Health technology assessments (HTA) for combination drug therapies in oncology are increasingly common. Companies face multiple challenges when determining their economic value due to their complexity and high cost, while payers must balance the need for these vital innovations with sensitivity to rising costs. The study objective was to evaluate the current HTA frameworks in Europe and identify the potential barriers/solutions to reimbursement of brand-on-brand (BoB) combination therapy.

A targeted literature review of HTA agency websites was undertaken to identify any literature/guidance relating to HTA decision-making for combination oncology therapies in France, Germany, Sweden, and the UK.

In France and the UK, BoB HTA decisions reflect clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Combination therapies have been accepted for use in France and the UK, for example, dabrafenib plus trametinib, are assessed through standard HTA processes, exemplifying that positive reimbursement is not unattainable where there is an unmet need and high clinical value. Despite this flexibility, many therapies will fail to prove their cost-effectiveness, resulting in delays or arbitrary pricing decisions. Potential solutions are the use of the ‘efficiency frontier’, as typified by the German HTA system, giving more ‘scope‘ to expensive innovations; or the Swedish HTA approach, which applies variable cost-effectiveness thresholds according to therapeutic area, disease severity, and social criteria. Other possibilities include indication-specific pricing, multiple-criteria decision analysis, and net monetary benefit with willingness-to-trade weights. One likely issue to arise is when different companies are involved, necessitating co-operation. In this scenario, a simplistic solution would be arbitration of the division of the combined price, circumventing the need for HTA agencies to make changes to decision-making criteria.

Constructive debates and collaboration between industry and decision-makers are vital to achieve a harmonized HTA process for high-cost combination therapies which offer advanced benefits and improved safety outcomes, whilst satisfying HTA bodies and providing better access for patients.

Health technology assessment (HTA) must adapt to support the changing health system landscapes and improve access to valuable innovation under budgetary constraints. This is exemplified by the pricing and reimbursement of high-cost combination therapies increasingly used in oncology. Variability exists in current HTA practices across different countries, resulting in discrepancies in reimbursement outcomes and patient access. Using Italy as a case study, the objective was to assess the challenges faced by HTA agencies in the negotiation of pricing and reimbursement of combination therapies.

A targeted literature review of Italian HTA agency websites was undertaken to identify any literature/guidance relating to HTA decision-making for combination oncology therapies.

In Italy, there is no fixed cost-effectiveness threshold and decisions are based on multiple criteria. Managed market entry agreements are extensively used; price-volume agreements and drug registries are common. While this framework allows flexibility and avoids the rigidity of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio thresholds, it has raised concerns about transparency and budget impact. Combination therapies are not given specific concessions; however, market access for a combination of a new high-cost drug with an existing one is complex, particularly if the drugs are manufactured by different companies. The added value provided by the new drug in the combination should be rewarded while the older product benefits from the increased volume of use. The price of the older drug cannot be lowered unless the pricing and reimbursement contract is expiring or a new indication/formulation is pending, presenting a challenge to both pharmaceutical companies and HTA agencies.

Combination therapies pose a challenge for HTA agencies. In the Italian system this is partially mitigated by the use of multiple criteria for decision-making and managed access agreements. However, these approaches have also led to concerns about a lack of transparency in decision-making.