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.

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.

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.

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.

Aims: This article aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban in comparison to warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), from a public healthcare payer’s perspective.Materials and methods: Baseline event risks were obtained from the J-ROCKET AF trial and the treatment effect data were taken from a network meta-analysis. The other model inputs were extracted from the literature and official Japanese sources. The outcomes included the number of ischaemic strokes, myocardial infarctions, systemic embolisms and bleedings avoided, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The scenario analysis considered treatment effect data from the same network meta-analysis.Results: In comparison with warfarin, rivaroxaban was estimated to avoid 0.284 ischaemic strokes per patient, to increase the number of QALYs by 0.535 per patient and to decrease the total costs by ¥118,892 (€1,011.11) per patient (1 JPY = 0.00850638 EUR; XE.com, 7 October 2019). Consequently, rivaroxaban treatment was found to be dominant compared to warfarin. In the scenario analysis, the ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was ¥2,873,499 (€24,446.42) per QALY.Limitations: The various sources of data used resulted in the heterogeneity of the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Although, rivaroxaban was cost-effective in the majority of cases.Conclusion: Rivaroxaban is cost-effective against warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with NVAF, giving the payer WTP of 5,000,000 JPY.

BACKGROUND: Regional variations in gastric cancer incidence are not explained by prevalence of Helicobacter pylori, the main cause of the disease, with several areas presenting high H. pylori prevalence but low gastric cancer incidence. The IARC worldwide H. pylori prevalence surveys (ENIGMA) aim at systematically describing age and sex-specific prevalence of H. pylori infection around the world and generating hypotheses to explain regional variations in gastric cancer risk. METHODS: We selected age- and sex-stratified population samples in two areas with different gastric cancer incidence and mortality in Chile: Antofagasta (lower rate) and Valdivia (higher rate). Participants were 1-69 years old and provided interviews and blood for anti-H. pylori antibodies (IgG, VacA, CagA, others) and atrophy biomarkers (pepsinogens). RESULTS: H. pylori seroprevalence (Age-standardized to world population) and antibodies against CagA and VacA were similar in both sites. H. pylori seroprevalence was 20% among children <10 years old, 40% among 10-19 year olds, 60% in the 20-29 year olds and close to or above 80% in those 30+ years. The comparison of the prevalence of known and potential H. pylori cofactors in gastric carcinogenesis between the high and the low risk area showed that consumption of chili products was significantly higher in Valdivia and daily non-green vegetable consumption was more common in Antofagasta. Pepsinogen levels suggestive of gastric atrophy were significantly more common and occurred at earlier ages in Valdivia, the higher risk area. In a multivariate model combining both study sites, age, chili consumption and CagA were the main risk factors for gastric atrophy. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of H. pylori infection and its virulence factors was similar in the high and the low risk area, but atrophy was more common and occurred at younger ages in the higher risk area. Dietary factors could partly explain higher rates of atrophy and gastric cancer in Valdivia. IMPACT: The ENIGMA study in Chile contributes to better understanding regional variations in gastric cancer incidence and provides essential information for public health interventions.

ABSTRACTThe results of a clinical trial comparing hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin to the standard of care for the treatment of COVID-19 were recently published by Philippe Gautret et al. This study provides outstanding results for the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin over the standard of care, but the evidence was deemed insufficiently robust to warrant a public health decision to widen the use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. We provide a scientific critical review of the Gautret et al. publication, put the results in the context of the current knowledge, provide an evaluation of the validity of the results (from a methodologic perspective), and discuss public health implications. The study has a number of limitations, including small sample size, lack of comparability between patients in active treatment and control arms, lack of blinding, use of interim analyses without controlling for the risk of type 1 error, use of analysis in the per-protocol population instead of the intention-to-treat population, and inconsistencies between the study protocol and article. However, none of these observations is of a nature to reverse the conclusions. The study brings useful knowledge consistent with available evidence and clinical practice from China and South Korea, which could have prompted quicker policy decision-making.

INTRODUCTION: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is replacing cytology in primary screening. Its limited specificity demands using a second (triage) test to better identify women at high-risk of cervical disease. Cytology represents the immediate triage but its low sensitivity might hamper HPV testing sensitivity, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where cytology performance has been suboptimal. The ESTAMPA (EStudio multicéntrico de TAMizaje y triaje de cáncer de cuello uterino con pruebas del virus del PApiloma humano; Spanish acronym) study will: (1) evaluate the performance of different triage techniques to detect cervical precancer and (2) inform on how to implement HPV-based screening programmes in LMIC. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Women aged 30-64 years are screened with HPV testing and Pap across 12 study centres in Latin America. Screened positives have colposcopy with biopsy and treatment of lesions. Women with no evident disease are recalled 18 months later for another HPV test; those HPV-positive undergo colposcopy with biopsy and treatment as needed. Biological specimens are collected in different visits for triage testing, which is not used for clinical management. The study outcome is histological high-grade squamous intraepithelial or worse lesions (HSIL+) under the lower anogenital squamous terminology. About 50 000 women will be screened and 500 HSIL+ cases detected (at initial and 18 months screening). Performance measures (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) of triage techniques to detect HSIL+ will be estimated and compared with adjustment by age and study centre. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), of the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) and by those in each participating centre. A Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) has been established to monitor progress of the study, assure participant safety, advice on scientific conduct and analysis and suggest protocol improvements. Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01881659.

BACKGROUND: The cost of treating Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), particularly recurrent disease, is high. In clinical trials, fidaxomicin has been associated with significantly lower recurrence rates and higher sustained cure rates versus vancomycin. The high acquisition cost of fidaxomicin has limited its acceptance into clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in patients with CDI after failure of metronidazole in the Japanese healthcare setting. METHODS: Clinical results from three phase III trials and inputs based on assumptions validated by clinical experts in Japan were used in a semi-Markov model with 1-year time horizon. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for fidaxomicin versus vancomycin were expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and interpreted using willingness-to-pay thresholds of JPY 5,000,000 (primary) and JPY 7,500,000 (secondary) per QALY gained in Japan. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: Higher drug acquisition costs for fidaxomicin were partially offset by lower hospitalization costs driven by fewer recurrences, lower costs of complications, and fewer general practitioner visits versus vancomycin. The ICER for fidaxomicin versus vancomycin was estimated at JPY 5,715,183 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses showed a 46% probability of fidaxomicin being cost-effective versus vancomycin at a willingness-to-pay threshold of JPY 5,000,000 per QALY gained. At a threshold of JPY 7,500,000, there was a 54% probability of fidaxomicin being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Fidaxomicin treatment in patients with CDI following failure of metronidazole improves health outcomes with partial offset of higher drug acquisition costs versus vancomycin.

BACKGROUND: Mounting pressures on the healthcare system, such as budget constraints and new, costly health technologies reaching the market, have pushed payers and manufacturers to engage in managed entry agreements (MEAs) to address uncertainty and facilitate market access. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to illustrate the current landscape of MEAs in Europe and to analyze the main hurdles they face in implementation, providing a policy perspective. METHODS: We conducted a health policy analysis based on a literature review and described the emergence, classification, current use, and implementation obstacles of MEAs in Europe. RESULTS: Throughout Europe, uncertainty and high prices of health technologies have pushed stakeholders towards MEAs. Two main types of MEAs were applied heavily, finance-based agreements (FBAs) and performance-based agreements, including individual performance-based agreements and coverage with evidence development (CED). Service-based agreements have not been as heavily considered so far, yet are increasingly used. Many European countries are turning to CEDs to address uncertainty and facilitate market access while negotiating the pricing and reimbursement rates of products. Despite the interest in CEDs, European countries have moved toward FBAs due to the complexities and burdens associated with PBAs. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, in Europe, with the exception of Italy, where MEAs have proven to be inefficient, MEAs are predominantly FBAs dedicated to addressing cost containment from payers’ perspective and external reference pricing from the manufacturers’ perspective. It has been speculated that MEAs will disappear in the medium-term as they are counterproductive for extending patient access and emergence of innovation. To inform value-based decision making and allow early access to innovative medicines, CEDs should be revisited.