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.

Inclusion of functional measures and frailty in the development and evaluation of medicines for older adults.

The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) E7, the guidance for the conduct of clinical trials in people older than age 65 years, dates from 1994. Since then, the inclusion of older people in clinical trials has hardly improved, particularly for the oldest old age group (individuals older than age 75 years), which is the fastest growing demographic bracket in the EU. Even though most medications are taken by this group, relevant endpoints and safety outcomes for this cohort are rarely included and reported, both in clinical trials and regulatory approval documents. To improve the critical appraisal and the regulatory review of medicines taken by frail older adults, eight recommendations are presented and discussed in this Health Policy. These recommendations are brought together from different perspectives and experience of the treatment of older patients. On one side, the perspective of medical practitioners from various clinical disciplines, with their direct experience of clinical decision making; on the other, the perspective of regulators assessing the data submitted in medicine registration dossiers, their relevance to the risk-benefit balance for older patients, and the communication of the findings in the product information. Efforts to improve the participation of older people in clinical trials have been in place for more than a decade, with little success. The recommendations presented here are relevant for stakeholders, authorities, pharmaceutical companies, and researchers alike, as the implementation of these measures is not under the capacity of a single entity. Improving the inclusion of frail older adults requires awareness, focus, and action on the part of those who can effect a much needed change.

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.

Strengthening the Interface of Evidence-Based Decision Making Across European Regulators and Health Technology Assessment Bodies.

OBJECTIVES: Access to medicines in Europe depends on a benefit-risk decision taken by regulators and a relative effectiveness assessment performed by health technology assessment bodies (HTABs) to inform, as one element, a reimbursement decision. Although various similarities in evidence needs exist, understanding of their needs is currently suboptimal and therefore the evidence generated does not always meet their needs. Subsequently, delays in decision making can be expected, negatively affecting access. To overcome this, this study reviewed the evidentiary needs of European regulators and HTABs at European level and analyzed how their collaboration can further facilitate optimal evidence generation plans, evidence use, and evidence presentation. METHODS: Through systematic literature review, expert interviews, and pairwise comparison of assessment reports by the European Medicines Agency and European network for health technology assessment, respective clinical evidence requirements and impact of product-specific collaboration between European Medicines Agency and HTABs were established. RESULTS: Clinical evidence needs are quite similar but differences exist in comparator choice, preferred efficacy endpoints, and target population. Results of the impact of collaboration to date were mixed: preapproval joint advice procedures were successful and highly valued by all stakeholders; information exchange at the time of regulatory decision is coming together, yet the European Public Assessment Report can be further optimized; and collaboration on postlicensing evidence generation requirements shows potential but needs solidifying. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the potential to further improve the evidence utilization across stakeholders to avoid duplication and streamline decision making, to ultimately improve access to medicines for European patients.

Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of chimeric antigen receptor T-cells in children and adolescents with cancer: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

The seventh multi-stakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forum focused on chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells for children and adolescents with cancer. The development of CAR T-cells for patients with haematological malignancies, especially B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (BCP-ALL), has been spectacular. However, currently, there are scientific, clinical and logistical challenges for use of CAR T-cells in BCP-ALL and other paediatric malignancies, particularly in acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), lymphomas and solid tumours. The aims of the Forum were to summarise the current landscape of CAR T-cell therapy development in paediatrics, too identify current challenges and future directions, with consideration of other immune effector modalities and ascertain the best strategies to accelerate their development and availability to children. Although the effect is of limited duration in about half of the patients, anti-CD19 CAR T-cells produce high response rates in relapsed/refractory BCP-ALL and this has highlighted previously unknown mechanisms of relapse. CAR T-cell treatment as first- or second-line therapy could also potentially benefit patients whose disease has high-risk features associated with relapse and failure of conventional therapies. Identifying patients with very early and early relapse in whom CAR T-cell therapy may replace haematopoietic stem cell transplantation and be definitive therapy versus those in whom it provides a more effective bridge to haematopoietic stem cell transplantation is a very high priority. Development of approaches to improve persistence, either by improving T cell fitness or using more humanised/fully humanised products and co-targeting of multiple antigens to prevent antigen escape, could potentially further optimise therapy. Many differences exist between paediatric B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (B-NHL) and BCP-ALL. In view of the very small patient numbers with relapsed lymphoma, careful prioritisation is needed to evaluate CAR T-cells in children with Burkitt lymphoma, primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma and other NHL subtypes. Combination trials of alternative targets to CD19 (CD20 or CD22) should also be explored as a priority to improve efficacy in this population. Development of CD30 CAR T-cell immunotherapy strategies in patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma will likely be most efficiently accomplished by joint paediatric and adult trials. CAR T-cell approaches are early in development for AML and T-ALL, given the unique challenges of successful immunotherapy actualisation in these diseases. At this time, CD33 and CD123 appear to be the most universal targets in AML and CD7 in T-ALL. The results of ongoing or planned first-in-human studies are required to facilitate further understanding. There are promising early results in solid tumours, particularly with GD2 targeting cell therapies in neuroblastoma and central nervous system gliomas that represent significant unmet clinical needs. Further understanding of biology is critical to success. The comparative benefits of autologous versus allogeneic CAR T-cells, T-cells engineered with T cell receptors T-cells engineered with T cell receptor fusion constructs, CAR Natural Killer (NK)-cell products, bispecific T-cell engager antibodies and antibody-drug conjugates require evaluation in paediatric malignancies. Early and proactive academia and multi-company engagement are mandatory to advance cellular immunotherapies in paediatric oncology. Regulatory advice should be sought very early in the design and preparation of clinical trials of innovative medicines, for which regulatory approval may ultimately be sought. Aligning strategic, scientific, regulatory, health technology and funding requirements from the inception of a clinical trial is especially important as these are very expensive therapies. The model for drug development for cell therapy in paediatric oncology could also involve a 'later stage handoff' to industry after early development in academic hands. Finally, and very importantly, strategies must evolve to ensure appropriate ease of access for children who need and could potentially benefit from these therapies.

Regulatory and health technology assessment advice on postlicensing and postlaunch evidence generation is a foundation for lifecycle data collection for medicines.

The understanding of the benefit risk profile, and relative effectiveness of a new medicinal product, are initially established in a circumscribed patient population through clinical trials. There may be uncertainties associated with the new medicinal product that cannot be, or do not need to be resolved before launch. Postlicensing or postlaunch evidence generation (PLEG) is a term for evidence generated after the licensure or launch of a medicinal product to address these remaining uncertainties. PLEG is thus part of the continuum of evidence development for a medicinal product, complementing earlier evidence, facilitating further elucidation of a product's benefit/risk profile, value proposition, and/or exploring broader aspects of disease management and provision of healthcare. PLEG plays a role in regulatory decision making, not only in the European Union but also in other jurisdictions including the USA and Japan. PLEG is also relevant for downstream decision-making by health technology assessment bodies and payers. PLEG comprises studies of different designs, based on data collected in observational or experimental settings. Experience to date in the European Union has indicated a need for improvements in PLEG. Improvements in design and research efficiency of PLEG could be addressed through more systematic pursuance of Scientific Advice on PLEG with single or multiple decision makers. To date, limited information has been available on the rationale, process or timing for seeking PLEG advice from regulators or health technology assessment bodies. This article sets out to address these issues and to encourage further uptake of PLEG advice.

Overview of the European Medicines Agency's Development of Product-Specific Bioequivalence Guidelines.

The European Medicines Agency's (EMA) product-specific bioequivalence guidelines outline harmonized regulatory requirements for studies to demonstrate bioequivalence for products that may have particular needs due to their pharmacokinetics, in addition to those outlined in general guidance. As such they are potentially very useful to the pharmaceutical industry in the development of generic medicinal products and to regulatory authorities for harmonized decision-making. Since their introduction in 2013, EMA product-specific bioequivalence guidelines continue to increase in number, and as of June 2017, encompass a number of different pharmacotherapeutic groups and pharmaceutical forms. This article further elucidates the processes involved for stakeholders and reviews the Agency's experience with the development of these guidelines, including the scientific issues witnessed with their advancement. A comparison with the United States Food and Drug Administration approach to similar guidelines is also provided.

Improving the contribution of regulatory assessment reports to health technology assessments--a collaboration between the European Medicines Agency and the European network for Health Technology Assessment.

In response to a recommendation from the Pharmaceutical Forum, the European Medicines Agency and the European network for Health Technology Assessment initiated a collaboration with the aim to improve the contribution regulatory assessment reports can make to the assessment of relative effectiveness of medicinal products by health technology assessment bodies. This collaboration on improving European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) started in February 2010 and was performed over 2 years. As a result, the templates for preparing EPARs were revised to better address the needs of heath technology organizations. The better understanding of information needs was a key outcome of the collaboration. To ascertain whether these template changes led to the inclusion of relevant information, a review of a small set of EPARs for recently approved medicinal products was carried out in parallel by both the European network for Health Technology Assessment and the European Medicines Agency. This report provides an account of this project on improving EPARs, which is part of the ongoing dialogue between regulators and health technology assessment bodies on a European level to support policymaker decisions in the future.