Patient preference studies could provide valuable insights to a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence committee into the preferences patients have for different treatment options, especially if the study sample is representative of the broader patient population. We identify three main uses of patient preference studies along a technology's pathway from drug development to clinical use: in early clinical development to guide the selection of appropriate endpoints, to inform benefitrisk assessments carried out by regulators and to inform reimbursement decisions made by health technology assessment bodies. In the context of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's methods and processes, we do not see a role for quantitative patient preference data to be directly incorporated into health economic modelling. Rather, we see a role for patient preference studies to be submitted alongside other types of evidence. Examples where patient preference studies might have added value in health technology assessments include cases where two distinctly different treatment options are being compared, when patients have to decide between multiple treatment options, when technologies have important nonhealth benefits or when a treatment is indicated for a heterogenous population.

Companion diagnostics are used to aid clinical decision making to identify patients who are most likely to respond to treatment. They are becoming increasingly important as more new pharmaceuticals receive licensed indications that require the use of a companion diagnostic to identify the appropriate patient subgroup for treatment. These pharmaceuticals have proven benefit in the treatment of some cancers and other diseases, and also have potential to precisely tailor treatments to the individual in the future. However, the increasing use of companion diagnostics could place a substantial burden on health system resources to provide potentially high volumes of testing. This situation, in part, has led policy makers and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies to review the policies and methods used to make reimbursement decisions for pharmaceuticals requiring companion diagnostics. The assessment of a pharmaceutical alongside the companion diagnostic used in the clinical trials may be relatively straightforward, although there are a number of challenges associated with assessing pharmaceuticals where a range of alternative companion diagnostics are available for use in routine clinical practice. The UK HTA body, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), has developed policy for considering companion diagnostics using its Technology Appraisal and Diagnostics Assessment Programs. Some HTA bodies in other countries have also adapted their policies and methods to accommodate the assessment of companion diagnostics. Here, we provide insight into the HTA of companion diagnostics for reimbursement decisions and how the associated challenges are being addressed, in particular by NICE.

Adaptive pathways for medicines have gained momentum and, in Europe, adaptive pathways have recently been introduced into the European Medicines Agency (EMA) processes after a successful 2-year pilot. Although the concept, as initially proposed, contained several elements that would have required regulatory reforms, the adaptive pathways program has developed a more pragmatic scope (Box 1). In this article, we explore the main challenges and opportunities adaptive pathways pose from a European health technology assessment (HTA) perspective.

Sophie Cooper, Jacoline Bouvy and colleagues discuss the challenges that histology independent cancer drugs will pose for NICE and the NHS

The silent pandemic of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global issue needing prompt attention. A comprehensive one-health approach across human and animal health, agriculture and the environment is needed to solve this, addressing overuse of antibacterials, and of course, optimising measures for preventing and controlling infection. We also need a robust pipeline of new antibacterials. However, the current pipeline is inadequate and several companies with new antibacterials have gone bankrupt due to low sales, leading to a ‘broken market’. To address this, the UK has completed a project using novel approaches to value assessment and reimbursement for two antibacterials. The new funding arrangements for these products commenced on 1st July 2022, delinking reimbursement from volume of sales; a so-called ‘pull incentive’, with payments based on the added value to the whole-health and social-care system, not just to individual patients. This article describes how the project was devised, developed, and progressed. The learning from this work might help other countries to adopt or adapt the approach to fit with their national systems, and collectively achieve a global incentive to reinvigorate the antibacterial pipeline. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40258-022-00786-1.