Heterogeneous Recommendations for Oncology Products Among Different HTA Systems: A Comparative Assessment.

Rising budget constraints and demands for healthcare services create additional complexity within the decision process for resource allocation. Innovations and scientific progress have been shown to be key drivers of the increase in healthcare expenditures (1). In the context of rising medical care costs and limited resources, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) was developed as a tool to inform decision-making and to provide the rationalization behind these decisions driving resource allocation and spending for health technology products. Furthermore, HTA agencies make the decision-making process more transparent. The HTA approach involves evaluating multiple aspects of a new product's value in order to maximize health gain provided within the setting of limited resources.

Challenges in the market access of regenerative medicines, and implications for manufacturers and decision-makers: a systematic review.

Aim: Regenerative medicines (RMs) are expected to transform the treatment paradigm of rare, life-threatening diseases, while substantial challenges impede its market access. This study aimed to present these challenges. Materials & methods: Publications identified in the Medline and Embase databases until December 2020 were included. Results: Uncertainties around the relative effectiveness and long-term benefits of RMs are most scrutinized. A new reference case for RMs is questionable, but examining impacts of study perspective, time horizon, discount rate and extrapolation methods on estimates is advised. Establishing reasonable prices of RMs requires increased transparency in the development costs and better values measurements. Outcome-based payments require considerable investments and potential legislative adjustments. Conclusion: Greater flexibility for health technology assessment and economic analyses of RMs is necessary. This comprehensive review may prompt more multi-stakeholder conversations to discuss the optimized strategy for value assessment, pricing and payment in order to accelerate the market access of RMs.

Plain language summary Regenerative medicines (RMs) potentially offered new hopes for severe diseases without effective treatments. However, substantial challenges must be overcome to make them available for patients. This systematic review aims to present these challenges. Publications identified in the Medline and Embase databases until December 2020 were included. The limited clinical evidence causes the biggest uncertainties around the relative effectiveness and long-term benefits of RMs. The current methodology for economic analysis of RMs is questionable because broader, societal values related to RMs are not sufficiently captured. The high price of RMs seems unjustified and should be lowered by balancing the development costs and values delivered. Outcome-based payments could be employed to address the long-term financial challenges, but they will require investments to implement it. More flexibility for health technology assessment and economic analysis of RMs is necessary to safeguard the accelerated patient access.

Variation in market access decisions for cell and gene therapies across the United States, Canada, and Europe.

Transformative cell and gene therapies have now launched worldwide, and many potentially curative cell and gene therapies are in development, offering the prospect of significant health gains for patients. Access to these therapies depend on decisions made by health technology assessment (HTA) and payer organizations. We sought to describe the emerging cell and gene therapies market access landscape by analyzing 17 US commercial payer medical policies, and HTA reports from five European countries and Canada. We found that some US health plans applied coverage restrictions more often than others (four plans applied restrictions in all decisions, while four plans applied restrictions in <30% of decisions). The European and Canadian HTA bodies recommend access to fewer therapies than US health plans, reflecting a more stringent approach in the context of limited evidence and high scientific uncertainty that is commonly associated with these treatments. Our findings suggest that patient access to approved cell and gene therapies is restricted in all regions studied, though the nature of these restrictions differs between US health plans and the European/Canada HTA recommendations. Payers, HTA groups, pharmaceutical companies, and other stakeholders should collaborate to more clearly define the "uncertainties" and develop market access policies that balance benefits of early access with ongoing data collection to close evidence gaps over time.

Outcomes-based reimbursement for gene therapies in practice: the experience of recently launched CAR-T cell therapies in major European countries.

Background: The experience of Kymriah® and Yescarta® provides real-world examples of how health-care systems approach and manage the reimbursement of one-off, high-cost, cell, and gene therapies, and the decision uncertainty and affordability challenges they present. Objective: To provide an overview of the reimbursement schemes used for Kymriah® and Yescarta® in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK (EU5) as per the final quarter of 2019; to identify challenges and derive learnings for future product launches. Methodology: Secondary research, complemented by primary research with key market access stakeholders. Findings: Kymriah® and Yescarta® have relatively uniform list prices across the EU5, and are reimbursed according to their marketing authorisations. In France and the UK, reimbursement is on the condition of collecting additional data (at the cohort level) and subject to future reassessments; elsewhere, rebates (Germany) or staged payments (Italy and Spain) are linked to individual patient outcomes. Conclusions: The experience of Kymriah® and Yescarta® shows an increased appetite for outcomes-based reimbursement (OBR) in the EU5, with notably novel approaches applied in Italy and Spain (outcomes-based staged payments). Thus, real-world evidence (RWE) has become an increasingly powerful lever for demonstrating the value of health benefits in the clinical setting.

Regenerative medicine regulatory policies: A systematic review and international comparison.

BACKGROUND: A small number of regenerative medicines (RMs) have received market authorization (MA) worldwide, relative to the large number of clinical trials currently being conducted. Regulatory issues constitute one major challenge for the MA of RMs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review the regulation of RMs internationally, to identify the regulatory pathways for approved RMs, and to detail expedited programs to stimulate MA process. METHODS: Official websites of regulatory authorities in 9 countries (United States (US), Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, China, and India) and the European Union (EU) were systematically browsed, and was complemented by a systematic literature review in Medline and Embase database. RESULTS: Specific RM legislation/frameworks were available in the EU, US, Japan, South Korea and Australia. A risk-based approach exempting eligible RMs from MA regulations were adopted in the EU and 6 countries. All investigated regions have established accelerated review or approval programs to facilitate the MA of RMs. 55 RMs have received MA in 9 countries and the EU. Twenty-three RMs received Priority Medicine designation, 32 RMs received Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation, and 11 RMs received SAKIGAKE (fore-runner initiative) designation. CONCLUSION: Regulators have adopted proactive strategies to facilitate RM approval. However, addressing the discrepancies in regulatory requirements internationally remains challenging.

Gene therapies development: slow progress and promising prospect.

Background: In 1989, the concept of human gene therapies has emerged with the first approved human gene therapy trial of Rosenberg et al. Gene therapies are considered as promising therapies applicable to a broad range of diseases. Objective: The objective of this study was to review the descriptive data on gene therapy clinical trials conducted worldwide between 1989 and 2015, and to discuss potential success rates of these trials over time and anticipated market launch in the upcoming years. Methods: A publicly available database, 'Gene Therapy Clinical Trials Worldwide', was used to extract descriptive data on gene therapy clinical trials: (1) number of trials per year between 1989 and 2015; (2) countries; (3) diseases targeted by gene therapies; (4) vectors used for gene delivery; (5) trials status; (6) phases of development. Results: Between 1989 and 2015, 2,335 gene therapy clinical trials have been completed, were ongoing or approved (but not started) worldwide. The number of clinical trials did not increase steadily over time; it reached its highest peak in 2015 (163 trials). Almost 95% of the trials were in early phases of development and 72% were ongoing. The United States undertook 67% of gene therapy clinical trials. The majority of gene therapies clinical trials identified targeted cancer diseases. Conclusion: The first gene therapy was approved in the European Union in 2012, after two decades of dashed expectations. This approval boosted the investment in developing gene therapies. Regulators are creating a specific path for rapid access of those new therapies, providing hope for manufacturers, healthcare professionals, and patients. However, payers are increasingly scrutinizing the additional benefits of the new therapies. Major steps forward are expected in the field of gene therapies in the future.

Risk of discontinuation of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) constitute a class of innovative products that encompasses gene therapy, somatic cell therapy, and tissue-engineered products (TEP). There is an increased investment of commercial and non-commercial sponsors in this field and a growing number of ATMPs randomized clinical trials (RCT) and patients enrolled in such trials. RCT generate data to prove the efficacy of a new therapy, but the discontinuation of RCTs wastes scarce resources. Our objective is to identify the number and characteristics of discontinued ATMPs trials in order to evaluate the rate of discontinuation. METHODS: We searched for ATMPs trials conducted between 1999 to June 2015 using three databases, which are Clinicaltrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the EU Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT). We selected the ATMPs trials after elimination of the duplicates. We identified the disease areas and the sponsors as commercial or non-commercial organizations. We classified ATMPs by type and trial status, that is, ongoing, completed, terminated, discontinued, and prematurely ended. Then, we calculated the rate of discontinuation. RESULTS: Between 1999 and June 2015, 143 withdrawn, terminated, or prematurely ended ATMPs clinical trials were identified. Between 1999 and June 2013, 474 ongoing and completed clinical trials were identified. Therefore, the rate of discontinuation of ATMPs trials is 23.18%, similar to that for non-ATMPs drugs in development. The probability of discontinuation is, respectively, 27.35, 16.28, and 16.34% for cell therapies, gene therapies, and TEP. The highest discontinuation rate is for oncology (43%), followed by cardiology (19.2%). It is almost the same for commercial and non-commercial sponsors; therefore, the discontinuation reason may not be financially driven. CONCLUSION: No failure risk rate per development phase is available for ATMPs. The discontinuation rate may prove helpful when assessing the expected net present value to support portfolio arbitration and may be considered by patients and potential investigators in their decisions to participate in ATMP trials. These results carry limitation because the rationale for discontinuation is unknown. Further research about the reasons of discontinuation and the risk of negative results is needed to inform stakeholders.

Advanced therapy medicinal products: current and future perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are innovative therapies that encompass gene therapy, somatic cell therapy, and tissue-engineered products. These therapies are expected to bring important health benefits, but also to substantially impact the pharmaceuticals budget. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterise the ATMPs in development and discuss future implications in terms of market access. METHODS: Clinical trials were searched in the following databases: EudraCT (EU Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials), ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the World Health Organization). Trials were classified by category of ATMP as defined by European regulation EC No. 1394/2007, as well as by development phase and disease area. RESULTS: The database search identified 939 clinical trials investigating ATMPs (85% ongoing, 15% completed). The majority of trials were in the early stages (Phase I, I/II: 64.3%, Phase II, II/III: 27.9%, Phase 3: 6.9%). Per category of ATMP, we identified 53.6% of trials for somatic cell therapies, 22.8% for tissue-engineered products, 22.4% for gene therapies, and 1.2% for combined products (incorporating a medical device). Disease areas included cancer (24.8%), cardiovascular diseases (19.4%), musculoskeletal (10.5%), immune system and inflammation (11.5%), neurology (9.1%), and others. Of the trials, 47.2% enrolled fewer than 25 patients. Due to the complexity and specificity of ATMPs, new clinical trial methodologies are being considered (e.g., small sample size, non-randomised trials, single-arm trials, surrogate endpoints, integrated protocols, and adaptive designs). Evidence generation post-launch will become unavoidable to address payers' expectations. CONCLUSION: ATMPs represent a fast-growing field of interest. Although most of the products are in an early development phase, the combined trial phase and the potential to cure severe chronic conditions suggest that ATMPs may reach the market earlier than standard therapies. Targeted therapies have opened the way for new trial methodologies, from which ATMPs could benefit to get early access. ATMPs may be the next source of major impact on payers' drug budgets.