Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

Methods for Including Adverse Events in Economic Evaluations: Suggestions for Improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Inclusion of relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes in economic evaluation of health technologies is required to aid efficient healthcare decisions. Our objective was to identify the key issues related to the inclusion of adverse events (AEs) in economic evaluation and explore perspectives for good practice recommendations to handle these issues. METHODS: We focused on the frequently encountered methodological issues related to the integration of AEs in economic evaluations of health technologies. We distinguished the following elements: the incorporation of AEs in decision models, the terminology of AEs, the estimation of AEs consequences in terms of quality of life (QoL) and costs, and the exploration of the uncertainty related to the impact of AEs on the economic results. RESULTS: We illustrated and discussed each of the identified issues by giving health technology assessment examples. We focused on the extent to which the integration of AEs in decision models can be improved by dealing with the lack of relevant real-world safety data, estimating the consequences of AEs (eg, for costs and QoL loss), exploring the impacts of AEs that are not adequately captured in current measurement of health-related QoL, and identifying the need for development of a good terminology of relevant types of AEs to be incorporated in economic evaluation. CONCLUSION: Based on a reflection the key methodological issues related to the incorporation of adverse drug events in economic evaluations, we suggested several recommendations to serve a starting point for health technology assessment agencies and researchers to develop good research practices in this field.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI): Explanation and Elaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Although the ISPOR Value of Information (VOI) Task Force's reports outline VOI concepts and provide good-practice recommendations, there is no guidance for reporting VOI analyses. VOI analyses are usually performed alongside economic evaluations for which the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Statement provides reporting guidelines. Thus, we developed the CHEERS-VOI checklist to provide reporting guidance and checklist to support the transparent, reproducible, and high-quality reporting of VOI analyses. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review generated a list of 26 candidate reporting items. These candidate items underwent a Delphi procedure with Delphi participants through 3 survey rounds. Participants rated each item on a 9-point Likert scale to indicate its relevance when reporting the minimal, essential information about VOI methods and provided comments. The Delphi results were reviewed at 2-day consensus meetings and the checklist was finalized using anonymous voting. RESULTS: We had 30, 25, and 24 Delphi respondents in rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. After incorporating revisions recommended by the Delphi participants, all 26 candidate items proceeded to the 2-day consensus meetings. The final CHEERS-VOI checklist includes all CHEERS items, but 7 items require elaboration when reporting VOI. Further, 6 new items were added to report information relevant only to VOI (eg, VOI methods applied). CONCLUSIONS: The CHEERS-VOI checklist should be used when a VOI analysis is performed alongside economic evaluations. The CHEERS-VOI checklist will help decision makers, analysts and peer reviewers in the assessment and interpretation of VOI analyses and thereby increase transparency and rigor in decision making.

How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy?

BACKGROUND: The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes. METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered. RESULTS: The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses.

Functional antibody characterization via direct structural analysis and information-driven protein-protein docking.

Detailed description of the mechanism of action of the therapeutic antibodies is essential for the functional characterization and future optimization of potential clinical agents. We recently developed KD035, a fully human antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2). KD035 blocked VEGF-A, and VEGF-C-mediated VEGFR2 activation, as demonstrated by the in vitro binding and competition assays and functional cellular assays. Here, we report a computational model of the complex between the variable fragment of KD035 (KD035(Fv)) and the domains 2 and 3 of the extracellular portion of VEGFR2 (VEGFR2(D2-3)). Our modeling was guided by a priori experimental information including the X-ray structures of KD035 and related antibodies, binding assays, target domain mapping and comparison of KD035 affinity for VEGFR2 from different species. The accuracy of the model was assessed by molecular dynamics simulations, and subsequently validated by mutagenesis and binding analysis. Importantly, the steps followed during the generation of this model can set a precedent for future in silico efforts aimed at the accurate description of the antibody-antigen and more broadly protein-protein complexes.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Challenges of Health Technology Assessment in Pluralistic Healthcare Systems: An ISPOR Council Report.

Health technology assessment (HTA) has been growing in use over the past 40 years, especially in its impact on decisions regarding the reimbursement, adoption, and use of new drugs, devices, and procedures. In countries or jurisdictions with "pluralistic" healthcare systems, there are multiple payers or sectors, each of which could potentially benefit from HTA. Nevertheless, a single HTA, conducted centrally, may not meet the needs of these different actors, who may have different budgets, current standards of care, populations to serve, or decision-making processes. This article reports on the research conducted by an ISPOR Health Technology Assessment Council Working Group established to examine the specific challenges of conducting and using HTA in countries with pluralistic healthcare systems. The Group used its own knowledge and expertise, supplemented by a narrative literature review and survey of US payers, to identify existing challenges and any initiatives taken to address them. We recommend that countries with pluralistic healthcare systems establish a national focus for HTA, develop a uniform set of HTA methods guidelines, ensure that HTAs are produced in a timely fashion, facilitate the use of HTA in the local setting, and develop a framework to encourage transparency in HTA. These efforts can be enhanced by the development of good practice guidance from ISPOR or similar groups and increased training to facilitate local use of HTA.

Secondary Coordination Sphere Influences the Formation of Fe(III)-O or Fe(III)-OH in Nitrite Reduction: A Synthetic and Computational Study.

The reduction of nitrite (NO2-) to generate nitric oxide (NO) is a significant area of research due to their roles in the global nitrogen cycle. Here, we describe various modifications of the tris(5-cyclohexyliminopyrrol-2-ylmethyl)amine H3[N(piR)3] ligand where the steric bulk and acidity of the secondary coordination sphere were explored in the non-heme iron system for nitrite reduction. The cyclohexyl and 2,4,6-trimethylphenyl variants of the ligand were used to probe the mechanism of nitrite reduction. While previously stoichiometric addition of nitrite to the iron(II)-species generated an iron(III)-oxo complex, changing the secondary coordination sphere to mesityl resulted in an iron(III)-hydroxo complex. Subsequent addition of an electron and two protons led to the release of water and regeneration of the starting iron(II) catalyst. This sequence mirrored the proposed mechanism of nitrite reduction in biological systems, where the distal histidine residue shuttles protons to the active site. Computational studies aimed at interrogating the dissimilar behavior of the cyclohexyl and mesityl ligand systems resulting in Fe(III)-oxo and Fe(III)-hydroxo complexes, respectively, shed light on the key role of H-bonds involving the secondary coordination sphere in the relative stability of these species.

Coverage with evidence development for medical devices in Europe: Can practice meet theory?

Health economists have written extensively on the design and implementation of coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes and have proposed theoretical frameworks based on cost-effectiveness modeling and value of information analysis. CED may aid decision-makers when there is uncertainty about the (cost-)effectiveness of a new health technology at the time of reimbursement. Medical devices are potential candidates for CED schemes, as regulatory regimes do not usually require the same level of efficacy and safety data normally needed for pharmaceuticals. The purpose of this research is to assess whether the actual practice of CED for medical devices in Europe meets the theoretical principles proposed by health economists and whether theory and practice can be more closely aligned. Based on decision-makers' perceptions of the challenges associated with CED schemes, plus examples from the schemes themselves, we discuss a series of proposals for assessing the desirability of schemes, their design, implementation, and evaluation. These proposals, while reflecting the practical challenges with developing CED programs, embody many of the principles suggested by economists and should support decision-makers in dealing with uncertainty about the real-world performance of devices.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals, as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

A Value Framework for the Assessment of Diagnostic Technologies: A Proposal Based on a Targeted Systematic Review and a Multistakeholder Deliberative Process in Latin America.

OBJECTIVES: there are very few value frameworks (VFs) to assess health technologies that are focused on diagnostic tests; they usually do not reflect a multistakeholder process; and they are all developed in high-income countries. Our project performed a targeted systematic review, with the objective of proposing an evidence-based, up-to-date VF informed by a multinational multistakeholder group working in the health technology assessment (HTA) space. METHODS: (1) A targeted systematic review, with the aim to identify existing VFs and their dimensions; and (2) generation a VF proposal through a mixed-methods, qualitative-quantitative approach. RESULTS: From 73 citations identified, 20 met our inclusion criteria and served to provide the initial list of dimensions for our VF. An initial list of criteria and subcriteria for a preliminary VF was proposed. After a full-day deliberative face-to-face meeting with 30 relevant stakeholders from seven Latin American countries and the United Kingdom, the final VF was defined, consisting of 15 criteria: five "essential or core," six highly relevant, three moderately relevant, and one of low relevance. Barriers and facilitators of value assessment of diagnostic technologies were also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a VF oriented to diagnostic technologies based on a targeted systematic review and a participatory process with key HTA stakeholders. It is the first to be produced in a lower and middle income setting but can also be potentially useful in other contexts aimed to assist decision-making processes with these particularly complex health technologies.

Measurement Instruments of Productivity Loss of Paid and Unpaid Work: A Systematic Review and Assessment of Suitability for Health Economic Evaluations From a Societal Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed (1) to perform a systematic literature review of instruments for measuring productivity loss of paid and unpaid work and (2) to assess the suitability (in terms of identification, measurement, and valuation) of these instruments for use in health economic evaluations from a societal perspective. METHODS: Articles published from 2018 were sourced from PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, and Econlit. Using 2 separate search strategies, eligible economic evaluations and validation studies were selected and unique measurement instruments identified. A data-extraction form was developed by studying previous literature and consulting an international panel of experts in the field of productivity costs. This data-extraction form was applied to assess the suitability of instruments for use in economic evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 5982 articles were retrieved from the databases, of which 99 economic evaluations and 9 validation studies were included in the review. A total of 42 unique measurement instruments were identified. Nine instruments provided quantified measures of absenteeism, presenteeism, and unpaid work. Five instruments supplied the necessary information to enable the use of at least 1 common valuation method. The Health and Labour Questionnaire-Short Form, Health and Labour Questionnaire, and Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire met both criteria. Nevertheless, the developers replaced the Health and Labour Questionnaire-Short Form and Health and Labour Questionnaire by the more recently developed Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Although many instruments for measuring productivity loss were identified, most were not suitable for capturing productivity changes for economic evaluations from a societal perspective. Future research can benefit from this study by making an informed instrument choice for the measurement of productivity loss of paid and unpaid work.

Disparities in access to food and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related outcomes: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Millions of Americans are living in food deserts in the United States, however the role of the local food environment on COPD has not been studied. The aim of this study is to determine the association between food deserts and COPD-related outcomes. METHOD: In this cross-sectional analysis we linked data collected from SPIROMICS (SubPopulations and InteRmediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study) between 2010 and 2015 and food desert data, defined as an underserved area that lacks access to affordable healthy foods, from the Food Access Research Atlas. COPD outcomes include percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1%), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), 6-min walk distance test (6MWD), exacerbations, and air trapping. We used generalized linear mixed models to evaluate the association between living in food deserts and respiratory outcomes, adjusting for age, gender, race, education, income, marital status, BMI, smoking status, pack years, and urban status RESULTS: Among 2713 participants, 22% lived in food deserts. Participants living in food deserts were less likely to be white and more likely to have a lower income than those who did not live in food deserts. In the adjusted model controlling for demographics and individual income, living in food deserts was associated lower FEV1% (ß = - 2.51, P = 0.046), higher air trapping (ß = 2.47, P = 0.008), worse SGRQ (ß = 3.48, P = 0.001) and CAT (ß = 1.20, P = 0.003) scores, and 56% greater odds of severe exacerbations (P = 0.004). Results were consistent when looking at food access alone, regardless of whether participants lived in low income areas. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest an independent association between food desert and food access alone with COPD outcomes. Health program planning may benefit from addressing disparities in access to food.

Do Social Values and Institutional Context Shape the Use of Economic Evaluation in Reimbursement Decisions? An Empirical Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the use of economic evaluation (EE) in healthcare decision making is influenced by the social values and institutional context in a given country. METHODS: We developed and tested a conceptual framework for the 36 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. The countries were divided into two groups based on the extent of their use of EE in drug reimbursement. The key social values were efficiency, equity, and personal responsibility, measured in an international survey. Countries were classified based on their institutional context in terms of their general welfare paradigm/type of healthcare system and the administrative tradition to which they belong. We performed correlation tests and ran path analysis regression models to test our hypotheses. RESULTS: EE high users included significantly more Beveridge-type systems (50% vs 31%) and fewer Bismarck-type (15% vs 56%). Napoleonic tradition countries seemed to reject personal responsibility in health (r = -0.511, P = .009), whereas Germanic tradition countries embraced it (r = 0.572, P = .003); Anglo-American tradition countries exhibited a significant association with efficiency (r = 0.444, P = .026), whereas Scandinavian tradition countries appeared to reject it as a criterion for rationing in healthcare (r = -0.454, P = .023). No significant direct association was found between social values and use of EE. CONCLUSION: Our exploratory analysis suggests that institutional context and, indirectly, social values may play a role in shaping the use of EE in healthcare decision making. Because of the differences among countries in terms of institutional context, which may in part be influenced by social values, it is unlikely that there will ever be a single, harmonious approach to the use of EE.

Improved Accuracy for Modeling PROTAC-Mediated Ternary Complex Formation and Targeted Protein Degradation via New In Silico Methodologies.

Extending upon our previous publication [Drummond, M.; J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2019, 59, 1634-1644], two additional computational methods are presented to model PROTAC-mediated ternary complex structures, which are then used to predict the efficacy of any accompanying protein degradation. Method 4B, an extension to one of our previous approaches, incorporates a clustering procedure uniquely suited for considering ternary complexes. Method 4B yields the highest proportion to date of crystal-like poses in modeled ternary complex ensembles, nearing 100% in two cases and always giving a hit rate of at least 10%. Techniques to further improve this performance for particularly troublesome cases are suggested and validated. This demonstrated ability to reliably reproduce known crystallographic ternary complex structures is further established through modeling of a newly released crystal structure. Moreover, for the far more common scenario where the structure of the ternary complex intermediate is unknown, the methods detailed in this work nonetheless consistently yield results that reliably follow experimental protein degradation trends, as established through seven retrospective case studies. These various case studies cover challenging yet common modeling situations, such as when the precise orientation of the PROTAC binding moiety in one (or both) of the protein pockets has not been experimentally established. Successful results are presented for one PROTAC targeting many proteins, for different PROTACs targeting the same protein, and even for degradation effected by an E3 ligase that has not been structurally characterized in a ternary complex. Overall, the computational modeling approaches detailed in this work should greatly facilitate PROTAC screening and design efforts, so that the many advantages of a PROTAC-based degradation approach can be effectively utilized both rapidly and at reduced cost.

Establishing a reasonable price for an orphan drug.

BACKGROUND: This paper addresses the question of what a reasonable price for an orphan drug is. The research proposes a way to adjust an established payer/HTA body incremental cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) to take account of differences in patient populations and costs of research and development in order to sustain prices that generate rates of return from investments in developing orphan drugs that are no greater than the industry average. METHODS: We investigated the cost of conducting research for orphan drugs as compared to non-orphan drugs, as well as patient population sizes targeted by orphans and non-orphans. We provided an empirical illustration based on novel drug approvals of orphan and non-orphan drugs of the FDA between 2011 and 2015 (N = 182). RESULTS: Using, for illustration, the NICE incremental CET (£20 K per QALY) as an anchor and adjusting by R&D costs and expected market revenue, we estimated the adjusted reasonable CET for orphan drugs to be £39.1 K per QALY at the orphan population cut-off and £78.3 K per QALY at the orphan population mid-point. For ultra-orphan drugs the adjusted CET was £937.1 K. CONCLUSIONS: We propose one general method for establishing a reasonable price for an orphan drug, based on the proposition that rates of return for investments in developing orphan drugs should not be greater than the industry average. More research is required on data and assumptions, but with the data and assumptions we use, we find that in order to secure such a reasonable price for an orphan drug, the CET for orphans would need to be higher. This could be one approach for establishing the maximum allowable price society should be willing to pay, although decision-makers may still wish to negotiate a lower price, or refuse to pay such a premium over the value-based price in order to treat these groups of patients.