Value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: HTA evidence from seven OECD countries

How can health technology assessment be improved to optimise access to medicines? Results from a Delphi study in Europe : Better access to medicines through HTA

INTRODUCTION

Access to medicines is a shared goal across healthcare stakeholders. Since health technology assessment (HTA) informs funding decisions, it shapes access to medicines. Despite its wide implementation, significant access variations due to HTA are observed across Europe. This paper elicited the opinions of European stakeholders on how HTA can be improved to facilitate access.

METHODS

A scoping review identified HTA features that influence access to medicines within markets and areas for improvement, while three access dimensions were identified (availability, affordability, timeliness). Using the Delphi method, we elicited the opinions of European stakeholders to validate the literature findings.

RESULTS

Nineteen participants from 14 countries participated in the Delphi panel. Thirteen HTA features that could be improved to optimise access to medicines in Europe were identified. Of these, 11 recorded a positive impact on at least one of the three access dimensions. HTA features had mostly a positive impact on timeliness and a less clear impact on affordability. 'Early scientific advice' and 'clarity in evidentiary requirements' showed a positive impact on all access dimensions. 'Established ways to deal with uncertainty during HTA' could improve medicines' availability and timeliness, while more 'reliance on real-world evidence' could expedite time to market access.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results reiterate that increased transparency during HTA and the decision-making processes is essential; the use of and reliance on new evidence generation such as real-world evidence can optimise the availability of medicines; and better collaborations between regulatory institutions within and between countries are paramount for better access to medicines.

Societal economic burden of multiple sclerosis and cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies

Background

In an era of scarce resources, policy makers, neurologists and other stakeholders need to be aware of the economic burden of multiple sclerosis and the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies. The aim of this article is to provide a mini-review of these health economic facets of multiple sclerosis.

Methods

An umbrella review was conducted by searching PubMed and Google Scholar from 2002 until June 2022 for peer-reviewed systematic and narrative literature reviews.

Results

An extensive body of evidence corroborates that multiple sclerosis is associated with a substantial economic burden within and outside the health care sector, that costs of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis exceed those of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, that costs increase with disease severity and are influenced by the occurrence of relapses and therapy adherence. However, cost estimates and their breakdown into various components vary between countries. Economic evaluations show that disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis are generally not cost-effective, but these results depend on the local setting. Cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies improves when a societal perspective is taken and efficacy does not wane over a lifetime horizon, when oral administration forms or dosing strategies requiring less maintenance are introduced, and when generic versions enter the market. Reimbursement recommendations related to disease-modifying therapies also differ between countries.

Conclusion

The local context matters when calculating the societal economic burden of multiple sclerosis and the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies.

Similarities and Differences in Health Technology Assessment Systems and Implications for Coverage Decisions: Evidence from 32 Countries

Health technology assessment (HTA) systems across countries vary in the way they are set up, according to their role and based on how funding decisions are reached. Our objective was to study the characteristics of these systems and their likely impact on the funding of technologies undergoing HTA. Based on a literature review, we created a conceptual framework that captures key operating features of HTA systems. We used this framework to map current HTA activities across 32 countries in the European Union, the UK, Canada and Australia. Evidence was collected through a systematic search of competent authority websites and grey literature sources. Primary data collection through expert consultation validated our findings and further complemented the analysis. Sixty-three HTA bodies were identified. Most have a national scope (76%), are independent (73%), have an advisory role (52%), evaluate pharmaceuticals predominantly or exclusively (76%), assess health technologies based on their clinical and cost-effectiveness (73%) and involve various stakeholders as members of the HTA committee (94%) and/or through external consultation (76%). The majority of HTA outcomes are not legally binding (81%). Although all study countries implement HTA, the way it fits into decision-making, negotiation processes, and coverage and funding decisions differs significantly across countries. HTA is a dynamic and transformative process and there is a need for transparency to investigate whether evidence-based information influences coverage decisions.

Incorporating patients' preferences in the value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis: a narrative review

Introduction: Despite the increasing role of patients in the US healthcare system, patients have yet been engaged in the value assessment of their treatments, including disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS). The objectives of this review were therefore to summarize existing studies on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and patients' preferences of DMTs for MS, and to discuss how to incorporate patients' preferences into the value assessment of DMTs.Area covered: We reviewed previous systematic reviews and conducted further search until November 2020 for studies on CEA with QALYs and patients' preferences of DMTs for MS. We identified the outcomes that were assessed or valued in the CEA studies and the DMT attributes that were important to patients with MS.Expert opinion: Our literature review showed that the studies using CEA with QALYs failed to capture some important DMT attributes, e.g., route and frequency of administration, identified in the studies on the patients' preferences. Various approaches were available for incorporating the patients' preferences in the value assessment of DMTs for MS. We supported this incorporation, which subsequently would increase patient access to preferred DMTs.

Labeling of Disease-Modifying Therapies for Neurodegenerative Disorders

Neurodegenerative disorders are characterized by progressive degeneration of nerve cells resulting in functional decline of cognition and/or movement. As the prevalence of many of these disorders increases with the aging global population, there is an urgent need for disease-modifying drugs that will halt or slow the progression of these devastating diseases. A summary of the scientific information needed to guide the safe and effective use of a drug is provided in the product label in which the indication section should clearly state the treatment concept, e.g., distinguish between symptomatic, preventive, and curative treatments. However, a review of the United States (US) and European Union (EU) product labels for disease-modifying multiple sclerosis (MS) drugs reveals that the indications are not aligned with the regulatory guidance on labeling. Indication claims such as “delay of accumulation of disability” and “slowing of disease progression” were previously accepted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA); however, all recently approved MS drugs include no such specification of the treatment concept in the label indication sections despite similar clinical data packages supporting the approvals. Coincidently, the FDA and EMA therapeutic guidelines pertaining to development of drugs for treatment of neurodegenerative disorders have changed from providing recommendations for specific disease modification label claims to a more general focus on the clinical development approach. Our analysis of MS drug labels could imply that the FDA and EMA may be unlikely to accept disease modification-related indication claims for drugs to treat neurodegenerative disorders in general. We envision that a potential disease-modifying effect is more likely to be inferred from the label descriptions of the mechanism of action, clinical efficacy data and trial design, and target patient population. This poses a challenge for communication of the clinical benefit in a language that can be easily understood by patients and prescribers.