Health technology assessment 2025 and beyond: lifecycle approaches to promote engagement and efficiency in health technology assessment.

Lifecycle considerations have always been part of health technology assessment (HTA). However, the concept of taking a fuller, more holistic "lifecycle approach" is gaining interest in the HTA community. The 2022 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussed how adopting a lifecycle approach could promote stakeholder engagement and robust evidence generation, and whether it could enhance information sharing and transparency across stakeholder groups. This article summarizes the discussions held at the 2022 HTAi GPF and subsequent HTAi Annual Meeting panel session that debated some of the key challenges and opportunities, with particular focus on the pre- and postmarket and disinvestment phase activities. Core themes and recommendations identified that collaboration and patient involvement are happening but still needs to be strengthened, and moving to disease-based approaches may help, although individual contexts still need to be considered. Appropriately developed and mandated core outcome sets may help with information sharing and efficiency in all lifecycle activities. Further, methods for the appropriate use of big data and digital data collection should be developed and driven by the HTA community. The value of lifecycle activities should be reviewed; in particular, scientific advice appears valuable, but the magnitude of effect is somewhat unknown due to the challenges around the confidential nature of these activities. Not all lifecycle activities can be conducted for every technology, and while there is a move away from disinvestment phase activities, more structured prioritization criteria are required. This article ends with suggested next steps to bring forward some of the priority recommendations.

The Effectiveness and Value of Rivaroxaban and Icosapent Ethyl as Additive Therapies for Cardiovascular Disease.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, Commonwealth Fund, California Health Care Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), New England States Consortium Systems Organization, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, and Partners HealthCare to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Pearson is employed by ICER; Synnott was employed by ICER at the time of this report. Ollendorf, Campbell, and McQueen received grants from ICER for work on this review. Ollendorf also reports advisory board, consulting, and other fees from Sarepta Therapeutics, DBV Technologies, EMD Serono, Gerson Lehman Group, The CEA Registry Sponsors, Autolus, Analysis Group, Amgen, AbbVie, Cytokinetics, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, and University of Colorado, unrelated to this review.

Assessing the Value of Sarilumab Monotherapy for Adults with Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is associated with a societal burden greater than $39 billion annually. Novel treatments, known as targeted immune modulators (TIMs), are expensive but effective, producing improvements in response rates compared with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). Sarilumab, a TIM approved in 2017, shows superior improvements compared with cDMARDs and produced significantly greater likelihood of achieving response and improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index than adalimumab monotherapy. Although sarilumab monotherapy has shown improvements over cDMARDs and the TIM market leader adalimumab, treatment with sarilumab is costly, with an annual wholesale acquisition cost of $39,000. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of starting treatment with sarilumab monotherapy for adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to cDMARDs. METHODS: A sequential treatment cohort model followed a hypothetical cohort from initiation of sarilumab monotherapy until death. The model allowed patients to switch therapies up to 3 times due to effectiveness or adverse events. The first switch was to a TIM within the same treatment category; the second switch was to a TIM within a different treatment category; and the third switch was to a cDMARD. Sarilumab monotherapy was compared with a cDMARD (methotrexate) and the TIM market leader (adalimumab monotherapy). Key risk and benefit evidence came from clinical studies and network meta-analyses of data on radiographic progression and response. We used a lifetime time horizon and the U.S. health sector payer perspective assuming therapy net pricing. We also incorporated loss of productivity to reflect a restricted societal perspective. RESULTS: Over a lifetime time horizon, a treatment pathway starting with sarilumab resulted in 17.16 life-years and 13.66 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Treatment pathways starting with the cDMARD resulted in 16.54 life-years and 11.77 QALYs; treatment pathways starting with adalimumab resulted in 17.05 life-years and 13.35 QALYs. Total costs for sarilumab ($492,000 for payer perspective, $634,000 for societal perspective) were less than total costs for adalimumab ($536,000 for payer perspective, $689,000 for societal perspective) but higher than total costs for the cDMARD ($63,000 for payer perspective, $272,000 for societal perspective). When compared with cDMARD therapy, sarilumab resulted in a cost-effectiveness estimate of $227,000 per QALY gained from the payer perspective and $191,000 per QALYs gained from the societal perspective. When compared with adalimumab, sarilumab was dominant from both perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Sarilumab resulted in better health outcomes than conventional therapy alone. However, its additional cost with assumed class-level net prices led to cost-effectiveness estimates above commonly cited thresholds. When compared with the market leader, sarilumab achieved favorable value. This evaluation informs stakeholders of the value of sarilumab and its alternatives to promote high value practices in health care. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was contributed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Ollendorf, Chapman, Kumar, Synnott, and Agboola are employees of ICER, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions, which is funded by grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California Foundation, and the California HealthCare Foundation. The organization's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Omeda Rx, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Humana. This work is an extension of an analysis presented at the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council on March 24, 2017, where the authors received public feedback on the analysis, results, and effect of a value assessment for targeted immune modulators. At the time of presentation, sarilumab was still an investigational product; therefore, a price was not known, so cost-effectiveness estimates were not generated. Since the presentation of that material, additional evidence for sarilumab has become available. The additional evidence has been incorporated into this analysis to present cost-effectiveness estimates for sarilumab.

Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Newer classes of targeted drugs for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis are more effective and more expensive than older classes, posing a difficult and potentially costly decision about whether to use them as initial targeted treatments. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of initial targeted treatment for the following drugs: adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab (TNFα inhibitors); apremilast (PDE4 inhibitor); ustekinumab (IL-12/23 inhibitor); and ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab (IL-17 inhibitors). METHODS: We developed a Markov model to simulate patient outcomes as measured by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and health care costs over a 10-year period. We assumed that patients who fail initial targeted treatment either proceed to subsequent therapy or discontinue targeted treatment. Effectiveness estimates for initial treatment were defined as improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) from baseline and derived from a 2018 network meta-analysis. Wholesale acquisition drug costs were discounted by a class-specific, empirically derived rebate percentage off of 2016 costs. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess uncertainty in results. RESULTS: The incremental benefits compared with no targeted treatment were, in descending order: ixekizumab 1.68 QALYs (95% credible range [CR] = 1.11-2.02), brodalumab 1.64 QALYs (95% CR = 1.08-1.98), secukinumab 1.51 QALYs (95% CR = 1.00-1.83), ustekinumab 1.43 QALYs (95% CR=0.94-1.74), infliximab 1.27 QALYs (95% CR = 0.89-1.55), adalimumab 1.15 QALYs (95% CR = 0.76-1.44), etanercept 0.97 QALYs (95% CR = 0.61-1.25), and apremilast 0.87 QALYs (95% CR = 0.52-1.17). Costs of care without targeted treatment totaled $66,451, and costs of targeted treatment ranged from $137,080 (apremilast) to $255,422 (ustekinumab). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results indicated that infliximab and apremilast are likely to be the most cost-effective initial treatments at willingness-to-pay thresholds around $100,000 per QALY, while IL-17 drugs are more likely to be cost-effective at thresholds approaching $150,000 per QALY. Acquisition cost of the initial targeted drug and utility of clinical response were the most influential parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that initial targeted treatment with IL-17 inhibitors is the most effective treatment strategy for plaque psoriasis patients who have failed methotrexate and phototherapy. Apremilast, brodalumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab are cost-effective at different willingness-to-pay thresholds. Additional research is needed on whether the effectiveness of targeted agents changes when used after previously targeted agents. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was contributed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Ollendorf, Chapman, Pearson, and Kumar are current employees, and Loos and Liu are former employees, of ICER, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions, which is funded by grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California Foundation, and the California HealthCare Foundation. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Blue Shield of California, Cambia Health Solutions and MedSavvy, CVS Caremark, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Health Care Service Corporation, OmedaRx, United Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Humana, Prime Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Spark Therapeutics. Linder owns stock in Amgen, Biogen, and Eli Lilly; has contingent value rights in Sanofi Genzyme (related to alemtuzumab for multiple sclerosis); has received grant support from Astellas Pharma not related to this study and Clintrex, which was supported by AstraZeneca on an unrelated topic; and has received an honorarium from the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) as part of the SHEA Antimicrobial Stewardship Research Workshop Planning Committee, an educational activity supported by Merck. No other authors have potential conflicts of interest.

Assessing the value of mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adding mepolizumab to standard treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and controller medications could decrease asthma exacerbations and use of long-term oral steroids in patients with severe disease and increased eosinophils; however, mepolizumab is costly and its cost effectiveness is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of mepolizumab. METHODS: A Markov model was used to determine the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for mepolizumab plus standard of care (SoC) and for SoC alone. The population, adults with severe eosinophilic asthma, was modeled for a lifetime time horizon. A responder scenario analysis was conducted to determine the cost effectiveness for a cohort able to achieve and maintain asthma control. RESULTS: Over a lifetime treatment horizon, 23.96 exacerbations were averted per patient receiving mepolizumab plus SoC. Avoidance of exacerbations and decrease in long-term oral steroid use resulted in more than $18,000 in cost offsets among those receiving mepolizumab, but treatment costs increased by more than $600,000. Treatment with mepolizumab plus SoC vs SoC alone resulted in a cost-effectiveness estimate of $386,000 per QALY. To achieve cost effectiveness of approximately $150,000 per QALY, mepolizumab would require a more than 60% price discount. At current pricing, treating a responder cohort yielded cost-effectiveness estimates near $160,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The estimated cost effectiveness of mepolizumab exceeds value thresholds. Achieving these thresholds would require significant discounts from the current list price. Alternatively, treatment limited to responders improves the cost effectiveness toward, but remains still slightly above, these thresholds. Payers interested in improving the efficiency of health care resources should consider negotiations of the mepolizumab price and ways to predict and assess the response to mepolizumab.