Next Issue
Volume 12, September
Previous Issue
Volume 12, March
 
 

J. Mark. Access Health Policy, Volume 12, Issue 2 (June 2024) – 6 articles

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Reader to open them.
Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
10 pages, 3602 KiB  
Communication
Future Possible Changes in Medically Underserved Areas in Japan: A Geographic Information System-Based Simulation Study
by Akihisa Nakamura, Eiji Satoh, Tatsuya Suzuki, Soichi Koike and Kazuhiko Kotani
J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2024, 12(2), 118-127; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12020010 - 3 Jun 2024
Viewed by 946
Abstract
Background: A decrease in populations could affect healthcare access and systems, particularly in medically underserved areas (MUAs) where depopulation is becoming more prevalent. This study aimed to simulate the future population and land areas of MUAs in Japan. Methods: This study covered 380,948 [...] Read more.
Background: A decrease in populations could affect healthcare access and systems, particularly in medically underserved areas (MUAs) where depopulation is becoming more prevalent. This study aimed to simulate the future population and land areas of MUAs in Japan. Methods: This study covered 380,948 1 km meshes, 87,942 clinics, and 8354 hospitals throughout Japan as of 2020. The areas outside a 4 km radius of medical institutions were considered as MUAs, based on the measure of areas in the current Japanese Medical Care Act. Based on the population estimate for a 1 km mesh, the population of mesh numbers of MUAs was predicted for every 10 years from 2020 to 2050 using geographic information system analysis. If the population within a 4 km radius from a medical institution fell below 1000, the institution was operationally assumed to be closed. Results: The number of MUAs was predicted to decrease from 964,310 (0.77% of the total Japanese population) in 2020 to 763,410 (0.75%) by 2050. By 2050, 48,105 meshes (13% of the total meshes in Japan) were predicted to be new MUAs, indicating a 31% increase in MUAs from 2020 to 2050. By 2050, 1601 medical institutions were tentatively estimated to be in close proximity. Conclusions: In Japan, the population of MUAs will decrease, while the land area of MUAs will increase. Such changes may reform rural healthcare policy and systems. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 311 KiB  
Article
Real-World Evidence to Reinforce Clinical Trial Evidence in Health Technology Assessment: A Critical Review of Real-World Evidence Requirements from Seven Countries and Recommendations to Improve Acceptance
by Katia Thokagevistk, Céline Coppo, Laetitia Rey, Amanda Carelli, Veronica Díez, Sarah Vaselenak, Liana Oliveira, Ajay Patel, Emilia Sicari, Teresa Ramos, Susanne Schach, Erika Schirghuber, Alex Simpson, Remy Choquet and Katell Le Lay
J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2024, 12(2), 105-117; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12020009 - 20 May 2024
Viewed by 2053
Abstract
Background: Real-world evidence (RWE) can reinforce clinical trial evidence in health technology assessment (HTA). Objectives: Review HTA bodies’ (HTAbs) requirements for RWE, real uses, and acceptance across seven countries (Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) and outline recommendations that [...] Read more.
Background: Real-world evidence (RWE) can reinforce clinical trial evidence in health technology assessment (HTA). Objectives: Review HTA bodies’ (HTAbs) requirements for RWE, real uses, and acceptance across seven countries (Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) and outline recommendations that may improve acceptance of RWE in efficacy/effectiveness assessments and appraisals processes. Methods: RWE requirements were summarized based on HTAbs’ guidelines. Acceptance by HTAbs was evaluated based on industry experience and case studies. Results: As of June 2022, RWE methodological guidelines were in place in three of the seven countries. HTAbs typically requested analyses based on local data sources, but the preferred study design and data sources differed. HTAbs had individual submission, assessment, and appraisal processes; some allowed early meetings for the protocol and/or results validation, though few involved external experts or medical societies to provide input to assessment and appraisal. The extent of submission, assessment, and appraisal requirements did not necessarily reflect the degree of acceptance. Conclusion: All the countries reviewed face common challenges regarding the use of RWE. Our proposals address the need to facilitate collaboration and communication with industry and regulatory agencies and the need for specific guidelines describing RWE design and criteria of acceptance throughout the assessment and appraisal processes. Full article
5 pages, 422 KiB  
Opinion
EU HTA Regulation and Joint Clinical Assessment—Threat or Opportunity?
by Volker Schuster
J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2024, 12(2), 100-104; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12020008 - 13 May 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1195
Abstract
The vision of a unified European HTA is by no means a new endeavor. At its core are the publicly declared ambitions to harmonize assessments of clinical data within the EU and avoid the duplication of efforts. Not surprisingly, these ambitions are publicly [...] Read more.
The vision of a unified European HTA is by no means a new endeavor. At its core are the publicly declared ambitions to harmonize assessments of clinical data within the EU and avoid the duplication of efforts. Not surprisingly, these ambitions are publicly announced to be motivating the new 2022 EU HTA regulation. However, industry experts typically see more of a risk for additional bureaucracy resulting in delays, further scrutiny, and one additional EU (clinical) dossier to submit on top of all national HTA dossiers, which could be considered a duplication of effort and therefore counterproductive. Regardless of how the details of the process will be defined and how the entire process will work in practice, we can be sure that EU officials will refer to the EU HTA and Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) in particular as a learning system. The purpose of this article is to take a closer look at the new EU HTA regulation and analyze threats and opportunities for manufacturers and what the resulting opportunities and threats will be at the affiliate level throughout the EU. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 488 KiB  
Review
Conceptualisation and Role of Market Access in Pharmaceutical Industry: A Scoping Review
by Clara Fatoye, Gillian Yeowell, Eula Miller, Isaac Odeyemi and Chidozie Mbada
J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2024, 12(2), 81-99; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12020007 - 1 May 2024
Viewed by 1730
Abstract
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 [...] Read more.
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
Show Figures

Figure 1

23 pages, 1482 KiB  
Systematic Review
Methods for Indirect Treatment Comparison: Results from a Systematic Literature Review
by Bérengère Macabeo, Arthur Quenéchdu, Samuel Aballéa, Clément François, Laurent Boyer and Philippe Laramée
J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2024, 12(2), 58-80; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12020006 - 16 Apr 2024
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 2318
Abstract
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, [...] Read more.
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
Show Figures

Figure 1

23 pages, 3449 KiB  
Article
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Innovative Therapies for Patients with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
by Michal Pochopien, Jakub Wladyslaw Dziedzic, Samuel Aballea, Emilie Clay, Iwona Zerda, Mondher Toumi and Borislav Borissov
J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2024, 12(2), 35-57; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp12020005 - 2 Apr 2024
Viewed by 1317
Abstract
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, [...] Read more.
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
Show Figures

Figure 1

Previous Issue
Back to TopTop