Access in all areas? a round up of developments in market access and health technology assessment: part 4.

In this latest update, we look at recent developments in market access including the pricing agreement of Libmeldy® by the Beneluxa Initiative, the financial impact of managed entry agreements in Italy and the restructuring of Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA). We also highlight the collaboration between FINOSE and the New Expensive Drug (NED) section of the Nordic Pharmaceutical Forum.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 15.

In this latest update we discuss real-world evidence (RWE) guidance from the leading oncology professional societies, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, and the PRINCIPLED practical guide on the design and analysis of causal RWE studies.

Access in all areas? A round up of developments in market access and health technology assessment: part 3.

In this latest update, we explore some of the key updates in market access over recent months including the UK's voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG), the first drugs funded by the Innovative Medicines Fund in the UK and the Direct Access Scheme in France, and, finally, the new Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) value assessment framework in the USA.

Acceptability of Using Real-World Data to Estimate Relative Treatment Effects in Health Technology Assessments: Barriers and Future Steps.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence about the comparative effects of new treatments is typically collected in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In some instances, RCTs are not possible, or their value is limited by an inability to capture treatment effects over the longer term or in all relevant population subgroups. In these cases, nonrandomized studies (NRS) using real-world data (RWD) are increasingly used to complement trial evidence on treatment effects for health technology assessment (HTA). However, there have been concerns over a lack of acceptability of this evidence by HTA agencies. This article aims to identify the barriers to the acceptance of NRS and steps that may facilitate increases in the acceptability of NRS in the future. METHODS: Opinions of the authorship team based on their experience in real-world evidence research in academic, HTA, and industry settings, supported by a critical assessment of existing studies. RESULTS: Barriers were identified that are applicable to key stakeholder groups, including HTA agencies (eg, the lack of comprehensive methodological guidelines for using RWD), evidence generators (eg, avoidable deviations from best practices), and external stakeholders (eg, data controllers providing timely access to high-quality RWD). Future steps that may facilitate future acceptability of NRS include improvements in the quality, integration, and accessibility of RWD, wider use of demonstration projects to highlight the value and applicability of nonrandomized designs, living, and more detailed HTA guidelines, and improvements in HTA infrastructure relating to RWD. CONCLUSION: NRS can represent a crucial source of evidence on treatment effects for use in HTA when RCT evidence is limited.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 14.

In this latest update we highlight: a publication from the US FDA regarding the definitions of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE); a publication from academic researchers on a demonstration project for target trial emulation; a publication from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on the 1 year anniversary of their RWE framework; and a publication from NICE and Flatiron Health on the utility of US RWD for initial UK health technology assessment decision making.

Quantitative bias analysis for external control arms using real-world data in clinical trials: a primer for clinical researchers.

Development of medicines in rare oncologic patient populations are growing, but well-powered randomized controlled trials are typically extremely challenging or unethical to conduct in such settings. External control arms using real-world data are increasingly used to supplement clinical trial evidence where no or little control arm data exists. The construction of an external control arm should always aim to match the population, treatment settings and outcome measurements of the corresponding treatment arm. Yet, external real-world data is typically fraught with limitations including missing data, measurement error and the potential for unmeasured confounding given a nonrandomized comparison. Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) comprises a collection of approaches for modelling the magnitude of systematic errors in data which cannot be addressed with conventional statistical adjustment. Their applications can range from simple deterministic equations to complex hierarchical models. QBA applied to external control arm represent an opportunity for evaluating the validity of the corresponding comparative efficacy estimates. We provide a brief overview of available QBA approaches and explore their application in practice. Using a motivating example of a comparison between pralsetinib single-arm trial data versus pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy real-world data for RET fusion-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients (1-2% among all NSCLC), we illustrate how QBA can be applied to external control arms. We illustrate how QBA is used to ascertain robustness of results despite a large proportion of missing data on baseline ECOG performance status and suspicion of unknown confounding. The robustness of findings is illustrated by showing that no meaningful change to the comparative effect was observed across several 'tipping-point' scenario analyses, and by showing that suspicion of unknown confounding was ruled out by use of E-values. Full R code is also provided.

Is the price right? Paying for value today to get more value tomorrow.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary debates about drug pricing feature several widely held misconceptions, including the relationship between incentives and innovation, the proportion of total healthcare spending on pharmaceuticals, and whether the economic evaluation of a medicine can be influenced by things other than clinical efficacy. MAIN BODY: All citizens should have access to timely, equitable, and cost-effective care covered by public funds, private insurance, or a combination of both. Better managing the collective burden of diseases borne by today's and future generations depends in part on developing better technologies, including better medicines. As in any innovative industry, the expectation of adequate financial returns incentivizes innovators and their investors to develop new medicines. Estimating expected returns requires that they forecast revenues, based on the future price trajectory and volume of use over time. How market participants decide what price to set or accept can be complicated, and some observers and stakeholders want to confirm whether the net prices society pays for novel medicines, whether as a reward for past innovation or an incentive for future innovation, are commensurate with those medicines' incremental value. But we must also ask "value to whom?"; medicines not only bring immediate clinical benefits to patients treated today, but also can provide a broad spectrum of short- and long-term benefits to patients, their families, and society. Spending across all facets of healthcare has grown over the last 25 years, but both inpatient and outpatient spending has outpaced drug spending growth even as our drug armamentarium is constantly improving with safer and more effective medicines. In large part, this is because, unlike hospitals, drugs typically go generic, thus making room in our budgets for new and better ones, even as they often keep patients out of hospitals, driving further savings. CONCLUSION: A thorough evaluation of drug spending and value can help to promote a better allocation of healthcare resources for both the healthy and the sick, both of whom must pay for healthcare. Taking a holistic approach to assessing drug value makes it clear that a branded drug's value to a patient is often only a small fraction of the drug's total value to society. Societal value merits consideration when determining whether and how to make a medicine affordable and accessible to patients: a drug that is worth its price to society should not be rendered inaccessible to ill patients by imposing high out-of-pocket costs or restricting coverage based on narrow health technology assessments (HTAs). Furthermore, recognizing the total societal cost of un- or undertreated conditions is crucial to gaining a thorough understanding of what guides the biomedical innovation ecosystem to create value for society. It would be unwise to discourage the development of new solutions without first appreciating the cost of leaving the problems unsolved.

Association between treatment and improvements in overall survival of patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer since 2011: A study in the United States, Canada, and Germany using retrospective real-world databases.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) in three countries between 2011 and 2020. METHODS: Three databases (US, Canada, Germany) were used to identify incident aNSCLC patients. OS was assessed from the date of incident aNSCLC diagnosis and, for patients who received at least a first line of therapy (1LOT), from the date of 1LOT initiation. In multivariable analyses, we analyzed the influence of index year and type of prescribed treatment on OS. FINDINGS: We included 51,318 patients with an incident aNSCLC diagnosis. The percentage of patients treated with a 1LOT differed substantially between countries, whereas the number of patients receiving immunotherapies/targeted treatments increased over time in all three countries. Median OS from the date of incident diagnosis was 9.9 months in the United States vs. 4.1 months in Canada. When measured from the start of 1LOT, patients had a median OS of 10.7 months in the United States, 10.9 months in Canada, and 10.9 months in Germany. OS from the start of 1LOT improved in all three countries from 2011 to 2020 by approximately 3 to 4 months. CONCLUSIONS: Observed continuous improvement in OS among patients receiving at least a 1LOT from 2011 to 2020 was likely driven by improved care and changes in the treatment landscape. The difference in the proportion of patients receiving a 1LOT in the observed countries requires further investigation.

Access in all areas? A round up of developments in market access and health technology assessment: part 2.

In this latest update, we explore the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) enacted by the US Congress in August 2022, with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently releasing the list of the first ten drugs it will negotiate prices on. We also cover the consequences of price controls and rigid value assessment in Germany which have led to the withdrawal of a number of medicines. It will be important to see how the IRA balances cost-saving with holistic value assessment, incentives for innovation and patient access to treatment.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 13.

In this latest update we highlight a report from the European Medicines Agency on their use of real-world evidence (RWE) in decision making, RWE reporting guidance from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health and highlight some new data demonstrating the value medicines for spinal muscular atrophy have brought patients.

Access in all areas? A round up of developments in market access and health technology assessment: part 1.

In this new series reviewing recent developments in market access, we highlight publications investigating health technology assessment (HTA) guidance, review processes and outcomes across the world and discuss how forthcoming changes in the HTA and regulatory environment in the European Union may allow for more consistency in decision making.

Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatments for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Illustration of an Aggregate Analysis and its Key Drivers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) facilitates quantitative assessments of how health effects and costs are distributed among population subgroups, and of potential trade-offs between health maximisation and equity. Implementation of DCEA is currently explored by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England. Recent research conducted an aggregate DCEA on a selection of NICE appraisals; however, significant questions remain regarding the impact of the characteristics of the patient population (size, distribution by the equity measure of interest) and methodologic choices on DCEA outcomes. Cancer is the indication most appraised by NICE, and the relationship between lung cancer incidence and socioeconomic status is well established. We aimed to conduct an aggregate DCEA of two non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatments recommended by NICE, and identify key drivers of the analysis. METHODS: Subgroups were defined according to socioeconomic deprivation. Data on health benefits, costs, and target populations were extracted from two NICE appraisals (atezolizumab versus docetaxel [second-line treatment following chemotherapy to represent a broad NSCLC population] and alectinib versus crizotinib [targeted first-line treatment to represent a rarer mutation-positive NSCLC population]). Data on disease incidence were derived from national statistics. Distributions of population health and health opportunity costs were taken from the literature. A societal welfare analysis was conducted to assess potential trade-offs between health maximisation and equity. Sensitivity analyses were conducted, varying a range of parameters. RESULTS: At an opportunity cost threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), alectinib improved both health and equity, thereby increasing societal welfare. Second-line atezolizumab involved a trade-off between improving health equity and maximising health; it improved societal welfare at an opportunity cost threshold of £50,000/QALY. Increasing the value of the opportunity cost threshold improved the equity impact. The equity impact and societal welfare impact were small, driven by the size of the patient population and per-patient net health benefit. Other key drivers were the inequality aversion parameters and the distribution of patients by socioeconomic group; skewing the distribution to the most (least) deprived quintile improved (reduced) equity gains. CONCLUSION: Using two illustrative examples and varying model parameters to simulate alternative decision problems, this study suggests that key drivers of an aggregate DCEA are the opportunity cost threshold, the characteristics of the patient population, and the level of inequality aversion. These drivers raise important questions in terms of the implications for decision making. Further research is warranted to examine the value of the opportunity cost threshold, capture the public's views on unfair differences in health, and estimate robust distributional weights incorporating the public's preferences. Finally, guidance from health technology assessment organisations, such as NICE, is needed regarding methods for DCEA construction and how they would interpret and incorporate those results in their decision making.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 12.

In this latest update we highlight the final results from the RCT-DUPLICATE initiative, the publication of guidance from Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), the joint viewpoint from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in HealthCare (IQWIG) and the Belgian HealthCare Knowledge Center, and a position from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Finally, we discuss how the NICE RWE framework has been implemented to allow consideration of RWE external control arms.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 11.

In this latest update we highlight a study from the REPEAT initiative that evaluates the reproducibility of real-world data studies, the publication of the HARPER Protocol Template developed by a joint ISPE/ISPOR taskforce, and discuss recent US FDA guidance on external control arms.

Real-world evaluation of ocrelizumab in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review.

Across its clinical development program, ocrelizumab demonstrated efficacy in improving clinical outcomes in multiple sclerosis, including annualized relapse rates and confirmed disability progression. However, as with any new treatment, it was unclear how this efficacy would translate into real-world clinical practice. The objective of this study was to systematically collate the published real-world clinical effectiveness data for ocrelizumab in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis and primary progressive multiple sclerosis. A search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and Embase to identify articles reporting real-world evidence in people with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis or primary progressive multiple sclerosis receiving treatment with ocrelizumab. The search focused on English language articles only but was not limited by the country in which the study was conducted or the time frame of the study. Additional manual searches of relevant websites were also performed. Fifty-two studies were identified reporting relevant evidence. Real-world effectiveness data for ocrelizumab were consistently favorable, with reductions in relapse rate and disease progression rates similar to those reported in the OPERA I/OPERA II and ORATORIO clinical trials, including in studies with more diverse patient populations not well represented in the pivotal trials. Although direct comparisons are confounded by lack of randomization of treatments, outcomes reported suggest that ocrelizumab has a similar or greater efficacy than other therapy options. Initial real-world effectiveness data for ocrelizumab appear favorable and consistent with results reported in clinical trials, providing clinicians with an efficacious option to treat patients with multiple sclerosis.