Research priorities for mitochondrial disorders: Current landscape and patient and professional views.

Primary mitochondrial disorders encompass a wide range of clinical presentations and a spectrum of severity. They currently lack effective disease-modifying therapies and have a high mortality and morbidity rate. It is therefore essential to know that competitively funded research designed by academics meets the core needs of people with mitochondrial disorders and their clinicians. Priority setting partnerships are an established collaborative methodology that brings patients, carers and families, charity representatives and clinicians together to try to establish the most pressing and unanswered research priorities for a particular disease. We developed a web-based questionnaire, requesting all patients affected by primary mitochondrial disease, their carers and clinicians to pose their research questions. This yielded 709 questions from 147 participants. These were grouped into overarching themes including basic biology, causation, health services, clinical management, social impacts, prognosis, prevention, symptoms, treatment and psychological impact. Following the removal of "answered questions", the process resulted in a list of 42 discrete, answerable questions. This was further refined by web-based ranking by the community to 24 questions. These were debated at a face-to-face workshop attended by a diverse range of patients, carers, charity representatives and clinicians to create a definitive "Top 10 of unanswered research questions for primary mitochondrial disorders". These Top 10 questions related to understanding biological processes, including triggers of disease onset, mechanisms underlying progression and reasons for differential symptoms between individuals with identical genetic mutations; new treatments; biomarker discovery; psychological support and optimal management of stroke-like episodes and fatigue.

Reporting the whole story: Analysis of the 'out-of-scope' questions from the James Lind Alliance Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Priority Setting Partnership Survey.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a UK-wide survey to identify the top 10 research questions for young people's cancer. We conducted secondary analysis of questions submitted, which were 'out-of-scope' of the original survey aim. We sought to disseminate these questions, to inform practice, policy and the development of potential interventions to support young people with cancer. DESIGN: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. PARTICIPANTS: Young people aged 13-24 with a current/previous cancer diagnosis, their families/friends/partners and professionals who work with this population. METHODS: Eight hundred and fifty-five potential research questions were submitted, and 326 were classified as 'out-of-scope'. These questions, along with 49 'free-text' comments, were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The 375 out-of-scope questions and comments were submitted by: 68 young people, 81 family members/partners/friends and 42 professionals. Ten overarching themes were identified: diagnostic experience; communication; coordination of care; information needs and lack of information; service provision; long-term effects and aftercare support; family support; financial impact; end-of life care; and research methods and current research. CONCLUSIONS: The need to tailor services, information and communication is a striking thread evidenced across the 'out-of-scope' questions. Gaps in information highlight implications for practice in revisiting information needs throughout the cancer trajectory. We must advocate for specialist care for young people and promote the research priorities and these findings to funding bodies, charities, young people and health and social care policymakers, in order to generate an evidence base to inform effective interventions across the cancer trajectory and improve outcomes. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: Patients and carers were equal stakeholders throughout.

Evaluation of the impact of patient input in health technology assessments at NICE.

OBJECTIVE: Accounts of patient experiences are increasingly used in health technology assessment (HTA) processes. However, we know little about their impact on the decision-making process. This study aims to assess the level and the type of impact of patient input to highly specialised technologies (HSTs) and interventional procedures (IPs) guidance at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to capture quantitative and qualitative data on the amount and type of impact of patient input into NICE HTAs. It was completed by committee members of the guidance-producing programs after a discussion of the considered topics. The data were analyzed by topic and overall, for each program, and compared across programs. RESULTS: Patient input was assessed on ten pieces of HST guidance published between January 2015 and November 2019, and on twenty-six pieces of IP guidance scoped between February 2016 and October 2018. A total of 96 responses were collected for HST and 440 for IP. The level of impact of patient input was higher for HST than for IP. For HST, no respondents stated that it had no impact, whereas in IP, 35 percent of respondents did. The most common types of impact found for HST and IP were that it helped interpret the other evidence and that it provided new evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of patient input is not necessarily explicit in changing recommendations, but it provides context, reassurance, and new information to the committee for the decision-making process in HTAs.

Understanding and using patient experiences as evidence in healthcare priority setting.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, committees make priority-setting decisions in order to control healthcare costs. These decisions take into account relevant criteria, including clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and need, and are supported by evidence usually drawn from clinical and economic studies. These sources of evidence do not include the specific perspective and information that patients can provide about the condition and treatment. METHODS: Drawing on arguments from political philosophy and ethics that are the ethical basis for many priority-setting bodies, the authors argue that criteria like need and its effects on patients and caregivers are best supported by evidence generated from patients' experiences. Social sciences and mixed-methods research support the generation and collection of robust evidence. RESULTS: Patient experience is required for a decision-making process that considers all relevant evidence. For fair priority-setting, decision-makers should consider relevant evidence and reasons, so patient experience evidence should not be ignored. Patient experience must be gathered in a way that generates high quality and methodologically rigorous evidence. Established quantitative and qualitative methods can assure that evidence is systematic, adherent to quality standards, and valid. Patient, like clinical, evidence should be subject to a transparent review process. DISCUSSION: Considering all relevant evidence gives each person an equal opportunity at having their treatment funded. Patient experience gives context to the clinical evidence and also directly informs our understanding of the nature of the condition and its effects, including patients' needs, how to meet them, and the burden of illness. Such evidence also serves to contextualise reported effects of the treatment. The requirement to include patient experience as evidence has important policy implications for bodies that make priority-setting decisions since it proposes that new types of evidence reviews are commissioned and considered.

Navigating the unknown: how to best 'reflect' standard of care in indications without a dedicated treatment pathway in health technology assessment submissions.

There is an urgent need for expedited approval and access for new health technologies targeting rare and very rare diseases, some of which are associated with high unmet treatment needs. Once a new technology achieves regulatory approval, the technology needs to be assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. This assessment quantitatively examines the clinical effectiveness, safety and/or economic impact of the new technology relative to standard of care (SoC) in a specific market. However, in rare and very rare diseases, the patient populations are small and there is often no established treatment pathway available to define 'SoC'. In these situations, several challenges arise to assess the added benefit of a new technology - both clinically and economically - due to lack of established SoC to guide an appropriate comparator selection. These challenges include: How should 'SoC' be defined and characterized in HTA submissions for new technologies aiming to establish new treatment standards? What is usual care without an established clinical pathway? How should the evidence for the comparator 'SoC' (i.e., usual care) arm be collected in situations with low patient representation and, sometimes, limited disease-specific clinical knowledge in certain geographies? This commentary outlines the evidence generation challenges in designing clinical comparative effectiveness for a new technology when there is a lack of established SoC. The commentary also proposes considerations to facilitate the reliable integration of real-world evidence into HTA and decision-making based on the collective experience of the authors.

Improving Interpretation of Evidence Relating to Quality of Life in Health Technology Assessments of Rare Disease Treatments.

Rare diseases are often severe, debilitating, life-limiting conditions, many of which occur in childhood. These complex conditions have a wide range of clinical manifestations that have a substantial impact on the lives of patients, carers and families and often produce heterogeneous clinical outcomes. Therefore, the evaluation of quality-of-life (QoL) impacts is important. In health technology assessment (HTA), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and/or health state utility values (HSUVs) are used to determine QoL impacts of new treatments, but their use in rare diseases is challenging due to small and heterogeneous populations and limited disease knowledge. This paper describes challenges associated with the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs)/HSUVs to evaluate QoL in HTA of rare disease treatments (RDTs) and identifies five recommendations to ensure appropriate interpretation of QoL impacts. These were derived from mixed methods research (literature reviews, appraisal document analyses, appraisal committee observations and interviews) examining the use of PROs/HSUVs in HTA of RDTs. They highlight that HTAs of RDTs must (1) understand the QoL impacts of the disease and of treatments; (2) critically assess PRO data, recognising the nuances in development and administration of PROMs/HSUVs, considering what is feasible and what matters most to the patient population; (3) recognise that lack of significant effect on a PRO does not imply no QoL benefit; (4) use different forms of evidence to understand QoL impacts, such as patient input; and (5) provide methodological guidance to capture QoL impacts on patients/carers.

Together4RD position statement on collaboration between European reference networks and industry.

Notwithstanding two decades of policy and legislation in Europe, aimed to foster research and development in rare conditions, only 5-6% of rare diseases have dedicated treatments. Given with the huge number of conditions classed as rare (which is increasing all the time), this equates to major unmet need for patients (over 30 million in the EU alone). Worryingly, the pace of Research and Innovation in Europe is lagging behind other regions of the world, and a seismic shift in the way in which research is planned and delivered is required, in order to remain competitive and-most importantly-bring meaningful, disease-altering treatments to those who desperately need them. The European Reference Networks (ERNs), launched in 2017, hold major potential to alleviate many of these challenges, and more, but only if adequately supported (financially, technically, and via robust policies and infrastructure) to realise that potential: and even then, only if able to forge robust collaborations harnessing the expertise, resources, knowledge and data of all stakeholders involved in rare disease, including Industry. To-date, however, ERN-Industry interactions have been largely limited, for a range of reasons (concerning barriers both tangible and perceived). This Position Statement analyses these barriers, and explains how Together4RD is seeking to move the needle here, by learning from case studies, exploring frameworks for collaboration, and launching pilots to explore how best to plan and deliver multistakeholder interactions addressing real research needs.

Consideration of quality of life in the health technology assessments of rare disease treatments.

OBJECTIVES: Challenges with patient-reported outcome (PRO) evidence and health state utility values (HSUVs) in rare diseases exist due to small, heterogeneous populations, lack of disease knowledge and early onset. To better incorporate quality of life (QoL) into Health Technology Assessment, a clearer understanding of these challenges is needed. METHODS: NICE appraisals of non-oncology treatments with an EMA orphan designation (n = 24), and corresponding appraisals in the Netherlands, France, and Germany were included. Document analysis of appraisal reports investigated how PROs/HSUVs influenced decision-making and was representative of QoL impact of condition and treatment. RESULTS: PRO evidence was not included in 6/24 NICE appraisals. When included, it either failed to demonstrate change, capture domains important for patients, or was uncertain. In the other countries, little information was reported and evidence largely did not demonstrate change. In NICE appraisals, HSUVs were derived through the collection of EQ-5D data (7/24 cases), mapping (6/24), vignettes (5/24), and published literature or other techniques (6/24). The majority did not use data collected alongside clinical trials. Few measures demonstrated significant change due to lack of sensitivity or face validity, short-term data, or implausible health states. In 8/24 NICE appraisals, patient surveys or input during appraisal committee meetings supported the interpretation of uncertainty or provided evidence about QoL. CONCLUSIONS: This study sheds light on the nature of PRO evidence in rare diseases and associated challenges. Results emphasise the need for improved development and use of PRO/HSUVs. Other forms of evidence and expert input are crucial to support better appraisal of uncertain or missing evidence.

Implementing Outcomes-Based Managed Entry Agreements for Rare Disease Treatments: Nusinersen and Tisagenlecleucel.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Enthusiasm for the use of outcomes-based managed entry agreements (OBMEAs) to manage uncertainties apparent at the time of appraisal/pricing and reimbursement of new medicines has waned over the past decade, as challenges in establishment, implementation and re-appraisal have been identified. With the recent advent of innovative treatments for rare diseases that have uncertainties in the clinical evidence base, but which could meet a high unmet need, there has been renewed interest in the potential of OBMEAs. The objective of this research was to review the implementation of OBMEAs for two case studies across countries in the European Union, Australia and Canada, to identify good practices that could inform development of tools to support implementation of OBMEAs. METHODS: To investigate how OBMEAs are being implemented with rare disease treatments, we collected information from health technology assessment/payer experts in countries that had implemented OBMEAs for either nusinersen in spinal muscular atrophy or tisagenlecleucel in two cancer indications. Operational characteristics of the OBMEAs that were publicly available were documented. Then, the experts discussed issues in implementing these OBMEAs and specific approaches taken to overcome challenges. RESULTS: The OBMEAs identified were based on individual outcomes to ensure appropriate use, manage continuation of treatment and in two cases linked to payment schedules, or they were population based, coverage with evidence development. For nusinersen, population-based OBMEAs are documented in Belgium, England and the Netherlands and individual-based schemes in Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy and Lithuania. For tisagenlecleucel, there were population-based schemes in Australia, Belgium, England and France and individual-based schemes in Italy and Spain. Comparison of the OBMEA constructs showed some clear published frameworks and clarity of the uncertainties to be addressed that were similar across countries. Agreements were generally made between the marketing authorisation holder and the payer with involvement of expert physicians. Only England and the Netherlands involved patients. Italy used its long-established, national, web-based, treatment-specific data collection system linked to reimbursement and Spain has just developed such a national treatment registry system. Other countries relied on a variety of data collection systems (including clinical registries) and administrative data. Durations of agreements varied for these treatments as did processes for interim reporting. The processes to ensure data quality, completeness and sufficiency for re-analysis after coverage with evidence development were not always clear, neither were analysis plans. CONCLUSIONS: These case studies have shown that important information about the constructs of OBMEAs for rare disease treatments are publicly available, and for some jurisdictions, interim reports of progress. Outcomes-based managed entry agreements can play an important role not only in reimbursement, but also in treatment optimisation. However, they are complex to implement and should be the exception and not the rule. More recent OBMEAs have developed document covenants among stakeholders or electronic systems to provide assurances about data sufficiency. For coverage with evidence development, there is an opportunity for greater collaboration among jurisdictions to share processes, develop common data collection agreements, and share interim and final reports. The establishment of an international public portal to host such reports would be particularly valuable for rare disease treatments.

Exploring the Burden of X-Linked Hypophosphataemia: An Opportunistic Qualitative Study of Patient Statements Generated During a Technology Appraisal.

INTRODUCTION: Capturing the patient experience of living with a rare disease such as X-linked hypophosphataemia (XLH) is critical for a holistic understanding of the burden of a disease. The complexity of the disease coupled with the limited population makes elicitation of the patient burden methodologically challenging. This study used qualitative information direct from patient and caregiver statements to assess the burden of XLH. METHODS: A thematic analysis was conducted on statements received during a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) online public open consultation from 15 June to 6 July 2018. Researchers and clinical experts generated themes and codes based on expected aspects of XLH burden. Statements were independently coded by two reviewers, adding additional codes as required, and analysed by frequency and co-reporting across age groups. RESULTS: The majority of responses were submitted from UK-based patients with some from the USA and Australia, and the statements related to children, adolescents and adults. The findings suggest that the greatest burden experienced by children is associated with conventional therapy, co-reported with dosing regimen, adherence, distress and pain. During adolescence, the burden becomes increasingly complex and multi-factorial, with an increasing psychological burden. In adults, conventional therapy co-reported with bone deformity and orthopaedic surgery, as well as pain, mobility, fatigue and dental problems, featured highly. DISCUSSION: Whilst our study was opportunistic in nature, it has highlighted the clear and distinctive evolution of the burden of XLH, transitioning from being therapy-oriented in childhood to multi-factorial in adolescence, and finally to adulthood with its high impact on need for other interventions, function and mobility. This qualitative thematic analysis enhances the understanding of the symptom and treatment burden of XLH.

Rare musculoskeletal diseases in adults: a research priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

BACKGROUND: Osteogenesis imperfecta, fibrous dysplasia/McCune-Albright syndrome and X-linked hypophosphatemia are three rare musculoskeletal diseases characterised by bone deformities, frequent fractures and pain. Little high-quality research exists on appropriate treatment and long-term management of these conditions in adults. This is further worsened by limited research funding in rare diseases and a general mismatch between the existing research priorities and those of the patients. This partnership adopted the James Lind Alliance approach to identify the top 10 research priorities for rare musculoskeletal diseases in adults through joint patient, carer and healthcare professional collaboration. RESULTS: The initial survey for question collection recruited 198 respondents, submitting a total of 988 questions. 77% of the respondents were patients with a rare musculoskeletal disease. Following out-of-scope question exclusion, repeating query grouping and scientific literature check for answers, 39 questions on treatment and long-term management remained. In the second public survey, 220 respondents, of whom 85% were patients with a rare musculoskeletal disease, their carers, relatives or friends, prioritised these uncertainties, which allowed selection of the top 25. In the last stage, patients, carers and healthcare professionals gathered for a priority setting workshop to reach a consensus on the final top 10 research priorities. These focus on the uncertainties surrounding appropriate treatment and holistic long-term disease management, highlighting several aspects indirect to abnormal bone metabolism, such as extra-skeletal symptoms, psychological care of both patients and their families and disease course through ageing. CONCLUSIONS: This James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership is the first to investigate rare bone diseases. The priorities identified here were developed jointly by patients, carers and healthcare professionals. We encourage researchers, funding bodies and other stakeholders to use these priorities in guiding future research for those affected by rare musculoskeletal disorders.

HTA programme response to the challenges of dealing with orphan medicinal products: Process evaluation in selected European countries.

BACKGROUND: Challenges commonly encountered in HTA of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) were identified in Advance-HTA. Since then, new initiatives have been developed to specifically address issues related to HTA of OMPs. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: This study aimed to understand why these new HTA initiatives in England, Scotland and at European-level were established and whether they resolve the challenges of OMPs. The work of Advance-HTA was updated with a literature review and a conceptual framework of clinical, regulatory and economic challenges for OMPs was developed. The new HTA programmes were critiqued against the conceptual framework and outstanding challenges identified. RESULTS: The new programmes in England and Scotland recognise the challenges identified in demonstrating the value of ultra-OMPs (and OMPs) and that they require a different process to standard HTA approaches. Wider considerations of disease and treatment experiences from a multi-stakeholder standpoint are needed, combined with other measures to deal with uncertainty (e.g. managed entry agreements). While approaches to assessing this new view of value of OMPs, extending beyond cost/QALY frameworks, differ, their criteria are similar. These are complemented by a European initiative that fosters multi-stakeholder dialogue and consensus about value determinants throughout the life-cycle of an OMP. CONCLUSION: New HTA programmes specific to OMPs have been developed but questions remain about whether they sufficiently capture value and manage uncertainty in clinical practice.

Research priorities for young people with cancer: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a UK-wide survey of young people who have experienced cancer, carers and professionals, to identify and prioritise research questions to inform decisions of research funders and support the case for research with this unique cancer population. DESIGN: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. SETTING: UK health service and community. METHODS: A steering group oversaw the initiative and partner organisations were recruited. Unanswered questions were collected in an online survey. Evidence searching verified uncertainties. An interim survey was used to rank questions prior to a final prioritisation workshop. PARTICIPANTS: Young people aged 13-24 years with a current or previous cancer diagnosis, their families, friends, partners and professionals who work with this population. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-two respondents submitted 855 potential questions. Following a refining process and removal of 'out of scope' questions, 208 unique questions remained. Systematic evidence checking identified seven answered questions and 16 were the subject of ongoing studies. The interim survey was completed by 174 participants. The top 30 questions were prioritised at a workshop attended by 25 young people, parents and multidisciplinary professionals. The top three priorities are: (1) What psychological support package improves psychological well-being, social functioning and mental health during and after treatment? (2) What interventions, including self-care, can reduce or reverse adverse short-term and long-term effects of cancer treatment? (3) What are the best strategies to improve access to clinical trials? The remaining questions reflect the complete cancer pathway: new therapies, life after cancer, support, education/employment, relapse and end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified shared research priorities for young people with cancer using a rigorous, person-centred approach involving stakeholders typically not involved in setting the research agenda. The breadth of priorities suggest future research should focus on holistic and psychosocial care delivery as well as traditional drug/biology research.

Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL).

Rare diseases are an important public health issue with high unmet need. The introduction of the EU Regulation on orphan medicinal products (OMP) has been successful in stimulating investment in the research and development of OMPs. Despite this advancement, patients do not have universal access to these new medicines. There are many factors that affect OMP uptake, but one of the most important is the difficulty of making pricing and reimbursement (P&R) decisions in rare diseases. Until now, there has been little consensus on the most appropriate assessment criteria, perspective or appraisal process. This paper proposes nine principles to help improve the consistency of OMP P&R assessment in Europe and ensure that value assessment, pricing and funding processes reflect the specificities of rare diseases and contribute to both the sustainability of healthcare systems and the sustainability of innovation in this field. These recommendations are the output of the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL), a collaboration between rare disease experts, patient representatives, academics, health technology assessment (HTA) practitioners, politicians and industry representatives. ORPH-VAL reached its recommendations through careful consideration of existing OMP P&R literature and through a wide consultation with expert stakeholders, including payers, regulators and patients. The principles cover four areas: OMP decision criteria, OMP decision process, OMP sustainable funding systems and European co-ordination. This paper also presents a guide to the core elements of value relevant to OMPs that should be consistently considered in all OMP appraisals. The principles outlined in this paper may be helpful in drawing together an emerging consensus on this topic and identifying areas where consistency in payer approach could be achievable and beneficial. All stakeholders have an obligation to work together to ensure that the promise of OMP's is realised.