Managing clinical trials is a complex process requiring careful integration of human, technology, compliance, and operations for success. We collaborated with experts to develop a multi-axial Clinical Trials Management Ecosystem (CTME) maturity model (MM) to help institutions identify best practices for CTME capabilities.

A working group of research informaticists was established. An online session on maturity models was hosted, followed by a review of the candidate domain axes and finalization of the axes. Next, maturity level attributes were defined for min/max levels (level 1 and level 5) for each axis of the CTME MM, followed by the intermediate levels. A REDCap survey comprising the model’s statements was then created, and a subset of working group members tested the model by completing it at their respective institutions. The finalized survey was distributed to all working group members.

We developed a CTME MM comprising five maturity levels across 11 axes: study management, regulatory and audit management, financial management, investigational product management, subject identification and recruitment, subject management, data, reporting analytics & dashboard, system integration and interfaces, staff training & personnel management, and organizational maturity and culture. Informaticists at 22 Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs and one other organization self-assessed their institutional CTME maturity. Respondents reported relatively high maturity for study management and investigational product management. The reporting analytics & dashboard axis was the least mature.

The CTME MM provides a framework to research organizations to evaluate their current clinical trials management maturity across 11 axes and identify areas for future growth.

The Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 on health technology assessment (HTAR) for medicines will come into effect in January 2025; initially, new oncology medicines and advanced therapy medicinal products will be assessed at EU level. How will this work in practice? What does this mean for national HTA bodies, such as the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) Ireland that uses a cost-effectiveness framework to inform decision-making for medicines?

Joint work to be conducted under the Regulation includes joint clinical assessments (JCA), joint scientific consultations (JSC), and production of procedures and methodological guidance. A review was undertaken of key areas that will be impacted by the HTAR in the Irish HTA process for medicines, including timing, evidence synthesis structure, capacity building, and resource implications.

The HTAR will alter the current process for medicines assessment in Ireland, from early scientific advice to cost-effectiveness assessment post-authorization. JSCs will represent an additional step. Significant training and capacity implications are associated with the JCA, which will require earlier engagement with stakeholders. The NCPE’s pragmatic HTA early triaging process, the “Rapid Review,” may be delayed due to the non-duplication clause in the HTAR. The availability of high-quality comparative effectiveness evidence may help avoid full HTAs in some cases. The benefit of the JCA will be realized if the results can directly inform treatment-effectiveness estimates in cost-effectiveness modeling.

The HTAR will significantly impact on medicines reimbursement procedures in Ireland. For the HTAR to be effective in achieving its aims, sufficient resources will need to be built into the EU HTA system. The balance between the extra resources needed and the resources spared will depend on the quality of the comparative effectiveness evidence available for the JCA.

Time to reimbursement has been described as a hurdle to availability of new medicines to European patients, with assessment and decision-making processes frequently quoted as taking the majority of time. In light of the upcoming Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 on health technology assessment (HTAR), the aim was to examine timelines and health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations for orphan drugs in Ireland.

The study reviewed all orphan drug submissions to the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) from January 2020 to December 2023 inclusive. The number of days from marketing authorization to rapid review (RR) commissioning was calculated. The RR and HTA recommendations were identified for all medicines. The timelines for the RR and HTA process were evaluated.

Of the 66 submissions identified, 38 percent were made prior to marketing authorization (MA), eight percent were made within 30 days of MA, and 79 percent were made 30 days post MA. RRs were completed within 32 days (mean). Full HTA was recommended in 62 percent (n=41). Price negotiations were recommended in 38 percent (50% of which have been reimbursed to date). Where a full HTA was recommended (n=41), 20 have been completed to date (price negotiations were recommended in 90%). For those 20 HTAs completed, 11 have been reimbursed to date; a decision is pending for the remainder. HTAs were completed within 200 days (mean).

Data shows that the majority of submissions were made 30 days post MA. A pragmatic approach may have to be taken nationally to accommodate the HTAR post 2024 and those submissions that are made prior to publication of a joint clinical assessment. The majority of orphan drug HTA recommendations lead to reimbursement recommendations.

Patients with hematological malignancies are at high risk of infections due to both the disease and the associated treatments. The use of immunoglobulin (Ig) to prevent infections is increasing in this population, but its cost effectiveness is unknown. This trial-based economic evaluation aimed to compare the cost effectiveness of prophylactic Ig with prophylactic antibiotics in patients with hematological malignancies.

The economic evaluation used individual patient data from the RATIONAL feasibility trial, which randomly assigned 63 adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, or lymphoma to prophylactic Ig or prophylactic antibiotics. The following two analyses were conducted to estimate the cost effectiveness of the two treatments over the 12-month trial period from the perspective of the Australian health system:

(i) a cost-utility analysis (CUA) to assess the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained using data collected with the EuroQol 5D-5L questionnaire; and

(ii) a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to assess the incremental cost per serious infection prevented (grade ≥3) and per infection prevented (any grade).

The total cost per patient was significantly higher in the Ig arm than in the antibiotic arm (difference AUD29,140 [USD19,000]). There were non-significant differences in health outcomes between the treatment arms: patients treated with Ig had fewer QALYs (difference −0.072) and serious infections (difference −0.26) than those given antibiotics, but more overall infections (difference 0.76). The incremental cost-effectiveness from the CUA indicated that Ig was more costly than antibiotics and associated with fewer QALYs. In the CEA, Ig costed an additional AUD111,262 (USD73,000) per serious infection prevented, but it was more costly than antibiotics and associated with more infections when all infections were included.

These results indicate that, on average, Ig prophylactic treatment may not be cost effective compared with prophylactic antibiotics for the group of patients with hematological malignancies recruited to the RATIONAL feasibility trial. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in a larger population and over the longer term.