A Systematic Review of Value Criteria for Next-Generation Sequencing/Comprehensive Genomic Profiling to Inform Value Framework Development.

OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively identify and map an exhaustive list of value criteria for the assessment of next-generation sequencing/comprehensive genomic profiling (NGS/CGP), to be used as an aid in decision making. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify existing value frameworks (VFs) applicable to any type of healthcare technology. VFs and criteria were mapped to a previously published Latin American (LA) VF to harmonize definitions and identify additional criteria and or subcriteria. Based on this analysis, we extracted a comprehensive, evidence-based list of criteria and subcriteria to be considered in the design of a NGS/CGP VF. RESULTS: A total of 42 additional VFs were compared with the LA VF, 88% were developed in high-income countries, 30% targeted genomic testing, and 16% specifically targeted oncology. A total of 242 criteria and subcriteria were extracted; 227 (94%) were fully/partially included in the LA VF; and 15 (6%) were new. Clinical benefit and economic aspects were the most common criteria. VFs oriented to genomic testing showed significant overlap with other VFs. Considering all criteria and subcriteria, a total of 18 criteria and 36 individual subcriteria were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides an evidence-based set of criteria and subcriteria for healthcare decision making useful for NGS/CGP as well as other health technologies. The resulting list can be beneficial to inform decision making and will serve as a foundation to co-create a multistakeholder NGS/CGP VF that is aligned with the needs and values of health systems and could help to improve patient access to high-value technologies.

Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries.

CONTEXT: Positive health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes can have important implications for equity, efficiency and timely patient access to novel therapies. Several outcomes and dimensions of benefit beyond utility feed into HTA processes. OBJECTIVE: We analyse a proprietary dataset of HTA outcomes in 7 countries, to (a) test whether HTA decision-making is grounded in welfarist or extra-welfarist approaches; and (b) empirically determine the factors associated with positive HTA outcomes, the time to achieve these and establish the magnitude of inter-country differences in assessment processes. METHODS: Data were extracted from publicly available HTA reports on drugs that received marketing authorisation between 2009 and 2018 (N = 1415). The outcomes of interest were the probability of positive HTA outcomes and the time-to-HTA outcome; these were examined with respect to clinical, regulatory, product- and disease-related, evidence uncertainty and contextual variables. Econometric models utilising survival analysis and multinomial logistic regression were specified. FINDINGS: Positive HTA outcomes accounted for 87.3% of the sample (n = 1235), of which 71% (n = 1004) were restricted. Drugs with positive HTA outcomes were subject to clinical restrictions (n = 652, 46%), financial risk-sharing (n = 439, 31%) or had been rejected at least once (n = 282, 20%). Significant predictors of positive HTA outcomes were orphan drugs with cancer indications, high quality of evidence linked to clinical and economic evidence uncertainties which had been overcome, and contextual considerations, particularly innovativeness and unmet need. Comparative analyses revealed systematic differences between countries in their propensity to accept the same drugs, particularly oncology and orphan drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are contextual and reinforce arguments in favour of explicitly accounting for social value judgements, establishing separate assessment frameworks for highly uncertain products, adopting risk mitigation strategies for novel therapies with early phase evidence, and sharing of HTA practices across settings. Lastly, HTA agencies have adopted an extra-welfarist approach to value assessment and resource allocation.

The patient pathway in ATTR-CM in Greece and how to improve it: A multidisciplinary perspective.

Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) is an underdiagnosed disease associated with high mortality rates and the patient journey is characterized by increased complexities. Accurate and timely diagnosis and prompt initiation of disease-modifying treatment constitute the contemporary unmet need in ATTR-CM. ATTR-CM diagnosis is characterized by considerable delays and high rates of misdiagnosis. The majority of patients present themselves to primary care physicians, internists, and cardiologists, and many have undergone repeated medical evaluations before an accurate diagnosis has been made. The disease is diagnosed mainly after the development of heart failure symptoms, reflecting a long course of missed opportunities before diagnosis and disease-modifying treatment initiation. Early referral to experienced centers ensures prompt diagnosis and therapy. Early diagnosis, better care coordination, acceleration of digital transformation and reference networks, encouragement of patient engagement, and implementation of rare disease registries are the key pillars to improve the ATTR-CM patient pathway and achieve important benefits in ATTR-CM outcomes.

Healthcare Payer Perspectives on the Assessment and Pricing of Oncology Multi-Indication Products: Evidence from Nine OECD Countries.

BACKGROUND: New pharmaceuticals are increasingly being developed for use across multiple indications. Countries across Europe and North America have adopted a range of different approaches to capture differences in the value of individual indications. OBJECTIVE: The three aims of this study were (i) to review the price-setting practice over the past 5 years for multi-indication products across England, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Turkey, Canada and the USA; (ii) to assess the impact of current practices on launch strategy; and (iii) to identify issues in the implementation of indication-based pricing. METHODS: Ten current and former members of health insurance organisations, healthcare payer organisations or health technology assessment agencies with expertise on pharmaceutical purchasing were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were imported into NVivo 12 for thematic analysis. RESULTS: The majority of countries studied require full assessments upon launch of a new indication. Five different approaches to pricing were identified: weighted pricing, differential discounting, mandatory discount, price anchoring and free pricing. Manufacturers show a tendency to launch first in niche indications with high unmet need to achieve a high price. Stakeholders from England, France, Italy, Belgium and Switzerland consider their current system fit for purpose, while other countries expressed concern over the administrative burden of monitoring products at indication level. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high administrative burden, it is questionable whether indication-based pricing would provide additional public benefit above and beyond current weighted dynamic single pricing and differential discounting practices for multi-indication products.

Launch sequencing of pharmaceuticals with multiple therapeutic indications: evidence from seven countries.

BACKGROUND: New medicines are increasingly being identified as efficacious across multiple indications. The impact of current pricing and reimbursement policies on launch decisions across these indications remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This paper, first, maps marketing authorisation and HTA coverage recommendation sequences of multi-indication medicines across Germany, France, England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and the USA, and, second, evaluates the clinical characteristics, clinical development time and coverage recommendation time of multi-indication medicines, drawing comparisons between the first and subsequent indications of an approved molecule. METHODS: Medicine approvals by the Food and Drug Administration between 2009-2019 were screened to identify multi-indication products with approved oncology indications. Data on clinical trial characteristics, clinical performance and HTA outcomes were extracted from publicly available regulatory approval and HTA reports. RESULTS: Relative to subsequent indications, first indications were more likely to receive conditional marketing authorisation, have an orphan designation, have a single arm phase II pivotal trial and lower MCBS score. Subsequent indications had faster HTA coverage recommendation times in England and Canada. While the majority of first indications received HTA coverage recommendations across all settings, the proportion of subsequent indications with HTA coverage recommendations was lower and uptake varied considerably across settings. CONCLUSIONS: Discordance in the value of first versus subsequent indications can pose major challenges in systems that define price based on the initial indication. Current pricing and reimbursement systems generate significant fragmentation in the approval and availability of multi-indication products across settings.

Impact of Managed Entry Agreements on availability of and timely access to medicines: an ex-post evaluation of agreements implemented for oncology therapies in four countries.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increased utilisation of Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs), empirical studies assessing their impact on achieving better access to medicines remains scarce. In this study we evaluated the role of MEAs on enhancing availability of and timely access to a sample of oncology medicines that had received at least one prior rejection from reimbursement. METHODS: Funding decisions and their respective timelines for all oncology medicines approved between 2009 and 2018 in Australia, England, Scotland and Sweden were studied. A number of binary logit models captured the probability (Odds ratio (OR)) of a previous coverage rejection being reversed to positive after resubmission with vs. without a MEA. Gamma generalised linear models were used to understand if there is any association between time to final funding decision and the presence of MEA, among other decision-making variables, and if so, the strength and direction of this association (Beta coefficient (B)). RESULTS: Of the 59 previously rejected medicine-indication pairs studied, 88.2% (n = 45) received a favourable decision after resubmission with MEA vs. 11.8% (n = 6) without. Average time from original submission to final funding decision was 404 (± 254) and 452 (± 364) days for submissions without vs. with MEA respectively. Resubmissions with a MEA had a higher likelihood of receiving a favourable funding decision compared to those without MEA (43.36 < OR < 202, p < 0.05), although approval specifically with an outcomes-based agreement was associated with an increase in the time to final funding decision (B = 0.89, p < 0.01). A statistically significant decrease in time to final funding decision was observed for resubmissions in Australia and Scotland compared to England and Sweden, and for resubmissions with a clinically relevant instead of a surrogate endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: MEAs can improve availability of medicines by increasing the likelihood of reimbursement for medicines that would have otherwise remained rejected from reimbursement due to their evidentiary uncertainties. Nevertheless, approval with a MEA can increase the time to final funding decision, while the true, added value for patients and healthcare systems of the interventions approved with MEAs in comparison to other available interventions remains unknown.

The future of oncology policy.

To ensure the previous progress seen in cancer survival rates continues as we move through the 21st Century it is important to determine future effective policy related to oncology healthcare delivery and funding. Recent successes with, for example, the COVID vaccine response, the decision-making agility exhibited by governments and healthcare systems and the effective use of telehealth and real-world evidence highlight the progress that can be made with pooled efforts and innovative thinking. This shared approach is the basis for the European Beating Cancer Plan which outlines action points for governments and health systems for the period 2021-2025. It focuses on a whole government approach, centred on patients, maximising the potential of new technologies and insights across policy areas including employment, education, transport and taxation, enabling the tackling of cancer drivers in schools, workplaces, research labs, towns and cities and rural communities. Despite the plan there are still concerns that oncology policy has not adequately responded to the pace of innovation and the unique challenges generated by innovative oncological technologies. There needs to be focus on: gaining consensus on the most appropriate methods to assess and price combination therapies and cell and gene therapies, developing effective outcome-based payment models for personalised medicine and developing consensus on the ideal approach for multiple indication pricing. Finally, future policy needs to ensure pharmaceutical companies and other research organisations are adequately rewarded for innovation to ensure continued R&D and the development of innovative oncological products.

Value and Price of Multi-indication Cancer Drugs in the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland.

PURPOSE: Oncology drugs are often approved for multiple indications, for which their clinical benefit varies. Aligning a single price to this differing value remains a challenge. This study examines the clinical and economic value, price, and reimbursement of multi-indication cancer drugs across seven countries, representing different approaches to value assessment, pricing, and coverage decisions: the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland. METHODS: Twenty-five multi-indication cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval between 2009 and 2019. For each indication data on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) recommendations, disease prevalence, and drug prices were obtained. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, disease prevalence, list prices, and HTA outcomes were then compared across indications and regions. RESULTS: First approved indications provide a higher clinical benefit whilst targeting a smaller patient group than indication extensions. Quality-adjusted life year gains were higher for first (0.99, 95% CI 0.05-3.25) compared to second (0.51, 95% CI 0.02-1.63, p < 0.001) and third (0.58, 95% CI 0.05-2.07, p < 0.01) approved indications. Disease prevalence per 100,000 inhabitants was 20.7 (95% CI 0.2-63.3) for first compared to 27.1 (95% CI 1.5-109.6, p = 0.907) for second and 128.3 (95% CI 3.1-720.1, p < 0.001) for third approved indications. With each approved indication drug prices declined in Germany and France, remained constant in the UK, Canada, and Australia, whilst they increased in the USA. Negative HTA outcomes, clinical restrictions, and managed entry agreements (MEAs) were more frequently observed for indication extensions. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that indication development is prioritised according to clinical value and disease prevalence. Countries employ different mechanisms to account for each indication's differential benefit, e.g., weighted-average prices (Germany, France, Australia), differential discounts (England, Scotland), clinical restrictions, and MEAs (England, Scotland, Australia, Canada). Value-based indication-specific pricing can help to align the benefit and price for multi-indication cancer drugs.

Initial and supplementary indication approval of new targeted cancer drugs by the FDA, EMA, Health Canada, and TGA.

BACKGROUND: Previous research focused on the clinical evidence supporting new cancer drugs' initial US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. However, targeted drugs are increasingly approved for supplementary indications of unknown evidence and benefit. OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical trial evidence supporting new targeted cancer drugs' initial and supplementary indication approval in the US, EU, Canada, and Australia. DATA AND METHODS: 25 cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with FDA approval between 2009-2019. Data on regulatory approval and clinical trials were extracted from the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA), Health Canada (HC), Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and clinicaltrials.gov. Regional variations were compared with χ2-tests. Multivariate logistic regressions compared characteristics of initial and supplementary indication approvals, reporting adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Out of 100 considered cancer indications, the FDA approved 96, the EMA 92, HC 86, and the TGA 83 (83%, p < 0.05). The FDA more frequently granted priority review, conditional approval, and orphan designations than other agencies. Initial approvals were more likely to receive conditional / accelerated approval (AOR: 2.69, 95%CI [1.07-6.77], p < 0.05), an orphan designation (AOR: 3.32, 95%CI [1.38-8.00], p < 0.01), be under priority review (AOR: 2.60, 95%CI [1.17-5.78], p < 0.05), and be monotherapies (AOR: 5.91, 95%CI [1.14-30.65], p < 0.05) than supplementary indications. Initial indications' pivotal trials tended to be shorter (AOR per month: 0.96, 95%CI [0.93-0.99], p < 0.05), of lower phase design (AOR per clinical phase: 0.28, 95%CI [0.09-0.85], p < 0.05), and enroll more patients (AOR per 100 patients: 1.19, 95%CI [1.01-1.39], p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted cancer drugs are increasingly approved for multiple indications of varying clinical benefit. Drugs are first approved as monotherapies in rare diseases with a high unmet need. Whilst expedited regulatory review incentivizes this prioritization, indication-specific safety, efficacy, and pricing policies are necessary to reflect each indication's differential clinical and economic value.

Sin taxes and their effect on consumption, revenue generation and health improvement: a systematic literature review in Latin America.

Sin or public health taxes are excise taxes imposed on the consumption of potentially harmful goods for health [sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), tobacco, alcohol, among others], aiming to reduce consumption, raise additional revenue and/or improve population health. This paper assesses the extent to which sin taxes (a) can reduce consumption of potentially harmful goods, (b) raise revenue for national health systems and (c) contribute to population health in Latin America. A systematic literature review was conducted on peer-reviewed and grey literature; endpoints included: impact of raising sin taxes on consumption, ability to raise revenue for health and the possibility of population health improvements. Risk of bias for each study was assessed. The synthesis of the literature on sin tax implementation showed improvements in all three endpoints across the study countries. Following the introduction of sin taxes or by simulating their potential impact, nearly all studies explicitly reported that consumption of potentially harmful goods (mainly SSBs and tobacco) declined; revenue was found to have increased in almost all countries, suggesting that there may be additional scope for further tax increase. Simulated improvements in population health have also been shown, by demonstrating a relationship between sin tax increases and reduction in prevalence of diabetes, stroke, heart attacks and associated deaths. However, sin tax effects on health would be better quantified over the long-term. Data quality and availability challenges did place some limitations on sin tax impact assessment. Sin taxes can be effective in reducing consumption of potentially harmful goods, improve population health and generate additional revenue. Promoting further research on this topic should be a priority.

Determinants of Managed Entry Agreements in the context of Health Technology Assessment: a comparative analysis of oncology therapies in four countries.

BACKGROUND: Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) are increasingly used to address uncertainties arising in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process due to immature evidence of new, high-cost medicines on their real-world performance and cost-effectiveness. The literature remains inconclusive on the HTA decision-making factors that influence the utilization of MEAs. We aimed to assess if the uptake of MEAs differs between countries and if so, to understand which HTA decision-making criteria play a role in determining such differences. METHODS: All oncology medicines approved since 2009 in Australia, England, Scotland, and Sweden were studied. Four categories of variables were collected from publicly available HTA reports of the above drugs: (i) Social Value Judgments (SVJs), (ii) Clinical/Economic evidence submitted, (iii) Interpretation of this evidence, and (iv) Funding decision. Conditional/restricted decisions were coded as Listed With Conditions (LWC) other than an MEA or LWC including an MEA (LWCMEA). Cohen's κ-scores measured the inter-rater agreement of countries on their LWCMEA outcomes and Pearson's chi-squared tests explored the association between HTA variables and LWCMEA outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 74 drug-indication pairs were found resulting in n = 296 observations; 8 percent (n = 23) were LWC and 55 percent (n = 163) were LWCMEA. A poor-to-moderate agreement existed between countries (-.29 < κ < .33) on LWCMEA decisions. Cross-country differences within the LWCMEA sample were partly driven by economic uncertainties and largely driven by SVJs considered across agencies. CONCLUSIONS: A set of HTA-related variables driving the uptake of MEAs across countries was identified. These findings can be useful in future research aimed at informing country-specific, "best-practice" guidelines for successful MEA implementation.

Using a stated preference discrete choice experiment to assess societal value from the perspective of patients with rare diseases in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Decision makers have huge problems when attempting to attribute social value to the improvements achieved by new drugs, especially when considering the use of orphan drugs for rare diseases. We present the results of a pilot study aimed to investigate patient preferences regarding public funding for drugs used to treat rare diseases. METHODS: An online questionnaire was used as a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey to explore the preferences of patients with cystic fibrosis and haemophilia in Italy. The questionnaire focused on relevant issues that were defined in a review of the literature. A conditional logistic model showed preferences for specific attributes. RESULTS: A total of 54 questionnaires (20% response rate) were completed. The issues that received the greatest attention were improvement in health, treatment cost and value for money. However, disease severity and the availability of other treatments were important social values that could not be ignored. CONCLUSIONS: The findings presented here provide evidence as to what patients with cystic fibrosis or haemophilia think are the most important considerations on which to base decisions in health technology scenarios, and regarding the priorities for funding.

Health related quality of life aspects not captured by EQ-5D-5L: Results from an international survey of patients.

BACKGROUND: In this paper we discuss and present evidence on whether a generic Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) measurement tool, the EQ-5D-5L, captures the dimensions of quality of life (QoL) which patients consider significant. METHODS: An online survey, of individuals with a chronic condition, mainly breast cancer (BC), blood cancers (BLC), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), asthma, and rare diseases (RD) was conducted to collect data on HRQoL and important QoL aspects that respondents thought were not captured by the EQ-5D-5L. Patient organisations across 47 countries were invited to voluntarily share the survey tool with their membership network. RESULTS: 767 responses from 38 countries showed that important QoL aspects were not captured by EQ-5D-5L for 51% of respondents, including fatigue (19%) and medication side effects (12%), among others. Fatigue (17%) was also the most commonly reported QoL aspect that changed over the course of patients' illness, suggesting that the current version of the EQ-5D-5L might miss capturing significant clinical changes in important QoL domains. CONCLUSIONS: Utilisation of the EQ-5D-5L in HRQoL measurement raises inconsistencies in capturing QoL attributes and changes in disease-specific patient populations. Further research is needed to clarify the extent to which other generic HRQoL measurement tools capture the aspects of health that really matter for patients.

DIFFERENTIATION OF HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES BETWEEN FIVE DISEASE AREAS: RESULTS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF PATIENTS.

OBJECTIVES: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data generated by generic, preference-based instruments (i.e., EQ-5D) are highly demanded in health policy decision making, because they allow for direct comparisons of HRQoL outcomes between disease areas. We aimed to quantify HRQoL outcomes in breast cancer (BC), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), multiple sclerosis (MS), rare cancers (RC), and rare disease (RD) patients and understand the patterns that differentiate HRQoL outcomes between these disease areas, and more specifically between rare and more common disease population groups. METHODS: An international, Web survey of patients measured HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L), self-perceived health (EQ-5D-5L Visual Analogue Scale), and additional QoL dimensions, such as patient disability level. RESULTS: We received 675 completed responses. Average utility loss was 53.5 percent, 32.5 percent, and 33.3 percent for RD, RA, and MS patients, respectively, in contrast to 18.6 percent for BC and RC patients. Statistically significant differences (p < .05) were observed between disease groups in all EQ-5D-5L domain outcomes, apart from that of "Anxiety/Depression." Severe and/or extreme problems were reported in performing usual activities for RD and RC (34 percent and 13 percent of overall problems reported respectively), mobility for MS (18 percent), pain/discomfort for RA (13 percent), and anxiety/depression for BC (7 percent) patients. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated significant differences in the dimensions that drive HRQoL outcomes between rare and more common diseases and showcased that the same EQ-5D utility may reflect very different severities depending on the patient population under investigation. Future research should examine whether outcomes in other, critical HRQoL domains not included in generic measures also highlight significant differences across disease areas.

Insights into the hepatocellular carcinoma patient journey: results of the first global quality of life survey.

AIM: To better understand the hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patient journey, we conducted a patient survey across 13 countries. METHODS: The survey included closed- and open-ended questions developed using an iterative process to gather information on demographics, diagnosis and treatment. Patients self-selected or were directed to the online survey by their doctor. RESULTS: A total of 256 patients completed the survey. More than two-thirds (68%) felt they did not receive enough information about HCC at diagnosis. Treatments included oral anticancer therapy, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), and selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT). A total of 81% receiving sorafenib, 45% receiving SIRT and 32% receiving TACE reported impaired quality-of-life (QoL). A total of 42, 19 and 0% of patients using sorafenib rated their current QoL as 'poor', 'good' and 'excellent', respectively; compared with SIRT (22, 33 and 6%) or TACE (11, 37 and 13%). CONCLUSION: Most patients with HCC require additional accessible information. People with incurable HCC require treatments that preserve QoL.

Multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment: a simulation exercise on metastatic colorectal cancer with multiple stakeholders in the English setting.

BACKGROUND: Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has appeared as a methodology to address limitations of economic evaluation in health technology assessment (HTA), however there are limited empirical evidence from real world applications. The aim of this study is to test in practice a recently developed MCDA methodological framework known as Advance Value Framework (AVF) through a proof-of-concept case study engaging multiple stakeholders. METHODS: A multi-attribute value theory methodological process was adopted involving problem structuring, model building, model assessment and model appraisal phases. A facilitated decision analysis modelling approach was used as part of a decision conference with thirteen participants. An expanded scope of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) remit acted as the study setting with the use of supplementary value concerns. Second-line biological treatments were evaluated for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients having received prior chemotherapy, including cetuximab monotherapy, panitumumab monotherapy and aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI chemotherapy. Initially 18 criteria attributes were considered spanning four value domains relating to therapeutic impact, safety profile, innovation level and socioeconomic impact. RESULTS: Nine criteria attributes were finally included. Cetuximab scored the highest overall weighted preference value score of 45.7 out of 100, followed by panitumumab with 42.3, and aflibercept plus FOLFIRI with 14.4. The relative weights of the two most important criteria (overall survival and Grade 4 adverse events) added up to more than the relative weight of all other criteria together (52.1%). Main methodological limitation was the lack of comparative clinical effects across treatments and challenges included the selection of "lower" and "higher" reference levels on criteria attributes, eliciting preferences across attributes where participants had less experience, and ensuring that all attributes possess the right decision theory properties. CONCLUSIONS: This first application of AVF produced transparent rankings for three mCRC treatments based on their value, by assessing an explicit set of evaluation criteria while allowing for the elicitation and construction of participants' value preferences and their trade-offs. It proved it can aid the evaluation process and value communication of the alternative treatments for the group participants. Further research is needed to optimise its use as part of policy-making.

The Implementation of Managed Entry Agreements in Central and Eastern Europe: Findings and Implications.

BACKGROUND: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are a set of instruments to facilitate access to new medicines. This study surveyed the implementation of MEAs in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) where limited comparative information is currently available. METHOD: We conducted a survey on the implementation of MEAs in CEE between January and March 2017. RESULTS: Sixteen countries participated in this study. Across five countries with available data on the number of different MEA instruments implemented, the most common MEAs implemented were confidential discounts (n = 495, 73%), followed by paybacks (n = 92, 14%), price-volume agreements (n = 37, 5%), free doses (n = 25, 4%), bundle and other agreements (n = 19, 3%), and payment by result (n = 10, >1%). Across seven countries with data on MEAs by therapeutic group, the highest number of brand names associated with one or more MEA instruments belonged to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)-L group, antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (n = 201, 31%). The second most frequent therapeutic group for MEA implementation was ATC-A, alimentary tract and metabolism (n = 87, 13%), followed by medicines for neurological conditions (n = 83, 13%). CONCLUSIONS: Experience in implementing MEAs varied substantially across the region and there is considerable scope for greater transparency, sharing experiences and mutual learning. European citizens, authorities and industry should ask themselves whether, within publicly funded health systems, confidential discounts can still be tolerated, particularly when it is not clear which country and party they are really benefiting. Furthermore, if MEAs are to improve access, countries should establish clear objectives for their implementation and a monitoring framework to measure their performance, as well as the burden of implementation.

PARS PLANA VITRECTOMY FOR DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Synthesis of Safety Literature.

PURPOSE: To assess the risk and benefit of pars plana vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic literature review using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials until September 2014. The population was patients with diabetic macular edema, intervention vitrectomy, comparator macular laser or observation, and efficacy outcome visual acuity and central retinal thickness. Safety outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications. The efficacy meta-analysis included only randomized controlled trials. The safety analysis included prospective, retrospective, controlled, and uncontrolled studies. RESULTS: Five studies were eligible for the efficacy meta-analysis (n = 127 eyes) and 40 for the safety analysis (n = 1,562 eyes). Combining follow-up intervals from 6 to 12 months, the meta-analysis found a nonsignificant 2 letter visual acuity difference favoring vitrectomy, and a significant 102 µm greater reduction in central retinal thickness favoring vitrectomy, but a post hoc subgroup analysis found that a 6-month central retinal thickness benefit reversed by 12 months. The most frequent complications were retinal break (7.1%), elevated intraocular pressure (5.2%), epiretinal membrane (3.3%), and vitreous hemorrhage (2.4%). Cataract developed in 68.6% of 121 phakic eyes. CONCLUSION: Vitrectomy produces structural and functional improvements in select eyes with diabetic macular edema, but the visual gains are not significantly better than with laser or observation. No major safety concerns were identified.