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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 10.

In this latest update we discuss the transportability of comparative effectiveness evidence across countries. We highlight results of a survey indicating that European HTA agencies are reluctant to accept real-world data from other countries, review recent benefit assessments indicating a potential softening of a requirement for the use of local real-world data in Germany, and outline a recent review presenting approaches that can correct for a lack of transportability.

Transportability of Overall Survival Estimates From US to Canadian Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Implications for Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment.

Importance: The external validity of survival outcomes derived from clinical practice data from US patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known and is of potential importance because it may be used to support regulatory decision-making and health technology assessment outside of the US. Objective: To evaluate whether overall survival (OS) estimates for a selected group of patients with advanced NSCLC from a large US clinical practice database are transportable to Canadian patients receiving the same systemic therapies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective multicenter cohort study used transportability analysis to assess whether adjustment for pretreatment characteristics of eligible patient cohorts could reliably approximate OS estimated from US-based samples to Canadian populations. A total of 17 432 eligible adult patients who were diagnosed de novo with advanced NSCLC on or after January 1, 2011, were included in the analysis and followed up until September 30, 2020. Because data on race and ethnicity were available in the US database but not the Canadian database and because racial and ethnic distribution was likely to be similar between US and Canadian patients, these characteristics were not analyzed. Exposures: Initiation of platinum-doublet chemotherapy or pembrolizumab monotherapy as first-line systemic treatment for advanced NSCLC. Main Outcomes and Measures: OS measured from the time of initiation of the respective treatment regimen. Results: Among 17 432 eligible patients, 15 669 patients from the US and 1763 patients from Canada were included in the analysis. Of those, 11 863 patients (sample size-weighted estimates of mean [SD] age, 68.0 [9.3] years; 6606 [55.7%] male; 10 100 from the US and 1763 from Canada) were included in the subset of patients with complete data for baseline covariates. A total of 13 532 US patients received first-line chemotherapy, and 2137 received first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy. Of those, 8447 patients (62.4%) in the first-line chemotherapy group and 1653 patients (77.3%) in the first-line pembrolizumab group had complete data on baseline covariates for outcome model estimation. A total of 1476 Canadian patients who received first-line chemotherapy and 287 patients who received first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy were identified from the target population. After standardization to baseline patient covariates in the Canadian cohorts, transported OS estimates revealed a less than 5% mean absolute difference from the observed OS in the target population (0.56% over 60 months of follow-up in the first-line chemotherapy group and 4.54% over 30 months of follow-up in the first-line pembrolizumab group). Negative control analysis using a mismatched outcome model revealed a 6.64% discrepancy and an incompatible survival curve shape. The results were robust to assumptions of random missingness for baseline covariates, to unadjusted differences in baseline metastases and comorbidities, and to differences in the standard of care between the US and Canada related to administration of second-line anti-programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 immunotherapy for patients who initiated first-line chemotherapy. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study suggest that, under specific circumstances, OS estimates from US clinical practice data can be adjusted using baseline clinical characteristics to closely approximate OS in selected groups of Canadian patients with advanced NSCLC. These results may have implications for regulatory decision-making and health technology assessment in target populations outside of the US.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 9.

In this latest update we highlight a recent International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Practice Report on machine learning (ML) for health economics and outcomes research. We specifically discuss use cases of ML that offer opportunities in the generation of evidence using real-world data, including improvements in the identification of study cohorts, confounder identification and adjustment and estimating treatment effect heterogeneity. Barriers to the wider adoption of ML methods are also discussed.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 8.

In this latest update we highlight the publication of a draft real-world evidence framework by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and describe a press release from Germany's Institute for Quality and Efficiency in HealthCare outlining how real-world evidence submissions are not following their guidelines. We also discuss whether the lack of adherence to guidelines is due to ignorance of these guidelines on the part of manufacturers, the difficulty in achieving best practices or a failure of guidelines to comprehensively describe best practices.

Addressing challenges with real-world synthetic control arms to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of Pralsetinib in non-small cell lung cancer.

As advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) is being increasingly divided into rare oncogene-driven subsets, conducting randomised trials becomes challenging. Using real-world data (RWD) to construct control arms for single-arm trials provides an option for comparative data. However, non-randomised treatment comparisons have the potential to be biased and cause concern for decision-makers. Using the example of pralsetinib from a RET fusion-positive aNSCLC single-arm trial (NCT03037385), we demonstrate a relative survival benefit when compared to pembrolizumab monotherapy and pembrolizumab with chemotherapy RWD cohorts. Quantitative bias analyses show that results for the RWD-trial comparisons are robust to data missingness, potential poorer outcomes in RWD and residual confounding. Overall, the study provides evidence in favour of pralsetinib as a first-line treatment for RET fusion-positive aNSCLC. The quantification of potential bias performed in this study can be used as a template for future studies of this nature.