Congressional Budget Office. Research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. 2021. Available from: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126. (Accessed 16 Nov 2023).

Berdud M, Drummond M, Towse A. Establishing a reasonable price for an orphan drug. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2020;18:1–18.

Article  Google Scholar 

Drummond MF, Neumann PJ, Sullivan SD, Fricke FU, Tunis S, Dabbous O, et al. Analytic considerations in applying a general economic evaluation reference case to gene therapy. Value Health. 2019;22:661–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hanna E, Rémuzat C, Auquier P, Toumi M. Advanced therapy medicinal products: current and future perspectives. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2016;4:31036.

Article  Google Scholar 

van Overbeeke E, Michelsen S, Toumi M, Stevens H, Trusheim M, Huys I, et al. Market access of gene therapies across Europe, USA, and Canada: challenges, trends, and solutions. Drug Discov Today. 2021;26:399–415.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

ICER. Adapted value assessment methods for high-impact “single and short-term therapies” (SSTs). 2019. Available from: https://icer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ICER_SST_FinalAdaptations_111219.pdf. (Accessed 16 Nov 2023).

Joffe S, Miller FG. Equipoise and the dilemma of randomized clinical trials. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013;9:230–5.

Article  Google Scholar 

Drummond M, Ciani O, Fornaro G, Jommi C, Dietrich ES, Espin J, et al. How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy? BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23:484.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

ten Ham RMT, Klungel OH, Leufkens HGM, Frederix GWJ. A review of methodological considerations for economic evaluations of gene therapies and their application in literature. Value Health. 2020;23:1268–80.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

IQWIG. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) general methods: version 6.1. 2022. Available from: https://www.iqwig.de/methoden/general-methods_version-6-1.pdf. (Accessed 16 Nov 2023).

Nagai S. Flexible and expedited regulatory review processes for innovative medicines and regenerative medical products in the US, the EU, and Japan. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20:3801.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Annemans L, Makady A. TRUST4RD: tool for reducing uncertainties in the evidence generation for specialised treatments for rare diseases. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020;15:1–9.

Article  Google Scholar 

Rare Impact. Improving patient access to gene and cell therapies for rare diseases in Europe. 2020. Available from: https://rareimpact.eu/site/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/RARE-IMPACT-Country-Assessments-Netherlands_v1_2020-04-28.pdf. (Accessed 16 Nov 2023).

Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM). Getting ready: recommendations for timely access to advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) in Europe. (2019). http://alliancerm.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ARM-Market-Access-Report-FINAL.pdf.

Rothery C, Claxton K, Palmer S, Epstein D, Tarricone R, Sculpher M. Characterising uncertainty in the assessment of medical devices and determining future research needs. Health Econ. 2017;26:109–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.346.7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Claxton K, Palmer S, Longworth L, Bojke L, Griffin S, Soares M, et al. A comprehensive algorithm for approval of health technologies with, without, or only in research: the key principles for informing coverage decisions. Value Health. 2016;19:885–91.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Jørgensen J, Hanna E, Kefalas P. Outcomes-based reimbursement for gene therapies in practice: the experience of recently launched CAR-T cell therapies in major European countries. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2020;8:1715536.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

European Commision. Regulation on health technology assessment. 2021. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/health-technology-assessment/regulation-health-technology-assessment_en. (Accessed 2 May 2022).

Drummond M, Tarricone R, Torbica A. European union regulation of health technology assessment: what is required for it to succeed? Eur J Health Econ. 2022;23:913–5.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

EUnetHTA. D4.4 outcomes (endpoints). 2023.

Grigore B, Ciani O, Dams F, Federici C, De Groot S, Möllenkamp M, Rabbe S, Shatrov K, Zemplenyi A, Taylor RS. Surrogate endpoints in health technology assessment: an international review of methodological guidelines. PharmacoEconomics. 2020;38:1055–70.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:605–13.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ciani O, Grigore B, Taylor RS. Development of a framework and decision tool for the evaluation of health technologies based on surrogate endpoint evidence. Health Econ. 2022;31(1 Suppl. 1):44–72.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ciani O, Buyse M, Drummond M, Rasi G, Saad ED, Taylor RS. Time to review the role of surrogate end points in health policy: state of the art and the way forward. Value Health. 2017;20:487–95.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gyawali B, Hey SP, Kesselheim AS. Evaluating the evidence behind the surrogate measures included in the FDA’s table of surrogate endpoints as supporting approval of cancer drugs. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;21: 100332.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Wolters S, Jansman FGA, Postma MJ. Differences in evidentiary requirements between European Medicines Agency and European health technology assessment of oncology drugs: can alignment be enhanced? Value Health. 2022;25:1958–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.05.006.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Vreman RA, Naci H, Goettsch WG, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Schneeweiss SG, Leufkens HGM, et al. Decision making under uncertainty: comparing regulatory and health technology assessment reviews of medicines in the United States and Europe. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;108:350–7.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Haute Autorité de santé. KYMRIAH (tisagenlecleucel), anti-CD19 CAR T. 2018. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/c_2891692/en/kymriah-tisagenlecleucel-anti-cd19-car-t. (Accessed 20 Dec 2022).

European Medicines Agency. Assessment report: Kymriah. EMA/485563/2018. 2018. Available from: www.ema.europa.eu/contact. (Accessed 16 Nov 2023).

Ciani O, Grigore B, Blommestein H, de Groot S, Möllenkamp M, Rabbe S, et al. Validity of surrogate endpoints and their impact on coverage recommendations: a retrospective analysis across international health technology assessment agencies. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:439–52.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

NICE. Autologous anti-CD19-transduced CD3+ cells for treating relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. 2021. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta677. (Accessed 16 Nov 2023).

NICE. Tisagenlecleucel for treating relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in people aged up to 25 years. 2018. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta554. (Accessed 16 Nov 2023).

NICE. Tisagenlecleucel for treating relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma after 2 or more systemic therapies. 2019. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta567. (Accessed 16 Nov 2023).

NICE. Axicabtagene ciloleucel for treating diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma after 2 or more systemic therapies. 2023. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta872. (Accessed 16 Nov 2023).

NICE. Axicabtagene ciloleucel for treating relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma after first-line chemoimmunotherapy. 2023. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta895. (Accessed 16 Nov 2023).

Cook SF, Bies RR. Disease progression modeling: key concepts and recent developments. Curr Pharmacol Rep. 2016;2:221–30.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Hettle R, Corbett M, Hinde S, Hodgson R, Jones-Diette J, Woolacott N, et al. The assessment and appraisal of regenerative medicines and cell therapy products: an exploration of methods for review, economic evaluation and appraisal. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21:1–204.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Facey KM, Espin J, Kent E, Link A, Nicod E, O’Leary A, et al. Implementing outcomes-based managed entry agreements for rare disease treatments: nusinersen and tisagenlecleucel. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39:1021–44.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Gonçalves E. Value-based pricing for advanced therapy medicinal products: emerging affordability solutions. Eur J Health Econ. 2022;23:155–63.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bohm N, Bermingham S, Grimsey Jones F, Gonçalves-Bradley DC, Diamantopoulos A, Burton JR, et al. The challenges of outcomes-based contract implementation for medicines in Europe. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022;40:13–29.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kadakia KT, Beckman AL, Ross JS, Krumholz HM. Leveraging open science to accelerate research. N Engl J Med. 2021;384: e61.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Srinivasan M, White A, Chaturvedula A, Vozmediano V, Schmidt S, Plouffe L, et al. Incorporating pharmacometrics into pharmacoeconomic models: applications from drug development. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38:1031–42.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Barros LRC, Paixão EA, Valli AMP, Naozuka GT, Fassoni AC, Almeida RC. CARTmath: a mathematical model of CAR-T immunotherapy in preclinical studies of hematological cancers. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13:1–22.

Article  Google Scholar 

Mueller-Schoell A, Puebla-Osorio N, Michelet R, Green MR, Künkele A, Huisinga W, et al. Early survival prediction framework in CD19-specific CAR-T cell immunotherapy using a quantitative systems pharmacology model. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13:2782.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Wang SV, Schneeweiss S, Initiative R. Emulation of randomized clinical trials with nonrandomized database analyses; results of 32 clinical trials. JAMA. 2023;329(16):1376–85.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Piena MA, Houwing N, Kraan CW, Wang X, Waters H, Duffy RA, et al. An integrated pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic-pharmacoeconomic modeling method to evaluate treatments for adults with schizophrenia. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022;40:121–31.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Efthymios M. Optimise capabilities in modelling, simulation and extrapolation. 2019. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/presentation/presentation-ema-regulatory-science-2025-optimise-capabilities-modelling-simulation-extrapolation_en.pdf. (Accessed 16 Nov 2023).

US Food and Drug Administration. CDER conversation: model informed drug development. 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/cder-conversation-model-informed-drug-development. (Accessed 1 Apr 2022).

Liu L, Ma C, Zhang Z, Witkowski MT, Aifantis I, Ghassemi S, et al. Computational model of CAR T-cell immunotherapy dissects and predicts leukemia patient responses at remission, resistance, and relapse. J Immunother Cancer. 2022;10:1–14.

Article