market access Archives

Alzheimer’s Disease Therapeutics and Diagnostics – Parallel Advancements for Patient Care

2023 has already been a landmark year in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) therapeutics: lecanemab (Leqembi), co-developed by Biogen and Eisai, received FDA accelerated approval in January, and Phase 3 results for donanemab (Eli Lilly) are expected in 2Q23, with submission for FDA full approval shortly thereafter (accelerated approval was rejected in January). With the potential for widespread availability of novel treatments in the coming years, enabling timely, accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease should be front of mind for commercial strategy teams. Alzheimer’s complexity can make early diagnosis difficult, and misdiagnosis is common¹. Fortunately, there is a burgeoning neurodiagnostics field aiming to offer clinicians and patients more certainty in their condition through a variety of CLIA-certified or FDA-approved diagnostic tests. The thoughtful selection and use of neurodiagnostics in clinical trials and the larger marketplace will be critical in the coming years to enable expanded access for Alzheimer’s Disease therapeutics.

Novel AD Treatments Necessitate Improved Diagnostics

Looking at the Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) therapeutic pipeline, there are over 30 disease-modifying therapies in late-stage clinical development² with Eisai’s lecanemab (Leqembi) and Eli Lilly’s donanemab garnering the most attention. In their confirmatory phase 3 trials, both treatments included patients suffering from early symptomatic disease or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD and aim to measure an improvement from baseline in cognitive function tests using different metrics and brain amyloid plaque deposition using PET scans. Summarized in the table below, lecanemab relies on Clinical Dementia Rating scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) as the primary outcome measure while donanemab utilizes the Integrated Alzheimer’s Disease Rating Scale (iADRS):

Testing Approaches for Diagnosing Alzheimer’s Disease

Test Category	Strengths	Drawbacks
Cognitive, Functional, and Behavioral Tests: Evaluate an individual’s mental abilities to identify changes in cognitive function Notable examples: Clinical Dementia Rating scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB); Integrated Alzheimer’s Disease Rating Scale (iADRS)	Familiar and good track record Low cost and quick administration Able to detect disease progression	Relies on HCP consistency in application and interpretation; errors are common among PCPs Relies on heterogenous clinical symptoms; CFB tests alone lead to misdiagnosis and cannot detect pre-clinical AD
Structural Brain Imaging: Segments and measures volumes of key brain structures; used for the detection of AD biomarkers Notable examples: Volumetric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (vMRI); PET scan; CT scan	Well-established for AD diagnosis, particularly PET scans Provides an objective measure Differentiates AD from other forms of dementia (such as vascular dementia and frontotemporal)	High cost and large footprint scanning machines required Not suited/accessible to primary care settings False positives; brain changes may not be indicative of AD Patient experience; potential sedation risk to achieve needed stillness
Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF) Tests: Detection of AD biomarkers in CSF samples, such as β-amyloid, t-tau, and p-tau Notable examples: Lumipulse® Aβ42/40 assay (Fujirebio); Elecsys CSF phospho-tau181/Aβ42 assay (Roche)	Accuracy improvements (when used alongside other tests) Routine use in specialist healthcare settings Differentiates from other forms of dementia (such as Lewy body and frontotemporal)	Invasive procedure required (lumbar puncture); risk of side effects and some patients are contraindicated (e.g., anticoagulants use) Limited accessibility in primary care settings Not validated in diverse populations
Blood Tests: Detection of AD biomarkers in blood samples, such as levels of β-amyloid, tau protein and neurofilament light (NfL) protein Notable examples: PrecivityAD® (C2N Diagnostics); Quest AD-Detect (Quest Diagnostics)	Low cost Easy to administer/minimally invasive Routine across relevant healthcare settings	Currently less accurate /definitive than brain imaging or CSF analysis Requires more sensitive measurement due to low biomarker concentrations Lower specificity in later stages of AD when biomarkers are more indicative of general neurodegeneration
Genetic Testing: Detection of genetic variants associated with an increased risk of developing AD Notable examples: APOE ε4 variant (for early- and late-onset AD); PSEN1, PSEN2 and amyloid precursor protein (APP)	Identifies risk of developing AD, supporting earlier diagnosis	Limited predictive power Limited use for diagnosis of late-onset AD; no strongly associated mutations Ethical considerations; potential for psychosocial impact of test results

Both primary endpoints, CDR-SB and iADRS, diagnose behavioral symptoms rather than biomarker measurement in their scoring. CDR-SB is frequently chosen as an endpoint as it detects disease progression by assessing cognition and function in personal care, problem-solving, memory, and other functions; however, it has been criticized for its inconsistent reproducibility in detecting treatment differences.⁵ On the other hand, iADRS is argued to reliably detect disease progression and treatment effects in participants across the spectrum of disease by measuring similar cognition and function categories through a composite score of ADAS-Cog-13 and ADCS-iADL.⁵ A point of concern is that payers may require biomarker data to supplement these cognitive tests to approve access to costly AD therapy and restrict access when inconsistencies arise. Forward-thinking therapeutic developers should consider now which sources of biomarker data will remove barriers to access to therapeutics and how best to validate this ability.

Breadth of Innovation in Diagnostics Development

Recently, diagnostics companies have collaborated with key players in AD therapeutics trials by measuring inclusion criteria and endpoint biomarkers. In November, C2N Diagnostics announced the PrecivityAD test’s use in the AHEAD trial, a lecanemab extension study, as part of the inclusion criteria of quantifying elevated brain amyloid.⁶ Specifically, PrecivityAD, a blood test, satisfies the requirement to show a plasma, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), or positive PET result predictive of intermediate or elevated amyloid before screening. Neurodiagnostics contribute to endpoint measurements as well. When Eisai presented their ClarityAD results, all the target engagement and drug activity data from a panel of fluid biomarkers- including plasma pTau-181, GFAP and NfL – were from Quanterix Corporation’s ultrasensitive Simoa assay kits.⁷ Overall, diagnostics are already useful at the clinical trial stage and may supplant less accessible and expensive gold-standard testing like amyloid PET in the future.

Outside clinical trials, the emerging neurodiagnostics landscape is rife with innovation, using various modalities testing for different biomarkers. Fujirebio’s Lumipulse Aβ42/40 and Roche’s Elecsys CSF phospho-tau181/Aβ42 assay both offer FDA approved Aβ42/40 measuring tests using cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) to assist clinicians in making diagnoses beyond clinical examination.^8,9 This advance comes at the cost of the patient’s comfort due to the invasiveness of CSF collection. Quest Diagnostics and C2N Diagnostics address this through their CLIA-certified plasma blood tests, Quest-AD and PrecivityAD respectively, whose results approximate that of amyloid PET scan findings. Will we soon see a “Test and Treat” future in AD? Not so fast. Considerable work remains before widespread clinical adoption of plasma tests can occur.¹⁰One major barrier is the lack of plasma test performance data in diverse patient populations with comorbidities like chronic kidney disease or a history of stroke that may boost AD biomarkers in the blood. Researchers also stress that CSF and plasma tests shouldn’t be used in cognitively healthy individuals since the disease has a long preclinical phase and may not manifest in the patient’s lifetime, causing undue distress and financial ramifications. All these companies face the current headwinds of defining and achieving their reimbursement strategy in an environment where therapeutic clinical utility is still evolving. The definition of coverage policies and diagnostic criteria by CMS and major commercial payers will drive the adoption and utilization of tests moving forward.

Future Challenges Facing AD Patients

It is unclear how many patients will receive the benefit of Leqembi and other anti-amyloid therapies. In April 2022, CMS effectively denied Medicare coverage of any anti-amyloid therapies, a decision they recently re-iterated after denying petitioning from the Alzheimer’s Association.¹¹Despite this, the Veteran’s Health Administration has determined it will cover access to Leqembi to veterans who fit the VHA’s criteria and the FDA label indication. In response to Aduhelm’s accelerated approval, CMS’s Chief Medical Officer left the door open to broad access if a therapeutic shows evidence of clinical benefit through the traditional full FDA approval process.¹² A decision on full approval for Leqembi is expected in July, preceded by an FDA Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for June 9^th. Once a therapeutic overcomes this hurdle, questions about clinical utility for both a therapeutic and a diagnostic will be more settled and replaced with a simple one: what diagnostic tests can help accelerate access for an AD disease-modifying therapy?

In the near future, partnerships between diagnostics companies and drug developers can make a big difference for the millions of people grappling with the impact of dementia on their health and families. Early collaborations like the one between Eisai and C2N Diagnostics in the AHEAD study may mark the beginning of new and deeper partnerships between these two fields. New therapeutics will benefit from a robust diagnostics industry helping patients get an earlier diagnosis and diagnostics manufacturers will receive wider adoption and uptake. Future joint commercial partnerships can allow caregivers and physicians to test an individual and match them to the most appropriate treatment available.

How Kx can help

We at Kx are monitoring the Alzheimer’s Disease space evolution closely and see opportunities for commercial planning teams to meet the technology of the future through concrete, forward-looking steps today. To join us and discuss further, contact Brett at brett.larson@kxadvisors.com.

Contact Our Team Today

Thank you to Jean Santos for his contributions in the development of this piece.

References

Gaugler JE, Ascher-Svanum H, Roth DL, Fafowora T, Siderowf A, Beach TG. Characteristics of patients misdiagnosed with alzheimer’s disease and their medication use: An analysis of the NACC-UDS database – BMC geriatrics. Characteristics of patients misdiagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and their medication use: an analysis of the NACC-UDS database. https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2318-13-137. Published December 19, 2013. Accessed February 2, 2023.
Alzheimer’s Disease Therapeutics. https://www.alzforum.org/therapeutics/search?fda_statuses%5B%5D=851&target_types=&therapy_types=&conditions%5B%5D=145&keywords-entry=&keywords=. Accessed January 29, 2023.
Commissioner Oof the. FDA grants accelerated approval for Alzheimer’s disease treatment. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-alzheimers-disease-treatment. Accessed January 29, 2023.
Rogers MB. No accelerated approval for Donanemab. No Accelerated Approval for Donanemab. https://www.alzforum.org/news/research-news/no-accelerated-approval-donanemab. Accessed January 29, 2023.
Wessels AM, Rentz DM, Case M, Lauzon S, Sims JR. Integrated alzheimer’s disease rating scale: Clinically meaningful change estimates. Alzheimer’s & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions. 2022;8(1):197-210. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.12312.
Consortium ACT. New blood test to identify people at risk of developing Alzheimer’s symptoms will be used in clinical trial aiming to prevent memory loss. New Blood Test To Identify People At Risk Of Developing Alzheimer’s Symptoms Will Be Used In Clinical Trial Aiming To Prevent Memory Loss. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-blood-test-to-identify-people-at-risk-of-developing-alzheimers-symptoms-will-be-used-in-clinical-trial-aiming-to-prevent-memory-loss-301422214.html. Published November 11, 2021. Accessed January 29, 2023.
Quanterix’s Simoa® technology drives advances in Alzheimer’s disease research presented at 2022 clinical trials on Alzheimer’s disease (CTAD) conference. Quanterix’s Simoa Technology Drives Advances In Alzheimer’s Disease Research Presented At 2022 Clinical Trials On Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) Conference. https://www.quanterix.com/press-releases/quanterixs-simoa-technology-drives-advances-in-alzheimers-disease-research-presented-at-2022-clinical-trials-on-alzheimers-disease-ctad-conference/. Published December 6, 2022. Accessed January 29, 2023.
FDA permits marketing for new test to improve diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease. FDA Permits Marketing for New Test to Improve Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease. https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USFDA/bulletins/3165b47. Published May 4, 2022. Accessed January 29, 2023.
Zinkovich C. Roche alzheimer’s Disease Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF) assays receive FDA clearance, supporting more accurate and timely diagnosis. Roche Alzheimer’s disease Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF) assays receive FDA clearance, supporting more accurate and timely diagnosis. https://diagnostics.roche.com/us/en/news-listing/2022/roche-alzheimers-disease-cerebrospinal-fluid-assays-receive-fda-clearance.html. Published December 8, 2022. Accessed January 29, 2023.
Rogers MB. FDA approves Fujirebio’s CSF test for ad-quest diagnostic offers plasma test. FDA Approves Fujirebio’s CSF Test for AD—Quest Diagnostic Offers Plasma Test. https://www.alzforum.org/news/community-news/fda-approves-fujirebios-csf-test-ad-quest-diagnostic-offers-plasma-test. Published May 21, 2022. Accessed January 29, 2023.
Fact sheet Medicare coverage policy for monoclonal antibodies directed against amyloid for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Medicare Coverage Policy for Monoclonal Antibodies Directed Against Amyloid for the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease. https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicare-coverage-policy-monoclonal-antibodies-directed-against-amyloid-treatment-alzheimers-disease. Published April 7, 2022. Accessed January 29, 2023.
Press release CMS finalizes Medicare coverage policy for monoclonal antibodies directed against amyloid for the treatment of alzheimer’s disease. CMS Finalizes Medicare Coverage Policy for Monoclonal Antibodies Directed Against Amyloid for the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease. https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-finalizes-medicare-coverage-policy-monoclonal-antibodies-directed-against-amyloid-treatment. Published April 7, 2022. Accessed February 7, 2023.

5 Misconceptions for MedTech Market Access Strategy

Market access in MedTech is a complex and rapidly evolving environment, with increasingly intense scrutiny on the costs and benefits of new technologies as the pressure on budgets increases globally. The ability to prepare for and navigate market access strategy is, now more than ever, crucial to the success of a new product, and is frequently assessed by potential partners and acquirers with the same priority as the scientific rationale or potential for favourable regulatory approval.

During the recent MedFit 2022 event in Grenoble, we discussed the most common pitfalls that may affect market access planning and strategy with leading European experts and start-up companies. Here are the top five misconceptions for market access strategy we identified.

“We want to get the approval first, then we will plan for market access”

Engagement with payers early in product development is essential. Companies should define a path to reimbursement, and understand how payers will assess their product, as early as the concept stage to use payers’ feedback to shape the technology into a marketable product and create patient and company value. Leaving engagement with payers until late in development, or after approval, can often lead companies to:

overlook crucial requirements
mistarget patient populations
fail to expectations to gain market access
fail to gain critical pricing insights to size the commercial potential

Missing the opportunity to treat payers as your sounding board can cause delays and significant restrictions in access, while timely and iterative payer engagement has the potential to speed up the development process.

“The evidence we are generating for regulators will be sufficient for our market access strategy”

Regulatory decisions are at the top of priority lists for MedTech entrepreneurs both in the US and Europe. Selection of the right pathway and preparation of required submission dossiers are time-consuming and costly and constitute a necessary condition for market access. Late-stage start-ups agree, nonetheless, that it is far from sufficient, and payers themselves corroborate this perspective. In a recent Kx Advisors study, 100% of interviewed executives for major US payers agreed going beyond the evidence required for regulatory approval is key for market access strategy. Payers increasingly require demonstration of patient value not only with differentiated clinical efficacy and safety but through increased compliance and improved patient outcomes and satisfaction. They are also seeking additional sources of data, such as real-world evidence, insurance claims, and adverse event reports. MedTech companies should plan and pre-empt these requirements by carefully designing their studies for a payer-targeted set of endpoints as early as possible and generating evidence with not only regulators but also payers in mind.

“There is an established price for devices like ours”

Existing pricing and reimbursement benchmarks provide valuable insights for market access strategy, as showing cost-effectiveness in comparison to the current standard of care is an important part of any MedTech company’s economic narrative. However, payers’ focus is shifting towards a more holistic view, with greater interest in:

improved patient outcomes
demonstrated longer-term value
ease of use
adherence to treatment
patient satisfaction

Four out of every five payers recently interviewed by Kx Advisors indicated a preference for increased value over purely lower cost of treatment and were ready to assess pricing based on a complete view of benefit for the patient and healthcare system. The approach MedTech companies take to frame, measure, and present this value becomes a tactical choice, and a key element of a broader commercialisation strategy, that should not be dismissed or made based on a simple competitive analysis.

“We will focus on a market we know and aim for broad market access”

Many MedTech companies decide to first target their home geographic market, building on their familiarity with it, knowledge of the local language and system, and network of contacts. This approach, while easier from a product development perspective, may not allow companies to fully capture their commercial potential. In conversations with Kx Advisors, start-ups with prior product launch experience highlighted the need for fast market deployment and the value of testing the product with first adopters (and getting the product paid for early on) typically outweighs the breadth of market access. The choice of the first markets in which to launch is a strategic decision, and market access becomes one of the key drivers that should be considered in careful prioritisation of the highest potential markets. Entrepreneurs should be aware of both regional (e.g., US vs EU) and intrinsic (e.g., openness to innovative technologies) differences among payers, as well as differing patient population structures and accessibility, and explore avenues that expedite first market access, such as targeting research institutions or venturing into new geographies.

“Payers are not willing to consider innovative reimbursement models”

Getting paid for innovative technologies is notoriously difficult, especially when there is no easy way to make them fit within the established market access pathways for medical devices. The emergence of digital therapies and connected health, as well as the ongoing shift towards at-home therapies accelerated by the COVID pandemic, have only made the landscape more complex. At the same time, the awareness and urgency to address these challenges is on the rise among payers. Approximately 60% of payers recently interviewed by Kx Advisors stated they are exploring value-based reimbursement options and new, alternative pricing models for medical technologies (e.g., subscriptions or device-as-a-service arrangements) will be an increasingly welcome element of future coverage decisions. Building a differentiated market access strategy that accounts for multiple possible business models and reimbursement scenarios and exploring those early with key stakeholders can allow MedTech companies to create and leverage these opportunities.

Has your commercialisation strategy ever been impacted by any of these common misconceptions? Or are you currently facing other strategic decisions that will be crucial for your MedTech company’s growth? Feel free to contact Kx Advisors for a follow-up discussion.