Implementing the EU HTA regulation: Insights from semi-structured interviews on patient expectations, Belgian and European institutional perspectives, and industry outlooks.

Introduction: The goal of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Regulation 2021/2282 is to establish a more harmonized HTA framework, fostering member states cooperation and enabling equal patient access to innovative health technologies in Europe. This research aimed to assess the impact of the regulation on national HTAs, the strategic implications for health technology developers, and its influence on price and reimbursement negotiations. Methods: A scoping literature review encompassing peer-reviewed literature as well as grey literature was conducted. Between February and March 2023, semi-structured interviews (n = 20) were performed with stakeholders from Belgian governmental institutions, European institutions, advanced therapy medicinal product developers, academics, and sickness funds. The interviews were analyzed using the framework analysis method. Results: Numerous steps, such as the development of implementing acts and procedural guidelines remain to be taken. At member state level, national/regional HTA bodies and payers must act to adopt the new concepts of Joint Scientific Consultations (JSC) and Joint Clinical Assessments (JCA) within their national legislation, as well as revise their timelines and prepare for interactions at a European level. Compiling a harmonized PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome), adapting local procedures, and increasing capacity to actively take part in the JSC and JCA are seen as primary barriers by several stakeholders. Training and education will help HTA bodies, payers, and health technology developers to participate in the European processes. Conclusion: While practical and legal challenges were identified, recommendations (such as actively preparing for the upcoming changes and increasing capacity while providing training) were provided to adapt national and European procedures to the needs of the HTA Regulation 2021/2282. The importance of fostering collaborations and aligning local HTA procedures with the new way of working set out by the Regulation was demonstrated with this study.

An Inclusive Civil Society Dialogue for Successful Implementation of the EU HTA Regulation: Call to Action to Ensure Appropriate Involvement of Stakeholders and Collaborators.

OBJECTIVES: Stakeholder involvement has long been considered a success factor for a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) process, and its relevance is now anchored in the EU HTA Regulation's (EU HTAR) legislative wording. Therefore, we aimed to explore the roles, challenges, and most important activities to increase the level of involvement per stakeholder group. METHODS: At the 2022 Fall Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), working groups addressed the involvement of patients, clinicians, regulators, health technology developers (HTD), and national HTA bodies and payers within the EU HTA process. Each working group revisited the pre-convention survey results, determined key role characteristics for each stakeholder, and agreed on the most important activities to fulfill the role profile. Finally, the activities suggested per group were prioritized by plenary group. RESULTS: The prioritized actions for patients included training and capacity building, the establishment of a patient involvement committee, and the establishment of a patient unit at the EC secretariat. For clinicians, it included alignment on evidence assessment from a clinical vs. HTA point of view, capacity building, and standardization of processes. The most important actions for regulators are to develop joint regulatory-HTA guidance documents, align processes and interfaces under the regulation, and share discussions on post-licensing evidence generation. HTDs prioritized scientific advice capacity and the review of the scoping process, and further development of the scope of the assessment report fact checks. The top three actions for national HTA bodies and payers included clarification on the early HTD dialogue process, political support and commitment, and clarification on financial support. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the activities identified as the most important for stakeholders/collaborators in the EU HTA process (e.g., in the implementation of the EU HTA Stakeholder Network and of the guidance documents developed by the EUnetHTA 21 consortium) will be key to starting an "inclusive civil society dialogue", as suggested by the European Commission's Pharmaceutical Strategy.

Can Endangered Biosimilar Markets be Rescued? The Need to Bridge Competing Interests for Long-Term Gain.

Market signals such as: (1) the limited number of biosimilars in the development pipeline, (2) the focus of biosimilar development on high-profit therapeutic areas only, and (3) the increase in the number of biosimilar discontinuations and withdrawals, are indicative of sustainability threats facing biosimilar markets in Europe. Two prominent factors that undermine sustainability are: competing interests between the various stakeholders and a preferential focus on short-term gains, disregarding future sustainability threats, hence the need for effective policies that create sustainable competition in biologic markets. Thus far, measures implemented to foster biosimilar adoption have not been necessarily complied with and have had mixed success. Further, these policies have not consistently led to improving access to affordable biologics. In this commentary, we aim to raise awareness of vulnerabilities of biosimilar markets and of difficulties relating to reaching an agreement on policy solutions with a long-term vision. We propose to build on knowledge from collective action theory to advance in reconciling stakeholder interests. This first-of-its-kind approach can inform long-term solutions for biosimilar markets.

How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action.

Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making. Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022. Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions. Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.

Uncertainty management in regulatory and health technology assessment decision-making on drugs: guidance of the HTAi-DIA Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: Uncertainty is a fundamental component of decision making regarding access to and pricing and reimbursement of drugs. The context-specific interpretation and mitigation of uncertainty remain major challenges for decision makers. Following the 2021 HTAi Global Policy Forum, a cross-sectoral, interdisciplinary HTAi-DIA Working Group (WG) was initiated to develop guidance to support stakeholder deliberation on the systematic identification and mitigation of uncertainties in the regulatory-HTA interface. METHODS: Six online discussions among WG members (Dec 2021-Sep 2022) who examined the output of a scoping review, two literature-based case studies and a survey; application of the initial guidance to a real-world case study; and two international conference panel discussions. RESULTS: The WG identified key concepts, clustered into twelve building blocks that were collectively perceived to define uncertainty: "unavailable," "inaccurate," "conflicting," "not understandable," "random variation," "information," "prediction," "impact," "risk," "relevance," "context," and "judgment." These were converted into a checklist to explain and define whether any issue constitutes a decision-relevant uncertainty. A taxonomy of domains in which uncertainty may exist within the regulatory-HTA interface was developed to facilitate categorization. The real-world case study was used to demonstrate how the guidance may facilitate deliberation between stakeholders and where additional guidance development may be needed. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic approach taken for the identification of uncertainties in this guidance has the potential to facilitate understanding of uncertainty and its management across different stakeholders involved in drug development and evaluation. This can improve consistency and transparency throughout decision processes. To further support uncertainty management, linkage to suitable mitigation strategies is necessary.

The role of stakeholder involvement in the evolving EU HTA process: Insights generated through the European Access Academy's multi-stakeholder pre-convention questionnaire.

Involvement of all relevant stakeholders will be of utmost importance for the success of the developing EU HTA harmonization process. A multi-step procedure was applied to develop a survey across stakeholders/collaborators within the EU HTA framework to assess their current level of involvement, determine their suggested future role, identify challenges to contribution, and highlight efficient ways to fulfilling their role. The 'key' stakeholder groups identified and covered by this research included: patients', clinicians', regulatory, and Health Technology Developer representatives. The survey was circulated to a wide expert audience including all relevant stakeholder groups in order to determine self-perception by the 'key' stakeholders regarding involvement in the HTA process (self-rating), and in a second, slightly modified version of the questionnaire, to determine the perception of 'key' stakeholder involvement by HTA bodies, payers, and policymakers (external rating). Predefined analyses were conducted on the submitted responses. Fifty-four responses were received (patients 9; clinicians: 8; regulators: 4; HTDs 14; HTA bodies: 7; Payers: 5; policymakers 3; others 4). The mean self-perceived involvement score was consistently lower for each of the 'key' stakeholder groups than the respective external ratings. Based on the qualitative insights generated in the survey, a RACI Chart (Responsible/Accountable/Consulted/Informed) was developed for each of the stakeholder groups to determine their roles and involvement in the current EU HTA process. Our findings suggest extensive effort and a distinct research agenda are required to ensure adequate involvement of the key stakeholder groups in the evolving EU HTA process.

Biosimilar competition in European markets of TNF-alpha inhibitors: a comparative analysis of pricing, market share and utilization trends.

Background: Factors like the number of biosimilar competitors and competitive pricing strategies from originator companies may influence price competition and biosimilar uptake. Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze multiple facets of biosimilar competition of TNF-alpha inhibitors in Europe by exploring the existence of a biosimilar first-mover advantage, pricing strategies of originator companies, and the evolution in patient access. Methods: Sales and volume data on biosimilar and originator infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab between 2008 and 2020 were provided by IQVIA. Countries included 24 European Union Member States, Norway, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sales value was expressed as ex-manufacturer price per defined daily dose (DDD), and volume data were transformed into the number of DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day. Descriptive analyses were conducted based on the evolution in price per DDD, trends in biosimilar and originator market shares and utilization trends. Results: Market entry of the first biosimilars of infliximab and adalimumab resulted in a decrease of the volume-weighted average price (VWAP) per DDD by 13.6% and 0.9% on average, whilst the second biosimilars resulted in a decrease by 26.4% and 27.3%, respectively. The first and second etanercept biosimilars generated a similar decrease in the VWAP per DDD by 9.3% and 9.1% on average, respectively. Average market share captured by the first biosimilars was at least twice as large as the second biosimilars for all molecules. In addition, sharp reductions in price per DDD of Humira® in most countries indicated a pricing strategy resulting in low uptake of adalimumab biosimilars. Lastly, utilization of infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab following biosimilar entry increased by an average of 88.9%, 14.6%, and 22.4%, respectively. However, introduction of (multiple) biosimilar competitors did not necessarily translate into increase in treatment access for all three molecules across some European countries indicating a shift in utilization from one molecule towards the other(s). Conclusion: Overall, this study revealed that biosimilar entry results in increased utilization and price reduction, although at a heterogenous rate among TNF-alpha inhibitors. Observed trends in market shares indicate a biosimilar first-mover advantage whereas pricing strategies considered to be anti-competitive can limit market uptake.

Exploring alternative financing models and early access schemes for orphan drugs: a Belgian case study.

BACKGROUND: Although some jurisdictions have implemented particular adjustments to accommodate often-expensive orphan drugs in their healthcare systems, availability of these drugs remains complex. This study investigates alternative financing models and early access schemes for orphan drugs in the context of the Belgian healthcare system. METHODS: Three focus group discussions were held with a panel of eleven experts from the Belgian Drug Reimbursement Committee, the Colleges for Orphan Drugs, the pharmaceutical industry, physicians, ethicists and pharmacists. Retrieved data were pseudonymised, analysed and coded according to the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven. RESULTS: Experts disfavoured the insulated fund as well as private insurance for financing orphan drugs, as, respectively, isolation of a separate budget and a mostly profit-driven mechanism would contradict the Belgian fundamental principle of solidarity. Moreover, an insulated fund could, albeit on a smaller scale, reproduce the same budgetary constraints as the general reimbursement system. As the Special Solidarity Fund is intended for urgent care and exclusively accommodates financial needs subject to eligibility criteria, its design would not allow general financing of orphan drugs. Overall, implementation of an alternative financing model was not endorsed, instead, improving the current reimbursement system was preferred. Suggestions mentioned were; increased collaboration and transparency, robust and quality real-world evidence but also digitalization of data. Alleviating administrative burden and simplifying the admission process of compassionate use program, medical need program and early treatment reimbursement should be prioritized to facilitate early access. Furthermore, a legal framework for off-label use could stimulate proper implementation. Efforts on collaboration of expertise centres and coordination of orphan drug databases across Europe could foster a robust data network to support orphan drug availability in individual countries. CONCLUSIONS: This research reveals that reassessing current financing models and early access schemes by eliminating inadequacies, may be more conducive than establishing alternative systems to increase availability of orphan drugs in Belgium. Other jurisdictions may rely on this information to review their own models of early access and financing to cultivate a more sustainable delivery of orphan drugs.

How do cancer clinicians perceive real-world data and the evidence derived therefrom? Findings from an international survey of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

Background: The role of real-world evidence (RWE) in the development of anticancer therapies has been gradually growing over time. Regulators, payers and health technology assessment agencies, spurred by the rise of the precision medicine model, are increasingly incorporating RWE into their decision-making regarding the authorization and reimbursement of novel antineoplastic treatments. However, it remains unclear how this trend is viewed by clinicians in the field. This study aimed to investigate the opinions of these stakeholders with respect to RWE and its suitability for informing regulatory, reimbursement-related and clinical decisions in oncology. Methods: An online survey was disseminated to clinicians belonging to the network of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer between May and July 2021. Results: In total, 557 clinicians across 30 different countries participated in the survey, representing 13 distinct cancer domains. Despite seeing the methodological challenges associated with its interpretation as difficult to overcome, the respondents mostly (75.0%) perceived RWE positively, and believed such evidence could be relatively strong, depending on the designs and data sources of the studies from which it is produced. Few (4.6%) saw a future expansion of its influence on decision-makers as a negative evolution. Furthermore, nearly all (94.0%) participants were open to the idea of sharing anonymized or pseudonymized electronic health data of their patients with external parties for research purposes. Nevertheless, most clinicians (77.0%) still considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be the gold standard for generating clinical evidence in oncology, and a plurality (49.2%) thought that RWE cannot fully address the knowledge gaps that remain after a new antitumor intervention has entered the market. Moreover, a majority of respondents (50.7%) expressed that they relied more heavily on RCT-derived evidence than on RWE for their own decision-making. Conclusion: While cancer clinicians have positive opinions about RWE and want to contribute to its generation, they also continue to hold RCTs in high regard as sources of actionable evidence.

Applications of Behavioral Economics to Pharmaceutical Policymaking: A Scoping Review with Implications for Best-Value Biological Medicines.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pharmaceutical policies are generally based on the assumption that involved stakeholders make rational decisions. However, behavioral economics has taught us that this is not always the case as people deviate from rational behavior in rather predictable patterns. This scoping review examined to what extent behavioral concepts have already been applied in the pharmaceutical domain and what evidence exists about their effectiveness, with the aim of formulating future applications and research hypotheses on policymaking for best-value biologicals. METHODS: A scoping literature review was conducted on the evidence of behavioral applications to pharmaceuticals. Scientific databases (Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, and Scopus) were searched up to 20 October, 2021. RESULTS: Forty-four full-text scientific articles were identified and narratively described in this article. Pharmaceutical domains where behavioral concepts have been investigated relate to influencing prescribing behavior, improving medication adherence, and increasing vaccination uptake. Multiple behavioral concepts were examined in the identified studies, such as social norms, defaults, framing, loss aversion, availability, and present bias. The effectiveness of the applied interventions was generally positive, but depended on the context. Some of the examined interventions can easily be translated into effective policy interventions for best-value biological medicines. However, some applications require further investigation in a research context. CONCLUSIONS: Applications of behavioral economics to pharmaceutical policymaking are promising. However, further research is required to investigate the effect of behavioral applications on policy interventions for a more sustainable market environment for best-value biological medicines.

How Can We Optimize the Value Assessment and Appraisal of Orphan Drugs for Reimbursement Purposes? A Qualitative Interview Study Across European Countries.

Introduction: The expansion of orphan drug treatment at increasing prices, together with uncertainties regarding their (cost-)effectiveness raises difficulties for decision-makers to assess these drugs for reimbursement. The present qualitative study aims to gain better insight into current value assessment and appraisal frameworks for orphan drugs, and provides guidance for improvement. Methods: 22 European experts from 19 different countries were included in a qualitative survey, followed by in-depth semi-structured interviews. These experts were academics, members of reimbursement agencies or health authorities, or members of regulatory or health/social insurance institutions. Adopting a Grounded Theory approach, transcripts were analysed according to the QUAGOL method, supported by the qualitative data analysis software Nvivo. Results: Although participants indicated several good practices (e.g., the involvement of patients and the presence of structure and consistency), several barriers (e.g., the lack of transparency) lead to questions regarding the efficiency of the overall reimbursement process. In addition, the study identified a number of "contextual" determinants (e.g., bias, perverse effects of the orphan drug legislation, and an inadequate consideration of the opportunity cost), which may undermine the legitimacy of orphan drug reimbursement decisions. Conclusion: The present study provides guidance for decision-makers to improve the efficiency of orphan drug reimbursement. In particular, decision-makers can generate quick wins by limiting the impact of contextual determinants rather than improving the methods included in the HTA. When implemented into a framework that promotes "Accountability for Reasonableness" (A4R), this allows decision-makers to improve the legitimacy of reimbursement decisions concerning future orphan drugs.

How much do the public sector and the private sector contribute to biopharmaceutical R&D?

When examining the prices of new medicines, the question of how much the private and public sectors have contributed to their R&D is often raised. Contributions can be assessed in terms of the investment, authorship of publications, marketing authorizations and intellectual property rights associated with biopharmaceutical R&D. This review of the empirical evidence underlines the complementary and interwoven nature of the private and public sectors in supporting biopharmaceutical R&D. Both sectors invest in and contribute to biopharmaceutical R&D, with the public sector predominantly focusing on basic research and the private sector mainly targeting medicine discovery and development. Public-sector investment generates additional private-sector investment.

R&D Costs of New Medicines: A Landscape Analysis.

Over the years, questions have been raised over R&D costs of new medicines. The aim of this study is to conduct a landscape review of the (drivers of) R&D costs of a new medicine derived from the peer-reviewed and grey literature. Included studies have drawn data either from confidential company surveys or from publicly available company financial statements, in addition to accessing the literature and medicine information databases. Although there were differences in methodology, parameter values, samples and time periods between studies, estimates of R&D costs per new medicine (accounting for the cost of failures) ranged from US$944m to US$2,826m (adjusted to 2019 prices). The evidence also suggested that R&D costs per new medicine have increased over time. A few studies have broken down total costs and showed that clinical development accounts for 50-58% of R&D costs per new medicine. R&D costs were influenced by costs of discovery and pre-clinical development, costs of clinical development, cost of capital, company and product profile. Finally, cost estimates are likely to be dynamic as the biopharmaceutical industry and the broader environment continue to evolve.

Patient Preferences for Multiple Myeloma Treatments: A Multinational Qualitative Study.

Background: Investigational and marketed drugs for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) are associated with a range of characteristics and uncertainties regarding long term side-effects and efficacy. This raises questions about what matters most to patients living with this disease. This study aimed to understand which characteristics MM patients find most important, and hence should be included as attributes and levels in a subsequent quantitative preference survey among MM patients. Methods: This qualitative study involved: (i) a scoping literature review, (ii) discussions with MM patients (n = 24) in Belgium, Finland, Romania, and Spain using Nominal Group Technique, (iii) a qualitative thematic analysis including multi-stakeholder discussions. Results: MM patients voiced significant expectations and hopes that treatments would extend their lives and reduce their cancer signs and symptoms. Participants however raised concerns about life-threatening side-effects that could cause permanent organ damage. Bone fractures and debilitating neuropathic effects (such as chronic tingling sensations) were highlighted as major issues reducing patients' independence and mobility. Patients discussed the negative impact of the following symptoms and side-effects on their daily activities: thinking problems, increased susceptibility to infections, reduced energy, pain, emotional problems, and vision problems. MM patients were concerned with uncertainties regarding the durability of positive treatment outcomes, and the cause, severity, and duration of their symptoms and side-effects. Patients feared short-term positive treatment responses complicated by permanent, severe side-effects and symptoms. Conclusions: This study gained an in-depth understanding of the treatment and disease-related characteristics and types of attribute levels (severity, duration) that are most important to MM patients. Results from this study argue in favor of MM drug development and individual treatment decision-making that focuses not only on extending patients' lives but also on addressing those symptoms and side-effects that significantly impact MM patients' quality of life. This study underscores a need for transparent communication toward MM patients about MM treatment outcomes and uncertainties regarding their long-term efficacy and safety. Finally, this study may help drug developers and decision-makers understand which treatment outcomes and uncertainties are most important to MM patients and therefore should be incorporated in MM drug development, evaluation, and clinical practice.

Methodological Quality Assessment of Budget Impact Analyses for Orphan Drugs: A Systematic Review.

Objectives: This research aims to evaluate the methodological quality of budget impact analyses for orphan drugs and to provide suggestions for future analyses. Methods: Conference abstracts and peer-reviewed literature on budget impact analyses were collected through searches of Pubmed and Embase. ISPOR good practice guidelines were used as a methodological standard for budget impact analyses. Examined parameters encompassed: perspective, target population, data sources, intervention and comparator(s), time horizon, scope of costs, discounting, validation, assumptions and sensitivity analysis. Results: Seventy studies on individual orphan drugs and 21 studies on a combination of orphan drugs analyzing budget impact were identified. Overall, analyses considered a third-party payer perspective, reported periodic budget impacts over a one-to-five-year time horizon, and did not apply discounting. A dynamically fluctuating population and costs beyond drug costs were accounted for in 18.7% and 51.7% of studies, respectively. Input data were retrieved from published literature, clinical trials, registries, claims databases, expert opinions, historical data and market research. Assumptions were mostly made about population size and intervention/comparator(s) market uptake, but these assumptions were rarely justified and their impact was insufficiently explored through sensitivity analyses. Budget impact results were rarely validated. Conclusion: Existing budget impact analyses for orphan drugs are concise, vary greatly and are of substandard methodological quality. To eliminate possible bias in future budget impact analyses, future studies should adhere to national or ISPOR good practice guidelines on budget impact analysis.

How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks.

Background: Decision-makers have implemented a variety of value assessment frameworks (VAFs) for orphan drugs in European jurisdictions, which has contributed to variations in access for rare disease patients. This review provides an overview of the strengths and limitations of VAFs for the reimbursement of orphan drugs in Europe, and may serve as a guide for decision-makers. Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted using the databases Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science. Only publications in English were included. Publications known to the authors were added, as well as conference or research papers, or information published on the website of reimbursement and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Additionally, publications were included through snowballing or focused searches. Results: Although a VAF that applies a standard economic evaluation treats both orphan drugs and non-orphan drugs equally, its focus on cost-effectiveness discards the impact of disease rarity on data uncertainty, which influences an accurate estimation of an orphan drug's health benefit in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A VAF that weighs QALYs or applies a variable incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) threshold, allows the inclusion of value factors beyond the QALY, although their methodologies are flawed. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) incorporates a flexible set of value factors and involves multiple stakeholders' perspectives. Nevertheless, its successful implementation relies on decision-makers' openness toward transparency and a pragmatic approach, while allowing the flexibility for continuous improvement. Conclusion: The frameworks listed above each have multiple strengths and weaknesses. We advocate that decision-makers apply the concept of accountability for reasonableness (A4R) to justify their choice for a specific VAF for orphan drugs and to strive for maximum transparency concerning the decision-making process. Also, in order to manage uncertainty and feasibility of funding, decision-makers may consider using managed-entry agreements rather than implementing a separate VAF for orphan drugs.

Exploring new uses for existing drugs: innovative mechanisms to fund independent clinical research.

BACKGROUND: Finding new therapeutic uses for existing medicines could lead to safe, affordable and timely new treatment options for patients with high medical needs. However, due to a lack of economic incentives, pharmaceutical developers are rarely interested to invest in research with approved medicines, especially when they are out of basic patent or regulatory protection. Consequently, potential new uses for these medicines are mainly studied in independent clinical trials initiated and led by researchers from academia, research institutes, or collaborative groups. Yet, additional financial support is needed to conduct expensive phase III clinical trials to confirm the results from exploratory research. METHODS: In this study, scientific and grey literature was searched to identify and evaluate new mechanisms for funding clinical trials with repurposed medicines. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 European stakeholders with expertise in clinical research, funding mechanisms and/or drug repurposing between November 2018 and February 2019 to consider the future perspectives of applying new funding mechanisms. RESULTS: Traditional grant funding awarded by government and philanthropic organisations or companies is well known and widely implemented in all research fields. In contrast, only little research has focused on the application potential of newer mechanisms to fund independent clinical research, such as social impact bonds, crowdfunding or public-private partnerships. Interviewees stated that there is a substantial need for additional financial support in health research, especially in areas where there is limited commercial interest. However, the implementation of new funding mechanisms is facing several practical and financial challenges, such as a lack of expertise and guidelines, high transaction costs and difficulties to measure health outcomes. Furthermore, interviewees highlighted the need for increased collaboration and centralisation at a European and international level to make clinical research more efficient and reduce the need for additional funding. CONCLUSIONS: New funding mechanisms to support clinical research may become more important in the future but the unresolved issues identified in the current study warrant further exploration.

Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol Development for the PAVING Study in Hemophilia.

Introduction: Gene therapies are innovative therapies that are increasingly being developed. However, health technology assessment (HTA) and payer decision making on these therapies is impeded by uncertainties, especially regarding long-term outcomes. Through measuring patient preferences regarding gene therapies, the importance of unique elements that go beyond health gain can be quantified and inform value assessments. We designed a study, namely the Patient preferences to Assess Value IN Gene therapies (PAVING) study, that can inform HTA and payers by investigating trade-offs that adult Belgian hemophilia A and B patients are willing to make when asked to choose between a standard of care and gene therapy. Methods and Analysis: An eight-step approach was taken to establish the protocol for this study: (1) stated preference method selection, (2) initial attributes identification, (3) stakeholder (HTA and payer) needs identification, (4) patient relevant attributes and information needs identification, (5) level identification and choice task construction, (6) educational tool design, (7) survey integration, and (8) piloting and pretesting. In the end, a threshold technique survey was designed using the attributes "Annual bleeding rate," "Chance to stop prophylaxis," "Time that side effects have been studied," and "Quality of Life." Ethics and Dissemination: The Medical Ethics Committee of UZ KU Leuven/Research approved the study. Results from the study will be presented to stakeholders and patients at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. We hope that results from the PAVING study can inform decision makers on the acceptability of uncertainties and the value of gene therapies to patients.

What Matters Most to Lung Cancer Patients? A Qualitative Study in Italy and Belgium to Investigate Patient Preferences.

Background: The potential value of patient preference studies has been recognized in clinical individual treatment decision-making between clinicians and patients, as well as in upstream drug decision-making. Drug developers, regulators, reimbursement and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies are exploring how the use of patient preference studies could inform drug development, regulatory benefit risk-assessment and reimbursement decisions respectively. Understanding patient preferences may be especially valuable in decisions regarding Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) treatment options, where a variety of treatment options with different characteristics raise uncertainty about which features are most important to NSCLC patients. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, this qualitative study aimed to identify patient-relevant lung cancer treatment characteristics. Methods: This study consisted of a scoping literature review and four focus group discussions, 2 in Italy and 2 in Belgium, with a total of 24 NSCLC patients (Stages III-IV). The focus group discussions sought to identify which treatment characteristics patients find most relevant. The discussions were analyzed thematically using a thematic inductive analysis. Results: Patients highlighted themes reflecting: 1) positive effects or expected gains from treatment such as greater life expectancy and maintenance of daily functioning, 2) negative effects or adverse events related to therapy that negatively impact patients' daily functioning such as fatigue and 3) uncertainty regarding the duration and type of treatment effects. These overarching themes were consistent among patients from Belgium and Italy, suggesting that treatment aspects related to efficacy and safety as well as the psychological impact of lung cancer treatment are common areas of concern for patients, regardless of cultural background or country. Discussion: Our findings illustrate the value of using qualitative methods with patients to identify preferred treatment characteristics for advanced lung cancer. These could inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding treatment options.

Patient Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment: A Qualitative Study Protocol Among Advanced Lung Cancer Patients.

Introduction: Lung cancer is the deadliest and most prevalent cancer worldwide. Lung cancer treatments have different characteristics and are associated with a range of benefits and side effects for patients. Such differences may raise uncertainty among drug developers, regulators, payers, and clinicians regarding the value of these treatment effects to patients. The value of conducting patient preference studies (using qualitative and/or quantitative methods) for benefits and side effects of different treatment options has been recognized by healthcare stakeholders, such as drug developers, regulators, health technology assessment bodies, and clinicians. However, evidence-based guidelines on how and when to conduct and use these studies in drug decision-making are lacking. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, we developed a protocol for a qualitative study that aims to understand which treatment characteristics are most important to lung cancer patients and to develop attributes and levels for inclusion in a subsequent quantitative preference survey. Methods: The study protocol specifies a four-phased approach: (i) a scoping literature review of published literature, (ii) four focus group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, (iii) two nominal group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, and (iv) multi-stakeholder discussions involving clinicians and preference experts. Discussion: This protocol outlines methodological and practical steps as to how qualitative research can be applied to identify and develop attributes and levels for inclusion in patient preference studies aiming to inform decisions across the drug life cycle. The results of this study are intended to inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding lung cancer treatment options. This protocol may assist researchers, drug developers, and decision-makers in designing qualitative studies to understand which treatment aspects are most valued by patients in drug development, regulation, and reimbursement.