Exploring the opportunities for alignment of regulatory postauthorization requirements and data required for performance-based managed entry agreements.

Performance-based managed entry agreements (PB-MEAs) might allow patient access to new medicines, but practical hurdles make competent authorities for pricing and reimbursement (CAPR) reluctant to implement PB-MEAs. We explored if the feasibility of PB-MEAs might improve by better aligning regulatory postauthorization requirements with the data generation of PB-MEAs and by active collaboration and data sharing. Reviewers from seven CAPRs provided structured assessments of the information available at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Web site on regulatory postauthorization requirements for fifteen recently authorized products. The reviewers judged to what extent regulatory postauthorization studies could help implement PB-MEAs by addressing uncertainty gaps. Study domains assessed were: patient population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, time horizon, anticipated data quality, and anticipated robustness of analysis. Reviewers shared general comments about PB-MEAs for each product and on cooperation with other CAPRs. Reviewers rated regulatory postauthorization requirements at least partly helpful for most products and across domains except the comparator domain. One quarter of responses indicated that public information provided by the EMA was insufficient to support the implementation of PB-MEAs. Few PB-MEAs were in place for these products, but the potential for implementation of PB-MEAs or collaboration across CAPRs was seen as more favorable. Responses helped delineate a set of conditions where PB-MEAs may help reduce uncertainty. In conclusion, PB-MEAs are not a preferred option for CAPRs, but we identified conditions where PB-MEAs might be worth considering. The complexities of implementing PB-MEAs remain a hurdle, but collaboration across silos and more transparency on postauthorization studies could help overcome some barriers.

Effectiveness of bevacizumab and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer across selected public hospitals in Queensland.

AIM: Metastatic colorectal cancer has a large burden of disease in Australia. Medical therapy is fundamental to extending survival and improving quality of life. The benefits of two costly medicines, bevacizumab and cetuximab, used in Australia remain unclear. The aim of this study was to retrospectively examine the use of these two medicines in metastatic colorectal cancer across five public hospitals in south east Queensland and to compare clinical outcomes to those of published clinical trials. METHODS: We extracted data from the chemotherapy prescribing database for patients planned for bevacizumab or cetuximab therapy between 2009 and 2013. Median overall survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: There were 490 bevacizumab-containing protocols planned and 292 patients received at least one dose of bevacizumab. Median overall survival was 17.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.4-19.3). Of 208 planned cetuximab-containing protocols, 134 patients received at least one dose of cetuximab. Median overall survival was 9.1 months (95% CI, 7.6-12.0). Thirty-day mortality rates from date of first dose were 0.7% for bevacizumab and 7.5% for cetuximab. CONCLUSION: Overall survival of patients receiving bevacizumab and cetuximab was consistent with clinical trials, providing some assurance that benefits seen in trials are observed in usual practice. This study provides a methodology of using routinely collected health data for clinical monitoring and research. Because of the high cost of these medicines and the lack of toxicity data in this study, further analysis in the postmarketing setting should be explored.