The Use of Surrogate and Patient-Relevant Endpoints in Outcomes-Based Market Access Agreements: Current Debate

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 5-11

  Toumi, Mondher ^a   Jarosławski, Szymon ^a   Sawada, Toyohiro ^b   Kornfeld, Åsa ^c  

^a AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

^b ASTELLAS PHARMA INC   (Japan)

^c CREATIV CEUTICAL   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARDIOLOGY; CLINICAL OUTCOME; COST CONTROL; DRUG COST; DRUG INDUSTRY; GENETIC DISORDER; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MARKET ACCESS AGREEMENT; MEDICAL FEE; NEUROLOGY; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; ONCOLOGY; OSTEOPOROSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT RELEVANT ENDPOINT; PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE; PSYCHIATRY; PULMONOLOGY; REIMBURSEMENT; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; SURROGATE ENDPOINT; ECONOMICS; HEALTH INSURANCE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALUE-BASED INSURANCE DESIGN;

COST CONTROL; DRUG COSTS; DRUG INDUSTRY; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH; REIMBURSEMENT, INCENTIVE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALUE-BASED INSURANCE;

EID: 84984850167     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0274-x     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. McConnell K, Baker T. Perceptions in oncology drug strengths and weaknesses. Oncol Bus Rev. 2008:14–7.
2. Novartis Oncology. Assessing clinical value of oncology treatments. Novartis Oncology; 2013. http://www.novartisoncology.com/.
3. Adamski J, Godman B, Ofierska-Sujkowska G, Osinska B, Herholz H, Wendykowska K, et al. Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:153.
4. Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Veenstra DL. Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy. 2010;96(3):179–90.
5. Williamson S. Patient access schemes for high-cost cancer medicines. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(2):111–2.
6. Espín J, Rovira J, García L. Experiences and impact of European risk-sharing schemes focusing on oncology medicines. Granada: European Medicines Information Network (EMINET), Andalusian School of Public Health; 2011.
7. European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) guideline. Endpoints used in relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: surrogate endpoints. 2013. http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/Surrogate%20Endpoints.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2016.
8. Commentary—the politics of evidence-based medicine. USA: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2001.
9. Timmermans S, Mauck A. The promises and pitfalls of evidence-based medicine. Health Aff. 2005;24(1):18–28.
10. Clancy CM, Cronin K. Evidence-based decision making: global evidence, local decisions. Health Aff. 2005;24(1):151–62.
11. Mendelson D, Carino TV. Evidence-based medicine in the United States–de rigueur or dream deferred? Health Aff. 2005;24(1):133–6.
12. Garber AM. Evidence-based coverage policy. Health Aff. 2001;20(5):62–82.
13. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. What we do. https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do. Accessed 9 Aug 2015.
14. Gallo PF, Deambrosis P. Pharmaceutical risk-sharing and conditional reimbursement in Italy. Kraków, Poland: Central and Eastern European Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care (CEESTAHC); 2008.
15. Navarria A, Drago V, Gozzo L, Longo L, Mansueto S, Pignataro G, et al. Do the current performance-based schemes in Italy really work? Success fee: a novel measure for cost-containment of drug expenditure. Value Health. 2015;18(1):131–6.
16. O’Malley SP. The Australian experiment: the use of evidence based medicine for the reimbursement of surgical and diagnostic procedures (1998–2004). Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2006;3:3.
17. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Common drug review. https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth/what-we-do/products-services/cdr. Accessed 9 Aug 2015.
18. Jarosławski S, Toumi M. Market Access Agreements for pharmaceuticals in Europe: diversity of approaches and underlying concepts. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:259.
19. Ferrario A, Kanavos P. Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals: the European experience. Brussels: EMiNet; 2013.
20. Ferrario A, Kanavos P. Dealing with uncertainty and high prices of new medicines: a comparative analysis of the use of managed entry agreements in Belgium, England, The Netherlands and Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 2015;124:39–47.
21. Morel T, Arickx F, Befrits G, Siviero P, van der Meijden C, Xoxi E, 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. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:198.
22. Jommi C. Central and regional policies affecting drugs market access in Italy. Milan: Bocconi University; 2010.
23. Toumi M, Zard J, Duvillard R, Jommi C. Médicaments innovants et contrats d’accès au marché. Ann. Pharmaceutiques Françaises. 2013;71(5):302–325.
24. Raftery J. Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: a costly failure. BMJ. 2010;340:c1672.
25. van der Graff M. Going Dutch in market access flexibilisation: a mixed blessing. Paris: Market Access Day; 2012. http://www.emaud.org. Accessed 15 Mar 2016.
26. De Gruttola VG, Clax P, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Ellenberg SS, Friedman L, et al. Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. summary of a National Institutes of Health workshop. Control Clin Trials. 2001;22(5):485–502.
27. Garrido MV, Mangiapane S. Surrogate outcomes in health technology assessment: an international comparison. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(3):315–22.
28. Jaksa A, Ho YS, Daniel K. Use of surrogate outcomes in health technology assessments (HTAs). Value Health. 2013;16(7):A613.
29. Buyse M, Sargent DJ, Grothey A, Matheson A, de Gramont A. Biomarkers and surrogate end points: the challenge of statistical validation. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7(6):309–17.
30. Taylor RS, Elston J. The use of surrogate outcomes in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses: a survey of UK Health Technology Assessment reports. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(8):iii, ix–xi, 1–50.
31. Kim C, Prasad V. Cancer drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate end point and subsequent overall survival: an analysis of 5 years of us food and drug administration approvals. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(12):1992–4.
32. Svensson S, Menkes DB, Lexchin J. Surrogate outcomes in clinical trials: a cautionary tale. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(8):611–2.
33. Rader DJ. Illuminating HDL: is it still a viable therapeutic target? N Engl J Med. 2007;357(21):2180–3.
34. Towse A, Garrison LP Jr. Can’t get no satisfaction? Will pay for performance help? Toward an economic framework for understanding performance-based risk-sharing agreements for innovative medical products. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(2):93–102.
35. Menon D, McCabe CJ, Stafinski T, Edlin R. Principles of design of access with evidence development approaches: a consensus statement from the Banff Summit. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(2):109–11.
36. Tuma R. Progression-free survival remains debatable endpoint in cancer trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(21):1439–41.
37. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164–72.
38. Kantarjian HM, Fojo T, Mathisen M, Zwelling LA. Cancer drugs in the United States: Justum Pretium–the Just Price. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(28):3600–4.
39. Perspectives on biomarker and surrogate endpoint evaluation: discussion forum summary. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2011.
40. Kogan AJ, Haren M. Translating cancer trial endpoints into the language of managed care. Biotechnol Health. 2008;5(1):22–35.
41. Schievink B, Heerspink HL, Leufkens H, De Zeeuw D, Hoekman J. The use of surrogate endpoints in regulating medicines for cardio-renal disease: opinions of stakeholders. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e108722.
42. Ellis LM, Bernstein DS, Voest EE, Berlin JD, Sargent D, Cortazar P, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology perspective: raising the bar for clinical trials by defining clinically meaningful outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(12):1277–80.
43. Wiliamson S, Thomson D. A report into the uptake of patient access schemes in the NHS. Clin Pharm. 2010;2:268.
44. Persson U, Willis M, Odegaard K. A case study of ex ante, value-based price and reimbursement decision-making: TLV and rimonabant in Sweden. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(2):195–203.
45. ®) in Sweden. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8(6):377–86.
46. Haute Authorite de Sante. Avis de la Commission de la transparence. Januvia. Paris: Haute Authorite de Sante; 2012.
47. Scirica BM, Bhatt DL, Braunwald E, Steg PG, Davidson J, Hirshberg B, et al. Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(14):1317–26.
48. White WB, Cannon CP, Heller SR, Nissen SE, Bergenstal RM, Bakris GL, et al. Alogliptin after acute coronary syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(14):1327–35.
49. NICE. List of patient access schemes approved as part of a NICE appraisal. London: NICE; 2010.
50. Jarosławski S, Toumi M. Design of patient access schemes in the UK: influence of health technology assessment by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(4):209–15.
51. NICE. List of patient access schemes approved as part of a NICE appraisal. London: NICE; 2016.