Search

Objective: Currently there are no disease-specific approved therapies for non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH); however, several treatments are under development. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of hypothetical innovative therapies compared with lifestyle intervention alone and combined with pioglitazone, and assess the health economic consequences of their future availability for patients. Methods: A Markov cohort model was developed, considering fourteen disease health states and one absorbing state representing death. Transition probabilities, costs, utilities, and treatment efficacy were based on published data and assumptions. Four treatment strategies were considered, including two existing therapies (lifestyle intervention, small molecule treatment) and two hypothetical interventions (biological and curative therapy). The analysis was performed from the US third-party payer perspective. Results: The curative treatment with the assumed efficacy of 70% of patients cured and assumed price of $500,000 was the only cost-effective option. Although it incurred higher costs (a difference of $188,771 vs. lifestyle intervention and $197,702 vs. small molecule), it generated more QALYs (a difference of 1.58 and 1.38 QALYs, respectively), resulting in an ICER below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to variations in model parameters. Conclusions: This study highlighted the potential benefits of therapies aimed at curing a disease rather than stopping its progression. Nonetheless, each of the analyzed therapies could be cost-effective compared with lifestyle intervention at a relatively high price.

Some advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) hold great promises for life-threatening diseases with high unmet needs. However, ATMPs are also associated with significant challenges in market access, which necessitates the joint efforts between all relevant stakeholders to navigate. In this review, we will elaborate on the importance of collaborations and harmonization across different stakeholders, to expedite the market access of promising ATMPs. Manufacturers of ATMPs should proactively establish collaborations with other stakeholders throughout the whole lifecycle of ATMPs, from early research to post-market activities. This covered engagements with (1) external developers (i.e., not-for-profit organizations and commercial players) to obtain complementary knowledge, technology, or infrastructures, (2) patient groups and healthcare providers to highlight their roles as active contributors, and (3) decision-makers, such as regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, and payers, to communicate the uncertainties in evidence package, where parallel consultation will be a powerful strategy. Harmonization between decision-makers is desired at (1) regulatory level, in terms of strengthening the international standardization of regulatory framework to minimize discrepancies in evidence requirements for market authorization, and (2) HTA level, in terms of enhancing alignments between regional and national HTA agencies to narrow inequity in patient access, and cross-border HTA cooperation to improve the quality and efficiency of HTA process. In conclusion, manufacturers and decision-makers shared the common goals to safeguard timely patient access to ATMPs. Collaboration and harmonization will be increasingly leveraged to enable the value delivery of ATMPs to all stakeholders.

Purpose: Gene therapy brings opportunities to discover cures for diseases for which there are no adequate treatments. As most gene therapies target rare diseases, several challenges are associated with their clinical development, such as limited population size, lack of established clinical pathways for development, and sometimes the absence of validated endpoints. The objective of this study was to systematically review and evaluate the methodology and design of European clinical trials (CTs) utilising gene therapy medicinal products (GTMPs). Methods: A systematic search of online CT databases was performed using keywords to identify CTs conducted with GTMPs in Europe, published from 1 January 1995 to 31 July 2019. Results: The search identified 1571 CTs, of which 199 were identified as published articles. A total of 159 CTs remained following the elimination of duplicated CTs, non-gene therapy trials, and those conducted outside Europe. Of these, only nine CTs were randomised, double-blind, with or without parallel groups, and placebo-controlled. Conclusions: The analysed randomised CTs were conducted in accordance with Good clinical practice with low risk of bias across domains. Only one CT was identified with some concerns of bias due to lack of information regarding the randomisation process and changes in protocol.

Background: The Trump administration’s ‘American Patients First’ blueprint proposes to reduce drug prices in the USA by increasing drug prices abroad, ex USA. The possibility of the Trump administration to raise drug prices ex USA through legal action via the WTO and bilateral negotiations with foreign trade partners was reviewed. Methods: A literature review was conducted through PUBMED, EMBASE, Media and grey literature to consolidate publications of the Trump administrations’ policies and strategies towards foreign countries and drug prices. Results: The Trump administration has withdrawn from and halted major multilateral agreements including the TPP, Paris Agreement, TTIP, UNESCO, NAFTA (now USMCA), and NATO. The Trump administration has been successful in bilateral negotiations for pharmaceuticals’ pricing, as seen with Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Mexico and Canada. Conclusion: The objective of raising prices abroad is attainable. Action through the WTO is unlikely, due to its nondiscriminatory principle. Bilateral trade negotiation have proven more promising. In this bilateral framework, financial security and military protection are strong assets for the USA to levy higher drug prices abroad. Although raising drug prices ex USA is possible, further questions as to whether this will directly translate into lower drug prices for American patients are raised.

Background: Claims included in package inserts (PIs) for medicinal products approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) constitute the regulatory definition of drugs’ benefits and risks. Objective: We sought to assess the usage of patient-reported outcome (PRO) claims in a comprehensive set of US FDA orphan drug approvals dated between 1/1/2012 and 31/12/2016, and characterize them. Study design: Orphan drug approval documentation was obtained from the US FDA website. Drug Package Inserts (PI) were analyzed to extract information on PRO-related language. Results: Among 178 drugs that met inclusion criteria, 16 (9%) products approved for 16 orphan indications contained PRO language in the Clinical Studies section of the PI. All PRO instruments concerned disease symptoms, and two also referred to patient functioning. The most common PRO instrument was a bleed-specific rating scale for four products approved for the treatment or prevention of bleeding episodes in patients with genetic bleeding disorders. Conclusions: There is a need to implement public incentives for academic development of PRO instruments for rare conditions and for regulatory policies that mandate the collection of PRO endpoints in pivotal trials of orphan drugs.

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the rate of usage and the kind of patient-reported outcome (PRO) claims in orphan drug approvals from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) dated between 1/1/2012 and 31/12/2016 and to compare them to those from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods: Orphan drug approval documentation was obtained from the EMA website. PRO-related language was extracted from the Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs). Data were compared to a previously published analysis of the FDA approvals from the same time period. Results: Out of 60 approvals that met the inclusion criteria, 12 products approved by the EMA for 13 (21.7%) orphan indications contained PRO language in the Clinical Studies section of the SmPC. Twelve SmPCs contained PRO instruments based on symptoms, five of which also concerned patient functioning. Eight approvals included PRO claims related to quality of life (QoL) most commonly in cancer treatment. Conclusion: The rate of PRO claims was lower for orphan drugs specifically than for all drug approvals by the EMA. However, in accordance with previous findings, the EMA appeared more inclined to grant PRO claims including health-related QoL than the FDA.

Background: An elevated level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) constitutes one of the most important modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Individuals with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HeFH) are particularly vulnerable to CVD events. The addition of evolocumab to statins has shown marked reductions in LDL-C levels. The objective of this analysis is to demonstrate the clinical and economic value of LDL-C lowering with evolocumab from the Bulgarian public health care perspective. Methods: A disease-specific measure of health benefit was devised: Effectively treated patient-years (ETPYs) combine length of life with the likelihood of attaining best-practice recommendations on LDL-C lowering. “Effective treatment” was defined as a reduction in LDL-C levels of ≥50%. A Markov cohort state-transition model was adapted, considering a life-long treatment duration. Demographics, baseline characteristics and efficacy data were taken from the RUTHERFORD-2 trial. The model uses the relationship between LDL-C lowering and reduced CVD event rates observed in the meta-analyses conducted by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Outcomes and costs (from year 2015) were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty surrounding the results. Results: The total incremental costs of evolocumab added to statins versus statins alone are BGN 120,329 while adding 9.30 ETPYs over lifetime. These results imply an incremental cost per ETPY of BGN 12,937 (US$ 7,215; € 6,604). The use of evolocumab is associated with a relative reduction in the CVD event rate by 38% (18% per 1 mmol/L). Conclusions: Adding evolocumab to statins may be considered cost-effective in light of an additional expense per patient-year gained in which individuals with HeFH receive effective treatment under the terms of international prevention guidelines. ETPYs are an intuitive and clinically meaningful measure of patient benefit that, in relation to costs, can support health care decision-making that considers quality of care.