Navigating the path towards successful implementation of the EU HTA Regulation: key takeaways from the 2023 Spring Convention of the European Access Academy.

BACKGROUND: The European Regulation on Health Technology Assessment (EU HTA R), effective since January 2022, aims to harmonize and improve the efficiency of common HTA across Member States (MS), with a phased implementation from January 2025. At "midterms" of the preparation phase for the implementation of the Regulation our aim was to identify and prioritize tangible action points to move forward. METHODS: During the 2023 Spring Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), participants from different nationalities and stakeholder backgrounds discussed readiness and remaining challenges for the Regulation's implementation and identified and prioritized action points. For this purpose, participants were assigned to four working groups: (i) Health Policy Challenges, (ii) Stakeholder Readiness, (iii) Approach to Uncertainty and (iv) Challenges regarding Methodology. Top four action points for each working group were identified and subsequently ranked by all participants during the final plenary session. RESULTS: Overall "readiness" for the Regulation was perceived as neutral. Prioritized action points included the following: Health Policy, i.e. assess adjustability of MS laws and health policy processes; Stakeholders, i.e. capacity building; Uncertainty, i.e. implement HTA guidelines as living documents; Methodology, i.e. clarify the Population, Intervention, Comparator(s), Outcomes (PICO) identification process. CONCLUSIONS: At "midterms" of the preparation phase, the focus for the months to come is on executing the tangible action points identified at EAA's Spring Convention. All action points centre around three overarching themes: harmonization and standardization, capacity building and collaboration, uncertainty management and robust data. These themes will ultimately determine the success of the EU HTA R in the long run.

An Inclusive Civil Society Dialogue for Successful Implementation of the EU HTA Regulation: Call to Action to Ensure Appropriate Involvement of Stakeholders and Collaborators.

OBJECTIVES: Stakeholder involvement has long been considered a success factor for a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) process, and its relevance is now anchored in the EU HTA Regulation's (EU HTAR) legislative wording. Therefore, we aimed to explore the roles, challenges, and most important activities to increase the level of involvement per stakeholder group. METHODS: At the 2022 Fall Convention of the European Access Academy (EAA), working groups addressed the involvement of patients, clinicians, regulators, health technology developers (HTD), and national HTA bodies and payers within the EU HTA process. Each working group revisited the pre-convention survey results, determined key role characteristics for each stakeholder, and agreed on the most important activities to fulfill the role profile. Finally, the activities suggested per group were prioritized by plenary group. RESULTS: The prioritized actions for patients included training and capacity building, the establishment of a patient involvement committee, and the establishment of a patient unit at the EC secretariat. For clinicians, it included alignment on evidence assessment from a clinical vs. HTA point of view, capacity building, and standardization of processes. The most important actions for regulators are to develop joint regulatory-HTA guidance documents, align processes and interfaces under the regulation, and share discussions on post-licensing evidence generation. HTDs prioritized scientific advice capacity and the review of the scoping process, and further development of the scope of the assessment report fact checks. The top three actions for national HTA bodies and payers included clarification on the early HTD dialogue process, political support and commitment, and clarification on financial support. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the activities identified as the most important for stakeholders/collaborators in the EU HTA process (e.g., in the implementation of the EU HTA Stakeholder Network and of the guidance documents developed by the EUnetHTA 21 consortium) will be key to starting an "inclusive civil society dialogue", as suggested by the European Commission's Pharmaceutical Strategy.

Modified study designs to expand treatment options in personalised oncology: a multistakeholder view.

Personalised oncology, whereby patients are given therapies based on their molecular tumour profile, is rapidly becoming an essential part of optimal clinical care, at least partly facilitated by recent advances in next-generation sequencing-based technology using liquid- and tissue-based biopsies. Consequently, clinical trials have shifted in approach, from traditional studies evaluating cytotoxic chemotherapy in largely histology-based populations to modified, biomarker-driven studies (e.g. basket, umbrella, platform) of molecularly guided therapies and cancer immunotherapies in selected patient subsets. Such modified study designs may assess, within the same trial structure, multiple cancer types and treatments, and should incorporate a multistakeholder perspective. This is key to generating complementary, fit-for-purpose and timely evidence for molecularly guided therapies that can be used as proof-of-concept to inform further study designs, lead to approval by regulatory authorities and be used as confirmation of clinical benefit for health technology assessment bodies. In general, the future of cancer clinical trials requires a framework for the application of innovative technologies and dynamic design methodologies, in order to efficiently transform scientific discoveries into clinical utility. Next-generation, modified studies that involve the joint efforts of all key stakeholders will offer individualised strategies that ultimately contribute to globalised knowledge and collective learning. In this review, we outline the background and purpose of such modified study designs and detail key aspects from a multistakeholder perspective. We also provide methodological considerations for designing the studies and highlight how insights from already-ongoing studies may address current challenges and opportunities in the era of personalised oncology.

The role of stakeholder involvement in the evolving EU HTA process: Insights generated through the European Access Academy's multi-stakeholder pre-convention questionnaire.

Involvement of all relevant stakeholders will be of utmost importance for the success of the developing EU HTA harmonization process. A multi-step procedure was applied to develop a survey across stakeholders/collaborators within the EU HTA framework to assess their current level of involvement, determine their suggested future role, identify challenges to contribution, and highlight efficient ways to fulfilling their role. The 'key' stakeholder groups identified and covered by this research included: patients', clinicians', regulatory, and Health Technology Developer representatives. The survey was circulated to a wide expert audience including all relevant stakeholder groups in order to determine self-perception by the 'key' stakeholders regarding involvement in the HTA process (self-rating), and in a second, slightly modified version of the questionnaire, to determine the perception of 'key' stakeholder involvement by HTA bodies, payers, and policymakers (external rating). Predefined analyses were conducted on the submitted responses. Fifty-four responses were received (patients 9; clinicians: 8; regulators: 4; HTDs 14; HTA bodies: 7; Payers: 5; policymakers 3; others 4). The mean self-perceived involvement score was consistently lower for each of the 'key' stakeholder groups than the respective external ratings. Based on the qualitative insights generated in the survey, a RACI Chart (Responsible/Accountable/Consulted/Informed) was developed for each of the stakeholder groups to determine their roles and involvement in the current EU HTA process. Our findings suggest extensive effort and a distinct research agenda are required to ensure adequate involvement of the key stakeholder groups in the evolving EU HTA process.

Generating the Right Evidence at the Right Time: Principles of a New Class of Flexible Augmented Clinical Trial Designs.

To support informed decision making, clear descriptions of the beneficial and harmful effects of a treatment are needed by various stakeholders. The current paradigm is to generate evidence sequentially through different experiments. However, data generated later, perhaps through observational studies, can be difficult to compare with earlier randomized trial data, resulting in confusion in understanding and interpretation of treatment effects. Moreover, the scientific questions these later experiments can serve to answer often remain vague. We propose Flexible Augmented Clinical Trial for Improved eVidence gEneration (FACTIVE), a new class of study designs enabling flexible augmentation of confirmatory randomized controlled trials with concurrent and close-to-real-world elements. Our starting point is to use clearly defined objectives for evidence generation, which are formulated through early discussion with health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and are additional to regulatory requirements for authorization of a new treatment. These enabling designs facilitate estimation of certain well-defined treatment effects in the confirmatory part and other complementary treatment effects in a concurrent real-world part. Each stakeholder should use the evidence that is relevant within their own decision-making framework. High quality data are generated under one single protocol and the use of randomization ensures rigorous statistical inference and interpretation within and between the different parts of the experiment. Evidence for the decision making of HTA bodies could be available earlier than is currently the case.

Can we use existing guidance to support the development of robust real-world evidence for health technology assessment/payer decision-making?

Advances in the digitization of health systems and expedited regulatory approvals of innovative treatments have led to increased potential for the use of real-world data (RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE) to complement evidence from clinical trials. However, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and payers have concerns about the ability to generate RWE of sufficient quality to be pivotal evidence of relative treatment effectiveness. Consequently, there is a growing need for HTA bodies and payers to develop guidance for the industry and other stakeholders about the use of RWD/RWE to support access, reimbursement, and pricing. We therefore sought to (i) understand barriers to the use of RWD/RWE by HTA bodies and payers; (ii) review potential solutions in the form of published guidance; and (iii) review findings with selected HTA/payer bodies. Four themes considered key to shaping the generation of robust RWE for HTA bodies and payers were identified as: (i) data (availability, governance, and quality); (ii) methodology (design and analytics); (iii) trust (transparency and reproducibility); and (iv) policy and partnerships. A range of guidance documents were found from trusted sources that could address these themes. These were discussed with HTA experts. This commentary summarizes the potential guidance solutions available to help resolve issues faced by HTA decision-makers in the adoption of RWD/RWE. It shows that there is alignment among stakeholders about the areas that need improvement in the development of RWE and that the key priority to move forward is better collaboration to make data usable for multiple purposes.

A framework for assessing the impact of accelerated approval.

The FDA's Accelerated Approval program (AA) is a regulatory program to expedite availability of products to treat serious or life-threatening illnesses that lack effective treatment alternatives. Ideally, all of the many stakeholders such as patients, physicians, regulators, and health technology assessment [HTA] agencies that are affected by AA should benefit from it. In practice, however, there is intense debate over whether evidence supporting AA is sufficient to meet the needs of the stakeholders who collectively bring an approved product into routine clinical care. As AAs have become more common, it becomes essential to be able to determine their impact objectively and reproducibly in a way that provides for consistent evaluation of therapeutic decision alternatives. We describe the basic features of an approach for evaluating AA impact that accommodates stakeholder-specific views about potential benefits, risks, and costs. The approach is based on a formal decision-analytic framework combining predictive distributions for therapeutic outcomes (efficacy and safety) based on statistical models that incorporate findings from AA trials with stakeholder assessments of various actions that might be taken. The framework described here provides a starting point for communicating the value of a treatment granted AA in the context of what is important to various stakeholders.

Estimands and Complex Innovative Designs.

Since the release of the ICH E9(R1) (International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Addendum on Estimands and Sensitivity Analysis in Clinical Trials to the Guideline on Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials) document in 2019, the estimand framework has become a fundamental part of clinical trial protocols. In parallel, complex innovative designs have gained increased popularity in drug development, in particular in early development phases or in difficult experimental situations. While the estimand framework is relevant to any study in which a treatment effect is estimated, experience is lacking as regards its application to these designs. In a basket trial for example, should a different estimand be specified for each subpopulation of interest, defined, for example, by cancer site? Or can a single estimand focusing on the general population (defined, for example, by the positivity to a certain biomarker) be used? In the case of platform trials, should a different estimand be proposed for each drug investigated? In this work we discuss possible ways of implementing the estimand framework for different types of complex innovative designs. We consider trials that allow adding or selecting experimental treatment arms, modifying the control arm or the standard of care, and selecting or pooling populations. We also address the potentially data-driven, adaptive selection of estimands in an ongoing trial and disentangle certain statistical issues that pertain to estimation rather than to estimands, such as the borrowing of nonconcurrent information. We hope this discussion will facilitate the implementation of the estimand framework and its description in the study protocol when the objectives of the trial require complex innovative designs.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Initiation of Clinical Trials in Europe and the United States.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has a major impact not only on public health and daily living, but also on clinical trials worldwide. To investigate the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the initiation of clinical trials, we have descriptively analyzed the longitudinal change in phase II and III interventional clinical trials initiated in Europe and in the United States. Based on the public clinical trial register EU Clinical Trials Register and clinicaltrials.gov, we conducted (i) a yearly comparison of the number of initiated trials from 2010 to 2020 and (ii) a monthly comparison from January 2020 to February 2021 of the number of initiated trials. The analyses indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic affected both the initiation of clinical trials overall and the initiation of non-COVID-19 trials. An increase in the overall numbers of clinical trials could be observed both in Europe and the United States in 2020 as compared with 2019. However, the number of non-COVID-19 trials initiated is reduced as compared with the previous decade, with a slightly larger relative decrease in the United States as compared to Europe. Additionally, the monthly trend for the initiation of non-COVID-19 trials differs between regions. In the United States, after a sharp decrease in April 2020, trial numbers reached the levels of 2019 from June 2020 onward. In Europe, the decrease was less pronounced, but trial numbers mainly remained below the 2019 average until February 2021.

Perspectives on a Way Forward to Implementation of Precision Medicine in Patients With Diabetic Kidney Disease; Results of a Stakeholder Consensus-Building Meeting.

Aim: This study aimed to identify from different stakeholders the benefits and obstacles of implementing precision medicine in diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and to build consensus about a way forward in order to treat, prevent, or even reverse this disease. Methods: As part of an ongoing effort of moving implementation of precision medicine in DKD forward, a two-day consensus-building meeting was organized with different stakeholders involved in drug development and patient care in DKD, including patients, patient representatives, pharmaceutical industry, regulatory agencies representatives, health technology assessors, healthcare professionals, basic scientists, and clinical academic researchers. The meeting consisted of plenary presentations and discussions, and small group break-out sessions. Discussion topics were based on a symposium, focus groups and literature search. Benefits, obstacles and potential solutions toward implementing precision medicine were discussed. Results from the break-out sessions were presented in plenary and formed the basis of a broad consensus discussion to reach final conclusions. Throughout the meeting, participants answered several statement and open-ended questions on their mobile device, using a real-time online survey tool. Answers to the statement questions were analyzed descriptively. Results of the open-ended survey questions, the break-out sessions and the consensus discussion were analyzed qualitatively. Results and conclusion: Seventy-one participants from 26 countries attended the consensus-building meeting in Amsterdam, April 2019. During the opening plenary on the first day, the participants agreed with the statement that precision medicine is the way forward in DKD (n = 57, median 90, IQR [75-100]). Lack of efficient tools for implementation in practice and generating robust data were identified as significant obstacles. The identified benefits, e.g., improvement of the benefit-risk ratio of treatment, offer substantive incentives to find solutions for the identified obstacles. Earlier and increased multi-stakeholder collaboration and specific training may provide solutions to alter clinical and regulatory guidelines that lie at the basis of both obstacles and solutions. At the end of the second day, the opinion of the participants toward precision medicine in DKD was somewhat more nuanced (n = 45, median 83, IQR [70-92]) and they concluded that precision medicine is an important way forward in improving the treatment of patients with DKD.

The use of external controls: To what extent can it currently be recommended?

With more and better clinical data being captured outside of clinical studies and greater data sharing of clinical studies, external controls may become a more attractive alternative to randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Both industry and regulators recognize that in situations where a randomized study cannot be performed, external controls can provide the needed contextualization to allow a better interpretation of studies without a randomized control. It is also agreed that external controls will not fully replace RCTs as the gold standard for formal proof of efficacy in drug development and the yardstick of clinical research. However, it remains unclear in which situations conclusions about efficacy and a positive benefit/risk can reliably be based on the use of an external control. This paper will provide an overview on types of external control, their applications and the different sources of bias their use may incur, and discuss potential mitigation steps. It will also give recommendations on how the use of external controls can be justified.

Collaborative Platform Trials to Fight COVID-19: Methodological and Regulatory Considerations for a Better Societal Outcome.

For the development of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) drugs during the ongoing pandemic, speed is of essence whereas quality of evidence is of paramount importance. Although thousands of COVID-19 trials were rapidly started, many are unlikely to provide robust statistical evidence and meet regulatory standards (e.g., because of lack of randomization or insufficient power). This has led to an inefficient use of time and resources. With more coordination, the sheer number of patients in these trials might have generated convincing data for several investigational treatments. Collaborative platform trials, comparing several drugs to a shared control arm, are an attractive solution. Those trials can utilize a variety of adaptive design features in order to accelerate the finding of life-saving treatments. In this paper, we discuss several possible designs, illustrate them via simulations, and also discuss challenges, such as the heterogeneity of the target population, time-varying standard of care, and the potentially high number of false hypothesis rejections in phase II and phase III trials. We provide corresponding regulatory perspectives on approval and reimbursement, and note that the optimal design of a platform trial will differ with our societal objective and by stakeholder. Hasty approvals may delay the development of better alternatives, whereas searching relentlessly for the single most efficacious treatment may indirectly diminish the number of lives saved as time is lost. We point out the need for incentivizing developers to participate in collaborative evidence-generation initiatives when a positive return on investment is not met.

Towards a better use of scientific advice for developers of advanced therapies.

Scientific advice (SA) is an important tool offered by regulators to help developers generate robust evidence on a medicine's benefits and risks. Drawing on accumulated experience and looking at the SA provided by the European Medicines Agency in 2018 to advanced therapy medicinal products originally developed by public bodies, we discuss most commonly raised issues and the complexity and timings of the questions posed. Earlier and more frequent SA could help advanced therapy medicinal product developers to pre-empt delays at the marketing authorisation stage. Carefully addressing quality and nonclinical issues before entering the pivotal phase of development will clear the path for a smooth clinical development and successful marketing authorisation.

Single-Arm Clinical Trials as Pivotal Evidence for Cancer Drug Approval: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Centralized European Marketing Authorizations Between 2010 and 2019.

The traditional drug development paradigm, consisting of sequential phases and randomized studies, has been challenged in oncology and hemato-oncology. In the regulatory context, a number of new products have been authorized based on nonrandomized efficacy and safety data. We retrospectively analyzed the European public assessment reports for anticancer treatments authorized between 2010 and 2019 to describe the data behind such approvals. Twenty-two initial marketing authorizations, mainly conditional, were identified. Fifty percent of the products had an orphan indication, and 77% had received previous scientific advice. Conclusions of clinical benefit were based on tumor responses, ranging between 15.8 and 88%. Our data shows that single-arm clinical studies leading to positive regulatory outcomes share common methodological approaches and end points, mostly comparing the overall response rate with a fixed success threshold as the primary analysis. The clinical indications in these approvals are clustered in late-line settings, hematological malignancies, and lung cancer. Our findings underline the need to reflect on the current practice, the methodological aspects, and end points in single-arm studies, and develop specific regulatory guidance on nonrandomized and novel study designs.

Current Statistical Considerations and Regulatory Perspectives on the Planning of Confirmatory Basket, Umbrella, and Platform Trials.

Master protocols have received a growing interest during the last years. By assigning patients to specific substudies, they aim at targeting and accelerating clinical development. Given their complexity, basket, umbrella, and platform designs have raised challenging regulatory and statistical questions, especially the control of multiplicity in confirmatory trials. In basket trials, regulatory assessment of the benefit/risk in pooled populations and choice of the treatment indication is challenging. We provide here our perspectives on these topics. In master protocols, as long as the statistical hypotheses tested between the different substudies are independent, no supplementary adjustment for multiplicity over the different substudies should be required. Moreover, sharing a control arm within an umbrella or a platform trial investigating different drugs would not require a correction for the type I error rate, whereas the chance of multiple false positive regulatory decisions should be recognized. In basket trials, pooling across substudies requires a rationale supporting the intended indication and should be preplanned. Assessment of the benefit/risk in pooled target populations can be complicated by differences in design or in efficacy/safety signals between the substudies. While trials governed by a master protocol can offer logistic and financial advantages, more experience is needed to gain a deeper insight into this novel framework.

Recognizing that Evidence is Made, not Born.

Therapeutic product development, licensing and reimbursement may seem a well-oiled machine, but continuing high attrition rates, regulatory refusals, and patients' access issues suggest otherwise; despite serious efforts, gaps persist between stakeholders' stated evidence requirements and actual evidence supplied. Evidentiary deficiencies and/or human tendencies resulting in avoidable inefficiencies might be further reduced with fresh institutional cultures/mindsets, combined with a context-adaptable practices framework that integrates emerging innovations. Here, Structured Evidence Planning, Production, and Evaluation (SEPPE) posits that evidence be treated as something produced, much like other manufactured goods, for which "built-in quality" (i.e., "people" and "process") approaches have been successfully implemented globally. Incorporating proactive, iterative feedback-and-adjust loops involving key decision-makers at critical points could curtail avoidable evidence quality and decision hazards-pulling needed therapeutic products with high quality evidence of beneficial performance through to approvals. Critical for success, however, is dedicated, long-term commitment to systemic transformation.

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.

The impact of parallel regulatory-health technology assessment scientific advice on clinical development. Assessing the uptake of regulatory and health technology assessment recommendations.

AIMS: The parallel regulatory-health technology assessment scientific advice (PSA) procedure allows manufacturers to receive simultaneous feedback from both EU regulators and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies on development plans for new medicines. The primary objective of the present study is to investigate whether PSA is integrated in the clinical development programmes for which advice was sought. METHODS: Contents of PSA provided by regulators and HTA bodies for each procedure between 2010 and 2015 were analysed. The development of all clinical studies for which PSA had been sought was tracked using three different databases. The rate of uptake of the advice provided by regulators and HTA bodies was assessed on two key variables: comparator/s and primary endpoint. RESULTS: In terms of uptake of comparator recommendations at the time of PSA in the actual development, our analysis showed that manufacturers implemented comparators to address both the needs of regulators and of at least one HTA body in 12 of 21 studies. For primary endpoints, in all included studies manufacturers addressed both the needs of the regulators and at least one HTA body. CONCLUSIONS: One of the key findings of this analysis is that manufacturers tend to implement changes to the development programme based on both regulatory and HTA advice with regards to the choice of primary endpoint and comparator. It also confirms the challenging choice of the study comparator, for which manufacturers seem to be more inclined to satisfy the regulatory advice. Continuous research efforts in this area are of paramount importance from a public health perspective.