Market access of gene therapies across Europe, USA, and Canada: challenges, trends, and solutions
2020 Drug Discovery Todayhttps://www.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2020.11.024 ATMP, gene therapy, cell therapy, marketing authorization, HTA, coverage, reimbursement,
A limited number of gene therapy medicinal products (GTMPs) have received marketing authorization (MA), of which some have been withdrawn, and even less have gained reimbursement. Many challenges that complicate GTMP market access can occur across multiple jurisdictions and decision-making contexts, but some reimbursement challenges are specific to jurisdictions. The importance of these challenges vary according to the specific therapy being developed, the country where market access is sought, and the efforts made by developers, regulators and payers to implement solutions to overcome these barriers. This review could alert developers to challenges associated with GTMP MA and how to address them.
Use of Patient Preference Information in Benefit-Risk Assessment, Health Technology Assessment, and Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions: A Systematic Literature Review of Attempts and Initiatives
2020 Front Med (Lausanne)https://www.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.543046 benefit-risk assessment, decision-making, health technology assessment, patient preference, preference measurement,
Objectives: Inclusion of patient preference (PP) data in decision making has been largely discussed in recent years. Healthcare decision makers-regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA)-are more and more conscious of the need for a patient-centered approach to decide on optimal allocation of scarce money, time, and technological resources. This literature review aims to examine the use of and recommendations for the integration of PP in decision making. Methods: A literature search was conducted through PubMed/Medline in May 2019 to identify publications on PP studies used to inform benefit-risk assessments (BRAs) and HTAs and patient-centered projects and guidelines related to the inclusion of PPs in health policy decision making. After title and abstract screening and full-text review, selected publications were analyzed to retrieve data related to the collection, use, and/or submission of PPs informing BRA or HTA as well as attempts and initiatives in recommendations for PPs integration in decision-making processes. Results: Forty-nine articles were included: 24 attempts and pilot project discussions and 25 PP elicitation studies. Quantitative approaches, particularly discrete choice experiments, were the most used (24 quantitative elicitation studies and 1 qualitative study). The objective of assessing PPs was to prioritize outcome-specific information, to value important treatment characteristics, to provide patient-focused benefit-risk trade-offs, and to appraise the patients’ willingness to pay for new technologies. Moreover, attempts and pilot projects to integrate PPs in BRAs and HTAs were identified at the European level and across countries, but no clear recommendations have been issued yet. No less than seven public and/or private initiatives have been undertaken by governmental agencies and independent organizations to set guidance targeting improvement of patients’ involvement in decision making. Conclusion: Despite the initiatives undertaken, the pace of progress remains slow. The use of PPs remains poorly implemented, and evidence of proper use of these data in decision making is lacking. Guidelines and recommendations formalizing the purpose of collecting PPs, what methodology should be adopted and how, and who should be responsible for generating these data throughout the decision-making processes are needed to improve and empower integration of PPs in BRA and HTA.
Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary and Peripheral Artery Disease Antithrombotic Treatments in Finland
2020 Adv Therhttps://www.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-020-01398-8 Acetylsalicylic acid, Cardiovascular disease, Chronic coronary syndrome, Coronary artery disease, Cost-effectiveness analysis, Cost–benefit analysis, Economic evaluation, Peripheral artery disease, Rivaroxaban, Symptomatic,
INTRODUCTION: Currently, 15-20% of individuals with coronary artery disease (chronic coronary syndrome [CCS]) or peripheral artery disease (PAD) receiving routine treatment experience cardiovascular events (CVEs) within 3-4 years. Using PICOSTEPS (Patients-Intervention-Comparators-Outcomes-Setting-Time-Effects-Perspective-Sensitivity analysis) reporting, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of recently approved rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily in combination with acetylsalicylic acid 100 mg daily (RIV + ASA) for the prevention of CVEs among Finns with CCS or symptomatic PAD. METHODS: Myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, acute limb ischemia, amputations, major extracranial bleeding, venous thromboembolism, and cardiovascular deaths were modeled in a Markov model examining a cohort of patients with CCS or symptomatic PAD. Relative effects of the intervention (RIV + ASA) and comparator (ASA) were based on the COMPASS trial. The primary outcome was 3%/year discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as cost (2019 euros) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in the Finnish setting over a lifetime horizon. In addition to nonfatal and fatal CVEs, the effects factored Finnish non-CVE mortality, quality of life, and direct costs from a public payer perspective. Disaggregated costs and QALYs, costs per life year gained (LYG), and ischemic strokes avoided, net monetary benefit (NMB), expected value of perfect information (EVPI), economic value-added (EVA), cost-effectiveness table, and acceptability frontier were examined. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In the deterministic comparison with ASA over a lifetime horizon, RIV + ASA resulted in a benefit of 0.404 QALYs and 0.474 LYGs for an additional cost of €3241, resulting in an ICER of €8031/QALY. The probabilistic ICER was €4313/QALY (EVPI €1829/patient). RIV + ASA had positive NMB (€8791/patient), low EVPI (€88/patient), high EVA (€8703/patient), and 91% probability of cost-effectiveness using the willingness-to-pay of €25,254/QALY. The primary result was conservative and robust for RIV + ASA. CONCLUSION: RIV + ASA was a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with ASA in patients with CCS or symptomatic PAD in Finland.
Finland lacks published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of approved interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular events among individuals with chronic coronary syndrome (stable coronary artery disease) or symptomatic peripheral artery disease at risk of cardiovascular complications. Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus acetylsalicylic acid 100 mg once daily is indicated and reimbursed in Finland for the prevention of cardiovascular events for patients with stable coronary artery disease or symptomatic peripheral artery disease. We assessed the effectiveness and costs of treatment with rivaroxaban plus acetylsalicylic acid in comparison with treatment with acetylsalicylic acid. That is, we examined whether rivaroxaban is cost-effective when prescribed in combination with acetylsalicylic acid.Cardiovascular events with their associated costs and impact on quality of life were modeled over the lifetime of patients. The main effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life years (modeled survival multiplied by the expected quality of life), and costs included those relevant to the Finnish public payer in 2019. Extensive sensitivity analyses were carried out to evaluate the impacts of different model inputs and rationale.Rivaroxaban plus acetylsalicylic acid had high probability of being cost-effective, compared with acetylsalicylic acid. By valuing quality-of-life benefit with a plausible willingness-to-pay, net cost savings of €8791 per patient could be gained or economic value added by €8703 per patient if rivaroxaban was used.
Chinese Clinical Studies for Pharmacological Treatments of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
2020 Preprintshttps://www.doi.org/ 10.20944/preprints202004.0279.v1 preprint, COVID-19, clinical studies, China, clinical trials, observational studies,
Chinese guidelines related to novel coronavirus pneumonia
2020 Journal of market access & health policyhttps://www.doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2020.1818446 Chinese Guidelines, covid-19, pharmaceutical Treatment,
Background and Objective: China has managed to control the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with confinement measurements and treatment strategies, while other countries are struggling to contain the spread. This study discusses the guidelines related to COVID-19 in China in order to provide important references for other countries in the fight against COVID-19. Methods: Chinese guidelines relevant to COVID-19 were systematically searched via the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, YiMaiTong database, and World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 database on March 20(th), 2020. Guideline information was extracted, including date of publication, source, objectives and the target population. Guidelines specific to the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 were further investigated to identify the types of antivirus drugs recommended and to report on how treatment recommendations for COVID-19 have evolved overtime. Results: A total of 100 guidelines were identified, of which 74 were national guidelines and 26 were regional guidelines. The scope of included guidelines consisted of: the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19, the management of hospital departments and specific diseases during the outbreak of COVID-19. Fifty-one of the included guidelines targeted overall COVID-19 patients, while the remaining guidelines concentrated on special patient populations (i.e. geriatric population, pediatric population, and pregnant population) or patients with coexisting diseases. Fifteen guidelines focused on the pharmacological treatments for all COVID-19 patients. Interferon, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Ribavirin, Chloroquine, and Umifenovir represented the most recommended antivirus drugs. Among them, 7 Chinese guidelines have recommended Chloroquine Phosphate or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. Conclusions: China has generated a plethora of guidelines covering almost all aspects of COVID-19. Chloroquine, as one widely affordable treatment, was recommended by Chinese national guidelines and provincial guidelines. Considering the continuous debates around Chloroquine, confirmatory studies with robust methodology are awaited to address the unanswered questions on its potential benefits and risks on COVID-19.
Fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin and metronidazole for the treatment of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection: A network meta-analysis
2020 J Infect Chemotherhttps://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2019.07.005 Anti-Bacterial Agents/*therapeutic use, Clostridium Infections/*drug therapy, Clostridium difficile, Fidaxomicin/*therapeutic use, Humans, Metronidazole/*therapeutic use, Recurrence, Treatment Outcome, Vancomycin/*therapeutic use, Clostridioides difficile infection, Fidaxomicin, Meta-analysis, Metronidazole, Vancomycin,
We conducted a systematic review of the literature and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the relative effectiveness of antibiotic treatments for Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI) including vancomycin (VCM), metronidazole (MTZ) and fidaxomicin (FDX). Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including adults with any severity of CDI that was treated with VCM, MTZ or FDX. The NMA was performed using a Bayesian framework, using a fixed-effects model. The searches identified seven publications for inclusion, which provided five RCTs for VCM versus MTZ, and three RCTs for FDX versus VCM. The NMA showed that for clinical cure rate, there was no difference for FDX versus VCM, and there was a significant difference in favour of FDX versus MTZ (odds ratio [OR]: 1.77; 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.11, 2.83]). For recurrence rate, there was a significant difference in favour of FDX versus both VCM (OR: 0.50; 95% CrI: 0.37, 0.68) and MTZ (OR: 0.44; 95% CrI: 0.27, 0.72). For sustained cure (clinical cure without recurrence), there was a significant difference in favour of FDX versus VCM (OR: 1.61; 95% CrI: 1.27, 2.05) and MTZ (OR: 2.39; 95% CrI: 1.65, 3.47). These findings suggest that FDX and VCM are effective first-line treatments for mild or moderate CDI, whereas MTZ is not, and FDX may be more effective at preventing CDI recurrence than VCM.
Regenerative Medicine Regulatory Policies: a Systematic Review and International Comparison
2020 Health Policyhttps://www.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.05.004 Regenerative medicine, Market authorization, Expedited programs,
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.
What Makes the UK Recovery Trial More Pragmatic than the European Discovery Trial?
2020 Preprintshttps://www.doi.org/ 10.20944/preprints202006.0229.v1 preprint, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19,
The objective of this study was to review the study design and preliminary results of the Recovery trial and analyze the implementability of the Recovery trial by comparing it with the European Discovery trial.Method: The study design of the Recovery trial in the latest version of protocol was described and deeply analyzed to address the issue of implementation of the trial. A comparative analysis of study design and implementation between the UK Recovery trial and the European Discovery trial was conducted following the description.Results: The Recovery trial is a pragmatic, randomized, controlled, adaptive, open-label clinical trial. The study design of the Recovery trial was reported in the ISRCTN registry, the EU Clinical Trials Register and the U.S. National Library of Medicine ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Initially published on the 13th March 2020, the study protocol of the Recovery trial has been updated five times at the time of this writing. More than 11,000 patients have been enrolled and 80% have completed the follow-up. Thousands of health care professionals at 175 Trusts in the UK have been involved. Conclusion: The Recovery trial applies a study design to address the issue of implementation in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency. It was conceptually pragmatic with a clear vision to address the top priority: the control of mortality and rational use of scarce resources. By contrast, the Discovery trial was designed as an intellectual exercise and consequently failed to address the issue of implementation in emergency.
Factors influencing the COVID-19 daily deaths peak across European countries
2020 medRxivhttps://www.doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.04.20225656 p,
OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to determine predictors of the height of COVID- 19 daily deaths peak and time to the peak, in order to explain their variability across European countries.STUDY DESIGN For 34 European countries, publicly available data were collected on daily numbers of COVID-19 deaths, population size, healthcare capacity, government restrictions and their timing, tourism and change in mobility during the pandemic.METHODS Univariate and multivariate generalised linear models using different selection algorithms (forward, backward, stepwise and genetic algorithm) were analysed with height of COVID-19 daily deaths peak and time to the peak as dependent variables.RESULTS The proportion of the population living in urban areas, mobility at the day of first reported death and number of infections when borders were closed were assessed as significant predictors of the height of COVID-19 daily deaths peak. Testing the model with variety of selection algorithms provided consistent results. Total hospital bed capacity, population size, number of foreign travellers and day of border closure, were found as significant predictors of time to COVID-19 daily deaths peak.CONCLUSIONS Our analysis demonstrated that countries with higher proportions of the population living in urban areas, with lower reduction in mobility at the beginning of the pandemic, and countries which closed borders having more infected people experienced higher peak of COVID-19 deaths. Greater bed capacity, bigger population size and later border closure could result in delaying time to reach the deaths peak, whereas a high number of foreign travellers could accelerate it.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials.
Outcomes-based reimbursement for gene therapies in practice: the experience of recently launched CAR-T cell therapies in major European countries
2020 J Mark Access Health Policyhttps://www.doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2020.1715536 Health Technology Assessment (HTA), chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, gene therapy, haematology, market access, oncology, reimbursement,
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.