Background: Mounting pressures on the healthcare system, such as budget constraints and new, costly health technologies reaching the market, have pushed payers and manufacturers to engage in managed entry agreements (MEAs) to address uncertainty and facilitate market access.Objectives: This study was conducted to illustrate the current landscape of MEAs in Europe and to analyze the main hurdles they face in implementation, providing a policy perspective.Methods: We conducted a health policy analysis based on a literature review and described the emergence, classification, current use, and implementation obstacles of MEAs in Europe.Results: Throughout Europe, uncertainty and high prices of health technologies have pushed stakeholders towards MEAs. Two main types of MEAs were applied heavily, finance-based agreements (FBAs) and performance-based agreements, including individual performance-based agreements and coverage with evidence development (CED). Service-based agreements have not been as heavily considered so far, yet are increasingly used. Many European countries are turning to CEDs to address uncertainty and facilitate market access while negotiating the pricing and reimbursement rates of products. Despite the interest in CEDs, European countries have moved toward FBAs due to the complexities and burdens associated with PBAs.Conclusions: Ultimately, in Europe, with the exception of Italy, where MEAs have proven to be inefficient, MEAs are predominantly FBAs dedicated to addressing cost containment from payers' perspective and external reference pricing from the manufacturers' perspective. It has been speculated that MEAs will disappear in the medium-term as they are counterproductive for extending patient access and emergence of innovation. To inform value-based decision making and allow early access to innovative medicines, CEDs should be revisited.

Purpose: This study aims to critically assess the published studies of Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the treatment of COVID-19 and provide recommendations for future clinical trials for the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: A rapid systematic review was conducted by searching the PubMed, Embase, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases on April 13, 2020. Three clinical trial registry platforms, including ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the Chinese Clinical Trial Register were also complementarily searched. Results: A total of 10 clinical studies were identified, including 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 comparative nonrandomized trial, 5 single-arm trials, and 1 interim analysis. The heterogeneity among studies of the baseline disease severity and reported endpoints made a pooled analysis impossible. CQ and HCQ (with or without azithromycin) showed significant therapeutic benefit in terms of virologic clearance rate, improvement in symptoms and imaging findings, time to clinical recovery, and length of hospital stay in 1 RCT, 4 single-arm trials, and the interim analysis, whereas no treatment benefit of CQ or HCQ was observed in the remaining 4 studies. Limitations of the included studies ranged from small sample size, to insufficient information concerning baseline patient characteristics, to potential for selection bias without detailing the rationale for exclusion, and presence of confounding factors. Conclusion: Based on the studies evaluated, there still lacked solid evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of HCQ and CQ as a treatment for COVID-19 with or without azithromycin. This emphasized the importance of robust RCTs investing HCQ/CQ to address the evidence uncertainties. Keywords: COVID-19, Systematic review, Clinical trial, Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine

Background and Objective: China has managed to control the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with confinement measurements and treatment strategies, while other countries are struggling to contain the spread. This study discusses the guidelines related to COVID-19 in China in order to provide important references for other countries in the fight against COVID-19. Methods: Chinese guidelines relevant to COVID-19 were systematically searched via the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, YiMaiTong database, and World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 database on March 20 th , 2020. Guideline information was extracted, including date of publication, source, objectives and the target population. Guidelines specific to the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 were further investigated to identify the types of antivirus drugs recommended and to report on how treatment recommendations for COVID-19 have evolved overtime. Results: A total of 100 guidelines were identified, of which 74 were national guidelines and 26 were regional guidelines. The scope of included guidelines consisted of: the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19, the management of hospital departments and specific diseases during the outbreak of COVID-19. Fifty-one of the included guidelines targeted overall COVID-19 patients, while the remaining guidelines concentrated on special patient populations (i.e. geriatric population, pediatric population, and pregnant population) or patients with coexisting diseases. Fifteen guidelines focused on the pharmacological treatments for all COVID-19 patients. Interferon, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Ribavirin, Chloroquine, and Umifenovir represented the most recommended antivirus drugs. Among them, 7 Chinese guidelines have recommended Chloroquine Phosphate or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. Conclusions : China has generated a plethora of guidelines covering almost all aspects of COVID-19. Chloroquine, as one widely affordable treatment, was recommended by Chinese national guidelines and provincial guidelines. Considering the continuous debates around Chloroquine, confirmatory studies with robust methodology are awaited to address the unanswered questions on its potential benefits and risks on COVID-19.

Objectives: Inclusion of patient preference (PP) data in decision making has been largely discussed in recent years. Healthcare decision makers-regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA)-are more and more conscious of the need for a patient-centered approach to decide on optimal allocation of scarce money, time, and technological resources. This literature review aims to examine the use of and recommendations for the integration of PP in decision making. Methods: A literature search was conducted through PubMed/Medline in May 2019 to identify publications on PP studies used to inform benefit-risk assessments (BRAs) and HTAs and patient-centered projects and guidelines related to the inclusion of PPs in health policy decision making. After title and abstract screening and full-text review, selected publications were analyzed to retrieve data related to the collection, use, and/or submission of PPs informing BRA or HTA as well as attempts and initiatives in recommendations for PPs integration in decision-making processes. Results: Forty-nine articles were included: 24 attempts and pilot project discussions and 25 PP elicitation studies. Quantitative approaches, particularly discrete choice experiments, were the most used (24 quantitative elicitation studies and 1 qualitative study). The objective of assessing PPs was to prioritize outcome-specific information, to value important treatment characteristics, to provide patient-focused benefit-risk trade-offs, and to appraise the patients' willingness to pay for new technologies. Moreover, attempts and pilot projects to integrate PPs in BRAs and HTAs were identified at the European level and across countries, but no clear recommendations have been issued yet. No less than seven public and/or private initiatives have been undertaken by governmental agencies and independent organizations to set guidance targeting improvement of patients' involvement in decision making. Chachoua et al. Patient Preferences in Policy Decision-Making Conclusion: Despite the initiatives undertaken, the pace of progress remains slow. The use of PPs remains poorly implemented, and evidence of proper use of these data in decision making is lacking. Guidelines and recommendations formalizing the purpose of collecting PPs, what methodology should be adopted and how, and who should be responsible for generating these data throughout the decision-making processes are needed to improve and empower integration of PPs in BRA and HTA.

No abstract