering the market, methods for health technology assessment (HTA) may require changes. This study aimed to identify challenges in HTA of complex health technologies. METHODS: A survey was sent to European HTA organizations participating in European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA). The survey contained open questions and used predefined potentially complex health technologies and 7 case studies to identify types of complex health technologies and challenges faced during HTA. The survey was validated, tested for reliability by an expert panel, and pilot tested before dissemination. RESULTS: A total of 22 HTA organizations completed the survey (67%). Advanced therapeutic medicinal products (ATMPs) and histology-independent therapies were considered most challenging based on the predefined complex health technologies and case studies. For the case studies, more than half of the reported challenges were "methodological," equal in relative effectiveness assessments as in cost-effectiveness assessments. Through the open questions, we found that most of these challenges actually rooted in data unavailability. Data were reported as "absent," "insufficient," "immature," or "low quality" by 18 of 20 organizations (90%), in particular data on quality of life. Policy and organizational challenges and challenges because of societal or political pressure were reported by 8 (40%) and 4 organizations (20%), respectively. Modeling issues were reported least often (n = 2, 4%). CONCLUSIONS: Most challenges in HTA of complex health technologies root in data insufficiencies rather than in the complexity of health technologies itself. As the number of complex technologies grows, the urgency for new methods and policies to guide HTA decision making increases.

Real World Data in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies.

The available evidence on relative effectiveness and risks of new health technologies is often limited at the time of health technology assessment (HTA). Additionally, a wide variety in real-world data (RWD) policies exist among HTA organizations. This study assessed which challenges, related to the increasingly complex nature of new health technologies, make the acceptance of RWD most likely. A questionnaire was disseminated among 33 EUnetHTA member HTA organizations. The questions focused on accepted data sources, circumstances that allowed for RWD acceptance and barriers to acceptance. The questionnaire was validated and tested for reliability by an expert panel, and pilot-tested before dissemination via LimeSurvey. Twenty-two HTA organizations completed the questionnaire (67%). All reported accepting randomized clinical trials. The most accepted RWD source were patient registries (19/22, 86%), the least accepted were editorials and expert opinions (8/22, 36%). With orphan treatments or companion diagnostics, organizations tended to be most likely to accept RWD sources, 4.3-3.2 on a 5-point Likert scale, respectively. Additional circumstances were reported to accept RWD (e.g., a high disease burden). The two most important barriers to accepting RWD were lacking necessary RWD sources and existing policy structures. European HTA organizations seem positive toward the (wider) use of RWD in HTA of complex therapies. Expanding the use of patient registries could be potentially useful, as a large share of the organizations already accepts this source. However, many barriers still exist to the widespread use of RWD. Our results can be used to prioritize circumstances in which RWD might be accepted.

Modified Delphi procedure-based expert consensus on endpoints for an international disease registry for Metachromatic Leukodystrophy: The European Metachromatic Leukodystrophy initiative (MLDi).

BACKGROUND: Metachromatic Leukodystrophy (MLD) is a rare lysosomal disorder. Patients suffer from relentless neurological deterioration leading to premature death. Recently, new treatment modalities, including gene therapy and enzyme replacement therapy, have been developed. Those advances increase the need for high-quality research infrastructure to adequately compare treatments, execute post-marketing surveillance, and perform health technology assessments (HTA). To facilitate this, a group of MLD experts started the MLD initiative (MLDi) and initiated an academia-led European MLD registry: the MLDi. An expert-based consensus procedure, namely a modified Delphi procedure, was used to determine the data elements required to answer academic, regulatory, and HTA research questions. RESULTS: Three distinct sets of data elements were defined by the 13-member expert panel. The minimal set (n = 13) contained demographics and basic disease characteristics. The core set (n = 55) included functional status scores in terms of motor, manual, speech and eating abilities, and causal and supportive treatment characteristics. Health-related quality of life scores were included that were also deemed necessary for HTA. The optional set (n = 31) contained additional clinical aspects, such as findings at neurological examination, detailed motor function, presence of peripheral neuropathy, gall bladder involvement and micturition. CONCLUSION: Using a modified Delphi procedure with physicians from the main expert centers, consensus was reached on a core set of data that can be collected retrospectively and prospectively. With this consensus-based approach, an important step towards harmonization was made. This unique dataset will support knowledge about the disease and facilitate regulatory requirements related to the launch of new treatments.

Understanding innovation of health technology assessment methods: the IHTAM framework.

Adequate methods are urgently needed to guarantee the good practice of health technology assessment (HTA) for technologies with novel properties. The aim of the study was to construct a conceptual framework to help understand the innovation of HTA methods (IHTAM). The construction of the IHTAM framework was based on two scoping reviews, one on the current practice of innovating methods, that is existing HTA frameworks, and one on theoretical foundations for innovating methods outside the HTA discipline. Both aimed to identify and synthesize concepts of innovation (i.e., innovation processes and roles of stakeholders in innovation). Using these concepts, the framework was developed in iterative brainstorming sessions and subsequent discussions with representatives from various stakeholder groups. The framework was constructed based on twenty documents on innovating HTA frameworks and fourteen guidelines from three scientific disciplines. It includes a generic innovation process consisting of three phases ("Identification," "Development," and "Implementation") and nine subphases. In the framework, three roles that HTA stakeholders can play in innovation ("Developers," "Practitioners," and "Beneficiaries") are defined, and a process on how the stakeholders innovate HTA methods is included. The IHTAM framework visualizes systematically which elements and stakeholders are important to the development and implementation of novel HTA methods. The framework could be used by all stakeholders involved in HTA innovation to learn how to engage dynamically and collaborate effectively throughout the innovation process. HTA stakeholders in practice have welcomed the framework, though additional testing of its applicability and acceptance is essential.