Conditional financing in health technology assessment practice: The Dutch experience

INTRODUCTION: In 2007, the National Healthcare Institute (ZIN) initiated conditional financing (CF) of expensive hospital drugs as an example of conditional reimbursement schemes (CRS). CF is a 4-year procedure encompassing initial HTA assessment (T = 0) followed by additional data collection via outcomes research (separately assessing appropriate use & cost-effectiveness in routine practice) and re-assessment (T = 4). This study aims to review performance and experiences with CF in the Netherlands to date. METHODS: All dossiers for drugs that underwent the full CF procedure were reviewed. Using a standardized data abstraction form, two researchers independently extracted information on procedural, methodological and decision-making aspects (that is, related to implemented outcomes research, evidence assessment and appraisal). A scoring algorithm was used to assess all three aspects. RESULTS: Fourty-seven candidates were nominated for CF; fourty-four underwent T = 0 assessments and eleven T = 4 assessments. The procedure extended beyond 4 years for 10/11 candidates. For the eleven candidates, applicants clearly defined study designs and data collection methods for outcomes research proposals addressing 16/22 research questions posed in T = 0 reports. ZIN provided discussion points and recommendations regarding research proposals for 18/22 research questions. Applicants implemented recommendations fully in 8/22 cases and partially in 12/22. Sufficient data was available at T = 4 to answer 15/22 research questions posed at T = 0. However, discussion points remained regarding implemented outcomes research for all eleven candidates at T = 4. ZIN advised to continue reimbursement for nine candidates and to stop reimbursement for two. For six of the nine candidates, reimbursement was continued on the basis of conditions relating to additional evidence generation beyond T = 4. CONCLUSIONS: Theoretically, CF provides a valuable option for enabling quick but conditional access to medicines in the Netherlands. However, procedural, methodological and decision-making considerations related to scheme design and implementation may affect its value in decision-making practice

Exploring the impact of patient-specific clinical features on osimertinib effectiveness in a real-world cohort of patients with EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer

Osimertinib is prescribed to patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a sensitizing EGFR mutation. Limited data exists on the impact of patient characteristics or osimertinib exposure on effectiveness outcomes. This was a Dutch, multicenter cohort study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, with metastatic EGFRm+ NSCLC, receiving osimertinib. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were performed. In total, 294 patients were included. Primary EGFR-mutations were mainly exon 19 deletions (54%) and p.L858R point mutations (30%). Osimertinib was given in first-line (40%), second-line (46%) or beyond (14%), with median PFS 14.4 (95% CI: 9.4-19.3), 13.9 (95% CI: 11.3-16.1) and 8.7 months (95% CI: 4.6-12.7), respectively. Patients with low BMI (&lt;20.0 kg/m2) had significantly shorter PFS/OS compared to all other subgroups. Patients with a high plasma trough concentration in steady state (Cmin,SS; &gt;271 ng/mL) had shorter PFS compared to a low Cmin,SS (&lt;163 ng/mL; aHR 2.29; 95% CI: 1.13-4.63). A significant longer PFS was seen in females (aHR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82) and patients with the exon 19 deletion (aHR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.92). A trend towards longer PFS was seen for TP53 wild-type patients, while age did not impact PFS. Patients with a primary EGFR exon 19 deletion had longer PFS, while a low BMI, male sex and a high Cmin,SS were indicative for shorter PFS and/or OS. Age was not associated with effectiveness outcomes of osimertinib.</p

Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: real-world outcomes versus clinical trial results

Aim: We investigated the effectiveness of durvalumab post-concurrent CRT (cCRT) and post-sequential CRT (sCRT) versus cCRT and sCRT alone and compared these outcomes with the PACIFIC trial. Methods: Four cohorts of stage III NSCLC patients who received CRT were included: cCRT with and without durvalumab, sCRT with and without durvalumab. PFS and OS were analyzed using Cox regression. Results: Durvalumab improved PFS (cCRT: aHR = 0.69, sCRT: aHR = 0.71) and OS (cCRT: aHR = 0.71, sCRT: aHR = 0.32), although not all results were significant. PFS was longer in the real-world than in the trial, while OS did not differ. Conclusion: Durvalumab after CRT improved the survival outcomes. The difference between PFS in our study and the trial may be due to differences in follow-up methods. Plain language summary We assessed a medicine called durvalumab on patients with non-small cell lung cancer who received chemoradiotherapy in a real-world setting. We compared their outcomes with those from a clinical trial. Patients who received two types of chemoradiotherapy with or without durvalumab were included, and their progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes were analyzed. We found that patients treated with durvalumab had better PFS and OS than those treated without durvalumab. PFS was longer in the real-world than in the clinical trial, but OS was similar. The difference in PFS may be due to differences in measuring PFS

Using Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Practice:A Comparative Study of Five HTA Agencies

BACKGROUND: Reimbursement decisions are conventionally based on evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which often have high internal validity but low external validity. Real-world data (RWD) may provide complimentary evidence for relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and cost-effectiveness assessments (CEAs). This study examines whether RWD is incorporated in health technology assessment (HTA) of melanoma drugs by European HTA agencies, as well as differences in RWD use between agencies and across time. METHODS: HTA reports published between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2016 were retrieved from websites of agencies representing five jurisdictions: England [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)], Scotland [Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC)], France [Haute Autorité de santé (HAS)], Germany [Institute for Quality and Efficacy in Healthcare (IQWiG)] and The Netherlands [Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN)]. A standardized data extraction form was used to extract information on RWD inclusion for both REAs and CEAs. RESULTS: Overall, 52 reports were retrieved, all of which contained REAs; CEAs were present in 25 of the reports. RWD was included in 28 of the 52 REAs (54%), mainly to estimate melanoma prevalence, and in 22 of the 25 (88%) CEAs, mainly to extrapolate long-term effectiveness and/or identify drug-related costs. Differences emerged between agencies regarding RWD use in REAs; the ZIN and IQWiG cited RWD for evidence on prevalence, whereas the NICE, SMC and HAS additionally cited RWD use for drug effectiveness. No visible trend for RWD use in REAs and CEAs over time was observed. CONCLUSION: In general, RWD inclusion was higher in CEAs than REAs, and was mostly used to estimate melanoma prevalence in REAs or to predict long-term effectiveness in CEAs. Differences emerged between agencies' use of RWD; however, no visible trends for RWD use over time were observed