Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33182732›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Application of Managed Entry Agreements for Innovative Therapies in Different Settings and Combinations: A Feasibility Analysis.

Rick A Vreman, Thomas F Broekhoff, Hubert Gm Leufkens, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse, Wim G Goettsch

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Health technology assessment and innovation: here to help or hinder?International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Demonstrating proof of concept for value-based agreements in Europe: two real-world cases.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. How Do Iranian Stakeholders Think About Pharmaceutical Managed Entry Agreements?Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rick A VremanDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2076-322X
Thomas F BroekhoffDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hubert Gm LeufkensDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Aukje K Mantel-TeeuwisseDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8782-0698
Wim G GoettschDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reimbursement of expensive, innovative therapies poses a challenge to healthcare systems. This study investigated the feasibility of managed entry agreements (MEAs) for innovative therapies in different settings and combinations. First, a systematic literature review included studies describing used or conceptual agreements between payers and manufacturers (i.e., MEAs). Identical and similar MEAs were clustered and data were extracted on their benefits and limitations. A feasibility assessment was performed for each individual MEA based on how it could be applied (financial/outcome-based), on what level (individual patients/target population), in which payment setting (centralized pricing and reimbursement authority yes/no), for what type of therapies (one-time/chronic), within what payment structures, and whether combinations with other MEAs were feasible. The literature search ultimately included 82 papers describing 117 MEAs. After clustering, 15 unique MEAs remained, each describing one or multiple similar agreements. Four of those entailed payment structures, while eleven entailed agreements between payers and manufacturers regarding price, usage, and/or evidence generation. The feasibility assessment indicated that most agreements could be applied throughout the different settings that were assessed and could be applied in different payment structures and in combination with multiple other agreements. The potential to combine multiple agreements leads to a multitude of different reimbursement mechanisms that may manage the price, usage, payment structure, and additional conditions for an innovative therapy. This overview of the feasibility of combinations of MEAs can help decision-makers construct a reimbursement mechanism most suited to their preferences, the type of therapy under evaluation, and the applicable healthcare system.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareDrug IndustryTherapies, InvestigationalCosts and Cost AnalysisFeasibility StudiesHumanscoverage with evidence developmenthealth technology assessmentmanaged entry agreementoutcome-based paymentpay-for-performancepaymentpricingreimbursementvalue-based pricing

Identifiers

PMID33182732
PMCPMC7698033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.