A Roadmap for Increasing the Usefulness and Impact of Patient-Preference Studies in Decision Making in Health: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

Many qualitative and quantitative methods are readily available to study patient preferences in health. These methods are now being used to inform a wide variety of decisions, and there is a growing body of evidence showing studies of patient preferences can be used for decision making in a wide variety of contexts. This ISPOR Task Force report synthesizes current good practices for increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We provide the ISPOR Roadmap for Patient Preferences in Decision Making that invites patient-preference researchers to work with decision makers, patients and patient groups, and other stakeholders to ensure that studies are useful and impactful. The ISPOR Roadmap consists of 5 key elements: (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) population, (4) method, and (5) impact. In this report, we define these 5 elements and provide good practices on how patient-preference researchers and others can actively contribute to increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We also present a set of key questions that can support researchers and other stakeholders (eg, funders, reviewers, readers) to assess efforts that promote the ongoing impact (both intended and unintended) of a particular preference study and additional studies in the future.

The use of nonrandomized evidence to estimate treatment effects in health technology assessment.

Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly informed by nonrandomized studies, but there is limited guidance from HTA bodies on expectations around evidence quality and study conduct. We developed recommendations to support the appropriate use of such evidence based on a pragmatic literature review and a workshop involving 16 experts from eight countries as part of the EU's Horizon-2020 IMPACT-HTA program (work package six). To ensure HTA processes remain rigorous and robust, HTA bodies should demand clear, extensive and structured reporting of nonrandomized studies, including an in-depth assessment of the risk of bias. In recognition of the additional uncertainty imparted by nonrandomized designs in estimates of treatment effects, HTA bodies should strengthen early scientific advice and engage in collaborative efforts to improve use of real-world data.

Developing a Framework for the Health Technology Assessment of Histology-independent Precision Oncology Therapies.

The arrival of precision oncology is challenging the evidence standards under which technologies are evaluated for regulatory approval as well as for health technology assessment (HTA) purposes. Several key concepts are discussed to highlight the source of the challenges in evaluating these products, particularly those impacting the HTA of histology-independent therapies. These include the basket trial design, high uncertainty in (potentially substantial) benefits for histology-independent therapies, and the inability to identify and quantify benefits of standard of care in daily practice when the biomarker is not currently used in practice. There is little precedent for a technology with the unique mixture of challenges for HTA of histology-independent therapies and they will be evaluated using standard HTA, as there currently is no evidence suggesting the standard HTA framework is not appropriate. A number of questions proposed to help guide HTA bodies when assessing the appropriateness of local processes to optimally evaluate histology-independent therapies. Pragmatic solutions are further proposed to decrease uncertainty in the benefits of histology independent therapies as well as fill gaps in comparative evidence. The proposed solutions ensure a consistent and streamlined approach to evaluation across histology-independent products, although with varying strengths and limitations. Alongside these solutions, sponsors should engage early with HTA bodies/payers and regulatory agencies through parallel/joint scientific advice to facilitate the integration of both regulatory and HTA perspectives into one clinical development programme, potentially reconciling evidence requirements.

Common Problems, Common Data Model Solutions: Evidence Generation for Health Technology Assessment.

There is growing interest in using observational data to assess the safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of medical technologies, but operational, technical, and methodological challenges limit its more widespread use. Common data models and federated data networks offer a potential solution to many of these problems. The open-source Observational and Medical Outcomes Partnerships (OMOP) common data model standardises the structure, format, and terminologies of otherwise disparate datasets, enabling the execution of common analytical code across a federated data network in which only code and aggregate results are shared. While common data models are increasingly used in regulatory decision making, relatively little attention has been given to their use in health technology assessment (HTA). We show that the common data model has the potential to facilitate access to relevant data, enable multidatabase studies to enhance statistical power and transfer results across populations and settings to meet the needs of local HTA decision makers, and validate findings. The use of open-source and standardised analytics improves transparency and reduces coding errors, thereby increasing confidence in the results. Further engagement from the HTA community is required to inform the appropriate standards for mapping data to the common data model and to design tools that can support evidence generation and decision making.

Health-related quality of life in people with predementia Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment or dementia measured with preference-based instruments: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining reliable estimates of the health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) of people with predementia Alzheimer's disease [AD] (preclinical or prodromal AD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia is essential for economic evaluations of related health interventions. AIMS: To provide an overview of which quality of life instruments are being used to assess HR-QoL in people with predementia AD, MCI or dementia; and, to summarise their reported HR-QoL levels at each stage of the disease and by type of respondent. METHODS: We systematically searched for and reviewed eligible studies published between January 1990 and the end of April 2017 which reported HR-QoL for people with predementia AD, MCI or dementia. We only included instruments which are preference-based, allowing index scores/utility values to be attached to each health state they describe based on preferences obtained from population surveys. Summary results were presented by respondent type (self or proxy), type of instrument, geographical location and, where possible, stage of disease. Health state utility values derived using the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) were meta-analysed by pooling reported results across all studies by disease severity (MCI, mild, mild to moderate, moderate, severe dementia, not specified) and by respondent (person with dementia, carer, general public, not specified), using a fixed-effects approach. RESULTS: We identified 61 studies which reported HR-QoL for people with MCI or dementia using preference-based instruments, of which 48 used the EQ-5D. Thirty-six studies reported HR-QoL for mild and/or moderate disease severities, and 12 studies reported utility values for MCI. We found systematic differences between self-rated and proxy-rated HR-QoL, with proxy-rated utility valued being significantly lower in more severe disease states. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial literature now exists quantifying the impact of dementia on HR-QoL using preference-based measures, giving researchers and modellers a firmer basis on which to select appropriate utility values when estimating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions in this area. Further research is required on HR-QoL of people with preclinical and prodromal AD and MCI, possible differences by type of dementia, the effects of comorbidities, study setting and the informal caregiver's own HR-QoL, including any effect of that on their proxy-ratings.

Use of Patient Preference Studies in HTA Decision Making: A NICE Perspective.

Patient preference studies could provide valuable insights to a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence committee into the preferences patients have for different treatment options, especially if the study sample is representative of the broader patient population. We identify three main uses of patient preference studies along a technology's pathway from drug development to clinical use: in early clinical development to guide the selection of appropriate endpoints, to inform benefit-risk assessments carried out by regulators and to inform reimbursement decisions made by health technology assessment bodies. In the context of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's methods and processes, we do not see a role for quantitative patient preference data to be directly incorporated into health economic modelling. Rather, we see a role for patient preference studies to be submitted alongside other types of evidence. Examples where patient preference studies might have added value in health technology assessments include cases where two distinctly different treatment options are being compared, when patients have to decide between multiple treatment options, when technologies have important non-health benefits or when a treatment is indicated for a heterogenous population.

Alignment of European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessments: A Review of Licensed Products for Alzheimer's Disease.

Aims: To facilitate regulatory learning, we evaluated similarities and differences in evidence requirements between regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies of Alzheimer's disease (AD) approved products. Methods: The European marketing authorisation application dossiers and European public assessment reports (EPARs) of the licensed AD drugs were screened to identify the phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and outcomes used. We also screened the assessment reports of the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE, England) and the National Health Care Institute (ZiN, the Netherlands) to identify the studies and outcomes used in HTA assessments. Results: The application dossiers of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine contained 16 phase III RCTs in total. These trials were also included in HTA assessments except that NICE excluded studies that were not published (n = 2) or trials that included patients with other types of dementia (n = 3). In the regulatory assessments the focus was on cognitive and global outcomes, and to some extent on function. In the HTA assessments of clinical effectiveness other domains were also covered including: function, behaviour and mood, and, occasionally, quality of life. In the economic analyses of NICE the domains cognition, function, and quality of life were included. Conclusion: There was a large overlap in inclusion of trials in regulatory and HTA assessments, although the focus on specific outcomes slightly differed. Understanding the methods and perceptions of both authorities can stimulate regulatory and HTA cross-talk and further alignment, and therefore more rapid patient access to new treatments.

Key enablers and barriers to implementing adaptive pathways in the European setting.

In 2016, the European Medicines Agency published the conclusions of its pilot on adaptive pathways, with products in early stages of development still building up to their marketing authorisation. Adaptive pathways rests on three principles: iterative development; gathering evidence through real-life use to supplement clinical trial data; and early engagement of patients, payers and health technology assessment bodies in discussions on a medicine's development. While the pilot has now finished, the practical system-wide implications of employing the adaptive pathways approach are not known and further consideration of these three principles is required. In this paper we used the three principles that underpin adaptive pathways to discuss main scientific and European policy developments likely to determine progress on further implementing adaptive pathways in the European setting.

Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients: Why, When, and How to Engage?

Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients (MAPPs) seeks to foster access to novel beneficial treatments for the right patient groups at the earliest appropriate time in the product life-span, in a sustainable fashion. We summarize the MAPPs engagement process and critical questions to be asked at each milestone of the product life-span. These considerations are of relevance for regulatory and access pathways that strive to address the "evidence vs. access" conundrum.

Weighing of Evidence by Health Technology Assessment Bodies: Retrospective Study of Reimbursement Recommendations for Conditionally Approved Drugs.

This study assessed whether five Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies in Europe were more negative about drugs with a Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA) that are approved without controlled studies compared to CMA drugs that are approved based on controlled studies. The HTA recommendations were categorized into positive, restricted, and negative. A total of 92 HTA recommendations were available for 27 drugs. Thirty of 62 (48%) and 17 of 30 (57%) of the recommendations were negative for drugs with and without controlled studies, respectively. Overall, only 12 (13%) recommendations were positive. In all jurisdictions, recommendations between drugs with and drugs without controlled data were comparable, which suggests that the presence of controlled data is not decisive in HTA evaluations. The small proportion of unrestricted positive recommendations highlights difficulties with recommending the drugs in this cohort, which may be caused by scientific uncertainty or other factors. Earlier collaboration between stakeholders is advised in order to improve patient access.

Challenges for Optimizing Real-World Evidence in Alzheimer's Disease: The ROADMAP Project.

ROADMAP is a public-private advisory partnership to evaluate the usability of multiple data sources, including real-world evidence, in the decision-making process for new treatments in Alzheimer's disease, and to advance key concepts in disease and pharmacoeconomic modeling. ROADMAP identified key disease and patient outcomes for stakeholders to make informed funding and treatment decisions, provided advice on data integration methods and standards, and developed conceptual cost-effectiveness and disease models designed in part to assess whether early treatment provides long-term benefit.

Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Considerations for Disease-Modifying Drugs in Alzheimer's Disease.

Although there are a growing number of well-reported, late-stage clinical trial failures in Alzheimer's disease, the introduction of a disease-modifying therapy within the next 5 years may be anticipated. These treatments are likely to target Alzheimer's disease in the earlier disease stages, unlike drugs that are currently available that treat symptoms of moderate-to-severe dementia. Therefore, there is a need to establish a consensus on regulatory and health technology assessment requirements for Alzheimer's disease, as a new drug will need to undergo regulatory and health technology assessments before it becomes available to patients. This article reports the discussions and activities of the regulatory and health technology assessment expert advisory group of the 2-year ROADMAP (real-world outcomes across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum: a multimodal data access platform) project. The expert advisory group discussions identified a lack of consensus on validated outcomes in the earliest Alzheimer's disease stages, the need for filling gaps between outcomes used across clinical trials and real-world settings, and the role that real-world evidence might have in characterising the impact of a possible disease-modifying therapy on caregivers, resource use and long-term outcomes.

Managed Entry Agreements for Pharmaceuticals in the Context of Adaptive Pathways in Europe.

As per the EMA definition, adaptive pathways is a scientific concept for the development of medicines which seeks to facilitate patient access to promising medicines addressing high unmet need through a prospectively planned approach in a sustainable way. This review reports the findings of activities undertaken by the ADAPT-SMART consortium to identify enablers and explore the suitability of managed entry agreements for adaptive pathways products in Europe. We found that during 2006-2016 outcomes-based managed entry agreements were not commonly used for products with a conditional marketing authorization or authorized under exceptional circumstances. The barriers and enablers to develop workable managed entry agreements models for adaptive pathways products were discussed through interviews and a multi-stakeholder workshop with a number of recommendations made in this paper.

Registries in European post-marketing surveillance: a retrospective analysis of centrally approved products, 2005-2013.

PURPOSE: Regulatory agencies and other stakeholders increasingly rely on data collected through registries to support their decision-making. Data from registries are a cornerstone of post-marketing surveillance for monitoring the use of medicines in clinical practice. This study was aimed at gaining further insight into the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) requests for new registries and registry studies using existing registries and to review the experience gained in their conduct. METHODS: European Public Assessment Reports were consulted to identify products for which a request for a registry was made as a condition of the marketing authorisation. All centrally authorised products that received a positive opinion of the EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2013 were included. Data regarding registry design and experiences were collected from EMA electronic record keeping systems. RESULTS: Of 392 products that received a positive Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use opinion during 2005-2013, 31 registries were requested for 30 products in total. Sixty-five percent were product registries whereas 35% were disease registries and 71% of the registries had a primary safety objective. Most commonly reported issues with registries were delayed time to start and low patient accrual rates. CONCLUSIONS: The delays found in getting new registries up and running support the need to improve the timeliness of data collection in the post-marketing setting. Methodological challenges met in conducting this study highlighted the need for a clarification of definitions and epidemiological concepts around patient registries. The results will inform the EMA Patient Registry initiative to support use of existing patient registries for the post-authorisation benefit-risk monitoring of medicinal products. © 2017 Commonwealth of Australia. Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Benefit-risk reassessment of medicines: a retrospective analysis of all safety-related referral procedures in Europe during 2001-2012.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes and timing within the product life cycle of all benefit-risk reassessment procedures for marketed products that were completed by the committee for medicinal product for human use during 2001-2012. METHODS: A cohort of all referral procedures for benefit-risk reassessment (Article 20, Article 31, Article 36, Article 107 procedures) for which committee for medicinal product for human use issued an opinion between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2012 was created. The European Medicines Agency website and the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board website were used to collect all data. RESULTS: There were a total of 73 benefit-risk reassessments during the study period; 61 reassessments for a single product and 12 reassessments for multiple products or an entire product class. Nineteen reassessments resulted in the recommendation to remove the product from the market. On average, a benefit-risk reassessment was performed 18.7 years after the product was first marketed. Seventeen products were marketed 5 years or less when the reassessment procedure was completed; six of these products were subsequently removed from the market. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of all benefit-risk reassessments that were performed during the study period did not result in removing the product from the market, but rather, in confirming the positive benefit-risk of the product, conditional to changes to the product's marketing authorisation. About half of all products that were removed from the market during the 2000s had been marketed for more than 20 years. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

An analysis of marketing authorisation applications via the mutual recognition and decentralised procedures in Europe.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of the outcomes of marketing authorisation applications via the mutual recognition and decentralised procedures (MRP/DCP) and assess determinants of licensing failure during CMDh referral procedures. METHODS: All MRP/DCP procedures to the Co-ordination group for Mutual recognition and Decentralised procedures-human (CMDh) during the period from January 2006 to December 2013 were analysed. Reasons for starting referral procedures were scored. In addition, a survey under pharmaceutical companies was performed to estimate the frequency of licensing failure prior to CMDh referrals. RESULTS: During the study period, 10392 MRP/DCP procedures were finalized. Three hundred seventy-seven (3.6%) resulted in a referral procedure, of which 70 (19%) resulted in licensing failure, defined as refusal or withdrawal of the application. The frequency of CMDh referrals decreased from 14.5% in 2006 to 1.6% in 2013. Of all referrals, 272 (72%) were resolved through consensus within the CMDh, the remaining 105 (28%) were resolved at the level of the CHMP. Most referrals were started because of objections raised about the clinical development program. Study design issues and objections about the demonstration of equivalence were most likely to result in licensing failure. An estimated 11% of all MRP/DCP procedures resulted in licensing failure prior to CMDh referral. CONCLUSION: Whereas the absolute number of MRP/DCP procedures resulting in a referral has reduced substantially over the past years, no specific time trend could be observed regarding the frequency of referrals resulting in licensing failure. Increased knowledge at the level of companies and regulators has reduced the frequency of late-stage failure of marketing applications via the MRP/DCP.

Epidemiology of adverse drug reactions in Europe: a review of recent observational studies.

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) cause considerable mortality and morbidity but no recent reviews are currently available for the European region. Therefore, we performed a review of all epidemiological studies quantifying ADRs in a European setting that were published between 1 January 2000 and 3 September 2014. Included studies assessed the number of patients who were admitted to hospital due to an ADR, studies that assessed the number of patients who developed an ADR during hospitalization, and studies that measured ADRs in the outpatient setting. In total, 47 articles were included in the final review. The median percentage of hospital admissions due to an ADR was 3.5 %, based on 22 studies, and the median percentage of patients who experienced an ADR during hospitalization was 10.1 %, based on 13 studies. Only five studies were found that assessed ADRs occurring in the outpatient setting. These results indicate that the occurrence of ADRs in the European hospital setting-both ADRs that result in hospitalization and ADRs that occur during the hospital stay-is significant. Furthermore, the limited number of studies that were performed in the outpatient setting identify a lack of information regarding the epidemiology of ADRs in this setting.