Perspectives on how to build bridges between regulation, health technology assessment and clinical guideline development: a qualitative focus group study with European experts.

OBJECTIVE: Improving synergy among regulation, health technology assessment (HTA) and clinical guideline development is relevant as these independent processes are building on shared evidence-based grounds. The two objectives were first to assess how convergence of evidentiary needs among stakeholders may be achieved, and second, to determine to what extent convergence can be achieved. DESIGN: Qualitative study using eight online dual-moderator focus groups. SETTING: Discussions had a European focus and were contextualised in four case studies on head and neck cancer, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis and myelodysplastic syndromes. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two experienced (over 10 years) European regulators, HTA representatives and clinicians participated in the discussion. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received information on the case study and research topic in advance. An introductory background presentation and interview guide for the moderators were used to steer the discussion. RESULTS: Convergence may be achieved through improved communication institutionalised in multistakeholder early dialogues, shared definitions and shared methods. Required data sets should be inclusive rather than aligned. Deliberation and decision-making should remain independent. Alignment could be sought for pragmatic clinical trial designs and patient registries. Smaller and lower-income countries should be included in these efforts. CONCLUSION: Actors in the field expressed that improving synergy among stakeholders always involves trade-offs. A balance needs to be found between the convergence of processes and the institutional remits or geographical independence. A similar tension exists between the involvement of more actors, for example, patients or additional countries, and the level of collaboration that may be achieved. Communication is key to establishing this balance.

Systemic anticancer treatment in the Netherlands: Few hospitals treat many patients, many hospitals treat few patients.

INTRODUCTION: The correlation between patient volume and clinical outcomes is well known for various oncological treatments, especially in the surgical field. The current level of centralisation of systemic treatment of (hemato-)oncology indications in Dutch hospitals is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to gain insight in patient volumes per hospital of patients treated with systemic anticancer treatment in the Netherlands. METHODS: National claims data (Vektis) of all 73 Dutch hospitals that provide systemic anticancer medication in the Netherlands for the time period 2019 were used. The distribution of volumes of patients treated with anticancer medication for 38 different haematological or oncological indications was analysed. Hospitals were categorized into academic/specialised, general, and top clinical. Two volume cut off points (10 and 30 patients) were used to identify hospitals treating relatively few patients with anticancer medication. Four indications were investigated in more detail. RESULTS: A wide distribution in patient volumes within hospitals was observed. Top clinical hospitals generally treated the most patients per hospital, followed by general and academic/specialised oncology hospitals. The volume cut off points showed that in 19 indications (50%) the majority (>50%) of all hospitals treated less than 10 patients and in 25 indications (66%) the majority of all hospitals treated less than 30 patients with anticancer medication. Four case studies demonstrated that relatively few hospitals treat many patients while many hospitals treat few patients with anticancer medication. CONCLUSION: In the majority of oncology indications, a large proportion of Dutch hospitals treat small numbers of unique patients with anticancer medication. The high level of fragmentation gives ground for further exploration and discussion on how the organisation of care can support optimization of the efficiency and quality of care. Professional groups, policy makers, patients, and healthcare insurers should consider per indication whether centralisation is warranted.

Regulatory reliance pathways during health emergencies: enabling timely authorizations for COVID-19 vaccines in Latin America / Mecanismos de utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones en las emergencias de salud: autorización oportuna de las vacunas contra la COVID-19 en América Latina / Uso de decisões regulatórias de outras autoridades durante emergências sanitárias e a tempestividade da autorização de vacinas contra a COVID-19 na América Latina

ABSTRACT Objectives. To map the timing and nature of regulatory reliance pathways used to authorize COVID-19 vaccines in Latin America. Methods. An observational study was conducted assessing the characteristics of all COVID-19 vaccine authorizations in Latin America. For every authorization it was determined whether reliance was used in the authorization process. Subgroups of reference national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and non-reference NRAs were compared. Results. 56 authorizations of 10 different COVID-19 vaccines were identified in 18 countries, of which 25 (44.6%) used reliance and 12 (21.4%) did not. For the remaining 19 (33.0%) it was not possible to determine whether reliance was used. Reference agencies used reliance less often (40% of authorizations with a known pathway) compared to non-reference agencies (100%). The median review time was just 15 days and does not meaningfully differ between reliance and non-reliance authorizations. Conclusions. This study demonstrated that for these vaccines, despite reliance pathways being associated with numerous rapid authorizations, independent authorization review times were not considerably longer than reliance reviews; reliance pathways were not a prerequisite for rapid authorization. Nevertheless, reliance pathways provided rapid authorizations in response to the COVID-19 emergency.

RESUMEN Objetivos. Determinar dónde y cuándo se usaron las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones y la naturaleza de estos mecanismos para autorizar vacunas contra la COVID-19 en América Latina. Métodos. Se realizó un estudio observacional para evaluar las características de todas las autorizaciones de vacunas contra la COVID-19 en América Latina. Para cada autorización se determinó si se emplearon las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones en el proceso de autorización. Se compararon subgrupos de autoridades regulatorias nacionales (ARN) consideradas de referencia con otras ARN no usadas como referencia. Resultados. Se determinó dónde se otorgaron 56 autorizaciones de 10 vacunas diferentes contra la COVID-19 en 18 países; de estas 56 autorizaciones, 25 (44,6%) hicieron uso de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones y 12 (21,4%), no. Para las 19 restantes (33,0%) no fue posible determinar si se hizo uso de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones. Los organismos de referencia utilizaron las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones con menos frecuencia (40% de las autorizaciones con un mecanismo conocido) en comparación con los organismos no usados como referencia (100%). El plazo medio de revisión fue de tan solo 15 días y no difiere significativamente entre las autorizaciones que emplearon decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones y las que no las emplearon. Conclusiones. En este estudio se demostró que, a pesar de que los mecanismos de utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones se asocian en muchos casos con autorizaciones rápidas, para estas vacunas los plazos de revisión independiente para la autorización no fueron considerablemente mayores que los de las revisiones que emplearon decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones. También se demostró que para obtener una autorización rápida no se requería la utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones. Sin embargo, estos mecanismos proporcionaron autorizaciones rápidas en respuesta a la emergencia por la COVID-19.

RESUMO Objetivos. Mapear a tempestividade e a natureza do uso de decisões regulatórias de outras autoridades (reliance regulatório) para autorização de vacinas contra a COVID-19 na América Latina. Métodos. Em um estudo observacional, foram avaliadas as características de todas as autorizações de vacinas contra COVID-19 na América Latina. Para cada autorização, foi determinado se foram utilizadas decisões de outras autoridades regulatórias para embasar o processo de autorização. Foram comparados subgrupos de autoridades reguladoras nacionais (ARN) de referência (ARNr) e ARN não consideradas de referência. Resultados. Foram identificadas 56 autorizações de 10 vacinas diferentes contra a COVID-19 em 18 países, das quais 25 (44,6%) utilizaram decisões de outras ARN como base para o registro e 12 (21,4%) não. Para as 19 (33,0%) autorizações restantes, não foi possível determinar se decisões de outras ARN foram utilizadas. As ARNr utilizaram decisões de outras autoridades com menos frequência (40% das autorizações com via regulatória conhecida) em comparação com as ARN não consideradas de referência (100%). A mediana do tempo de tramitação foi de apenas 15 dias, sem diferença significativa entre processos nos quais foram utilizadas decisões de outras agências e processos que não as utilizaram. Conclusões. Este estudo demonstrou que, para estas vacinas, apesar de o uso do reliance regulatório estar associado a várias autorizações rápidas, os tempos de tramitação não foram consideravelmente maiores em autorizações independentes do que quando foram utilizadas decisões de outras ARN; o reliance regulatório não foi um pré-requisito para autorização rápida. No entanto, o uso de tais processos viabilizou autorizações rápidas em resposta à emergência de COVID-19.

Bridging the gap: Can International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement standard sets align outcomes accepted for regulatory and health technology assessment decision-making of oncology medicines.

Standard outcome sets developed by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) facilitate value-based health care in healthcare practice and have gained traction from regulators and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies that regularly assess the value of new medicines. We aimed to assess the extent to which the outcomes used by regulators and HTA agencies are patient-relevant, by comparing these to ICHOM standard sets. We conducted a cross-sectional comparative analysis of ICHOM standard sets, and publicly available regulatory and HTA assessment guidelines. We focused on oncology due to many new medicines being developed, which are accompanied by substantial uncertainty regarding the relevance of these treatments for patients. A comparison of regulatory and HTA assessment guidelines, and ICHOM standard sets showed that both ICHOM and regulators stress the importance of disease-specific outcomes. On the other hand, HTA agencies have a stronger focus on generic outcomes in order to allow comparisons across disease areas. Overall, similar outcomes are relevant for market access, reimbursement, and in ICHOM standard sets. However, some differences are apparent, such as the acceptability of intermediate outcomes. These are recommended in ICHOM standard sets, but regulators are more likely to accept intermediate outcomes than HTA agencies. A greater level of alignment in outcomes accepted may enhance the efficiency of regulatory and HTA processes, and increase timely access to new medicines. ICHOM standard sets may help align these outcomes. However, some differences in outcomes used may remain due to the different purposes of regulatory and HTA decision-making.

Cost-Effectiveness Assessment of Monitoring Abiraterone Levels in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Abiraterone acetate is registered for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive and resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment outcome is associated with plasma trough concentrations (Cmin) of abiraterone. Patients with a plasma Cmin below the target of 8.4 ng/mL may benefit from treatment optimization by dose increase or concomitant intake with food. This study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of monitoring abiraterone Cmin in patients with mCRPC. METHODS: A Markov model was built with health states progression-free survival, progressed disease, and death. The benefits of monitoring abiraterone Cmin followed by a dose increase or food intervention were modeled via a difference in the percentage of patients achieving adequate Cmin taking a healthcare payer perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainties and their impac to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Monitoring abiraterone followed by a dose increase resulted in 0.149 incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with €22 145 incremental costs and an ICER of €177 821/QALY. The food intervention assumed equal effects and estimated incremental costs of €7599, resulting in an ICER of €61 019/QALY. The likelihoods of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with a dose increase or food intervention being cost-effective were 8.04%and 81.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring abiraterone followed by a dose increase is not cost-effective in patients with mCRPC from a healthcare payer perspective. Monitoring in combination with a food intervention is likely to be cost-effective. This cost-effectiveness assessment may assist decision making in future integration of abiraterone TDM followed by a food intervention into standard abiraterone acetate treatment practices of mCRPC patients.

Increasing the information provided by probabilistic sensitivity analysis: The relative density plot.

BACKGROUND: Results of probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) are frequently visualized as a scatterplot, which is limited through overdrawing and a lack of insight in relative density. To overcome these limitations, we have developed the Relative Density plot (PSA-ReD). METHODS: The PSA-ReD combines a density plot and a contour plot to visualize and quantify PSA results. Relative density, depicted using a color gradient, is transformed to a cumulative probability. Contours are then plotted over regions with a specific cumulative probability. We use two real-world case studies to demonstrate the value of the PSA-ReD plot. RESULTS: The PSA-ReD method demonstrates proof-of-concept and feasibility. In the real-world case-studies, PSA-ReD provided additional visual information that could not be understood from the traditional scatterplot. High density areas were identified by color-coding and the contour plot allowed for quantification of PSA iterations within areas of the cost-effectiveness plane, diminishing overdrawing and putting infrequent iterations in perspective. Critically, the PSA-ReD plot informs modellers about non-linearities within their model. CONCLUSIONS: The PSA-ReD plot is easy to implement, presents more of the information enclosed in PSA data, and prevents inappropriate interpretation of PSA results. It gives modelers additional insight in model functioning and the distribution of uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimate.

A novel method for predicting the budget impact of innovative medicines: validation study for oncolytics.

BACKGROUND: High budget impact (BI) estimates of new drugs have led to decision-making challenges potentially resulting in restrictions in patient access. However, current BI predictions are rather inaccurate and short term. We therefore developed a new approach for BI prediction. Here, we describe the validation of our BI prediction approach using oncology drugs as a case study. METHODS: We used Dutch population-level data to estimate BI where BI is defined as list price multiplied by volume. We included drugs in the antineoplastic agents ATC category which the European Medicines Agency (EMA) considered a New Active Substance and received EMA marketing authorization (MA) between 2000 and 2017. A mixed-effects model was used for prediction and included tumor site, orphan, first in class or conditional approval designation as covariates. Data from 2000 to 2012 were the training set. BI was predicted monthly from 0 to 45 months after MA. Cross-validation was performed using a rolling forecasting origin with e^|Ln(observed BI/predicted BI)| as outcome. RESULTS: The training set and validation set included 25 and 44 products, respectively. Mean error, composed of all validation outcomes, was 2.94 (median 1.57). Errors are higher with less available data and at more future predictions. Highest errors occur without any prior data. From 10 months onward, error remains constant. CONCLUSIONS: The validation shows that the method can relatively accurately predict BI. For payers or policymakers, this approach can yield a valuable addition to current BI predictions due to its ease of use, independence of indications and ability to update predictions to the most recent data.

Efficacy gap between phase II and subsequent phase III studies in oncology.

AIMS: There is a trend for more flexibility in timing of evidence generation in relation to marketing authorization, including the option to complete phase III trials after authorization or not at all. This paper investigated the relation between phase II and III clinical trial efficacy in oncology. METHODS: All oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (2007-2016) were included. Phase II and phase III trials were matched based on indication and treatment and patient characteristics. Reported objective response rates (ORR), median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were analysed through weighted mixed-effects regression with previous treatment, treatment regimen, blinding, randomization, marketing authorization type and cancer type as covariates. RESULTS: A total of 81 phase II-III matches were identified including 252 trials. Mean (standard deviation) weighted difference (phase III minus II) was -4.2% (17.4) for ORR, 2.1 (6.7) months for PFS and -0.3 (5.1) months for OS, indicating very small average differences between phases. Differences varied substantially between individual indications: from -46.6% to 47.3% for ORR, from -5.3 to 35.9 months for PFS and from -13.3 to 10.8 months for OS. All covariates except blinding were associated with differences in effect sizes for at least 1 outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of marked average differences between phases may encourage decision-makers to regard the quality of design and total body of evidence instead of differentiating between phases of clinical development. The large variability emphasizes that replication of study findings remains essential to confirm efficacy of oncology drugs and discern variables associated with demonstrated effects.

Phase I/II Clinical Trial-Based Early Economic Evaluation of Acalabrutinib for Relapsed Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to construct an early economic evaluation for acalabrutinib for relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) to assist early reimbursement decision making. Scenarios were assessed to find the relative impact of critical parameters on incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: A partitioned survival model was constructed comparing acalabrutinib and ibrutinib from a UK national health service perspective. This model included states for progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS) and death. PFS and overall survival (OS) were parametrically extrapolated from ibrutinib publications and a preliminary hazard ratio based on phase I/II data was applied for acalabrutinib. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, and 1296 scenarios were assessed. RESULTS: The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £61,941/QALY, with 3.44 incremental QALYs and incremental costs of £213,339. Deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that survival estimates, utilities and treatment costs of ibrutinib and acalabrutinib and resource use during PFS have the greatest influence on the ICER. Probabilistic results under different development scenarios indicated that greater efficacy of acalabrutinib would decrease the likelihood of cost effectiveness (from 63% at no effect to 2% at maximum efficacy). Scenario analyses showed that a reduction in PFS did not lead to great QALY differences (- 8 to - 14% incremental QALYs) although it did greatly affect costs (- 47 to - 122% incremental pounds). For OS, the opposite was true (- 89 to - 93% QALYs and - 7 to - 39% pounds). CONCLUSIONS: Acalabrutinib is not likely to be cost effective compared with ibrutinib under current development scenarios. The conflicting effects of OS, PFS, drug costs and utility during PFS show that determining the cost effectiveness of acalabrutinib without insight into all parameters complicates health technology assessment decision making. Early assessment of the cost effectiveness of new products can support development choices and reimbursement processes through effective early dialogues between stakeholders.

Health and economic benefits of reducing sugar intake in the USA, including effects via non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a microsimulation model.

OBJECTIVES: Excessive consumption of added sugars in the human diet has been associated with obesity, type 2 diabetes (T2D), coronary heart disease (CHD) and other elements of the metabolic syndrome. Recent studies have shown that non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a critical pathway to metabolic syndrome. This model assesses the health and economic benefits of interventions aimed at reducing intake of added sugars. METHODS: Using data from US National Health Surveys and current literature, we simulated an open cohort, for the period 2015-2035. We constructed a microsimulation model with Markov chains for NAFLD (including steatosis, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)), body mass index, T2D and CHD. We assessed reductions in population disease prevalence, disease-attributable disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and costs, with interventions that reduce added sugars consumption by either 20% or 50%. FINDINGS: The model estimated that a 20% reduction in added sugars intake will reduce prevalence of hepatic steatosis, NASH, cirrhosis, HCC, obesity, T2D and CHD. Incidence of T2D and CHD would be expected to decrease by 19.9 (95% CI 12.8 to 27.0) and 9.4 (95% CI 3.1 to 15.8) cases per 100 000 people after 20 years, respectively. A 20% reduction in consumption is also projected to annually avert 0.767 million (M) DALYs (95% CI 0.757M to 0.777M) and a total of US$10.3 billion (B) (95% CI 10.2B to 10.4B) in discounted direct medical costs by 2035. These effects increased proportionally when added sugars intake were reduced by 50%. CONCLUSIONS: The decrease in incidence and prevalence of disease is similar to results in other models, but averted costs and DALYs were higher, mainly due to inclusion of NAFLD and CHD. The model suggests that efforts to reduce consumption of added sugars may result in significant public health and economic benefits.