Search

Aim: To determine the level of evidence for innovative high-risk medical devices at market entry. Methods: We reviewed all Belgian healthcare payer (RIZIV-INAMI) assessor reports on novel implants or invasive medical devices (n = 18, Class IIb-III) available between 2018 to mid-2019 on applications submitted for inclusion on their reimbursement list. We also conducted a review of the literature on evidence gaps and an analysis of relevant legal and ethical frameworks within the European context. Findings: Conformity assessment of medical devices is based on performance, safety, and an acceptable risk-benefit balance. Information submitted for obtaining CE marking is confidential and legally protected, limiting access to clinical evidence. Seven out of the 18 RIZIV-INAMI assessor reports (39%) included a randomized controlled trial (RCT) using the novel device, whilst 2 applications (11%) referred to an RCT that used a different device. The population included was inappropriate or unclear for 3 devices (17%). Only half of the applications presented evidence on quality of life or functioning and 2 (11%) presented overall survival data. Four applications (22%) included no data beyond twelve months. The findings from the literature demonstrated similar problems with the study design and the clinical evidence. Discussion and conclusions: CE marking does not indicate that a device is effective, only that it complies with the law. The lack of transparency hampers evidence-based decision making. Despite greater emphasis on clinical benefit for the patient, the provisions of the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) are not yet fully aligned with international ethical standards for clinical research. The MDR fails to address key issues, such as the lack of access to data submitted for CE marking and a failure to require evidence of clinical effectiveness. Indeed, a first report shows no improvement in the clinical evidence for implantable devices generated under the MDR. Thus, patients may continue to be exposed to ineffective or unsafe novel devices. The Health Technology Assessment Regulation plans for Joint Scientific Consultations for specific high-risk devices before companies begin their pivotal clinical investigations. The demanded comparative evidence should facilitate payer decisions. Nevertheless, there is also a need for legislation requiring comparative RCTs assessing patient-relevant outcomes for high-risk devices to ensure implementation, including development and implementation of common specifications for study designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Conformity (CE) marking grants early market introduction to innovative high risk medical devices based on safety and device performance only, without any requirement to demonstrate clinical efficacy or effectiveness. Hence healthcare providers, patients and payers are informed neither about the added clinical value compared to an existing medical device nor about the risks incurred by using such innovations. In addition there is a lack of coherence and uniformity of approach in the assessment of high risk medical devices. These gaps may put the health and safety of patients in danger. The European Commission, in concert with Competent Authorities, industry, Notified Bodies, and other stakeholders, is working on a 'recast' of the directives regulating medical devices. This article identifies and discusses the critical points of the pre-market clinical evaluation of innovative high-risk medical devices in the European legal framework and compares it with the USA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although metastatic cutaneous melanoma is associated with an unfavorable prognosis, innovative therapies including immunomodulating agents and targeted therapies have shown survival benefits in clinical trials. We assessed the impact of the introduction of innovative drugs into clinical practice on the survival of patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma during the period 2004–2017, in Belgium. The evolution of associated expenses was also analyzed. Methods: This is a retrospective population‐based study using data from the national Belgian Cancer Registry, compulsory health insurance, and administrative survival data. The immunomodulating drugs were ipilimumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, while targeted therapies included vemurafenib, dabrafenib and trametinib. Results: We did not identify a trend for improvement over time. Median survival (years) was 1.5 (95% CI: 1.1–1.8) in 2004–2008, 1.1 (95% CI: 0.8–1.5) in 2009–2013, and 1.6 (95% CI: 1.3–2.4) in 2014–2017, respectively. In contrast, survival improved in those with unknown primary tumor localization. In this group, median survival time was 2.0 (95% CI: 1.4–2.9) in the most recent period, while it was 1.1 (95% CI: 0.7–1.3) in 2009–2013, and 0.9 (95% CI: 0.6–1.2) in 2004–2008. The uptake of innovative drugs remained modest, with no drug being used by more than 30% of patients. Yearly expenditure was almost non‐existent, and gradually increased, reaching several million euros in 2014–2017. Conclusion: Patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma who were diagnosed between 2004 and 2017 showed no apparent improvement in survival. In contrast, increased survival was observed in the subgroup of patients with unknown primary tumor localization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of the precision medicine paradigm in oncology has led to increasing interest in the integration of real-world data (RWD) into cancer clinical research. As sources of real-world evidence (RWE), such data could potentially help address the uncertainties that surround the adoption of novel anticancer therapies into the clinic following their investigation in clinical trials. At present, RWE-generating studies which investigate antitumour interventions seem to primarily focus on collecting and analysing observational RWD, typically forgoing the use of randomisation despite its methodological benefits. This is appropriate in situations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not feasible and non-randomised RWD analyses can offer valuable insights. Nevertheless, depending on how they are designed, RCTs have the potential to produce strong and actionable RWE themselves. The choice of which methodology to employ for RWD studies should be guided by the nature of the research question they are intended to answer. Here, we attempt to define some of the questions that do not necessarily require the conduct of RCTs. Moreover, we outline the strategy of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to contribute to the generation of robust and high-quality RWE by prioritising the execution of pragmatic trials and studies set up according to the trials-within-cohorts approach. If treatment allocation cannot be left up to random chance due to practical or ethical concerns, the EORTC will consider undertaking observational RWD research based on the target trial principle. New EORTC-sponsored RCTs may also feature concurrent prospective cohorts composed of off-trial patients. • The role of real-world data (RWD) in cancer clinical research is increasing. • A false dichotomy exists between RWD studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). • There are different methodologies for RWD studies, including RCT designs. • The methodology to be employed should be determined by the research question. • We outline the RWD strategy of a large academic clinical cancer research organisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency typically approve market access for cancer drugs based on surrogate end-points, which do not always translate into substantiated improvements in outcomes that matter the most to patients, i.e. survival and quality of life. These drugs often, also, have a high price tag. We assessed whether there was an increase in cancer drug expenditure for a broad selection of indications, and whether this correlates with increased overall survival. This cohort study used Belgian Cancer Registry data from 125,692 patients (12 cancer indications, incidence period 2004–2017), which was linked to reimbursement and survival data. This reliably represents the Belgian situation. One-to-five year observed survival probability, median survival time, oncology drug expenditure and mean oncology drug cost per patient were reviewed. In almost all indications, total expenditure and average treatment cost for oncology drugs increased over the years (2004–2017). In contrast, mixed findings are observed for the evolution in overall survival probability and median survival time. While an absolute improvement in the 3-year survival probability of about 10% is noticed in non-small-cell lung cancer and chronic myeloid leukaemia, improvements in about half of the other indications are limited or even absent. The Belgian observational data indicate that assuming 'innovative' oncology drugs always add value in terms of improved survival is often unjustified. The literature also highlights the problem of using surrogate end-points, and the lack of comparative evidence showing an added value of oncology drugs for both survival and quality of life at market approval or during the post-marketing phase. Comparative studies should be conducted in the pre-marketing phase that are suitable for registration purposes, aid reimbursement decisions and support physicians and patients when making treatment decisions. • Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency typically approve cancer drugs based on surrogate end-points. • Overall survival (OS) and quality of life data are often not available to decision makers. • Evolution in OS and drug expenditure (12 cancer types, 125 692 patients) is described. • Substantial increases in drug expenditure often do not coincide with clear OS gains. • Comparative pre-marketing studies should include OS and quality of life as patient-relevant outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to an article about the impact of human papillomavirus (HPV) 16/18 vaccination on preterm delivery, by Sjoborg and Eskild.

Because it spares many normal tissues and reduces the integral dose, proton therapy (PT) is the preferred tumor irradiation technique for treating childhood cancer. However, to the best of our knowledge, no systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of PT in children has been reported in the scientific literature. A systematic search for clinical outcome studies on PT published between 2007 and 2015 was performed in Medline (through OVID), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Twenty-three primary studies were identified, including approximately 650 patients overall. The median/mean follow-up times were limited (range, 19-91 months). None of the studies were randomized, 2 were comparative, and 20 were retrospective. Most suffered from serious methodologic limitations, yielding a very low level of clinical evidence for the outcomes in all indications. For example, for retinoblastoma, very low-level evidence was found that PT might decrease the incidence of second malignancies. For chondrosarcoma, chordoma, craniopharyngioma, ependymoma, esthesioneuroblastoma, Ewing sarcoma, central nervous system germinoma, glioma, medulloblastoma, osteosarcoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma, there was insufficient evidence to either support or refute PT in children. For pelvic sarcoma (ie, nonrhabdomyosarcoma and non-Ewing sarcoma), pineal parenchymal tumor, primitive neuroectodermal tumor, and "adult-type" soft tissue sarcoma, no studies were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Although there is no doubt that PT reduces the radiation dose to normal tissues and organs, to date the critical clinical data on the long-term effectiveness and harm associated with the use of PT in the 15 pediatric cancers under investigation are lacking. High-quality clinical research in this area is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as a form of treatment for patients with a life threatening heart condition. However, several doubts still remain with regards to the cost effectiveness and clinical outcomes of TAVI. Rigorous analysis of available data has revealed that the widespread use of TAVI is not really recommended as was observed from the PARTNER trial. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)has said that in the cases of patients for whom surgery was suitable, TAVI was inadequate and should only be used in cases where special arrangements for clinical governance, consent and data collection were present.

Abstract: Introduction: The estimation of herpes zoster (HZ) vaccine efficacy by time since vaccination and age at vaccination is crucial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HZ vaccination. Published estimates for the duration of protection from the vaccine diverge substantially, although based on data from the same trial for a follow-up period of 5years. Different models were used to obtain these estimates, but it is unclear which of these models is most appropriate (if any). Only one study estimated vaccine efficacy by age at vaccination and time since vaccination combined. Recently, data became available from the same trial for a follow-up period of 7years. Aim and methods: We aim to elaborate on estimating HZ vaccine efficacy (1) by estimating it as a function of time since vaccination and age at vaccination, (2) by comparing the fits of a range of models, and (3) by fitting these models on data for a follow-up period of 5 and 7years. Results: Although the models’ fit to data are very comparable, they differ substantially in how they estimate vaccine efficacy to change as a function of time since vaccination and age at vaccination. Discussion: An accurate estimation of HZ vaccine efficacy by time since vaccination and age at vaccination is hampered by the lack of insight in the biological processes underlying HZ vaccine protection, and by the fact that such data are currently not available in sufficient detail. Uncertainty about the choice of model to estimate this important parameter should be acknowledged in cost-effectiveness analyses. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: Since its introduction more than a decade ago, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has spread to most radiotherapy departments worldwide for a wide range of indications. The technique has been rapidly implemented, despite an incomplete understanding of its advantages and weaknesses, the challenges of IMRT planning, delivery, and quality assurance, and the substantially increased cost compared with non-IMRT. Many publications discuss the theoretical advantages of IMRT dose distributions. However, the key question is whether the use of IMRT can be exploited to obtain a clinically relevant advantage over non-modulated external-beam radiation techniques. To investigate which level of evidence supports the routine use of IMRT for various disease sites, we did a review of clinical studies that reported on overall survival, disease-specific survival, quality of life, treatment-induced toxicity, or surrogate endpoints. This review shows evidence of reduced toxicity for various tumour sites by use of IMRT. The findings regarding local control and overall survival are generally inconclusive. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The tolerability and immunogenicity of the hepatitis C virus E1 protein as a candidate vaccine was examined in a Phase I, single-arm study. Twenty healthy male volunteers were injected in the deltoid muscle at weeks 0, 3 and 6 with 20 μg recombinant E1 adsorbed on alum. A fourth (booster) dose was administered to 19 subjects at week 26. The candidate therapeutic vaccine was well tolerated. Three vaccine doses induced a clear humoral anti-E1 response that was boosted by a fourth dose. A strong, specific cellular immune response towards E1 was elicited in all vaccine recipients, which included a clear Th1 type response in all but one of the subjects. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Investigator-led multicentre randomised trials are essential to generate evidence on the optimal use of medical interventions. These non-commercial trials are often hampered by underfunding, which may lead to difficulties in gathering a team with the necessary expertise, a delayed trial start, slow recruitment and even early trial discontinuation. As a new public funder of pragmatic clinical trials, the KCE Trials programme was committed to correctly pay all trial activities in order to assure timely delivery of high-quality trial results. As no appropriate trial budget tool was readily publicly available that took into account the costs for the sponsor as well as the costs for participating sites, we developed a tool to make the budgeting of a clinical trial efficient, transparent and fair across applicants.Methods: All trial-related activities of the sponsor and sites were categorised, and cost drivers were identified. All elements were included in a spreadsheet tool allowing the sponsor team to calculate in detail the various activities of a clinical trial and to appreciate the budget impact of specific cost drivers, e.g. a delay in recruitment. Hourly fees by role were adapted from published data. Fixed amounts per activity were developed when appropriate.Results: This publicly available tool has already been used for 17 trials funded since the start of the KCE Trials programme in 2016, and it continues to be used and improved. This budget tool is used together with additional risk-reducing measures such as a multistep selection process with advance payments, a recruitment feasibility check by sponsor and funder, a close monitoring of study progress and a milestone-based payment schedule with the last payment made when the manuscript is submitted.Conclusions: The budget tool helps the KCE Trials programme to answer relevant research questions in a timely way, within budget and with high quality, a necessary condition to achieve impact of this programme for patients, clinical practice and healthcare payers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Conformity (CE) marking grants early market introduction to innovative high risk medical devices based on safety and device performance only, without any requirement to demonstrate clinical efficacy or effectiveness. Hence healthcare providers, patients and payers are informed neither about the added clinical value compared to an existing medical device nor about the risks incurred by using such innovations. In addition there is a lack of coherence and uniformity of approach in the assessment of high risk medical devices. These gaps may put the health and safety of patients in danger. The European Commission, in concert with Competent Authorities, industry, Notified Bodies, and other stakeholders, is working on a "recast" of the directives regulating medical devices. This article identifies and discusses the critical points of the pre-market clinical evaluation of innovative high-risk medical devices in the European legal framework and compares it with the USA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Orphan medicinal products are designed to diagnose or treat rare diseases that are serious, life threatening or chronically debilitating and that affect 50 or fewer people in every 100 000 in the EU. In Belgium, the Drug Reimbursement Committee (DRC) evaluates reimbursement requests for orphan drugs based on multiple criteria: the therapeutic value, price and proposed reimbursement tariff; the importance of the drug in clinical practice; and the budget impact of the drug. Objectives: This study aimed to assess reimbursement dossiers of orphan drugs in Belgium and to compare them with the clinical evidence submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: A qualitative analysis examined all reimbursement dossiers of orphan drugs that were submitted in Belgium between January 2002 and June 2008. The following information was extracted from each dossier: description of the orphan drug; indication; reimbursement status; therapeutic value and needs; budget impact; and number of registered indications. For selected orphan drugs, an in-depth analysis extracted and compared information about the clinical trials, their primary endpoints and results from EMA documents (i.e. the marketing authorization application file, European public assessment report and summary of product characteristics) and the Belgian reimbursement dossiers. Results: Reimbursement was awarded to the majority of orphan drugs. In addition to the official criteria, other negotiable factors, such as price adjustments, employment incentives, patient population restrictions and funding of diagnostic tests by the company, seemed to play a role in the reimbursement decision. Despite the low number of patients, randomized controlled trials were conducted for many orphan drugs. Budget-impact analyses were simplistic and did not consider the impact across multiple indications. Some differences were also observed between the clinical evidence submitted to the EMA and that submitted to the Belgian DRC. Conclusions: In addition to the official criteria, other negotiable factors, such as price adjustments and employment incentives, may play a role in Belgian reimbursement decisions of orphan drugs. Some differences have also been noted between the clinical evidence reported in EMA documents and the evidence included in Belgian reimbursement dossiers of orphan drugs. There appears to be a need for further standardization of Belgian reimbursement applications and for European cooperation in sharing clinical evidence of orphan drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Total tau (T-tau) and β-amyloid(1-42) (Aβ1-42) levels in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) can differentiate Alzheimer's disease (AD) from normal aging or depressive pseudo-dementia. Differential diagnosis from dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) in clinical settings is difficult. Methods: The analytical performance of the INNOTEST® PHOSPHO-TAU(181P) assay was validated in terms of selectivity, sensitivity, specificity, precision, robustness, and stability. Clinical utility of the assay alone, or combined with T-tau and Aβ1-42, for discrimination of AD (n=94) from patients suffering from DLB (n=60) or from age-matched control subjects (CS) (n=60) was assessed in a multicenter study. Results: CSF concentrations of tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (P-tau181P) in AD was significantly higher than in DLB and CS. Discriminant analysis, a classification tree, and logistic regression showed that P-tau181P was the most statistically significant single variable of the three biomarkers for discrimination between AD and DLB. Conclusions: P-tau181P quantification is a robust and reliable assay that may be useful in discriminating AD from DLB. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:1472–80. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Starting from historic reflections, the current SARS-CoV-2 induced COVID-19 pandemic is examined from various perspectives, in terms of what it implies for the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions, the modeling and monitoring of the epidemic, the development of early-warning systems, the study of mortality, prevalence estimation, diagnostic and serological testing, vaccine development, and ultimately clinical trials. Emphasis is placed on how the pandemic had led to unprecedented speed in methodological and clinical development, the pitfalls thereof, but also the opportunities that it engenders for national and international collaboration, and how it has simplified and sped up procedures. We also study the impact of the pandemic on clinical trials in other indications. We note that it has placed biostatistics, epidemiology, virology, infectiology, and vaccinology, and related fields in the spotlight in an unprecedented way, implying great opportunities, but also the need to communicate effectively, often amidst controversy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]