Importance of aligning the implementation of new payment models for innovative pharmaceuticals in European countries.

INTRODUCTION: The uptake of complex technologies and platforms has resulted in several challenges in the pricing and reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals. To address these challenges, plenty of concepts have already been described in the scientific literature about innovative value judgment or payment models, which are either (1) remaining theoretical; or (2) applied only in pilots with limited impact on patient access; or (3) applied so heterogeneously in many different countries that it prevents the health care industry from meeting expectations of HTA bodies and health care payers in the evidence requirements or offerings in different jurisdictions. AREAS COVERED: This paper provides perspectives on how to reduce the heterogeneity of pharmaceutical payment models across European countries in five areas, including 1) extended evaluation frameworks, 2) performance-based risk-sharing agreements, 3) pooled procurement for low volume or urgent technologies, 4) alternative access schemes, and 5) delayed payment models for technologies with high upfront costs. EXPERT OPINION: Whilst pricing and reimbursement decisions will remain a competence of EU member states, there is a need for alignment of European pharmaceutical payment model components in critical areas with the ultimate objective of improving the equitable access of European patients to increasingly complex pharmaceutical technologies.

Recommendations for patient involvement in health technology assessment in Central and Eastern European countries.

Introduction: Meaningful patient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is essential in ensuring that the interests of the affected patient population, their families, and the general public are accurately reflected in coverage and reimbursement decisions. Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries are generally at less advanced stages of implementing HTA, which is particularly true for patient involvement activities. As part of the Horizon2020 HTx project, this research aimed to form recommendations for critical barriers to patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries. Methods: Built on previous research findings on potential barriers, a prioritisation survey was conducted online with CEE stakeholders. Recommendations for prioritised barriers were formed through a face-to-face workshop by CEE stakeholders and HTx experts. Results: A total of 105 stakeholders from 13 CEE countries completed the prioritisation survey and identified 12 of the 22 potential barriers as highly important. The workshop had 36 participants representing 9 CEE countries, and 5 Western European countries coming together to discuss solutions in order to form recommendations based on best practices, real-life experience, and transferability aspects. Stakeholder groups involved in both phases included HTA organisation representatives, payers, patients, caregivers, patient organisation representatives, patient experts, health care providers, academic and non-academic researchers, health care consultants and health technology manufacturers/providers. As a result, 12 recommendations were formed specified to the CEE region's context, but potentially useful for a broader geographic audience. Conclusion: In this paper, we present 12 recommendations for meaningful, systematic, and sustainable patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries. Our hope is that engaging more than a hundred CEE stakeholders in the study helped to spread awareness of the importance and potential of patient involvement and that the resulting recommendations provide tangible steps for the way forward. Future studies shall focus on country-specific case studies of the implemented recommendations.

Adopting recommendations for implementing patient involvement in cancer research: a funder's approach.

BACKGROUND: The role of patients in cancer research is undergoing a significant evolution as all stakeholders seek to enhance the level of direct patient involvement in the design and development of clinical trials. However, there are significant hurdles that patients, patient advocates, laboratory researchers, clinical investigators, and funding institutions must overcome to implement relevant patient involvement in all aspects of biomedical research. By using innovative grant funding models, philanthropic organizations can lead the field in overcoming these challenges. Rising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer Research (RTFCCR), a private philanthropy that funds academic research, has developed a novel approach for requiring and supporting partnerships among grantees and patients in designing and conducting research projects. This paper presents a reflective case study of efforts to advance the field of patient involvement in clinical research. METHODS: The decision to focus on patient involvement stems from an expressed focus area established by the RTFCCR board of directors. In conducting this work, RTFCCR partnered with Patvocates, a patient advocacy and engagement network, to create a set of guiding documents and resources aimed at public and private health research funders within various national, international, and therapeutic settings. This effort included a landscape assessment, interviews with experts, and an iterative development process. RESULTS: To date, RTFCCR has completed and disseminated three guiding documents, one for funders, one for grant applicants, and one for patient advocates. These resources have already generated three major ongoing initiatives at RTFCCR: (1) inclusion of these recommendations in the foundation's funding guidelines; patient input to prioritization of research focus areas; and in topic selection for calls for proposals; (2) direct involvement of patient experts in the grant review process; and (3) a commitment to support high impact clinical research projects in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Moreover, the foundation has launched a partnership with the International Cancer Research Partnership, the global alliance of cancer research organizations. CONCLUSION: By using its grantmaking function and developing standardized approaches for implementation of patient involvement, RTFCCR is seeking to advance patient-centric cancer clinical research. This approach will continue to develop as it is implemented and shared with partners throughout the world.

The Rising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer Research (RTFCCR), a private philanthropy that funds academic research, has developed a novel approach for requiring and supporting partnerships among grantees (scientists) and patients in designing and conducting research projects.The decision to focus on patient involvement stems from an expressed focus area established by the RTFCCR board of directors. In conducting this work, RTFCCR partnered with Patvocates, a patient advocacy and engagement network. Patvocates conducted a landscape assessment, interviews with experts, and their collective experience as patient advocates. This work generated a set of guiding documents and resources. These resources are to help public and private health research funders to better understand current challenges and support scientists and patients through their funding mechanisms. Three guiding documents, one for funders, one for grant applicants, and one for patient advocates are now available for download at the RTFCCR website: https://www.risingtide-foundation.org/clinical-cancer-research/patient-engagement#start Delivering a paradigm change involves not only the introduction of additional requirements and rules, but also enhanced education of patients and investigators. By using its grantmaking function and developing standardized approaches for implementation of patient involvement, RTFCCR is seeking to advance patient-centric cancer clinical research.Development and implementation of consistent policies and procedures for the integration of the patients' view in the design and review of research proposals is needed for funders as well as for research institutes, both public and private.

[Changes resulting from the implementation of the new EU Clinical Trial Regulation 536/2014 from the perspective of patients]. / Veränderungen durch die neue EU-Verordnung 536/2014 zu klinischen Prüfungen aus Patientensicht.

The currently valid Regulation (EU) 536/2014 on clinical trials with medicinal products for human use brings some innovations that are of great importance for patients who participate in clinical trials and patients with a need for innovative therapies. These concern patient protection, especially for vulnerable patient groups, as well as the conditions for further use of data obtained in clinical trials. The introduction of the largely publicly available information system CTIS (Clinical Trials Information System) will significantly improve the transparency of ongoing clinical trials. However, the possibilities of redacting commercially confidential information and postponing the publication of trial-related data and documents for several years may affect the scope of transparency. The request for the sponsor to provide a summary of the protocol and a summary of results of the clinical trial in layman's language (within one year after the end of the trial) also means a massive improvement in transparency for patients, even if this period seems too long, especially for patients with life-threatening diseases. Not all patient-relevant goals originally hoped for have been achieved. The systematic involvement of patients and patient organisations in the clinical trial protocol design is not required by the legislation enacted in 2014. The involvement of patients in the ethical review of the authorisation application dossier is only recommended in the introductory justification, but not codified in the law.

Building a Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive Against Neoplasms in Hematology Added Value Framework for Hematologic Malignancies: A Comparative Analysis of Existing Tools.

OBJECTIVES: The Innovative Medicines Initiative-funded, multistakeholders project Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive Against Neoplasms in Hematology (HARMONY) created a task force involving patient organizations, medical associations, pharmaceutical companies, and health technology assessment/regulator agencies' representatives to evaluate the suitability of previously established value frameworks (VFs) for assessing the clinical and societal impact of new interventions for hematologic malignancies (HMs). METHODS: Since the HARMONY stakeholders identified the inclusion of patients' points of view on evaluating VFs as a priority, surveys were conducted with the patient organizations active in HMs and part of the HARMONY network, together with key opinion leaders, pharmaceutical companies, and regulators, to establish which outcomes were important for each HM. Next, to evaluate VFs against the sources of information taken into account (randomized clinical trials, registries, real-world data), structured questionnaires were created and filled by HARMONY health professionals to specify preferred data sources per malignancy. Finally, a framework evaluation module was built to analyze existing clinical VFs (American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, and patient-perspective VF). RESULTS: The comparative analysis describes challenges and opportunities for the use of each framework in the context of HMs and drafts possible lines of action for creating or integrating a more specific, patient-focused clinical VF for HMs. CONCLUSIONS: None of the frameworks meets the HARMONY goals for a tool that applies to HMs and assesses in a transparent, reproducible, and systematic way the therapeutic value of innovative health technologies versus available alternatives, taking a patient-centered approach and using real-world evidence.

Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research aims to increase the quality and relevance of research by incorporating the perspective of those ultimately affected by the research. Despite these potential benefits, PPI is rarely included in epidemiology protocols. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used for PPI and offer practical recommendations for its efficient implementation in epidemiological research. METHODS: We conducted a review on PPI methods. We mirrored it with a patient advocate's viewpoint about PPI. We then identified key steps to optimize PPI in epidemiological research based on our review and the viewpoint of the patient advocate, taking into account the identification of barriers to, and facilitators of, PPI. From these, we provided practical recommendations to launch a patient-centered cohort study. We used the implementation of a new digital cohort study as an exemplary use case. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 97 studies, of which 58 (60%) were performed in the United Kingdom. The most common methods were workshops (47/97, 48%); surveys (33/97, 34%); meetings, events, or conferences (28/97, 29%); focus groups (25/97, 26%); interviews (23/97, 24%); consensus techniques (8/97, 8%); James Lind Alliance consensus technique (7/97, 7%); social media analysis (6/97, 6%); and experience-based co-design (3/97, 3%). The viewpoint of a patient advocate showed a strong interest in participating in research. The most usual PPI modalities were research ideas (60/97, 62%), co-design (42/97, 43%), defining priorities (31/97, 32%), and participation in data analysis (25/97, 26%). We identified 9 general recommendations and 32 key PPI-related steps that can serve as guidelines to increase the relevance of epidemiological studies. CONCLUSIONS: PPI is a project within a project that contributes to improving knowledge and increasing the relevance of research. PPI methods are mainly used for idea generation. On the basis of our review and case study, we recommend that PPI be included at an early stage and throughout the research cycle and that methods be combined for generation of new ideas. For e-cohorts, the use of digital tools is essential to scale up PPI. We encourage investigators to rely on our practical recommendations to extend PPI in future epidemiological studies.

Core outcome set measurement for future clinical trials in acute myeloid leukemia: the HARMONY study protocol using a multi-stakeholder consensus-based Delphi process and a final consensus meeting.

BACKGROUND: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common acute leukemia in adults and has an unacceptably low cure rate. In recent years, a number of new treatment strategies and compounds were developed for the treatment of AML. There were several randomized controlled clinical trials with the objective to improve patients' management and patients' outcome in AML. Unfortunately, these trials are not always directly comparable since they do not measure the same outcomes, and currently there are no core outcome sets that can be used to guide outcome selection and harmonization in this disease area. The HARMONY (Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive against Neoplasms in Hematology) Alliance is a public-private European network established in 2017 and currently includes 53 partners and 32 associated members from 22 countries. Amongst many other goals of the HARMONY Alliance, Work Package 2 focuses on defining outcomes that are relevant to each hematological malignancy. Accordingly, this pilot study will be performed to define a core outcome set in AML. METHODS: The pilot study will use a three-round Delphi survey and a final consensus meeting to define a core outcome set. Participants will be recruited from different stakeholder groups, including patients, clinicians, regulators and members of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. At the pre-Delphi stage, a literature research was conducted followed by several semi-structured interviews of clinical public and private key opinion leaders. Subsequently, the preliminary outcome list was discussed in several multi-stakeholder face-to-face meetings. The Delphi survey will reduce the preliminary outcome list to essential core outcomes. After completion of the last Delphi round, a final face-to-face meeting is planned to achieve consensus about the core outcome set in AML. DISCUSSION: As part of the HARMONY Alliance, the pilot Delphi aims to define a core outcome set in AML on the basis of a multi-stakeholder consensus. Such a core outcome set will help to allow consistent comparison of future clinical trials and real-world evidence research and ensures that appropriate outcomes valued by a range of stakeholders are measured within future trials.