Use of real-world evidence in economic assessments of pharmaceuticals in the United States

Next-generation sequencing in oncology: challenges in economic evaluations

INTRODUCTION

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) identifies genetic variants to inform personalized treatment plans. Insufficient evidence of cost-effectiveness impedes the integration of NGS into routine cancer care. The complexity of personalized treatment challenges conventional economic evaluation. Clearly delineating challenges informs future cost-effectiveness analyses to better value and contextualize health, preference-, and equity-based outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a scoping review to characterize the applied methods and outcomes of economic evaluations of NGS in oncology and identify existing challenges. We included 27 articles published since 2016 from a search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Identified challenges included defining the evaluative scope, managing evidentiary limitations including lack of causal evidence, incorporating preference-based utility, and assessing distributional and equity-based impacts. These challenges reflect the difficulty of generating high-quality clinical effectiveness and real-world evidence (RWE) for NGS-guided interventions.

EXPERT OPINION

Adapting methodological approaches and developing life-cycle health technology assessment (HTA) guidance using RWE is crucial for implementing NGS in oncology. Healthcare systems, decision-makers, and HTA organizations are facing a pivotal opportunity to adapt to an evolving clinical paradigm and create innovative regulatory and reimbursement processes that will enable more sustainable, equitable, and patient-oriented healthcare.

Real-world data: a comprehensive literature review on the barriers, challenges, and opportunities associated with their inclusion in the health technology assessment process

Objective: This review aimed to assess the current use and acceptance of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) in health technology assessment (HTA) process. It additionally aimed to discern stakeholders' viewpoints concerning RWD and RWE in HTA and illuminate the obstacles, difficulties, prospects, and consequences associated with the incorporation of RWD and RWE into the realm of HTA. Methods: A comprehensive PRISMA-based systematic review was performed in July 2022 in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, IDEAS-RePEc, International HTA database, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination with ad hoc supplementary search in Google Scholar and international organization websites. The review included pre-determined inclusion criteria while the selection of eligible studies, the data extraction process and quality assessment were carried out using standardized and transparent methods. Results: Twenty-nine (n = 29) studies were included in the review out of 2,115 studies identified by the search strategy. In various global contexts, disparities in RWD utilization were evident, with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) serving as the primary evidence source. RWD and RWE played pivotal roles, surpassing relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and significantly influencing decision-making and cost-effectiveness analyses. Identified challenges impeding RWD integration into HTA encompassed limited local data access, complexities in non-randomized trial design, data quality, privacy, and fragmentation. Addressing these is imperative for optimal RWD utilization. Incorporating RWD/RWE in HTA yields multifaceted advantages, enhancing understanding of treatment efficacy, resource utilization, and cost analysis, particularly via patient registries. RWE complements assessments of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) and rare diseases. Local data utilization strengthens HTA, bridging gaps when RCT data is lacking. RWD aids medical device decision-making, cancer drug reassessment, and indirect treatment comparisons. Challenges include data availability, stakeholder acceptance, expertise, and privacy. However, standardization, training, collaboration, and guidance can surmount these barriers, fostering enhanced RWD utilization in HTA. Conclusion: This study highlights the intricate global landscape of RWD and RWE acceptance in HTA. Recognizing regional nuances, addressing methodological challenges, and promoting collaboration are pivotal, among others, for leveraging RWD and RWE effectively in healthcare decision-making.

Integrating real-world data in cost-effectiveness analysis of universal HLA-B*15:02 screening in Malaysia

AIMS

Despite the availability of newer antiseizure medications, carbamazepine (CBZ) remains the gold standard. However, patients of Asian ancestry are susceptible to CBZ-related severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Universal HLA-B*15:02 screening is a promising intervention to address this. With the increasing recognition of integrating real-world evidence in economic evaluations, the cost-effectiveness of universal HLA-B*15:02 screening was assessed using available real-world data in Malaysia.

METHODS

A hybrid model of a decision tree and Markov model was developed to evaluate 3 strategies for treating newly diagnosed epilepsy among adults: (i) CBZ initiation without HLA-B*15:02 screening (current practice); (ii) universal HLA-B*15:02 screening prior to CBZ initiation; and (iii) alternative prescribing without HLA-B*15:02 screening. The model was populated with real-world inputs derived from the Malaysian population. From a societal perspective, base-case analysis and sensitivity analyses estimated the costs and outcomes over a lifetime. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

In the base-cases analysis, universal HLA-B*15:02 screening yielded the lowest total costs and the highest total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Compared with current practice, universal screening was less costly by USD100 and more effective by QALYs increase of 0.1306, while alternative prescribing resulted in 0.1383 QALYs loss at additional costs of USD332. The highest seizure remission rate (56%) was estimated for universal HLA-B*15:02 screening vs. current practice (54%) and alternative prescribing (48%).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that universal HLA-B*15:02 screening is a cost-effective intervention in Malaysia. With the demonstrated value of real-world evidence in economic evaluations, more relevant standardization efforts should be emphasized to better inform decision-making.

Payer perceptions on the use of economic models in oncology decision making

BACKGROUND: To support oncology formulary decisions, especially with accelerated regulatory approvals and niche populations, payers desire data beyond what regulators review. Economic models showing financial impact of treatments may help, but data on payers' use of economic models in oncology are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess payer perceptions regarding use of economic models in informing oncology formulary decisions. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee involving health economists and payers developed a survey containing singleanswer, multiple-answer, and free-response questions. The pilot survey was tested at a mini-advisory board with 5 US payers and revised based on feedback. In February 2020, the survey was distributed to 221 US payers through the AMCP Market Insights program and 10 additional payer panelists, who were invited to discuss survey results. Results were presented primarily as frequencies of responses and evaluated by plan size, type of health plan, and geography (regional vs national). Differences in categorical data responses were compared using Pearson chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Two-tailed values were reported and an alpha level of 0.05 or less was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 106 of 231 payers completed the survey (45.9%); 45.5% represented small plans (< 1 million lives), and 54.5% represented large plans (≥ 1 million lives). Respondents were largely pharmacists (89.9%), and 55.6% indicated that their job was pharmacy administrator. Payers indicated moderate/most interest in cost-effectiveness models (CEMs; 85.3%) and budget impact models (BIMs; 80.4%). Overall, 51.6% of respondents claimed oncology expertise on their pharmacy and therapeutics committees. Large plans were more likely to have expertise in reviewing oncology economic models than small plans (55.6% vs 31.1%, P = 0.015). The most common reasons for not reviewing economic models included "not available at time of review" (44.1%) and "potential bias" (38.2%). Overall, 43.1% of payers conduct analyses using their own data after reviewing a manufacturer-sponsored economic model. To inform formulary decisions, 62.7% of payers use BIMs and 66.7% use CEMs sometimes, often, or always. When comparing therapies with similar safety/efficacy profiles, 68.6% of payers reported economic models as helpful a moderate amount, a lot, or a great deal. Over one-third of payers (37.3%) were willing to partner with manufacturers on economic models using their plans' data. Payers valued preapproval information, data on total cost of care, and early access to models. Concerns remained regarding model transparency and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Most US payers reported interest in using economic models to inform oncology formulary decision making. Opportunities exist to educate payers in assessing economic models, especially among small health plans. Ensuring model availability at launch, transparency in model assumptions, and payer-manufacturer partnership in model development may increase the utility of oncology economic models among US payers. DISCLOSURES: Pfizer provided funding for this research, and Pfizer employees led the development of the survey instrument, were involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data, and contributed to the manuscript as authors. Arondekar and Niyazov are employed by Pfizer. Biskupiak, Oderda, and Brixner are managers of Millcreek Outcomes Group and were paid as consultants on this project. Burgoyne was a consultant for Pfizer on this project.

"It's Time to Represent": shifting the paradigm to improve the quality of inputs into value assessment frameworks

"It's Time to Represent" integrates 2 strategies that challenge the status quo to increase the diversity of populations that participate in research and address drivers of health disparities to better inform value assessment. The first, a community-engaged campaign, proposes to develop authentic, long-term partnerships with community members, their health care providers, and researchers to tailor recruitment and retention methods for underrepresented groups and hold researchers accountable for equitable selection of study participants. The second proposes to create an expectation for researchers to routinely collect patient-reported, actionable social determinants of health data to generate enhanced real-world evidence and thereby improve the quality of inputs utilized in value assessment frameworks. DISCLOSURE: No specific funding was received for this manuscript. The authors report no potential conflicts of interest.

"It's Time to Represent": shifting the paradigm to improve the quality of inputs into value assessment frameworks

"It's Time to Represent" integrates 2 strategies that challenge the status quo to increase the diversity of populations that participate in research and address drivers of health disparities to better inform value assessment. The first, a community-engaged campaign, proposes to develop authentic, long-term partnerships with community members, their health care providers, and researchers to tailor recruitment and retention methods for underrepresented groups and hold researchers accountable for equitable selection of study participants. The second proposes to create an expectation for researchers to routinely collect patient-reported, actionable social determinants of health data to generate enhanced real-world evidence and thereby improve the quality of inputs utilized in value assessment frameworks. DISCLOSURE: No specific funding was received for this manuscript. The authors report no potential conflicts of interest.