J. Mark. Access Health Policy, Volume 12, Issue 2 (June 2024) – 3 articles

Background: Understanding the concept and dynamic process of the evolution of professional identity and roles of market access (MA) in the pharmaceutical industry (pharma) is critical to personal, interpersonal, and professional levels of development and impact. Objective: The aim was to carry out a scoping review of the conceptualisation of MA within pharma. Data Sources: BioMed Central, WorldCat.org, and Directory of Open Access Journals were searched from 2003 to 2023. Study Selection: All articles on concepts or definitions and other surrogate terms on MA in pharma were selected. Data Extraction: Keywords generated from an initial cursory literature search on MA in pharma were used in conjunction with AND/OR as search terms. Using the data charting method, key findings were mapped and summarised descriptively. inductive analysis was performed, allowing codes/themes that are relevant to the concept to emerge. Data Synthesis: Arskey and O’Malley’s six-stage framework and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews extension checklist were used as the review and reporting templates. The databases search yielded 222 results. Following title and abstract screening, a total of 146 papers were screened, and 127 of them were excluded. Full-text review was conducted for 19 papers that were deemed by two reviewers to meet the eligibility criteria. One of the authors arbitrated on disputed papers for inclusion. Only 14 of the included papers were found to meet the criteria for the final analysis. Five conceptual dimensions of MA in pharma were identified as “right products”, “right patient”, “right price”, “right point” (time), and “right place” (setting). Conclusions: Market access in pharma is a process that commences with the development and availability of the right products that are proven to be efficacious and disease/condition-specific (including medications, medical devices, and vaccines); specifically produced for the right patients or end users who will maximise best clinical outcomes and economic value; delivered at the right point in a timely, sustained, and efficient manner, given at the right price (commercially viable or reimbursed price that represents good value); and conducted within the economic, policy, societal, and technological contexts, with the overarching goal of achieving the best patient outcomes and ensuring product profitability. Full article

Introduction: Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies express a clear preference for randomized controlled trials when assessing the comparative efficacy of two or more treatments. However, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is often necessary where a direct comparison is unavailable or, in some cases, not possible. Numerous ITC techniques are described in the literature. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify all the relevant literature on existing ITC techniques, provide a comprehensive description of each technique and evaluate their strengths and limitations from an HTA perspective in order to develop guidance on the most appropriate method to use in different scenarios. Methods: Electronic database searches of Embase and PubMed, as well as grey literature searches, were conducted on 15 November 2021. Eligible articles were peer-reviewed papers that specifically described the methods used for different ITC techniques and were written in English. The review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: A total of 73 articles were included in the SLR, reporting on seven different ITC techniques. All reported techniques were forms of adjusted ITC. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was the most frequently described technique (in 79.5% of the included articles), followed by matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) (30.1%), network meta-regression (24.7%), the Bucher method (23.3%), simulated treatment comparison (STC) (21.9%), propensity score matching (4.1%) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (4.1%). The appropriate choice of ITC technique is critical and should be based on the feasibility of a connected network, the evidence of heterogeneity between and within studies, the overall number of relevant studies and the availability of individual patient-level data (IPD). MAIC and STC were found to be common techniques in the case of single-arm studies, which are increasingly being conducted in oncology and rare diseases, whilst the Bucher method and NMA provide suitable options where no IPD is available. Conclusion: ITCs can provide alternative evidence where direct comparative evidence may be missing. ITCs are currently considered by HTA agencies on a case-by-case basis; however, their acceptability remains low. Clearer international consensus and guidance on the methods to use for different ITC techniques is needed to improve the quality of ITCs submitted to HTA agencies. ITC techniques continue to evolve quickly, and more efficient techniques may become available in the future. Full article

Objective: Currently there are no disease-specific approved therapies for non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH); however, several treatments are under development. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of hypothetical innovative therapies compared with lifestyle intervention alone and combined with pioglitazone, and assess the health economic consequences of their future availability for patients. Methods: A Markov cohort model was developed, considering fourteen disease health states and one absorbing state representing death. Transition probabilities, costs, utilities, and treatment efficacy were based on published data and assumptions. Four treatment strategies were considered, including two existing therapies (lifestyle intervention, small molecule treatment) and two hypothetical interventions (biological and curative therapy). The analysis was performed from the US third-party payer perspective. Results: The curative treatment with the assumed efficacy of 70% of patients cured and assumed price of $500,000 was the only cost-effective option. Although it incurred higher costs (a difference of $188,771 vs. lifestyle intervention and $197,702 vs. small molecule), it generated more QALYs (a difference of 1.58 and 1.38 QALYs, respectively), resulting in an ICER below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to variations in model parameters. Conclusions: This study highlighted the potential benefits of therapies aimed at curing a disease rather than stopping its progression. Nonetheless, each of the analyzed therapies could be cost-effective compared with lifestyle intervention at a relatively high price. Full article