Data collection infrastructure for patient outcomes in the UK – opportunities and challenges for cell and gene therapies launching

ABSTRACT Background: Cell and gene therapies are associated with uncertainty around their value claims at launch due to limitations of supporting clinical data; furthermore, their high costs present affordability issues for payers. Outcomes-based reimbursement can reduce payer decision uncertainty and improve patient access, however, requires data collection infrastructure and practice to be operational. Objective: To identify indications most likely to see launch of cell or gene therapies in the UK over the next five years, and to perform a qualitative assessment of how conducive the existing data collection infrastructure and clinical practice is in facilitating adoption of outcomes-based reimbursement in the corresponding indications. Methodology: Through secondary research, we identified target indications for cell or gene therapies at a mature clinical development stage (Phase III) with EU and/or US trial sites, and assessed availability of relevant data collection infrastructures in the UK. Secondary research findings were validated through primary research (expert interviews). Key parameters considered for the suitability of existing data collection infrastructure in supporting outcomes-based reimbursement include time horizon of data collection, whether data entry is mandatory and whether infrastructure is product or therapy area-specific. Findings: We identified 58 cell or gene therapies, spanning 47 indications, 20 of which are in oncology. Oncology seems well placed for outcomes data collection (through the mandatory Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment database), however data entry compliance can be an issue (due to resource limitations), and upgrading will be needed for the purpose of outcomes-based reimbursement. Among non-oncology indications ~two-thirds have data collection infrastructures in place, but only three come close to the requirements for outcomes-based reimbursement. Conclusions: Existing data collection infrastructure in indications with potential cell or gene therapies launches in the next five years in the UK is overall not sufficient to facilitate outcomes-based reimbursement.

[1]  J. Larkin,et al.  Systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) dataset , 2014 .

[2]  C. Henshall,et al.  Gene Therapy: Understanding the Science, Assessing the Evidence, and Paying for Value , 2017 .

[3]  Steven Simoens,et al.  Reconciling uncertainty of costs and outcomes with the need for access to orphan medicinal products: a comparative study of managed entry agreements across seven European countries , 2013, Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases.

[4]  L. Garrison,et al.  Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements: An Updated International Review , 2017, PharmacoEconomics.

[5]  H. Guchelaar,et al.  Clinical development of gene- and cell-based therapies: overview of the European landscape , 2016, Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development.

[6]  Mondher Toumi,et al.  Gene therapies development: slow progress and promising prospect , 2017, Journal of market access & health policy.

[7]  L. Garrison,et al.  Current Status and Trends in Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements Between Healthcare Payers and Medical Product Manufacturers , 2014, Applied Health Economics and Health Policy.

[8]  Americo Cicchetti,et al.  MONITORING REGISTRIES AT ITALIAN MEDICINES AGENCY: FOSTERING ACCESS, GUARANTEEING SUSTAINABILITY , 2015, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[9]  L. Garattini,et al.  Italian risk-sharing agreements on drugs: are they worthwhile? , 2014, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[10]  B. Jönsson,et al.  Advanced therapy medicinal products and health technology assessment principles and practices for value-based and sustainable healthcare , 2018, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[11]  Marianne Klemp,et al.  What principles should govern the use of managed entry agreements? , 2011, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[12]  S. Palmer,et al.  The assessment and appraisal of regenerative medicines and cell therapy products: an exploration of methods for review, economic evaluation and appraisal. , 2017, Health technology assessment.

[13]  Panos Kanavos,et al.  Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals: the European experience , 2013 .

[14]  Andrew Briggs,et al.  Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements-good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[15]  Brian Godman,et al.  Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers , 2010, BMC health services research.

[16]  Mondher Toumi,et al.  Advanced therapy medicinal products: current and future perspectives , 2016, Journal of market access & health policy.

[17]  D. Grainger,et al.  Registry Contributions to Strengthen Cell and Gene Therapeutic Evidence. , 2018, Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy.

[18]  M. Flume,et al.  Early Insights from Commercialization of Gene Therapies in Europe , 2017, Genes.

[19]  B. Zamora,et al.  The Debate on Indication-Based Pricing in the U.S. and Five Major European Countries , 2018 .

[20]  P. Reinke,et al.  Overcoming Challenges Facing Advanced Therapies in the EU Market. , 2016, Cell stem cell.

[21]  Sarah Garner,et al.  Managed Entry Agreements for Pharmaceuticals in the Context of Adaptive Pathways in Europe , 2018, Front. Pharmacol..

[22]  P. Kefalas,et al.  Establishing the cost of implementing a performance-based, managed entry agreement for a hypothetical CAR T-cell therapy , 2018, Journal of market access & health policy.

[23]  E. Rodriguez-Merchan Articular Cartilage Defects of the Knee , 2012 .