Real-world evidence to support Payer/HTA decisions about highly innovative technologies in the EU-actions for stakeholders.

OBJECTIVES: There are divergent views on the potential of real-world data (RWD) to inform decisions made by regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, payers, clinicians, and patients. This RWE4Decisions initiative explored the particularly challenging setting of highly innovative technologies, which require Payers/HTAs to make decisions on a small evidence base with major uncertainties. The aim was to go beyond strategic intent to consider actions that each stakeholder could take to improve use of RWD in this setting. RESULTS: Case studies of recent Payer/HTA decisions about highly innovative technologies were considered in light of recent international initiatives about RWD. This showed a lack of clarity about the Payer/HTA questions that could be answered by RWD and how the quality of real-world evidence (RWE) could be assessed. All stakeholders worked together to create a vision whereby stakeholders agree what RWD can be collected for highly innovative technologies based on principles of collaboration and transparency. For each stakeholder group, recommended actions to support the generation, analysis, and interpretation of RWD to inform decision making were developed. For HTA bodies, this includes cross border HTA/regulatory collaboration to agree RWD requirements over the technology life cycle to inform initial recommendations and reassessment, data analytics methods development for HTA, and promotion of transparency in RWE studies. RECOMMENDATIONS: Stakeholders need to collaborate on demonstration projects to consider how RWE can be developed to inform healthcare decisions and contribute to a learning network that can develop systems to support a learning health system and improve patient outcomes through best use of RWD.

Stories of Patient Involvement Impact in Health Technology Assessments: A Discussion Paper.

OBJECTIVES: As more health technology assessment (HTA) bodies seek to implement patient involvement, there is a desire to learn from other HTA bodies about their experiences and understand what approaches can be used and which ones make a real difference to HTA. This is difficult, as the impact of patient involvement in HTA is not well documented. This study aims to promote further discussion about the ways in which patient involvement can impact HTAs by studying stories of impact. METHODS: In a multi-stakeholder workshop, experts leading patient involvement in four HTA bodies shared examples of HTAs where they believed patient involvement made a difference, then they reflected on these impact stories within the wider context of impact evaluation. RESULTS: The HTA bodies drew on patient input and patient-based evidence to inform their HTAs. The patient involvement was observed to elucidate patients' experiences, needs and preferences which, in turn, was observed to influence the HTA recommendations about optimal use of technologies, including taking account of issues for sub-groups, outcomes that matter to patients and educational needs. CONCLUSIONS: Personal stories of patient involvement may enable a wider understanding of different approaches to and impact of patient involvement. The examples relate to both patient input and patient-based evidence and highlight the role that patient involvement can play in reducing uncertainties and complementing the clinical and economic evidence in HTA. They suggest that impact can be seen in recommendations about how and when a technology is used.

The Evolution of AIFA Registries to Support Managed Entry Agreements for Orphan Medicinal Products in Italy.

Italy has a well-established prominent system of national registries to support managed entry agreements (MEAs), monitoring innovative medicinal products (MPs) with clinical as well as economic uncertainties to ensure appropriate use and best value for money. The technological architecture of the registries is funded by pharmaceutical companies, but fully governed by the national medicines agency (AIFA). A desktop analysis was undertaken of data over a 15-year timeframe of all AIFA indication-based registries and associated EMA information. The characteristics of registries were evaluated, comparing orphan MPs vs. all MPs exploring cancer and non-cancer indications. OMP (orphan medicinal product) registries' type vs. AIFA innovation status and EMA approval was reviewed. Of the 283 registries, 182 are appropriateness registries (35.2% relate to OMPs, with an almost equal split of cancer vs. non-cancer for OMPs and MPs), 35 include financial-based agreements [20% OMPs (2 non-cancer, 5 cancer)], and 60 registries are payment by result agreements [23.3% OMPs (4 non-cancer, 10 cancer)]. Most OMPs (53/88) came through the normal regulatory route. With the strengthening of the system for evaluation of innovation, fewer outcomes-based registries have been instigated. AIFA has overcome many of the challenges experienced with MEA through developing an integrated national web-based data collection system: the challenge that remains for AIFA is to move from using the system for individual patient decisions about treatment to reviewing the wealth of data it now holds to optimize healthcare.

Implementing Outcomes-Based Managed Entry Agreements for Rare Disease Treatments: Nusinersen and Tisagenlecleucel.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Enthusiasm for the use of outcomes-based managed entry agreements (OBMEAs) to manage uncertainties apparent at the time of appraisal/pricing and reimbursement of new medicines has waned over the past decade, as challenges in establishment, implementation and re-appraisal have been identified. With the recent advent of innovative treatments for rare diseases that have uncertainties in the clinical evidence base, but which could meet a high unmet need, there has been renewed interest in the potential of OBMEAs. The objective of this research was to review the implementation of OBMEAs for two case studies across countries in the European Union, Australia and Canada, to identify good practices that could inform development of tools to support implementation of OBMEAs. METHODS: To investigate how OBMEAs are being implemented with rare disease treatments, we collected information from health technology assessment/payer experts in countries that had implemented OBMEAs for either nusinersen in spinal muscular atrophy or tisagenlecleucel in two cancer indications. Operational characteristics of the OBMEAs that were publicly available were documented. Then, the experts discussed issues in implementing these OBMEAs and specific approaches taken to overcome challenges. RESULTS: The OBMEAs identified were based on individual outcomes to ensure appropriate use, manage continuation of treatment and in two cases linked to payment schedules, or they were population based, coverage with evidence development. For nusinersen, population-based OBMEAs are documented in Belgium, England and the Netherlands and individual-based schemes in Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy and Lithuania. For tisagenlecleucel, there were population-based schemes in Australia, Belgium, England and France and individual-based schemes in Italy and Spain. Comparison of the OBMEA constructs showed some clear published frameworks and clarity of the uncertainties to be addressed that were similar across countries. Agreements were generally made between the marketing authorisation holder and the payer with involvement of expert physicians. Only England and the Netherlands involved patients. Italy used its long-established, national, web-based, treatment-specific data collection system linked to reimbursement and Spain has just developed such a national treatment registry system. Other countries relied on a variety of data collection systems (including clinical registries) and administrative data. Durations of agreements varied for these treatments as did processes for interim reporting. The processes to ensure data quality, completeness and sufficiency for re-analysis after coverage with evidence development were not always clear, neither were analysis plans. CONCLUSIONS: These case studies have shown that important information about the constructs of OBMEAs for rare disease treatments are publicly available, and for some jurisdictions, interim reports of progress. Outcomes-based managed entry agreements can play an important role not only in reimbursement, but also in treatment optimisation. However, they are complex to implement and should be the exception and not the rule. More recent OBMEAs have developed document covenants among stakeholders or electronic systems to provide assurances about data sufficiency. For coverage with evidence development, there is an opportunity for greater collaboration among jurisdictions to share processes, develop common data collection agreements, and share interim and final reports. The establishment of an international public portal to host such reports would be particularly valuable for rare disease treatments.

Putting Patients at the Centre of Healthcare: Progress and Challenges for Health Technology Assessments.

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are meant to inform health policy by taking account of all the potential impacts of using a health technology. In the 1990s, HTAs included rigorous research to produce patient-based evidence, and some supported participation of patient representatives to help focus HTA research and determine value. In the 2000s, HTAs became more closely linked to reimbursement decisions, focusing on clinical and cost effectiveness. Patient involvement should be tailored to the specific needs of each HTA. As the timeframe for HTAs has reduced, research to produce patient-based evidence has been replaced by input from patient groups. This places a burden on individuals and organizations that needs to be critically reviewed. Therefore, it is imperative that we clarify when patient involvement is likely to add value and support patients to provide their unique knowledge in the most optimal way to influence HTA decision making. To reduce the burden on patient groups, more must be done to encourage research to produce patient-based evidence early in technology development. Like clinical research, a programme of research should be carefully planned, with appropriate methodological rigor for each study, and all research should be published. For this, the development of quality standards for research to produce patient-based evidence may be needed. Patient involvement has inherent value. It should be focused, systematic and transparent, and evolve according to the experiences of all stakeholders. All countries or collaboratives that undertake HTA should consider how they can elicit the needs, preferences and experiences of patients to support creation of patient-centered healthcare policy.