Coverage With Evidence Development and Managed Entry in the Funding of Personalized Medicine: Practical and Ethical Challenges for Oncology

Abstract

Personalized medicines hold promise for many diseases. However, demonstrating the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of these medicines can be difficult. It is essential that decision-making processes for funding new medicines, including personalized medicines, are both robust and fit for purpose. We will argue that randomized trials of personalized medicines should be routinely supplemented with other research methods, such as observational research and single-arm studies, and that managed-entry funding programs, such as coverage with evidence development, may offer a means of providing early access to technologies where there is uncertainty about efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness. These programs, however, raise a number of practical and ethical challenges that need to be worked through and resolved.

Disparities of Trastuzumab Use in Resource-Limited or Resource-Abundant Regions and Its Survival Benefit on HER2 Positive Breast Cancer: A Real-World Study from China

“…Randomized controlled trials are the cornerstone of evidence development in oncology; however, the applicability of the evidence generated from RCTs to real‐life populations will depend on the degree of alignment between the research and target population in terms of clinical and molecular characteristics . Although not a substitute for RCTs, RWR does offer the potential to supplement knowledge gaps and address questions that cannot be solved by clinical trials .…”

Legitimacy of Medicines Funding in the Era of Accelerated Access

“…A recent study (33) also examined the effectiveness of a number of cancer therapies approved by the FDA on the basis of surrogate endpoints and found that the majority of these had unknown or no effects on overall survival. The difficulties of withdrawal from the market or disinvestment from technologies that later prove to be unsafe, ineffective or less cost-effective than initially thought are also well-recognized (34). The recent changes to the UK's Cancer Drugs Fund (described above) and the current review of Australia's special fund for the reimbursement of treatments for rare diseases (the Life Saving Drugs Program) on the basis of sustainability (35) are other salient examples of the risks and opportunity costs associated with accelerated access.…”

Is it all about price? Why requests for government subsidy of anticancer drugs were rejected in Australia

“…26,27 Funding decisions in health systems that fund anticancer drugs significantly affect the practice of medical oncologists and the anticancer drugs that are accessible to patients. The rejection rate of initial submissions was nevertheless greater in the second half of the study period compared to the first.…”