SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Mapping the landscape of managed entry agreements: a systematic review of global frameworks, system-level components, and implementation challenges.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) are pivotal for enabling access to innovative pharmaceuticals while mitigating financial risk and addressing evidence uncertainty. Despite conceptual acceptance, the essential requirements for their design and implementation are poorly documented, posing a challenge for evolving health systems. This study aimed to systematically review and map global evidence published in the literature on the existence and characterization of countries' MEA policies, focusing on the core system-level components, governance, and operational frameworks for successful implementation, and their associated development and implementation challenges. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception to March 2025. Studies discussing governance, frameworks, legislation, or implementation of pharmaceutical MEAs were included. Data were extracted and synthesized narratively. Results: Of 96 included studies, most focused on European (43%) and North American (28%) systems, with a significant evidence gap for the Middle East and low-income countries. While situational analysis was the most common theme (63%), the literature predominantly catalogued barriers rather than providing operational solutions. Key barriers were inefficient regulatory frameworks (identified in 42% of studies), data infrastructure limitations (41%), and high administrative burden (38%). Stakeholder analysis highlighted underrepresentation of academia and civil society. A minority of studies (15%) focused on Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs). Conclusion: This review identifies a critical "how-to" gap in the MEA literature. While the value of MEAs is acknowledged, there is a stark deficit of actionable, system-level guidance on the regulatory, governance, and operational prerequisites for implementation. For health systems seeking to adopt MEAs, future efforts must shift from describing barriers to developing concrete implementation toolkits, legislative roadmaps, and fit-for-purpose payment models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.