Parent's perception of respiratory syncytial virus and subsequent wheezing burden: A multi-country cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is the leading cause of hospitalization in infants. RSV bronchiolitis is associated with an increased risk of subsequent wheezing. We aimed to document the parents' perception of the link between RSV infection and subsequent wheezing, wheezing-related healthcare and family resources use, and its impact on family daily life. METHODS: This cross-sectional online survey enrolled 1200 parents with at least one child ≤6y living in the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy. Children diagnosed with RSV bronchiolitis before age of 2 years were included in the RSV group, and those never diagnosed with RSV bronchiolitis in the Reference group. RESULTS: The odds of wheezing were 4.5-fold (95%CI 3.5-5.9) higher in the RSV than in the Reference group. The odds increased to 7.7-fold (95%CI 5.4-11.1) among children who were hospitalized, and 9-fold (95%CI 5.1-16.6) among those admitted to pediatric intensive care with RSV bronchiolitis. Similar trends were observed across all countries. In total, 57% of parents reported their child's wheezing to have moderate to severe impact on their emotional well-being, and 53% on their daily life activities and/or social life. 64% of parents reported moderate-severe impact of wheezing on child's quality of sleep and 49% and 46% reported a moderate-severe impact on their children's emotional well-being and physical activities. CONCLUSIONS: This survey suggests an association between RSV infection and subsequent wheezing in children across different countries. Wheezing, especially in association with RSV infection, was associated with increased healthcare utilization and costs, and significantly impacted parents' and children daily life.

Evaluation of antibody-based preventive alternatives for respiratory syncytial virus: a novel multi-criteria decision analysis framework and assessment of nirsevimab in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a highly infectious disease that poses a significant clinical and medical burden, as well as social disruption and economic costs, recognized by the World Health Organization as a public health issue. After several failed attempts to find preventive candidates (compounds, products, including vaccines), new alternatives might be available, one being nirsevimab, the first and only option approved for RSV prevention in neonates and infants during their first RSV season. The objective of this study was to develop a novel multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for RSV antibody-based preventive alternatives and to use it to assess the value of nirsevimab vs. placebo as a systematic immunization approach to prevent RSV in neonates and infants during their first RSV season in Spain. METHODS: Based on a pre-established model called Vaccinex, an ad-hoc MCDA framework was created to reflect relevant attributes for the assessment of current and future antibody-based preventive measures for RSV. The estimated value of nirsevimab was obtained by means of an additive linear model combining weights and scores assigned by a multidisciplinary committee of 9 experts. A retest and three sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Nirsevimab was evaluated through a novel framework with 26 criteria by the committee as a measure that adds value (positive final estimated value: 0.56 ± 0.11) to the current RSV scenario in Spain, by providing a high efficacy for prevention of neonates and infants. In addition, its implementation might generate cost savings in hospitalizations and to the healthcare system and increase the level of public health awareness among the general population, while reducing health inequities. CONCLUSIONS: Under a methodology with increasing use in the health field, nirsevimab has been evaluated as a measure which adds value for RSV prevention in neonates and infants during their first RSV season in Spain.

Using Real-World Data in the Health Technology Assessment of Pharmaceuticals: Strengths, Difficulties, and a Pragmatic Way Forward.

In the past decade, there have been increasing calls for greater use of real-world evidence (RWE) and data (RWD), with the explicit goal of enabling faster provision of effective medicines to patients in need. The push for decision makers to accept RWE is especially noticeable in the pursuit of regulatory approval, but RWE, particularly when used to estimate the relative effectiveness of interventions, is not always readily accepted by agencies responsible for reimbursement and pricing of new pharmaceuticals and, to a varying degree, is not accepted across jurisdictions. This lack of trust hampers the use of RWE despite a very large and growing literature base on the principles of how RWE should be used. In this article, we suggest an important part of the explanation of why this situation has arisen and make suggestions for its alleviation. Given that problems commonly arise that are particular to the question being asked and the data sources being used, general guidance on the principles of how to use RWD cannot cover all eventualities. Therefore, we are suggesting the creation of an archive, or repository, to record uses of RWD in support of decisions by funding bodies or their advisors. This article introduces a proposed, structured classification of decision types using RWE, around which evidence can be assembled in a curated source (RWD/RWE taxonomy) and thus facilitate judgments on when evidence is "good enough." This article is part of a series in a special issue of this journal that looks at the barriers to optimal use of RWE in health technology assessment and how to overcome them. We begin significantly to populate our "taxonomy" with examples in an accompanying article. We also propose recommendations for international standards of evaluating the acceptability of RWD governance practices.

The Real-World Evidence Workstream in EUreccA 2025: How the Task Was Addressed.

This is one of a series of articles that consider the barriers to optimal use of real-world evidence (RWE) in health technology assessment (HTA) as well as ways to overcome them. The work was carried out as part of EUreccA 2025 (European Initiative for New Reimbursement and Access Approaches 2025), in particular with the RWE workstream embodied within that collaboration. The starting premises of this workstream were as follows: (1) the acceptance of RWE by HTA agencies and payers in the assessment of drugs is suboptimal and variable between jurisdictions, and (2) if that were not the case, the path of new pharmaceuticals to patients could be quicker and less expensive. Elsewhere in this issue we set out the conclusions we had reached in the EUreccA RWE workstream. In this article, we set out the methodology used to conduct the totality of the EureccA 2025 RWE workstream effort, which led us to those conclusions. The main results, strengths, and limitations of the individual parts are discussed further in separate articles in this supplement. Through scoping work, we generated 4 key topics within which to identify and address the barriers to optimal RWE use in HTA. Through pragmatic literature searches, stakeholder engagement, and case studies, we suggest ways in which the problems identified may be addressed as a contribution to progress in this area.

Across-Country Variations of Real-World Data and Evidence for Drugs: A 5-European-Country Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the role of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) in health technology assessment (HTA) in 5 European countries and to identify the hurdles to the acceptance of RWE and suggest directions toward its more effective use. METHODS: Authors from France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden used a common template to extract evidence. For England, the Cancer Drugs Fund was described and analyzed as a particular model for the use of RWD to provide evidence for coverage decisions and managed entry agreements. RESULTS: In all countries except Germany, HTA bodies acknowledged the relevance of RWD/RWE to address postlaunch uncertainties. In Germany, evidence from randomized controlled trials remains the gold standard, and evidence based on RWD is generally rejected. Multiple sources of RWD exist, but the quality, the immediate relevance of existing sources, and their interoperability limit their adaptation to the specifics of a given drug. This leads to skepticism about the validity of the evidence. Timing is also a key issue: the production of evidence may not be synchronized with the HTA and pricing bodies' agendas. The Cancer Drugs Fund case emphasizes that a strong partnership among all stakeholders and a pragmatic use of existing data, alongside clinical evidence provided by companies, are key success factors. CONCLUSIONS: A continuous investment in national health information systems is a key issue for providing valid RWE. Processes and aids to guide the acceptability and usage of RWE derived from pairing between sources and questions are essential.

Data Governance for Real-World Data Management: A Proposal for a Checklist to Support Decision Making.

OBJECTIVES: Real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) can provide extensive information on healthcare for use in health technology assessment and decision making. Nevertheless, there is a lack of consensus surrounding the appropriate data governance (DG) practices for RWD/RWE. Data sharing is also a large concern, especially considering evolving data protection regulations. Our objective is to propose recommendations for international standards of evaluating the acceptability of RWD governance practices. METHODS: After reviewing the literature, we created a checklist targeting DG practices for RWD/RWE. We then carried out a 3-round Delphi panel, including European policy makers, health technology assessment experts, and hospital managers. The consensus for each statement was measured and the checklist adjusted accordingly. RESULTS: The literature review identified the main topics regarding RWD/RWE DG practices: data privacy and security, data management and linkage, data access management, and the generation and use of RWE. Members of the Delphi panel (21 experts/25 invited) were presented a total of 24 statements related to each of the topics. Experts demonstrated a progressive level of consensus and importance ratings in all topics and to most statements. We suggest a refined checklist in which the statements rated less important or with less consensus have been removed. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests how the DG of RWD/RWE could be qualitatively evaluated. We propose checklists that could be used by all RWD/RWE users to help ensure the quality and integrity of RWD/RWE governance and complement data protection law.

Structure and Content of a Taxonomy to Support the Use of Real-World Evidence by Health Technology Assessment Practitioners and Healthcare Decision Makers.

This is one of a series of articles that consider the barriers to optimal use of real-world evidence (RWE) in health technology assessment and how to overcome them. The work was performed as part of EUreccA 2025, in particular with the RWE workstream embodied within that collaboration. Elsewhere in this issue we described the reasoning and process that led us to develop practical tools to support RWE use, including this taxonomy and explained the methods used to do so. The taxonomy classifies questions that are typically addressed using real-world data in health technology assessment and the data sources typically used to address these questions. In this article, we describe the taxonomy itself. For as many of the pairings as possible, we have provided links to advice and methods on how to address the associated question using those data. We have also provided links to examples of RWE use in practical decision making to answer the questions posed. Our work is not complete, but we believe it is sufficient to demonstrate the value of such a taxonomy and information source if it is completed and curated as a "wiki" by the community that would use it.

Disease burden and economic impact of diagnosed non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in five European countries in 2018: A cost-of-illness analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a chronic disease that can progress to end-stage liver disease (ESLD). A large proportion of early-stage NASH patients remain undiagnosed compared to those with advanced fibrosis, who are more likely to receive disease management interventions. This study estimated the disease burden and economic impact of diagnosed NASH in the adult population of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom in 2018. METHODS: The socioeconomic burden of diagnosed NASH was estimated using cost-of-illness methodology applying a prevalence approach to estimate the number of adults with NASH and the attributable economic and wellbeing costs. Given undiagnosed patients do not incur costs in the study, the probability of diagnosis is central to cost estimation. The analysis was based on a literature review, databases and consultation with clinical experts, economists and patient groups. RESULTS: The proportion of adult NASH patients with a diagnosis ranged from 11.9% to 12.7% across countries, which increased to 38.8%-39.1% for advanced fibrosis (F3-F4 compensated cirrhosis). Total economic costs were €8548-19 546M. Of these, health system costs were €619-1292M. Total wellbeing costs were €41 536-90 379M. The majority of the undiagnosed population (87.3%-88.2% of total prevalence) was found to have early-stage NASH, which, left untreated, may progress to more resource consuming ESLD over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the majority of economic and wellbeing costs of NASH are experienced in late disease stages. Earlier diagnosis and care of NASH patients could reduce future healthcare costs.

Appraising research policy instrument mixes: a multicriteria mapping study in six European countries of diagnostic innovation to manage antimicrobial resistance.

This article provides prospective appraisal of key policy instruments intended to stimulate innovation to combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR). AMR refers to the ability of microbes to evolve resistance to those treatments designed to kill them, and is associated with the overuse or misuse of medicines such as antibiotics. AMR is an emerging global challenge with major implications for healthcare and society as a whole. Diagnostic tests for infectious diseases can guide decision making when prescribing medicines, so reducing inappropriate drug use. In the context of growing international interest in policies to stimulate innovation in AMR diagnostics, this study uses multicriteria mapping (MCM) to appraise a range of policy instruments in order to understand their potential performance while also highlighting the uncertainties that stakeholders hold about such interventions in complex contexts. A contribution of the article is the demonstration of a novel method to analyse and visualise MCM data in order to reveal stakeholder inclinations towards particular options while exploring interviewees' uncertainties about the effectiveness of each instrument's design or implementation. The article reports results from six European countries (Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK). The findings reveal which policy instruments are deemed most likely to perform well, and why, across stakeholder groups and national settings, with areas of common ground and difference being identified. Importantly, the conclusions presented here differ from prominent policy discourse, with international implications for the design of mixes of policy instruments to combat AMR. Strategic and practical methodological implications also emerge for general appraisal of innovation policy instrument mixes.

Paying for Cures: Perspectives on Solutions to the "Affordability Issue".

Curative therapies and other medicines considered "game-changing" in terms of health gain can be accompanied by high demand and high list prices that pose budget challenges to public and private payers and health systems-the so-called affordability issue. These challenges are exacerbated when longer term effectiveness, and thus value for money, is uncertain, but they can arise even when treatments are proven to be highly cost-effective at the time of launch. This commentary reviews innovative payment solutions proposed in the literature to address the affordability issue, including the use of credit markets and of staged payments linked to patient outcomes, and draws on discussions with payers in the United States and Europe on the feasibility or desirability of operationalizing any of the alternative financing and payment strategies that appear in the literature. This included a small number of semistructured interviews. We conclude that there is a mismatch between the enthusiasm in the academic literature for developing new approaches and the scepticism of payers that they can work or are necessary. For the foreseeable future, affordability pressures will continue to be handled by aggressive price bargaining, high co-pays (in systems in which this is possible), and restricting access to subgroups of patients. Of the mechanisms we explored, outcomes-based payments were of most interest to payers, but the costs associated with operating such schemes, together with implementation challenges, did not make them an attractive option for managing affordability.

Quantifying the economic impact of government and charity funding of medical research on private research and development funding in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Government- and charity-funded medical research and private sector research and development (R&D) are widely held to be complements. The only attempts to measure this complementarity so far have used data from the United States of America and are inevitably increasingly out of date. This study estimates the magnitude of the effect of government and charity biomedical and health research expenditure in the United Kingdom (UK), separately and in total, on subsequent private pharmaceutical sector R&D expenditure in the UK. METHODS: The results for this study are obtained by fitting an econometric vector error correction model (VECM) to time series for biomedical and health R&D expenditure in the UK for ten disease areas (including 'other') for the government, charity and private sectors. The VECM model describes the relationship between public (i.e. government and charities combined) sector expenditure, private sector expenditure and global pharmaceutical sales as a combination of a long-term equilibrium and short-term movements. RESULTS: There is a statistically significant complementary relationship between public biomedical and health research expenditure and private pharmaceutical R&D expenditure. A 1% increase in public sector expenditure is associated in the best-fit model with a 0.81% increase in private sector expenditure. Sensitivity analysis produces a similar and statistically significant result with a slightly smaller positive elasticity of 0.68. Overall, every additional £1 of public research expenditure is associated with an additional £0.83-£1.07 of private sector R&D spend in the UK; 44% of that additional private sector expenditure occurs within 1 year, with the remainder accumulating over decades. This spillover effect implies a real annual rate of return (in terms of economic impact) to public biomedical and health research in the UK of 15-18%. When combined with previous estimates of the health gain that results from public medical research in cancer and cardiovascular disease, the total rate of return would be around 24-28%. CONCLUSION: Overall, this suggests that government and charity funded research in the UK crowds in additional private sector R&D in the UK. The implied historical returns from UK government and charity funded investment in medical research in the UK compare favourably with the rates of return achieved on investments in the rest of the UK economy and are greatly in excess of the 3.5% real annual rate of return required by the UK government to public investments generally.

Why has therapy development for dementia failed in the last two decades?

The success rate of the pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) for dementia drugs has been abysmally low, in the last two decades. Also low has been the number of pipeline drugs in development, compared to other therapy areas. However, the rationale of early terminations has not been reported in the majority of trials. These are key findings of the recently published pharmaceutical pipeline analysis by the UK-based Office of Health Economics (OHE). Our understanding of main challenges include (1) the significant gaps of knowledge in the nosology and complexity of the underpinning biological mechanisms of the commonest, not familial, forms of late onset dementias; (2) low signal-to-noise ratio, notwithstanding the lack of validated biomarkers as entry and/or end-point criteria; (3) recruitment and retention, particularly in the asymptomatic and early disease stages. A number of current and future strategies aimed at ameliorating drug development are outlined and discussed.

Value-based differential pricing: efficient prices for drugs in a global context.

This paper analyzes pharmaceutical pricing between and within countries to achieve second-best static and dynamic efficiency. We distinguish countries with and without universal insurance, because insurance undermines patients' price sensitivity, potentially leading to prices above second-best efficient levels. In countries with universal insurance, if each payer unilaterally sets an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold based on its citizens' willingness-to-pay for health; manufacturers price to that ICER threshold; and payers limit reimbursement to patients for whom a drug is cost-effective at that price and ICER, then the resulting price levels and use within each country and price differentials across countries are roughly consistent with second-best static and dynamic efficiency. These value-based prices are expected to differ cross-nationally with per capita income and be broadly consistent with Ramsey optimal prices. Countries without comprehensive insurance avoid its distorting effects on prices but also lack financial protection and affordability for the poor. Improving pricing efficiency in these self-pay countries includes improving regulation and consumer information about product quality and enabling firms to price discriminate within and between countries.

UNDERSTANDING VARIATIONS IN RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS: A HEALTH PRODUCTION APPROACH.

BACKGROUND: Relative effectiveness has become a key concern of health policy. In Europe, this is because of the need for early information to guide reimbursement and funding decisions about new medical technologies. However, ways that effectiveness (does it work?) and efficacy (can it work?) might differ across health systems are poorly understood. METHODS: This study proposes an analytical framework, drawing on production function theory, to systematically identify and quantify the determinants of relative effectiveness and sources of variation between populations and healthcare systems. We consider how methods such as stochastic frontier analysis and data envelopment analysis using a Malmquist productivity index could in principle be used to generate evidence on, and improve understanding about, the sources of variation in relative effectiveness between countries and over time. RESULTS: Better evidence on factors driving relative effectiveness could: inform decisions on how to best use a new technology to maximum effectiveness; establish the need if any for follow-up post-launch studies, and provide evidence of the impact of new health technologies on outcomes in different healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: The health production function approach for assessment of relative effectiveness is complementary to traditional experimental and observational studies, focusing on identifying, collecting, and analyzing data at the national level, enabling comparisons to take place. There is a strong case for exploring the use of this approach to better understand the impact of new medicines and devices for improvements in health outcomes.

RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS IN BREAST CANCER TREATMENT: A HEALTH PRODUCTION APPROACH.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceuticals' relative effectiveness has come to the fore in the policy arena, reflecting the need to understand how relative efficacy (what can work) translates into added benefit in routine clinical use (what does work). European payers and licensing authorities assess value for money and post-launch benefit-risk profiles, and efforts to standardize assessments of relative effectiveness across the European Union (EU) are under way. However, the ways that relative effectiveness differs across EU healthcare settings are poorly understood. METHODS: To understand which factors influence differences in relative effectiveness, we developed an analytical framework that treats the healthcare system as a health production function. Using evidence on breast cancer from England, Spain, and Sweden as a case study, we investigated the reasons why the relative effectiveness of a new drug might vary across healthcare systems. Evidence was identified from a literature review and national clinical guidance. RESULTS: The review included thirteen international studies and thirty country-specific studies. Cross-country differences in population age structure, deprivation, and educational attainment were consistently associated with variation in outcomes. Screening intensity appeared to drive differences in survival, although the impact on mortality was unclear. CONCLUSIONS: The way efficacy translates into relative effectiveness across health systems is likely to be influenced by a range of complex and interrelated factors. These factors could inform government and payer policy decisions on ways to optimize relative effectiveness, and help increase understanding of the potential transferability of data on relative effectiveness from one health system to another.

How long does biomedical research take? Studying the time taken between biomedical and health research and its translation into products, policy, and practice.

BACKGROUND: The time taken, or 'time lags', between biomedical/health research and its translation into health improvements is receiving growing attention. Reducing time lags should increase rates of return to such research. However, ways to measure time lags are under-developed, with little attention on where time lags arise within overall timelines. The process marker model has been proposed as a better way forward than the current focus on an increasingly complex series of translation 'gaps'. Starting from that model, we aimed to develop better methods to measure and understand time lags and develop ways to identify policy options and produce recommendations for future studies. METHODS: Following reviews of the literature on time lags and of relevant policy documents, we developed a new approach to conduct case studies of time lags. We built on the process marker model, including developing a matrix with a series of overlapping tracks to allow us to present and measure elements within any overall time lag. We identified a reduced number of key markers or calibration points and tested our new approach in seven case studies of research leading to interventions in cardiovascular disease and mental health. Finally, we analysed the data to address our study's key aims. RESULTS: The literature review illustrated the lack of agreement on starting points for measuring time lags. We mapped points from policy documents onto our matrix and thus highlighted key areas of concern, for example around delays before new therapies become widely available. Our seven completed case studies demonstrate we have made considerable progress in developing methods to measure and understand time lags. The matrix of overlapping tracks of activity in the research and implementation processes facilitated analysis of time lags along each track, and at the cross-over points where the next track started. We identified some factors that speed up translation through the actions of companies, researchers, funders, policymakers, and regulators. Recommendations for further work are built on progress made, limitations identified and revised terminology. CONCLUSIONS: Our advances identify complexities, provide a firm basis for further methodological work along and between tracks, and begin to indicate potential ways of reducing lags.

Capturing the holistic value of biosimilars in Europe - part 1: a historical perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Approved biosimilars exhibit comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to reference products. This report provides perspectives on the societal value of biosimilars within Europe and potential factors that have influenced market dynamics. METHODS: An independent, self-administered survey or one-on-one in-depth interview was used to collect viewpoints about the impact of biosimilar medicines within European markets. Key insights were also sought from an expert panel of European stakeholders. RESULTS: Survey respondents were clinicians, pharmacists, and payers from Europe (N = 103). Perceived benefits of biosimilars included increased access to innovative medicines (73% of respondents) or biologic treatments (66%). Biosimilar competition was thought to expand access to biologics (~50% of respondents) or drug combinations (~36%) and reduce biologic access time (34%). Key drivers of biologic access after biosimilar competition included increased biologic awareness (51%) and changes to prescribing guidelines (37%) and/or treatment paradigms (28%). The expert panel developed a market maturity framework of biosimilar adoption/opportunities comprising three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand,' and 'Harvest.' Findings were supported by published literature. CONCLUSIONS: In Europe, the perceptions of well-informed survey/interview respondents are that biosimilars have improved patient outcomes via increased access to biologics and innovative biologic products, contributing to earlier and longer treatment of a broader population.

Expert-based collaborative analysis of the situation and prospects of biomarker test implementation in oncology in Spain.

PURPOSE: Biomarkers as screening for precision medicine is a fundamental step. The purpose of this article is twofold. First, to highlight the existing barriers in the implementation of Precision Medicine in Spain, with a special emphasis on barriers in access to the determination of biomarkers. Second, to provide a Roadmap that can help implement Precision Medicine equitably at the national level and optimize the use of biomarkers. METHODS: A systematic review of literature (SRL) and a focus group (FG) with multidisciplinary experts has been carried out in 2023. Participants were contacted individually, and discourse analysis was processed anonymously. RESULTS: We carried out a quantitative (SRL) and a qualitative approach (FG). The discourse analysis and roadmap were sent individually to each expert for approval. CONCLUSIONS: The potential of Precision Medicine has not been fulfilled in Spain. While several regional initiatives are in place, a national plan or strategy around Precision Medicine and use of biomarkers is lacking. In a general context of rapid progress at a global and European level, including the 2021 Europe's Beating Cancer Plan, it is time to define and implement a National Plan to make the promise come true. While some comparable countries within Europe - such as the UK or France - are mature enough to adopt such strategies, in Spain there is still a long way to go. We consider that the different strands of work outlined in the Roadmap can be used as basis for such purpose.

A Review of Current Approaches to Evaluating and Reimbursing New Medicines in a Subset of OECD Countries.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to review the current evaluation and funding processes for new drugs in different developed countries, to provide a comparative framework with detailed, homogeneous, and up-to-date information. METHODS: Scientific publications, reports and websites were reviewed between July and December 2021 using PubMed, Google Scholar, and grey literature sources. The main items searched were actors and processes, including timelines, characteristics of clinical and economic evaluations, participation of stakeholders, elements of price and reimbursement decisions, cost-effectiveness thresholds and specific funds. The analysed 13 countries were Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Scotland, South Korea, Spain and Sweden. RESULTS: Eight countries perform the assessment process separated from the pricing decision. Countries measure each drug's added therapeutic value through multi-attribute value scales, algorithms, non-prescriptive lists of criteria, or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health technology assessment (HTA) methodologies differ in their outcome measures, elicitation techniques, comparators, and perspectives. The criteria used for pricing and reimbursement include humanistic, clinical, and economic aspects. Only Scotland, England, the Netherlands, Canada and Portugal use explicit efficiency thresholds. Health care professionals participate in all assessment committees, and patients are becoming increasingly involved in most countries. The official time from marketing authorisation to the completion of the evaluation and pricing processes varied from 126 to 540 days. CONCLUSIONS: Most analysed countries show a trend towards value-based approaches that consider value for money to society, but also other economic, clinical, and humanistic criteria. Good practices included robustness, transparency, independence, and participation.

Leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars in Europe - part 2: how payers can safeguard the future of a healthy biosimilar market environment.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars have improved access to biologic medicines; however, historical thinking may jeopardize the viability of future markets. AREAS COVERED: An expert panel of eight diverse European stakeholders provided insights about rethinking biosimilars and cost-savings, reducing patient access inequalities, increasing inter-market equity, and improving education. The insights reported here (Part 2) follow a study that provides perspectives on leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars for market sustainability based on independent survey results and telephone interviews of stakeholders from diverse biosimilar markets (Part 1). Directional recommendations are provided for payers. EXPERT OPINION: The panel's market maturity framework for biosimilars has three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand' and 'Harvest.' Across market stages, re-thinking the benefits of biosimilars beyond cost-savings, considering earlier or expanded access/new indications, product innovations, and re-investment of biosimilar-generated cost-savings should be communicated to stakeholders to promote further engagement. During 'Expand' and 'Harvest' stages, development of efficient, forward-looking procurement systems and mechanisms that drive uptake and stabilize competition between manufacturers are key. Future biosimilars will target various therapy areas beyond those targeted by existing biosimilars. To ensure a healthy, accessible future market, stakeholders must align their objectives, communicate, collaborate, and coordinate via education, incentivization, and procurement, to maximize the totality of benefits.