1
|
Nieto-Gómez P, Castaño-Amores C. Factors influencing the reimbursement of cancer drugs in Europe: A scoping review. J Eval Clin Pract 2024; 30:1546-1555. [PMID: 38959379 DOI: 10.1111/jep.14080] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2024] [Revised: 06/10/2024] [Accepted: 06/20/2024] [Indexed: 07/05/2024]
Abstract
RATIONALE Reimbursement process of oncology drugs in Europe occurs within a complex decision-making process that varies between Member States. Distinctions between the States trigger societal debates since it is necessary to balance access to medicines and health systems sustainability. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES We aimed to review the evidence concerning factors associated with the reimbursement decision or Health Technology Agency recommendation of oncology drugs in Europe. METHODS A systematic literature search was performed in two databases from inception to august 2023. Screening and data extraction were performed by pairs. RESULTS Thirteen articles were included and encompassed data from 11 nations. Seven articles showed that cost-effective (C-E) drugs and lower Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) had higher likelihood of reimbursement. Disease severity might influence the reimbursement decision with financial agreements. Improvement in clinical outcomes, substantial clinical benefit (p < 0.01) or overall survival gains (p < 0.05) were positively associated. Orphan drug designation impact varies between countries but positive decisions are usually achieved under specific conditions. Clinical and C-E uncertainty frequently led to reimbursement with financial agreements or outcomes-based conditions. Sociodemographic factors as: social health insurance system, higher Gross Domestic Product and larger elderly population were positively associated with reimbursement (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION There is a need for further research into key determinants of reimbursement decisions in Europe and the development of drug access models that can effectively address and overcome costs and effectiveness uncertainties.
Collapse
|
2
|
Versteeg JW, Vreman R, Mantel-Teeuwisse A, Goettsch W. Uncertainty in Long-Term Relative Effectiveness of Medicines in Health Technology Assessment. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2024; 27:1358-1366. [PMID: 38971220 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2024.05.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2023] [Revised: 05/21/2024] [Accepted: 05/27/2024] [Indexed: 07/08/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Uncertainty regarding the long-term relative effectiveness is an important factor in health technology assessment (HTA) of medicines. This study investigated how different HTA bodies address this uncertainty in their assessments. METHODS A total of 49 HTA reports from 6 national HTA bodies, assessing 9 medicines for spinal muscular atrophy, cystic fibrosis, and hypercholesterolemia, were included. In these reports, 81 relative effectiveness assessments and 45 cost-effectiveness assessments were performed on an indication level. We collected information on included trials, assessment outcomes, uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness, proposed managed entry agreements, and reassessments. RESULTS Uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness was an important consideration in almost all cost-effectiveness assessments (91%) and three-quarters of relative effectiveness assessments (74%), despite differences in methodologies among HTA bodies. There were considerable differences in the amount and type of long-term effectiveness data included by HTA bodies due to timing and inclusion criteria. In total 23 managed entry agreements were proposed of which 14 were linked to uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness. In addition, 13 reassessments were performed of which 4 led to an increase in patient access because of more available long-term effectiveness data. CONCLUSIONS Uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness is an important challenge for HTA bodies. There are large differences in the acceptance of evidence among HTA bodies, which leads to heterogeneity in the inclusion of available long-term effectiveness data for decision making. In cases with large uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness, outcome-based agreements and reassessments are used by HTA bodies, but differently between HTA bodies and indications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan-Willem Versteeg
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Rick Vreman
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; National Health Care Institute, Diemen, The Netherlands
| | - Aukje Mantel-Teeuwisse
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Wim Goettsch
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; National Health Care Institute, Diemen, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Douglas CMW, Grunebaum S. Lessons learned from the Canadian Fabry Disease Initiative for future risk-sharing and managed access agreements for pharmaceutical and advanced therapies in Canada. Health Policy 2024; 143:105044. [PMID: 38508062 DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2023] [Revised: 12/05/2023] [Accepted: 03/12/2024] [Indexed: 03/22/2024]
Abstract
Risk sharing agreements (RSAs) and managed access agreements have emerged as tools to overcome evidentiary uncertainty and contain costs of pharmaceuticals; however, Canada has relatively little experience with these health policy instruments. This article describes one of the few examples of national RSAs. Enzyme replacement therapies (ERT) were introduced in Canada to treat Fabry disease in the early 2000s through an RSA. Based on qualitative interviews with key participating actors, this article explains how this RSA ensured continuity of treatment for patients already on ERT, and collected robust real-world evidence to secure treatment for future Fabry patients. We show the importance of partnerships, collaborations, and active patient communities in establishing RSAs, as well as the critical role of robust registries for the collection, storage, and use of that real-world data. In doing so, this paper points to reasons that explain the relative dearth of RSAs in Canada, which can be resource (both human and finance) intensive and are difficult to broker in a federalist health system. Through these findings, policy lessons are developed concerning the need for technological and governance platforms on how RSA in Canada can be more effectively supported going forward in a broader move towards "social pharmaceutical innovation".
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Conor M W Douglas
- Department of Science, Technology & Society, Faculty of Sciences, York University, 307 Bethune College, 4700 Keele St., Toronto ON, Canada M3J 1P3.
| | - Shir Grunebaum
- Department of Science, Technology & Society, Faculty of Sciences, York University, 307 Bethune College, 4700 Keele St., Toronto ON, Canada M3J 1P3
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Grimm SE, Pouwels XG, Ramaekers BL, Wijnen B, Grutters J, Joore MA. Response to "UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT IN REGULATORY AND HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT DECISION-MAKING ON DRUGS: GUIDANCE OF THE HTAi-DIA WORKING GROUP". Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2023; 39:e70. [PMID: 37822085 PMCID: PMC11570063 DOI: 10.1017/s026646232300260x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2023] [Accepted: 09/10/2023] [Indexed: 10/13/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Sabine Elisabeth Grimm
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre and Maastricht Health Economics and Technology Assessment Centre, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Xavier G.L.V. Pouwels
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Bram L.T. Ramaekers
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre and Maastricht Health Economics and Technology Assessment Centre, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Ben Wijnen
- Trimbos-instituut, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Janneke Grutters
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Manuela A. Joore
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre and Maastricht Health Economics and Technology Assessment Centre, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Moretti F, Ruiz F, Bonifazi F, Pizzo E, Kindblom JM. Health technology assessment of paediatric medicines: European landscape, challenges and opportunities inside the conect4children project. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2022; 88:5052-5059. [PMID: 34931373 PMCID: PMC9786554 DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15190] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2021] [Revised: 11/29/2021] [Accepted: 12/03/2021] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
The medicine development process is complex and requires time and effort to ensure safety, efficacy and quality. In paediatrics, this process is even more challenging, as it involves a subgroup of the population that already faces a considerable gap in the clinical evaluation of medicines and devices compared to the adult population. Moreover, access to therapies is heavily influenced by national health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations, which often form the basis for pricing and reimbursement decisions that affect the availability of effective treatments within the national health systems. Yet performing an HTA to assess the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new children's treatment has several non-trivial implications, creating a critical issue for the paediatric population. In addition, the advent of innovative health technologies for children emphasises the need to empower the role of HTAs in paediatrics. This article aims at describing the most relevant elements of the drug development process in the paediatric field by focusing on the HTA. Particular attention will be paid to the factors that influence market access for new paediatric medicines and patients' access to treatment. The article will also highlight some central methodological challenges in conducting HTA in the paediatric field. Finally, the article will provide insight into how initiatives, such as conect4children, may subsequently reinforce HTA awareness in the paediatric community and strengthen collaborations through network mechanisms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Moretti
- Arsenàl.IT—Centro Veneto Ricerca e Innovazione per la Sanità digitalePadovaItaly
| | | | - Fedele Bonifazi
- Fondazione per la Ricerca Farmacologica Gianni Benzi OnlusBariItaly
| | - Elena Pizzo
- Department of Applied Health ResearchUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Jenny M. Kindblom
- Pediatric Clinical Research Center at the Queen Silvia Children's Hospital at Sahlgrenska University HospitalGöteborgSweden
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Ling K, Qin H, Feng Y, Che H, Ding J, Li W. Correlation between clinical trial endpoints of marketed cancer drugs and reimbursement decisions in China. Front Public Health 2022; 10:1062736. [PMID: 36504948 PMCID: PMC9730273 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1062736] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2022] [Accepted: 11/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to assess whether different clinical trial endpoints in pivotal trials of cancer drugs were associated with reimbursement decisions in China. Materials and methods Cancer drugs marketed before June 30th, 2021 with publicly available technical review reports for application of drug registration on Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) website were reviewed. The trial design characteristics and relevant clinical outcomes [e.g., overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR)] were extracted from the technical review reports, while the reimbursement decisions were reviewed from National Healthcare Security Administration (NHSA) website. The differences in trial characteristics and clinical outcomes between drugs with positive reimbursement decisions and negative ones were compared by hypothesis test (Pearson's chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test). The correlation between different clinical trial endpoints and reimbursement decisions was analyzed by multivariate logistic regression. Results There were 112 cancer drug indications included in this study. Among these indications, 76 received a positive reimbursement decision, and the most common primary endpoints of them were PFS (42.1%) and ORR (30.3%). Taking PFS (OR = 7.333) and ORR (OR = 5.271) as the primary endpoints were more likely to receive a positive reimbursement decision compared with OS (P = 0.003). The proportion of drugs marketed with phase I (75.0%) and phase II (85.7%) clinical trials receiving positive reimbursement decisions are significantly higher than those marketed with phase III clinical trials (61.3%, P = 0.043). The magnitude of clinical benefit only had subtle influences (Prisk benefit - OS = 0.627, Prisk benefit - PFS = 0.087, Psurvival benefit - OS = 0.545, Psurvival benefit - PFS = 0.189) on the drug reimbursement decisions, however, the drug prices and clinical needs also made a difference on that. Conclusion This study found that, in Chinese drug price negotiations from 2017 to 2021, policymakers have focused more on meeting clinical needs and filling therapeutical gaps in National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), while requirements for the selection of primary endpoints, clinical trial phases, and clinical benefits have been reduced. In the future, emphasis should be put on the use of surrogate endpoints and clinical benefits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kexin Ling
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Huli Qin
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Yiman Feng
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Hongxi Che
- School of Pharmacy, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Jinxi Ding
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China
- Pharmaceutical Market Access Policy Research Center, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Wei Li
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China
- Pharmaceutical Market Access Policy Research Center, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Horgan D, Baird AM, Middleton M, Mihaylova Z, Van Meerbeeck JP, Vogel-Claussen J, Van Schil PE, Malvehy J, Ascierto PA, Dube F, Zaiac M, Lal JA, Kamińska-Winciorek G, Donia M, André T, Kozaric M, Osterlund P, Dumitrascu DL, Bertolaccini L. How Can the EU Beating Cancer Plan Help in Tackling Lung Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, Breast Cancer and Melanoma? Healthcare (Basel) 2022; 10:1618. [PMID: 36141230 PMCID: PMC9498919 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10091618] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2022] [Revised: 08/16/2022] [Accepted: 08/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Cancer is the second leading cause of mortality in EU countries, and the needs to tackle cancer are obvious. New scientific understanding, techniques and methodologies are opening up horizons for significant improvements in diagnosis and care. However, take-up is uneven, research needs and potential outstrip currently available resources, manifestly beneficial practices-such as population-level screening for lung cancer-are still not generalised, and the quality of life of patients and survivors is only beginning to be given attention it merits. This paper, mainly based on a series of multistakeholder expert workshops organised by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM), looks at some of those specifics in the interest of planning a way forward. Part of this exercise also involves taking account of the specific nature of Europe and its constituent countries, where the complexities of planning a way forward are redoubled by the wide variations in national and regional approaches to cancer, local epidemiology and the wide disparities in health systems. Despite all the differences between cancers and national and regional resources and approaches to cancer care, there is a common objective in pursuing broader and more equal access to the best available care for all European citizens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Denis Horgan
- European Alliance for Personalised Medicine, 1040 Brussels, Belgium
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Engineering, Jacob Institute of Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Prayagraj 211007, India
| | - Anne-Marie Baird
- Lung Cancer Europe, 3008 Bern, Switzerland
- School of Medicine, Trinity Translational Medicine Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland
| | - Mark Middleton
- Department of Oncology, Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK
| | - Zhasmina Mihaylova
- Department of Medical Oncology, Military Medical Academy, 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria
| | - Jan P. Van Meerbeeck
- Department of Thoracic Oncology, Antwerp University Hospital, 2650 Edegem, Belgium
| | - Jens Vogel-Claussen
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany
- Biomedical Research in Endstage and Obstructive Lung Disease Hannover (BREATH), German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany
| | - Paul E. Van Schil
- Department of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp University, 2650 Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Josep Malvehy
- Melanoma Unit, Dermatology Department Hospital Clinic, University of Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
- IDIBAPS, CIBER de Enfermedades Raras, Instituto Carlos III, 28029 Madrid, Spain
| | - Paolo Antonio Ascierto
- Unit of Melanoma, Cancer Immunotherapy and Development Therapeutics, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione “G. Pascale”, 80131 Naples, Italy
| | - France Dube
- Astra Zeneca, 1800 Concord Pike, Wilmington, DE 19803, USA
| | | | - Jonathan A. Lal
- Department of Molecular and Cellular Engineering, Jacob Institute of Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Prayagraj 211007, India
- Institute for Public Health Genomics, Department of Genetics and Cell Biology, GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Grażyna Kamińska-Winciorek
- Department of Bone Marrow Transplantation and Hematology-Oncology, Skin Cancer and Melanoma Team, M. Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, 44-101 Gliwice, Poland
| | - Marco Donia
- National Center for Cancer Immune Therapy, Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, 2730 Herlev, Denmark
| | - Thierry André
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, AP-HP, 75012 Paris, France
| | - Marta Kozaric
- European Alliance for Personalised Medicine, 1040 Brussels, Belgium
| | - Pia Osterlund
- Department of Oncology, Tampere University Hospital, 33520 Tampere, Finland
- Department of Upper GI Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital and Institute, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Dan Lucian Dumitrascu
- Semiology Departement, 2nd Medical Clinic, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu”, 400347 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Luca Bertolaccini
- Division of Thoracic Surgery, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Wranik WD, Székely RR, Mayer S, Hiligsmann M, Cheung KL. The most important facilitators and barriers to the use of Health Technology Assessment in Canada: a best-worst scaling approach. J Med Econ 2021; 24:846-856. [PMID: 34162282 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2021.1946326] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Health Technology Assessment (HTA), which can support public drug reimbursement decisions will play a core function in the planned national Pharmacare program in Canada. To address existing barriers to the use of HTA, these must be ranked in order of priority. The goal of this study was to access the relative importance of known facilitators and barriers to the use of HTA in the context of the Canadian health care system, with attention to differences between regions and stakeholder groups. METHODS We used the best-worst scaling object case approach to elicit a quantitative ranking of a list of 20 facilitators and 22 barriers. A sample of 68 Canadian HTA stakeholders, including members of expert committees, decision/policymakers, researchers/academics, and others participated in the study. Their task was to identify the most important and the least important item in 12 sub-sets of five facilitators and 14 sub-sets of five barriers. FINDINGS Relative Importance Scores derived via hierarchical Bayes analysis revealed relations, engagement, and contact between stakeholders as most important on both the barrier and facilitator sides. Other top-ranked facilitators included the availably of credible and relevant research. Other top-ranked barriers included inconsistencies in the evidence and limited generalizability. The availability of HTA guidelines did not rank highly on either side. The main limitation of the study was the challenge with reaching the relevant respondents; this was mitigated by involving the national HTA agency in the research. CONCLUSION Canadian stakeholders consider the relationships within the HTA network among the most important. Policies should focus on strengthening these relationships. Future research should focus on the connectivity and distribution of knowledge and power within the HTA network.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wiesława Dominika Wranik
- Faculty of Management, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
- Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
- Jean Monnet European Union Centre of Excellence, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
| | - Ronaldo-Raul Székely
- Division of Academic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Susanne Mayer
- Department of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Mickaël Hiligsmann
- Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Kei Long Cheung
- Health Behaviour Change Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, College of Health and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|