Methods for Indirect Treatment Comparison: Results from a Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies express a clear preference for randomized controlled trials when assessing the comparative efficacy of two or more treatments. However, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is often necessary where a direct comparison is unavailable or, in some cases, not possible. Numerous ITC techniques are described in the literature. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify all the relevant literature on existing ITC techniques, provide a comprehensive description of each technique and evaluate their strengths and limitations from an HTA perspective in order to develop guidance on the most appropriate method to use in different scenarios. METHODS: Electronic database searches of Embase and PubMed, as well as grey literature searches, were conducted on 15 November 2021. Eligible articles were peer-reviewed papers that specifically described the methods used for different ITC techniques and were written in English. The review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 73 articles were included in the SLR, reporting on seven different ITC techniques. All reported techniques were forms of adjusted ITC. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was the most frequently described technique (in 79.5% of the included articles), followed by matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) (30.1%), network meta-regression (24.7%), the Bucher method (23.3%), simulated treatment comparison (STC) (21.9%), propensity score matching (4.1%) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (4.1%). The appropriate choice of ITC technique is critical and should be based on the feasibility of a connected network, the evidence of heterogeneity between and within studies, the overall number of relevant studies and the availability of individual patient-level data (IPD). MAIC and STC were found to be common techniques in the case of single-arm studies, which are increasingly being conducted in oncology and rare diseases, whilst the Bucher method and NMA provide suitable options where no IPD is available. CONCLUSION: ITCs can provide alternative evidence where direct comparative evidence may be missing. ITCs are currently considered by HTA agencies on a case-by-case basis; however, their acceptability remains low. Clearer international consensus and guidance on the methods to use for different ITC techniques is needed to improve the quality of ITCs submitted to HTA agencies. ITC techniques continue to evolve quickly, and more efficient techniques may become available in the future.

Heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction: A review of disease burden and remaining unmet medical needs within a new treatment landscape.

This review provides a comprehensive overview of heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF), including its definition, diagnosis, and epidemiology; clinical, humanistic, and economic burdens; current pharmacologic landscape in key pharmaceutical markets; and unmet needs to identify key knowledge gaps. We conducted a targeted literature review in electronic databases and prioritized articles with valuable insights into HFmrEF/HFpEF. Overall, 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 66 real-world evidence studies, 18 clinical practice guidelines, and 25 additional publications were included. Although recent heart failure (HF) guidelines set left ventricular ejection fraction thresholds to differentiate categories, characterization and diagnosis criteria vary because of the incomplete disease understanding. Recent epidemiological data are limited and diverse. Approximately 50% of symptomatic HF patients have HFpEF, more common than HFmrEF. Prevalence varies with country because of differing definitions and study characteristics, making prevalence interpretation challenging. HFmrEF/HFpEF has considerable mortality risk, and the mortality rate varies with study and patient characteristics and treatments. HFmrEF/HFpEF is associated with considerable morbidity, poor patient outcomes, and common comorbidities. Patients require frequent hospitalizations; therefore, early intervention is crucial to prevent disease burden. Recent RCTs show promising results like risk reduction of composite cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Costs data are scarce, but the economic burden is increasing. Despite new drugs, unmet medical needs requiring new treatments remain. Thus, HFmrEF/HFpEF is a growing global healthcare concern. With improving yet incomplete understanding of this disease and its promising treatments, further research is required for better patient outcomes.

The Acceptance of Indirect Treatment Comparison Methods in Oncology by Health Technology Assessment Agencies in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard when comparing treatment effectiveness, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies state a clear preference for such direct comparisons. When these are not available, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is an alternative option. The objective of this study was to assess the acceptance of ITC methods by HTA agencies across England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, using oncology cases for a homogeneous sample of HTA evaluations. METHODS: The study was conducted on the PrismAccess database in May 2021 to retrieve HTA evaluation reports for oncology treatments for solid tumors, in which an ITC was presented. The analysis was restricted to HTA evaluation reports published between April 2018 and April 2021 in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Identified HTA evaluation reports were screened and reviewed by two independent reviewers. For each ITC presented, the methodology and its acceptance by the HTA agency were analyzed. RESULTS: Five hundred and forty-three HTA evaluation reports were identified, of which 120 (22%) presented an ITC. This proportion was the highest in England (51%) and lowest in France (6%). The overall acceptance rate of ITC methods was 30%, with the highest in England (47%) and lowest in France (0%). Network meta-analysis (NMA; 23%) was the most commonly used ITC technique, with a 39% acceptance rate overall, followed by Bucher ITC (19%; 43% acceptance rate) and matching-adjusted indirect comparison (13%; 33% acceptance rate). The most common criticisms of the ITC methods from HTA agencies related to data limitations (heterogeneity and lack of data; 48% and 43%, respectively) and the statistical methods used (41%). CONCLUSIONS: The generally low acceptance rate of ITC methods by HTA agencies in oncology suggests that, whilst in the absence of a direct comparison ITCs may provide relevant evidence, this evidence is not widely considered sufficient for the purpose of HTA evaluations. The perception of ITC methods for the purpose of HTA evaluations varies substantially between countries. There is a need for further clarity on the properties of ITC techniques and the assessment of their results as ITC methods continue to evolve quickly and further techniques may become available in the future.

New pricing models for generic medicines to ensure long-term sustainable competition in Europe.

Background: Price erosion of generic medicines over time as a result of existing pricing policies in combination with increasing operational costs of these products due to high inflation, undermine long-term sustainable competition in European off-patent medicines markets. Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify new potential pricing models for retail generic medicines in Europe, examine their pros and cons, and illustrate them with examples inside or outside the pharmaceutical sector. Methods: A targeted literature review, one-to-one interviews and a joint advisory board meeting with experts from five European countries were carried out to assess potential pricing models for generic medicines. Results: We identified ten pricing models that can be applied to generic medicines. The tiered pricing model is viewed as a sustainable solution ensuring competitiveness, but requires market monitoring using a supportive IT infrastructure. De-linking the price of generic medicines from that of the off-patent originator medicine prevents the originator from forcing generic medicines' prices to unsustainable levels. Higher costs due to inflation can be compensated in the automatic indexation model. Other pricing models that have less implementation potential include the one-in-one/multiple-out model, tax credits, value-based pricing, volume for savings and guaranteed margin/fee models. The hypothecated tax and cost allocation models, which add a patient fee to generic medicines prices, are not likely to be socially acceptable. Conclusion: When considering a new pricing model for generic medicines, the impact on innovative medicines and the characteristics of the healthcare system in a given country need to be taken into account. Also, there is a need to continuously follow up the level of competition in off-patent medicines markets and to identify sustainability risks.

Access to innovative drugs and the National Reimbursement Drug List in China: Changing dynamics and future trends in pricing and reimbursement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Multiple reforms aimed at improving the Chinese population's health have been introduced in recent years, including several designed to improve access to innovative drugs. We sought to review current factors affecting access to innovative drugs in China and to anticipate future trends. METHODS: Targeted reviews of published literature and statistics on the Chinese healthcare system, medical insurance and reimbursement processes were conducted, as well as interviews with five Chinese experts involved in the reimbursement of innovative drugs. RESULTS: Drug reimbursement in China is becoming increasingly centralized due to the removal of provincial pathways, the establishment of the National Healthcare Security Administration and the implementation of the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), which is now the main route for drug reimbursement in China. There is also an increasing number of other channels via which patients may access innovative treatments, including various types of commercial insurance and special access. Health technology assessment (HTA) and health economic evidence are becoming pivotal elements of the NRDL decision-making process. Alongside the optimization of HTA decision making, innovative risk-sharing agreements are anticipated to be increasingly leveraged in the future to optimize access to highly specialized technologies and encourage innovation while safeguarding limited healthcare funds. CONCLUSIONS: Drug public reimbursement in China continues to align more closely with approaches widely used in Europe in terms of HTA, health economics and pricing. Centralization of decision-making processes for public reimbursement of innovative drugs allows consistency in assessment and access, which optimizes the improvement of the Chinese population's health.

A systematic literature review of revealed preferences of decision-makers for recommendations of cancer drugs in health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVES: This review intends to provide an overview of revealed preferences of decision-makers for recommendations of cancer drugs in health technology assessment (HTA) among the different agencies. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to July 2020. The studies were eligible for inclusion if they conducted a quantitative analysis of HTA's previous decisions for cancer drugs. The factors with p-values below the significance level of .05 were considered as the statistically significant factors for HTA decisions. RESULTS: A total of nine studies for six agencies in Australia, Belgium, France, South Korea, the UK, and Canada were eligible to be included. From the univariable analysis, improvements in clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness were found as significant factors for the agencies in Belgium, South Korea, and Canada. From the multivariable analysis, cost-effectiveness was found as a positive factor for the agencies in the UK, South Korea, and Canada. Few factors related to characteristics of disease and technology were found to be significant among the included agencies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the different drug reimbursement systems and the socioeconomic situations, cost-effectiveness and/or improvement on clinical outcomes seemed to be the most important factors for recommendations of cancer drugs among the agencies.

Psychometric validation of a patient-reported single-item assessment of 'Good Day Bad Day' in a neurogenic orthostatic hypotension population treated with droxidopa.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH), including lightheadedness/dizziness, presyncope, syncope, and falls, can lead to impaired functional ability and reduced quality of life. Because the severity and frequency of nOH symptoms fluctuate, it may be difficult for patients to accurately quantify the effect of symptoms on their daily lives using available outcome measures. A new single-item instrument, the 'Good Day Bad Day,' was developed, and its psychometric validity was assessed in patients with nOH. METHODS: Data from a 6-month, prospective, observational cohort study of patients with nOH who were newly initiating droxidopa treatment were used. Patients were asked to quantify the number of good and bad days in the previous 7 days and responded to other validated patient-reported outcomes instruments. The concurrent and discriminant validities and the stability of the Good Day Bad Day instrument were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.3 [17] years). Change in the number of good days moderately correlated with improvements in other patient-reported outcomes (rho value range, -0.38 to -0.61). When data were examined categorically (low vs high symptom severity), the mean number of good days was higher in subgroups representing low symptom severity across measures at 1, 3, and 6 months (all P ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The Good Day Bad Day instrument provided good discrimination at baseline and over time and may aid in assessment of the effects of nOH symptoms on patients.

Amortization of gene replacement therapies: A health policy analysis exploring a mechanism for mitigating budget impact of high-cost treatments.

With gene replacement therapies (GRTs) increasingly and rapidly reaching the healthcare marketplace, the vast potential for improving patient health is matched by the potential budgetary impact for healthcare payers. GRTs are highly valuable given their potential life-extending or even curative benefits and may provide significant cost-offsets compared with standard of care. Current healthcare systems are, however, struggling to fund such valuable but costly therapies. Some payers have already implemented specific financing models to account for the new treatment paradigms, but these do not address the budget impact in the year of acquisition or administration of these costly technologies. This health policy analysis aimed to assess the rationale and feasibility of amortization, within the context of financing healthcare technologies, and specifically GRTs. Amortization is an accounting concept applied to intangible assets that allows for spreading the cost an intangible asset over time, allowing for repayment to occur via interest and principal payments sufficient to repay the intangible asset in full by its maturity. Our systematic scoping review on the amortization of healthcare technologies found a very small literature base with even that being unclear and inconsistent in its understanding of the issues. Where amortization was proposed as a solution for funding costly, but highly valuable GRTs, the concept was not fully investigated in detail, nor was the feasibility of the approach fully challenged. However, by providing clear definitions of relevant concepts along with an example of amortization models applied to some example GRTs, we propose that amortization can offer a promising method for funding of extraordinarily high-value healthcare technologies, thereby increasing market and patient access for these technologies. Nonetheless, healthcare accounting principles and financing guidelines must evolve to apply amortization to the rapidly developing GRTs.

Allocating treatment resources for hepatitis C in the UK: a constrained optimization modelling approach.

Background and objective: Although the treatment of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) has significantly evolved with the introduction of direct-acting antivirals, the treatment uptake rates have been low especially among marginalized groups in the UK, such as people who inject drug (PWID) and men who have sex with men (MSM). Cutting health inequality is a major focus of healthcare agencies. This study aims to identify the optimal allocation of treatment budget for chronic hepatitis CHC among populations and treatments in the UK so that liver-related mortality in patients with CHC is minimized, given the constraint of treatment budget and equity issue. Methods: A constrained optimization modelling of resource allocation for the treatment of CHC was developed in Excel from the perspective of the UK National Health System over a lifetime horizon. The model was designated with the objective function of minimizing liver-related deaths by varying the decision variables, representing the number of patients receiving each treatment (elbasvir-grazoprevir, ombitasvir-paritaprevir-ritonavir-dasabuvir, sofosbuvir-ledipasvir, and pegylated interferon-ribavirin) in each population (the general population, PWID, and MSM). Two main constraints were formulated including treatment budget and the issue of equity. The model was populated with UK local data applying linear programming and underwent internal and external validation. Scenario analyses were performed to assess the robustness of model results. Results: Within the constraints of no additional funding over original spending in status quo and the consideration of the issue of equity among populations, the optimal allocation from the constrained optimization modelling (treating 13,122 PWID, 160 MSM, and 904 general patients with ombitasvir-paritaprevir-ritonavir-dasabuvir) was found to treat 2,430 more patients (relative change: 20.7%) and avert 78 liver-related deaths (relative change: 0.3%) compared with the current allocation. The number of patients receiving treatment increased 4,928 (relative change: 60.1%) among PWID and 42 (relative change: 35.8%) among MSM. Conclusion: The current allocation of treatment budget for CHC is not optimal in the UK. More patients would be treated, and more liver-related deaths would be avoided using a new allocation from a constrained optimization modelling without incurring additional spending and considering the issue of equity.

Which Criteria are Considered and How are They Evaluated in Health Technology Assessments? A Review of Methodological Guidelines Used in Western and Asian Countries.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to provide an exhaustive description of criteria and methodological recommendations for evaluating them in health technology assessment (HTA) in Western and Asian countries. METHODS: We conducted a system literature review of HTA-related guidelines by searching the websites of HTA agencies and related data sources. The guidelines, reports, or recommendations introducing the HTA evaluation methods, processes, decision-making frameworks, and criteria for priority setting were eligible to be included. The review was limited to guidelines from countries belonging to the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) and HTAsiaLink organisations and other countries with well-established available guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 52 guidelines from 24 countries were identified, including 13 countries from the EUnetHTA organisation, 9 countries from the HTAsiaLink organisation and 2 other countries (Canada and the USA). A strong consensus was observed among the HTA agencies on the core set of criteria including efficacy or effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, safety, and budget impact. More similarities were observed than differences in methodological recommendations for clinical and economic evaluations among the agencies. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial convergence is seen in the criteria included in the HTA process, as well as the methods to evaluate and quantify them. Further efforts are needed to verify whether the criteria identified from the guidelines are incorporated in real HTA decisions, and how they are assessed and weighted in practice.

Cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine compared with levomilnacipran and vilazodone in patients with major depressive disorder switching from an initial antidepressant.

Introduction: Many patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not achieve remission with their first antidepressant (AD), resulting in a high burden due to treatment failure. Vortioxetine is a valid treatment option for patients with MDD only partially responding to their first AD. Characterization of vortioxetine's potential benefits versus other approved treatments is important. Areas covered: The cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine, including cognitive outcomes, was modeled in comparison with levomilnacipran and vilazodone for patients switched to these medications after inadequate responses to a first AD. Expert opinion: Vortioxetine was associated with incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains versus levomilnacipran (0.008) or vilazodone (0.009). Vortioxetine was dominant versus levomilnacipran and cost-effective versus vilazodone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER],33,829 USD/QALY). In sensitivity analyses using residual cognitive dysfunction rates (vortioxetine, 49%; levomilnacipran, 58%, and vilazodone, 64%), incremental QALY gains for vortioxetine versus levomilnacipran (0.0085) or vilazodone (0.0109) were found. Vortioxetine remained dominant versus levomilnacipran and cost-effective versus vilazodone (ICER, 27,633 USD/QALY). ICER reduction was found with cognition outcomes inclusion. This model provides additional support for considering vortioxetine for patients requiring a switch of MDD treatments, although its conclusions are limited by the data available for inclusion. Additional research and real-world trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values Used in European Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations for Chronic Hepatitis C: Impact on Cost-Effectiveness Results.

BACKGROUND: Health state utility values (HSUVs) identified from utility elicitation studies are widely used in pharmacoeconomic evaluations for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and are particularly instrumental in health technology assessment (HTA) evaluations such as those from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify HSUVs used in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) for CHC in Europe and to evaluate the impact of HSUV selection on cost-effectiveness results in terms of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (ICER). METHODS: A systematic search of pharmacoeconomic evaluations for CHC was updated in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for the periods 2012-2017 and 2017-2020. Data on health states, HSUVs, and utility elicitation studies were extracted. The difference in HSUVs of the same health state in different CUAs, and the difference between HSUVs of one health state and of the interlink health state in the same CUAs, were calculated. A quality assessment was performed to evaluate the selection of HSUVs in CUAs. Sets of HSUVs identified were used in a reconstructed CUA model to assess the impact on the ICER. RESULTS: Twenty-six CUAs conducted in European countries and referring to 17 utility elicitation studies were included. The difference in HSUVs of the same health state in different CUAs ranged from 0.021 (liver transplant) to 0.468 (decompensated cirrhosis). The difference between HSUVs of one health state and of the interlink health state of the next disease severity level was calculated between the health states of F0-F1/mild and F2-F3/moderate (n = 11, 0.040-0.110), F2-F3/moderate and F4/compensated cirrhosis (n = 18, 0.027-0.130), compensated cirrhosis and decompensated cirrhosis (n = 22, 0.020-0.100), decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 24, 0.000-0.200), hepatocellular carcinoma and liver transplant in the first year (n = 17, - 0.329 to 0.170) and liver transplant in the first and subsequent years (n = 17, - 0.340 to 0.000). The utility elicitation study selected by most CUAs (n = 11) was recommended as the source of HSUVs, at least for the CUAs conducted in the UK, based on the results of quality assessment. Seven sets of HSUVs were generated to fit the reconstructed model and changed the results of the incremental analysis from being cost effective to not being cost effective (ICER ranging from £2460 to £24,954 per QALY gained), and to being dominated in the UK setting. CONCLUSIONS: The CUAs for CHC were found to apply to various HSUVs from different utility elicitation studies in the same health state. This variability in HSUVs has the potential to significantly affect ICER and ICER-based reimbursement decisions. A rigorous selection of HSUVs in CUAs to inform healthcare resource allocation is suggested for future studies of CUAs and for guideline development.

Use of Patient Preference Information in Benefit-Risk Assessment, Health Technology Assessment, and Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions: A Systematic Literature Review of Attempts and Initiatives.

Objectives: Inclusion of patient preference (PP) data in decision making has been largely discussed in recent years. Healthcare decision makers-regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA)-are more and more conscious of the need for a patient-centered approach to decide on optimal allocation of scarce money, time, and technological resources. This literature review aims to examine the use of and recommendations for the integration of PP in decision making. Methods: A literature search was conducted through PubMed/Medline in May 2019 to identify publications on PP studies used to inform benefit-risk assessments (BRAs) and HTAs and patient-centered projects and guidelines related to the inclusion of PPs in health policy decision making. After title and abstract screening and full-text review, selected publications were analyzed to retrieve data related to the collection, use, and/or submission of PPs informing BRA or HTA as well as attempts and initiatives in recommendations for PPs integration in decision-making processes. Results: Forty-nine articles were included: 24 attempts and pilot project discussions and 25 PP elicitation studies. Quantitative approaches, particularly discrete choice experiments, were the most used (24 quantitative elicitation studies and 1 qualitative study). The objective of assessing PPs was to prioritize outcome-specific information, to value important treatment characteristics, to provide patient-focused benefit-risk trade-offs, and to appraise the patients' willingness to pay for new technologies. Moreover, attempts and pilot projects to integrate PPs in BRAs and HTAs were identified at the European level and across countries, but no clear recommendations have been issued yet. No less than seven public and/or private initiatives have been undertaken by governmental agencies and independent organizations to set guidance targeting improvement of patients' involvement in decision making. Conclusion: Despite the initiatives undertaken, the pace of progress remains slow. The use of PPs remains poorly implemented, and evidence of proper use of these data in decision making is lacking. Guidelines and recommendations formalizing the purpose of collecting PPs, what methodology should be adopted and how, and who should be responsible for generating these data throughout the decision-making processes are needed to improve and empower integration of PPs in BRA and HTA.

Health economic evaluation of gene replacement therapies: methodological issues and recommendations.

Objective: To provide recommendations for addressing previously identified key challenges in health economic evaluations of Gene Replacement Therapies (GRTs), including: 1) the assessment of clinical effectiveness; 2) the valuation of health outcomes; 3) the time horizon and extrapolation of effects beyond trial duration; 4) the estimation of costs; 5) the selection of appropriate discount rates; 6) the incorporation of broader elements of value; and 7) affordability. Methods: A literature review on economic evaluations of GRT was performed. Interviews were conducted with 8 European and US health economic experts with experience in evaluations of GRT. Targeted literature reviews were conducted to investigate further potential solutions to specific challenges. Recommendations: Experts agreed on factors to be considered to ensure the acceptability of historical cohorts by HTA bodies. Existing prospective registries or, if not available, retrospective registries, may be used to analyse different disease trajectories and inform extrapolations. The importance of expert opinion due to limited data was acknowledged. Expert opinion should be obtained using structured elicitation techniques. Broader elements of value, beyond health gains directly related to treatment, can be considered through the application of a factor to inflate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) or a higher cost-effectiveness threshold. Additionally, the use of cost-benefit analysis and saved young life equivalents (SAVE) were proposed as alternatives to QALYs for the valuations of outcomes of GRT as they can incorporate broader elements of value and avoid problems of eliciting utilities for paediatric diseases. Conclusions: While some of the limitations of economic evaluations of GRT are inherent to limited clinical data and lack of experience with these treatments, others may be addressed by methodological research to be conducted by health economists.

AROME-ESO Oncology Consensus Conference: access to cancer care innovations in countries with limited resources. Association of Radiotherapy and Oncology of the Mediterranean Area (AROME-Paris) and European School of Oncology (ESO - Milan).

PURPOSE: Cancer is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Its incidence is still increasing, particularly in developing countries. Recent progresses further strengthen the differences between low/middle and high-income countries. This situation calls for joint action to reduce inequities in cancer outcomes among the patients. The Association of Radiotherapy and Oncology of the Mediterranean Area (AROME) and the European School of Oncology (ESO), have initiated joint conferences devoted to access to innovations in oncology in the Mediterranean area. The heterogeneity of the economic, political and cultural situations of the different participating countries, offers the opportunity to develop consensus conference. METHODS: Cancer prevention and treatment strategies were discussed according to existing international guidelines. The Scientific committee prepared 111 questions with an objective to prioritize the access to treatments and innovations in low/middle-income Mediterranean countries. The results from the votes of 65 oncology experts, coming from 16 countries and 33 institutions have been analysed and access priorities classified accordingly. RESULTS: Ninety six percent of the proposed general recommendations concerning national health care strategies, oncology education, and treatment organization were considered to be high priorities. Regarding access to systemic treatments, 41% of the drugs without validated predictive markers and 53% of those with validated predictive markers were considered to be 1st level priority. Only 4 biological tests were considered to be 1st level priority to access to innovation. CONCLUSIONS: AROME-ESO consensus offers to cancer specialists from developing countries a basis for discussion with health authorities and payers on the prioritization of access to innovations in cancer care.

Systematic review of utility values used in the pharmacoeconomic evaluations for schizophrenia: implications on cost-effectiveness results.

Background and Objectives: Utility elicitation studies for schizophrenia generate different utility values for the same health states. We reviewed utility values used in schizophrenia pharmacoeconomic evaluations and evaluated the impact of their selection on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Methods: A systematic search was performed in Medline and Embase. Health state definitions, associated utility values, elicitation studies, and value selection processes were extracted. Sets of utility values for all schizophrenia health states were used in a cost-effectiveness model to evaluate the ICER. Results: Thirty-five cost-utility analyses (CUAs) referring to 11 utility elicitation studies were included. The most frequent health states were 'stable' (28 CUAs, 7 utility elicitation studies, 10 values, value range 0.650-0.919), 'relapse requiring hospitalisation' (18, 5, 7, 0.270-0.604), 'relapse not requiring hospitalisation' (18, 5, 10, 0.460-0.762), and 'relapse only' (10, 5, 6, 0.498-0.700). Seventeen sets of utility values were identified with difference in utility values between relapse and stable ranging from -0.358 to -0.050, resulting in ICERs ranging from -56.2% to +222.6% from average. Conclusion: The use of utility values for schizophrenia health states differs among CUAs and impacts on the ICER. More rigorous and transparent use of utility values and sensitivity analysis with different sets of utility values are suggested for future CUAs.

Why "American Patients First" is likely to raise drug prices outside of the United States.

Background: The Trump administration's 'American Patients First' blueprint proposes to reduce drug prices in the USA by increasing drug prices abroad, ex USA. The possibility of the Trump administration to raise drug prices ex USA through legal action via the WTO and bilateral negotiations with foreign trade partners was reviewed. Methods: A literature review was conducted through PUBMED, EMBASE, Media and grey literature to consolidate publications of the Trump administrations' policies and strategies towards foreign countries and drug prices. Results: The Trump administration has withdrawn from and halted major multilateral agreements including the TPP, Paris Agreement, TTIP, UNESCO, NAFTA (now USMCA), and NATO. The Trump administration has been successful in bilateral negotiations for pharmaceuticals' pricing, as seen with Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Mexico and Canada. Conclusion: The objective of raising prices abroad is attainable. Action through the WTO is unlikely, due to its nondiscriminatory principle. Bilateral trade negotiation have proven more promising. In this bilateral framework, financial security and military protection are strong assets for the USA to levy higher drug prices abroad. Although raising drug prices ex USA is possible, further questions as to whether this will directly translate into lower drug prices for American patients are raised.

President Trump's prescription to reduce drug prices: from the campaign trail to American Patients First.

Background: Drug prices in the United States are the highest in the world, restricting access to the domestic lower income population. President Trump campaigned heavily on promises to reduce drug prices.Methods: A literature review was conducted through PUBMED, EMBASE, Media and grey literature to consolidate and analyze publications addressing President Trump's promises from the campaign trail as well as the shortcomings and achievements of the Trump administration.Results: Major promises ranged from repealing and replacing Obamacare, expanding coverage, allowing cross-state insurance purchasing, and reducing drug prices. Main accomplishments of the Trump administration have been two executive orders (13765 and 13813), the proposition of the American Health Care Act, and the passing of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The American Patients First blueprint further revealed the administration's strategies for lowering drug prices. The administration has also engaged in unconventional strategies, such as via bilateral leverage directly with trade partners.Conclusion: The Trump administration has not yet been able to fulfill the major campaign promises, primarily the ones requiring legislative and/or administrative action. If enough legislative action is accomplished to implement the Trump administration's promises, the effects on the pharmaceutical industry could be direct, yet minimal, unless Medicare can directly negotiate with manufacturers.

A systematic literature review identifying associations between outcomes and quality of life (QoL) or healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in schizophrenia.

AIMS: There have been no systematic literature reviews (SLRs) evaluating the identified association between outcomes (e.g. clinical, functional, adherence, societal burden) and Quality-of-Life (QoL) or Healthcare Resource Utilization (HCRU) in schizophrenia. The objective of this study was to conduct a SLR of published data on the relationship between outcomes and QoL or HCRU. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in Embase and Medline, for articles which reported on the association between outcomes and QoL or HCRU. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify the most relevant articles and studies and extract their data. A summary table was developed to illustrate the strength of associations, based on p-values and correlations. RESULTS: One thousand and two abstracts were retrieved; five duplicates were excluded; 997 abstracts were screened and 95 references were retained for full-text screening. Thrirty-one references were included in the review. The most commonly used questionnaire, which also demonstrated the strongest associations (defined as a p < 0.0001 and/or correlation ±0.70), was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) associated with HCRU and QoL (the SF-36, the Schizophrenia Quality-of-Life questionnaire [S-QOL-18], the Quality-of-Life Scale [QLS]). Other robust correlations included the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) with QoL (EQ5D), relapse with HCRU, and remission with QoL (EQ5D). Lastly, functioning (Work Rehabilitation Questionnaire [WORQ] and Personal and Social Performance Scale [PSP]) was found to be associated to QoL (QLS and Subjective Well-being under Neuroleptics Questionnaire [SWN]). LIMITATIONS: This study included data from an 11-year period, and other instruments less frequently used may be further investigated. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that the PANSS is the clinical outcome that currently provides the most frequent and systematic associations with HCRU and QoL endpoints in schizophrenia.