Illustrating the financial consequences of outcome-based payment models from a payers perspective- the case of autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel (Libmeldy®).

OBJECTIVE: To illustrate the financial consequences of implementing different managed entry agreements ((MEA) for the Dutch healthcare system for autologous gene therapy atidarsagene autotemcel (AA, Libmeldy®), while also providing a first systematic guidance on how to construct MEAs to aid future reimbursement decision-making and create patient access to high-cost, one-off potentially curative therapies. METHODS: Three payment models were compared: (1) an arbitrary 60% price discount, (2) an outcome-based spread payment with discounts, and (3) an outcome-based spread payment linked to a willingness to pay model with discounts. Financial consequences were estimated for full responders (A), patients responding according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in HTA reports (B), and unstable responders (C). The associated costs for an average patient during the timeframe of the payment agreement, the total budget impact, and associated benefits expressed in quality-adjusted life-years of the patient population were calculated. RESULTS: When patients responded according to the predicted clinical pathway presented in HTA reports (Scenario B), implementing outcome-based reimbursement models (models 2 and 3) had lower associated budget impacts while gaining similar benefits compared to the discount (Scenario 1, €8,9 million to €6,6 million vs. €9.2 million). In the case of unstable responders (Scenario C), costs for payers are lower in the outcome-based scenarios (€4.1 million and €3.0 million, Scenario 2.C and 3.C, respectively) compared to implementing the discount (€9.2 million, Scenario 1.C). CONCLUSION: Outcome-based models can mitigate the financial risk of reimbursing AA. This can be considerably beneficial over simple discounts when clinical performance was similar to or worse than predicted.

Lessons learned from postmarketing withdrawals of expedited approvals for oncology drug indications.

In the past decade, there have been a record number of oncology therapy approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Besides the EMA's conditional marketing authorisation programme and the FDA's Accelerated Approval Program, we observe a tendency towards fast approval for exploratory studies with non-randomised, uncontrolled designs and surrogate endpoints. This issue raises concerns about the robustness and effectiveness of accepted treatments, leaving patients and health-care professionals in a state of uncertainty. A substantial number of accelerated approvals have recently been withdrawn in the USA, with some still authorised in Europe, emphasising discrepancies in regulatory standards that affect both patients and society as a whole. We highlight examples of drugs, authorised on the basis of surrogate endpoints, that were later withdrawn due to an absence of overall survival benefit. Our findings address the challenges and consequences of accelerated approval pathways in oncology. In conclusion, this Policy Review calls for regulatory bodies to better align their procedures and insist on robust evidence, preferably through unbiased randomised controlled trials. Drug approval processes should prioritise patient benefit, overall survival, and quality of life to minimise risks and uncertainties for patients.

The impact of an 'evergreening' strategy nearing patent expiration on the uptake of biosimilars and public healthcare costs: a case study on the introduction of a second administration form of trastuzumab in The Netherlands.

In this paper, we explore dynamic market share and public healthcare costs of trastuzumab's evergreening (subcutaneous) variant during introduction of trastuzumab's competitive biosimilar variants in the Netherlands. We used a time series design to assess dynamic market share of trastuzumab's evergreening variant after introducing trastuzumab's biosimilar variants, focusing on the number of treatments and patients. The public healthcare costs of this evergreening strategy were estimated using administrative claims data. Our results show that the original trastuzumab was completely replaced by the subcutaneous and biosimilar variants. The uptake of the subcutaneous form peaked at 50% market share but after the introduction of biosimilars progressively reduced to a market share of 20%, resulting in a more competitive market structure. The public healthcare costs for trastuzumab significantly decreased after the introduction of the biosimilars. After the introduction of the biosimilars, a substantial price drop is visible, with the subcutaneous version, still under patent, also falling sharply in price but less strongly than the iv/biosimilar version. As the costs are publicly funded, we recommend a more explicit societal debate to consider if the potential benefits of subcutaneous Herceptin® (and other similar medicines) are worth the additional costs, and at which price it should be reimbursed as the part of the benefit package.

Systemic anticancer treatment in the Netherlands: Few hospitals treat many patients, many hospitals treat few patients.

INTRODUCTION: The correlation between patient volume and clinical outcomes is well known for various oncological treatments, especially in the surgical field. The current level of centralisation of systemic treatment of (hemato-)oncology indications in Dutch hospitals is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to gain insight in patient volumes per hospital of patients treated with systemic anticancer treatment in the Netherlands. METHODS: National claims data (Vektis) of all 73 Dutch hospitals that provide systemic anticancer medication in the Netherlands for the time period 2019 were used. The distribution of volumes of patients treated with anticancer medication for 38 different haematological or oncological indications was analysed. Hospitals were categorized into academic/specialised, general, and top clinical. Two volume cut off points (10 and 30 patients) were used to identify hospitals treating relatively few patients with anticancer medication. Four indications were investigated in more detail. RESULTS: A wide distribution in patient volumes within hospitals was observed. Top clinical hospitals generally treated the most patients per hospital, followed by general and academic/specialised oncology hospitals. The volume cut off points showed that in 19 indications (50%) the majority (>50%) of all hospitals treated less than 10 patients and in 25 indications (66%) the majority of all hospitals treated less than 30 patients with anticancer medication. Four case studies demonstrated that relatively few hospitals treat many patients while many hospitals treat few patients with anticancer medication. CONCLUSION: In the majority of oncology indications, a large proportion of Dutch hospitals treat small numbers of unique patients with anticancer medication. The high level of fragmentation gives ground for further exploration and discussion on how the organisation of care can support optimization of the efficiency and quality of care. Professional groups, policy makers, patients, and healthcare insurers should consider per indication whether centralisation is warranted.

The Beneluxa Initiative domain task force health technology assessment: a comparison of member countries' past health technology assessments.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare assessments between Beneluxa Initiative member countries' assessments and identify alignments and divergences. METHODS: A retrospective comparative analysis was performed that investigated (i) number and type of assessed indications (for Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Ireland (IE), and the Netherlands (NL)); (ii) added benefit conclusions (for BE, IE, and NL); and (iii) the main arguments underlying differences in conclusions (for BE, IE, and NL). Data were retrieved directly from agency representatives and from public HTA reports. European Medicines Agency approved indications were included for drugs assessed between 2016 and 2020, excluding veterinary drugs, generics, and biosimilars. RESULTS: Only 44 (10 percent) of the 444 included indications were assessed by all four member countries. Between any pair of two countries, the overlap was higher, from 63 (AT-NL) to 188 (BE-IE). Added benefit conclusions matched exactly in 62-74 percent of the indications, depending on the countries compared. In the remaining cases, most often a difference of one added benefit level was observed (e.g., higher vs. equal relative effect). Contradictory outcomes were very rare: only three cases were observed (lower vs. higher effect). When assessing the underlying arguments for seven cases with different outcomes, differences were attributable to slight differences in weighing of evidence and uncertainties rather than disagreement on aspects within the assessment itself. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high variability in European HTA procedures, collaboration on HTA between the Beneluxa Initiative member countries is very feasible and would likely not result in added benefit conclusions that would be very different from added benefit conclusions in national procedures.

Patient experiences and views on pharmaceutical care during adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: The use of adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) after primary treatment of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer reduces the risk of recurrence and mortality. However, non-adherence is still common. Limited consideration has been given to how users deal with AET and the role of pharmaceutical care. Therefore, this study aims to obtain insight into the needs and wishes of women using AET regarding pharmaceutical care and eHealth. METHODS: This is a qualitative explorative study comprising semi-structured interviews (n = 16) and a focus group (n = 5) among women who use or used AET after primary early-stage breast cancer (EBC) treatment using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Three themes emerged from the interviews and focus group: (1) experiences with AET use, (2) experiences with provided information and (3) needs and wishes regarding pharmaceutical care. Most women were highly motivated to use AET and indicated to have received useful information on AET. However, many expressed a strong need for more elaborate tailored and timely provided information on AET. They acknowledged the accessibility of pharmacists but reported that currently, pharmacists are hardly involved in AET care. Several women considered eHealth useful to obtain counselling and reliable information. CONCLUSION: Women need more comprehensive information and follow-up in primary setting after initial cancer treatments. A more elaborate role for the pharmacy and eHealth/mHealth, especially with regard to counselling on side effects and side effect management, could potentially improve pharmaceutical care.

Involvement of Patients and Medical Professionals in the Assessment of Relative Effectiveness: A Need for Closer Cooperation.

OBJECTIVES: Involvement of patients and medical professionals in assessment of relative effectiveness (relative effectiveness assessment) contributes to an efficient and effective health technology assessment (HTA) process and supports acceptance and implementation of the outcome. This study aimed to analyze stakeholder involvement in assessing relative effectiveness and how the parties involved value this collaboration. METHODS: This is a document analysis of all drug assessments completed in 2019 (20) by the public HTA agency of The Netherlands, enriched with semistructured interviews with employees of the HTA agency (18) and representatives of patient (5) and medical (11) associations involved in these assessments. Data were analyzed, coded, and categorized. RESULTS: In almost half of the assessments, there was no coordination with the medical associations at the start of the relative effectiveness assessment and no patient associations involved in this phase. During the assessment procedure, patient and medical associations were always asked to comment on the draft report. Nevertheless, the strict 5-day deadline that the HTA agency uses as a response period often hampered a proper response and involvement. According to interviewees of the HTA agency, this leads to a great diversity in the substantive quality of their input. Patient and medical associations indicated that the HTA agency relies too much on "paper knowledge," which leads to a (perceived) lack of alignment with clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The limited involvement results in a lack of coordination and mutual trust. Optimizing involvement of patients and medical professionals in HTA practice requires effort from all parties involved. Procedural adjustments and better coordination, especially at the start of the assessment, would probably improve cooperation.

Manufacturers' views on outcome-based agreements.

INTRODUCTION: Outcome-based agreements (OBAs) are occasionally deployed to relieve the burden of high drug prices on healthcare budgets. However, it is not clear when manufacturers are willing to collaborate in establishing such agreements. Therefore, we explored the feasibility of OBAs from the manufacturer's point of view. METHODS: Dutch market-access experts from eight major pharmaceutical companies, globally active in the field of oncology, were interviewed. Opinions were compiled, and interviewees and their colleagues were then given the chance to review the manuscript for additional comments. RESULTS: Most interviewees believe that OBAs can be useful in providing access to off-label use of authorised medicines, especially when no alternative treatment is available for seriously ill patients. For the licenced indications, manufacturers seem to be more inclined to collaborate when there is a potential incentive to improve market-access (e.g., if the product is not used because of concerns regarding its effectiveness). However, manufacturers are less likely to collaborate when there are greater financial risks for the company. Further concerns were definition of outcome or performance, the impact of compliance on the effectiveness of a drug, administrative burden, uncertainty regarding revenue recognition and the challenges of reimbursing combination therapies. DISCUSSION: Market-access interviewees were generally positive about OBAs, however they were more reluctant towards OBAs for registered indications with low response-rate. The definition of performance or outcome and its clinical relevance and validity, the feasibility of OBAs and their administrative burden are relevant aspects that need to be addressed in advance. Ideally, countries should collaborate to share the outline of OBAs and create shared databases to accumulate evidence.

[The assessment of the price of a medicine: not only on the basis of the value for the patient]. / Beoordeling van de prijs van een geneesmiddel.

Before admission to the insured package, the price of a medicine is usually assessed on the basis of the value of the medicine for the patient: a large effect size on health and survival may cost more than a small or uncertain effect. That seems like a fair starting point, but such 'value-driven' models sometimes lead to unreasonably high prices. This in turn leads to discussions about limitations within the healthcare budget and to delays in the accessibility of medicines. We argue that it would be more logical for different categories of medicines to base prices on average costs, possibly combined with a bonus for innovation: the so-called cost-plus method.

Exploring the opportunities for alignment of regulatory postauthorization requirements and data required for performance-based managed entry agreements.

Performance-based managed entry agreements (PB-MEAs) might allow patient access to new medicines, but practical hurdles make competent authorities for pricing and reimbursement (CAPR) reluctant to implement PB-MEAs. We explored if the feasibility of PB-MEAs might improve by better aligning regulatory postauthorization requirements with the data generation of PB-MEAs and by active collaboration and data sharing. Reviewers from seven CAPRs provided structured assessments of the information available at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Web site on regulatory postauthorization requirements for fifteen recently authorized products. The reviewers judged to what extent regulatory postauthorization studies could help implement PB-MEAs by addressing uncertainty gaps. Study domains assessed were: patient population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, time horizon, anticipated data quality, and anticipated robustness of analysis. Reviewers shared general comments about PB-MEAs for each product and on cooperation with other CAPRs. Reviewers rated regulatory postauthorization requirements at least partly helpful for most products and across domains except the comparator domain. One quarter of responses indicated that public information provided by the EMA was insufficient to support the implementation of PB-MEAs. Few PB-MEAs were in place for these products, but the potential for implementation of PB-MEAs or collaboration across CAPRs was seen as more favorable. Responses helped delineate a set of conditions where PB-MEAs may help reduce uncertainty. In conclusion, PB-MEAs are not a preferred option for CAPRs, but we identified conditions where PB-MEAs might be worth considering. The complexities of implementing PB-MEAs remain a hurdle, but collaboration across silos and more transparency on postauthorization studies could help overcome some barriers.

Cost-Based Price Calculation of Mexiletine for Nondystrophic Myotonia.

OBJECTIVES: Mexiletine is a long-known drug used for the treatment of arrhythmias and repurposed in the 1980s for patients with nondystrophic myotonia (NDM). Recently, the price of mexiletine in Europe increased significantly after registration as an orphan drug for NDM. This led to international discussions on affordability and willingness to reimburse mexiletine in the absence of background information that would justify such a price. Our objective was to calculate a cost-based price for mexiletine for adult patients with NDM based on detailed information on development costs. METHODS: We calculated a fair price based on a cost-based pricing model for commercial mexiletine to treat adults with NDM using a recent European drug-pricing model as a framework to include actual costs incurred. Three scenarios were applied: 1 with minimum estimated costs, 1 with maximum estimated costs, and 1 with costs as if mexiletine was innovative. RESULTS: The calculated fair price of mexiletine per patient per year (PPPY) is €452 for the minimum scenario and €1996 for the maximum scenario. By using hypothetical R&D costs used for innovative drugs, the price would be €6685 PPPY. In Europe, the list price of mexiletine ranges from €30 707-60 730 PPPY, based on 600 mg daily. CONCLUSIONS: The current list price for mexiletine in Europe is manifold higher than any scenario of the cost-based models. Accounting for the reduced costs for clinical development in a repurposing scenario, the cost-based pricing model provides a fair commercial price range, which can be used as benchmark for pricing negotiations and/or reimbursement decisions.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment discontinuation in chronic myeloid leukemia: patient views.

Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in deep molecular remission may discontinue tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment without relapse. The present study aims to gain insight into the views of CML patients on TKI treatment discontinuation and identify factors that are associated with their willingness to discontinue treatment. A cross-sectional study, among adult Dutch CML patients was conducted to assess willingness and their views on benefits of and concerns about discontinuation. A total of 185 patients participated of whom 76% were willing to discontinue TKI-treatment. Patients considered the absence of side effects the most important benefit whereas fear of disease recurrence was their most prominent concern. Adequate monitoring was the most important prerequisite for TKI-treatment discontinuation. However, ambiguity with respect to perquisites indicate that patients on long-term TKI treatment should be adequately informed both on the possibility to discontinue treatment and on its benefits, risks, and measures that address risks.

Response and Adherence to Nilotinib in Daily practice (RAND study): an in-depth observational study of chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with nilotinib.

INTRODUCTION: This comprehensive observational study aimed to gain insight into adherence to nilotinib and the effect of (non)adherence on exposure (Cmin) and treatment outcomes. METHODS: Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients using nilotinib were followed for 12 months. Adherence was measured by Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS), pill count, and Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-5). Nilotinib Cmin and patient-reported outcomes (i.e., quality of life, side effects, beliefs, satisfaction) were measured at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (57.5 ± 15.0 years, 49% female) participated. Median adherence to nilotinib (MEMS and pill count) was ≥ 99% and adherence < 90% was rare. Self-reported nonadherence (MARS-5) increased in the first year of treatment to a third of patients. In line with the strong beliefs in the necessity of taking nilotinib, forgetting to take a dose was more prevalent than intentionally adjusting/skipping doses. Nilotinib Cmin were generally above the therapeutic target in 95% of patients. Patients reported a variety of side effects, of which fatigue was most frequent. The mean Cmin was higher in patients who reported severe itching and fatigue. The overall 1-year MMR rate ranged from 47 to 71%. CONCLUSION: Substantial nonadherence (< 90%) to nilotinib was rare and nilotinib Cmin were generally above the therapeutic target. Lack of response in our group of patients was not related to nonadherence or inadequate Cmin. Nevertheless, a considerable number of patients experienced difficulties in adhering to the twice daily fasted dosing regimen, emphasizing the importance of continuous support of medication adherence in CML. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR3992 (Netherlands Trial Register, www.trialregister.nl ).

Feasibility of and patients' perspective on nilotinib dried blood spot self-sampling.

PURPOSE: To obtain insight into the feasibility of, and the patients' perspective on, dried blood spot (DBS) self-sampling by patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) using nilotinib. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with CML using nilotinib participated in this multicenter observational study. Patients were asked to perform blood sampling by means of the DBS method at home just before drug intake (trough level) and to complete a questionnaire including demographics and five questions on their experience with DBS self-sampling. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (57.5 ± 15.0 years, 49% female) provided 178 DBS samples of which 137 (77%) proved useful in clinical practice. Twenty percent of the samples were rejected because the spot size was too small for analysis. A further 3% were taken at the wrong time. Unsuitable DBS samples were provided by 23 patients. Their educational level was significantly lower than that of patients whose samples were all suitable (p = 0.041). Patients considered DBS self-sampling easy and not painful, and three quarters of the patients performed DBS sampling without additional assistance. Patients' belief in the reliability of DBS self-sampling was moderate to high. It was preferred over venous sampling by 37% of the patients, whereas 39% had no preference. CONCLUSION: DBS self-sampling by CML patients is feasible in clinical practice provided that patients, particularly those with a lower educational level, are adequately instructed about sample collection with emphasis on timing and volume of sample collection.

Needs for information and reasons for (non)adherence in chronic myeloid leukaemia: Be aware of social activities disturbing daily routines.

OBJECTIVES: To obtain insight into patients' reasons for medication (non)adherence in chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and needs and wishes regarding information and communication. METHODS: A mixed-method study on the basis of a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The CML patient advocacy group asked patients to participate. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (54 ± 12 years, 43% male) using imatinib, dasatinib or nilotinib participated. Fifteen patients (25%) reported to miss an intake at least once a month. Most were not worried about missing an intake and did not discuss missed intakes with their healthcare provider (HCP). Social activities disturbing daily routines and the wish to avoid side effects resulted in nonadherence. Patients wanted extensive and understandable information provided timely on all aspects of CML treatment, in particular on side effects, and a more supportive HCP attitude. CONCLUSIONS: Nonadherence to CML medication does not cause concern in all patients and is not discussed pro-actively. HCP have a clear role in supporting medication adherence in CML and must be aware that social activities disturbing daily routines contribute to nonadherence. HCP should discuss (non)adherence in a direct manner, motivate patients to play an active role in managing their medication and timely provide extensive and understandable information on all aspects of CML.

Patient satisfaction with information on oral anticancer agent use.

Adequate information on oral anticancer agent (OACA) use is an essential element of optimal cancer care. The present study aimed to get insight into the experiences of patients with information on OACA treatment and their characteristics regarding information dissatisfaction. Patients of four Dutch university hospitals using OACA participated in this observational study and completed the Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale (SIMS), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire, and Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire-Specific. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with dissatisfaction with information. Patients (n = 208) using capecitabine (35%), lenalidomide (15%), imatinib (14%), temozolomide (12%), sunitinib (11%), thalidomide (5%), dasatinib (4%), erlotinib (2%), and nilotinib (2%) participated. Information on the following SIMS-items was inadequate: how OACA elicit their effect, how long it takes before treatment works, how to conclude that treatment is effective, the risk of side effects and its management, interference with sex life, drowsiness, interference with other medication and alcohol and what to do in case of a missed dose. Younger age, hematological malignancy, dyspnoea, positive perception of consequences of the cancer, low perception of treatment control, and indifferent attitude towards OACA were associated with dissatisfaction with information. In conclusion, a considerable number of patients would have appreciated receiving more information on specific issues relating to the consequences of OACA treatment such as the effects and side effects of OACA and the interference of treatment with various aspects of their daily life. Oncologists, hematologists, lung-oncologists and pharmacists may reconsider the provision of information on OACA treatment.