The BEACON tool was developed to help pharmaceutical companies align the data generated during a clinical development programme with the requirements of HTA bodies and payers. Whilst it has been used internally at Mundipharma International, it was decided to test it externally against four stylised product profiles to understand if they were scored consistently by different respondents and thus its potential value as an industry tool.

Methods

Four profiles were presented to a mix of Health Economists and Clinicians from UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. They were asked to score these profiles in national groups against the six criteria of the BEACON tool. They were asked to score the profiles on a scale of 1 to 4; 1: likely negative impact on market access; 2: risk of negative impact on market access; 3: payer acceptable but unlikely to drive access; 4: likely to support market access.

Results

Ten of the potential 120 data points were not completed, due to respondents being unsure of what score to give, or they were not completed. The lack of an active comparator (C) in the data package was consistently scored as potentially a negative impact on market access by all groups. Conversely, more clinical trials (N) consistently equated to potentially having a positive impact on market access. Outcomes (O) was also identified as impacting on market access, i.e. measuring the correct outcomes in trials. Trends in the other BEACON criteria (B, E, A) were less clear, but this could be due to the brief nature of the profiles used.

Conclusion

BEACON has the potential to be used to help pharmaceutical companies identify data weaknesses and gaps prior to HTA submissions during the development programme. Larger scale testing with more detailed profiles is needed to confirm this.

Funded by Mundipharma International Limited