Taking stock: A multistakeholder perspective on improving the delivery of care and the development of treatments for Alzheimer's disease.

Health-care stakeholders increasingly recognize that the scientific and economic challenges associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) are simply too great for individual stakeholder groups to address solely from within their own silos. In the necessary spirit of collaboration, we present in this perspective a set of multicountry multistakeholder recommendations to improve the organization of existing AD and dementia care and the development of new treatments. In brief, the five recommendations are (1) health-care systems must make choices regarding the patient populations to be diagnosed and treated, (2) health-care systems should use an evidence-based standard of care, (3) increased collaboration between public and private institutions is needed to enhance research, (4) reimbursement end points need to be agreed on and validated, and (5) innovative business models should be used to spur the introduction of new medicines.

Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements-good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force.

There is a significant and growing interest among both payers and producers of medical products for agreements that involve a "pay-for-performance" or "risk-sharing" element. These payment schemes-called "performance-based risk-sharing arrangements" (PBRSAs)-involve a plan by which the performance of the product is tracked in a defined patient population over a specified period of time and the amount or level of reimbursement is based on the health and cost outcomes achieved. There has always been considerable uncertainty at product launch about the ultimate real-world clinical and economic performance of new products, but this appears to have increased in recent years. PBRSAs represent one mechanism for reducing this uncertainty through greater investment in evidence collection while a technology is used within a health care system. The objective of this Task Force report was to set out the standards that should be applied to "good practices"-both research and operational-in the use of a PBRSA, encompassing questions around the desirability, design, implementation, and evaluation of such an arrangement. This report provides practical recommendations for the development and application of state-of-the-art methods to be used when considering, using, or reviewing PBRSAs. Key findings and recommendations include the following. Additional evidence collection is costly, and there are numerous barriers to establishing viable and cost-effective PBRSAs: negotiation, monitoring, and evaluation costs can be substantial. For good research practice in PBRSAs, it is critical to match the appropriate study and research design to the uncertainties being addressed. Good governance processes are also essential. The information generated as part of PBRSAs has public good aspects, bringing ethical and professional obligations, which need to be considered from a policy perspective. The societal desirability of a particular PBRSA is fundamentally an issue as to whether the cost of additional data collection is justified by the benefits of improved resource allocation decisions afforded by the additional evidence generated and the accompanying reduction in uncertainty. The ex post evaluation of a PBRSA should, however, be a multidimensional exercise that assesses many aspects, including not only the impact on long-term cost-effectiveness and whether appropriate evidence was generated but also process indicators, such as whether and how the evidence was used in coverage or reimbursement decisions, whether budget and time were appropriate, and whether the governance arrangements worked well. There is an important gap in the literature of structured ex post evaluation of PBRSAs. As an innovation in and of themselves, PBRSAs should also be evaluated from a long-run societal perspective in terms of their impact on dynamic efficiency (eliciting the optimal amount of innovation).

Regulatory framework on bioequivalence criteria for locally acting gastrointestinal drugs: the case for oral modified release mesalamine formulations.

INTRODUCTION: Bioequivalence testing for locally acting gastrointestinal drugs is a challenging issue for both regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical industries. The international regulatory framework has been characterized by the lack of specific bioequivalence tests that has generated a negative impact on the market competition and drug use in clinical practice. Areas covered: This review article provides an overview of the European Union and United States regulatory frameworks on bioequivalence criteria for locally acting gastrointestinal drugs, also discussing the most prominent scientific issues and advances that has been made in this field. A focus on oral modified release mesalamine formulations will be also provided, with practical examples of the regulatory pathways followed by pharmaceutical companies to determine bioequivalence. Expert commentary: The development of a scientific rationale to demonstrate bioequivalence in this field has been complex and often associated with uncertainties related to scientific and regulatory aspects. Only in recent years, thanks to advanced knowledge in this field, the criteria for bioequivalence assessment are undergoing substantial changes. This new scenario will likely result in a significant impact on pharmaceutical companies, promoting more competition through a clearer regulatory approach, conceived for streamlining the demonstration of therapeutic equivalence for locally acting gastrointestinal drugs.

European collaboration on relative effectiveness assessments: What is needed to be successful?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to identify the possible barriers and critical success factors for the implementation of European collaboration in the field of relative effectiveness assessment (REA) of drugs. METHODS: Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with representatives from eight European health technology assessment (HTA) organisations involved in assessment of drugs for coverage decision-making (AAZ, AIFA, AHTAPol, HAS, HVB, IQWIG, NICE and ZiN). RESULTS: Potential barriers identified mainly relate to methodology, resources and challenges with implementation in the respective national processes (e.g. legal restrictions). The most critical success factors for production of cross-border assessments were the continuous cooperation of competent partners, and the quality and timely availability of the assessment. CONCLUSION: Further adaptation of the process and methods is required for optimal collaboration. In the near future it can be expected that cross-border assessments will meet in particular the needs of smaller/middle-sized European countries and also European countries with less developed HTA systems as the potential efficiency/quality gains are the highest for these countries. Therefore, national implementation of cross-border assessments is especially likely in these countries in the coming years. Once more experience is gained with cross-border assessments, and successes become more evident, efficiency/quality gains may also be likely for some larger countries with well established processes.

Reconciling uncertainty of costs and outcomes with the need for access to orphan medicinal products: a comparative study of managed entry agreements across seven European countries.

BACKGROUND: National payers across Europe have been increasingly looking into innovative reimbursement approaches - called managed entry agreements (MEAs) - to balance the need to provide rapid access to potentially beneficial orphan medicinal products (OMPs) with the requirements to circumscribe uncertainty, obtain best value for money or to ensure affordability. This study aimed to identify, describe and classify MEAs applied to OMPs by national payers and to analyse their practice in Europe. METHODS: To identify and describe MEAs, national health technology assessments and reimbursement decisions on OMPs across seven European countries were reviewed and their main characteristics extracted. To fill data gaps and validate the accuracy of the extraction, collaboration was sought from national payers. To classify MEAs, a bespoke taxonomy was implemented. Identified MEAs were analysed and compared by focusing on five key themes, namely by describing the MEAs in relation to: drug targets and therapeutic classes, geographical spread, type of MEA applied, declared rationale for setting-up of MEAs, and evolution over time. RESULTS: 42 MEAs for 26 OMPs, implemented between 2006 and 2012 and representing a variety of MEA designs, were identified. Italy was the country with the highest number of schemes (n=15), followed by the Netherlands (n=10), England and Wales (n=8), Sweden (n=5) and Belgium (n=4). No MEA was identified for France and Germany due to data unavailability. Antineoplastic agents were the primary targets of MEAs. 55% of the identified MEAs were performance-based risk-sharing arrangements; the other 45% were financial-based. Nine of these 26 OMPs were subject to MEAs in two or three different countries, resulting in 24 MEAs. 60% of identified MEAs focused on conditions whose prevalence is less than 1 per 10,000. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that a variety of MEAs were increasingly used by European payers to manage aspects of uncertainty associated with the introduction of OMPs in the healthcare system, and which may be of a clinical, utilisation, or budgetary nature. It remains unclear whether differences in the use of MEAs reflect differences in how 'uncertainty' and 'value' are perceived across healthcare systems.