Closing the cycle of innovation in healthcare in Europe.

Pragmatic or practice-oriented comparative effectiveness trials may be conducted to fill the evidence gaps that are revealed after the private sector has performed the trials needed for bringing their product to the market. A tool of increasing importance to identify such evidence gaps is resulting from health technology assessments (HTA) whereby the data derived from clinical research are examined in a systematic manner with reference to effect, safety, as well as additional parameters. Practice-oriented trials are informative for healthcare decision makers, practice-changing and may even be cost-saving for the healthcare payers. There are however only a limited number of funding sources for such trials. Public and private healthcare payers should stimulate the conduct of practice-oriented trials in their effort to maximize patient benefit within the limitation of the available resources. Pragmatic randomized trials can be performed at low cost when based on existing coded electronic health records and as well health registries. Public health decision makers are increasingly taking advantage of results from health technology assessments to support priority setting. In accordance with this it would appear reasonable that decision makers should get more involved in priority setting and funding also in the field of clinical research in order to provide further evidence needed for assessments, reassessments, and subsequent qualified decisions and resource allocations in health care. A closer dialogue and collaboration between the clinical research and HTA communities would facilitate a more efficient utilization of such opportunities.

On the integration of early health technology assessment in the innovation process: reflections from five stakeholders.

Early health technology assessment (HTA), which includes all methods used to inform industry and other stakeholders about the potential value of new medical products in development, including methods to quantify and manage uncertainty, has seen many applications in recent years. However, it is still unclear how such early value assessments can be integrated into the technology innovation process. This commentary contributes to the discussion on the purposes early HTA can serve. Similarities and differences in the perspectives of five stakeholders (i.e., the hospital, the patient, the assessor, the medical device industry, and the policy maker) on the purpose, value, and potential challenges of early HTA are described. All five stakeholders agreed that integrating early HTA in the innovation process has the possibility to shape and refine an innovation, and inform research and development decisions. The early assessment, using a variety of methodologies, can provide insights that are relevant for all stakeholders but several challenges, for example, feasibility and responsibility, need to be addressed before early HTA can become standard practice. For early evaluations to be successful, all relevant stakeholders including patients need to be involved. Also, nimble, flexible assessment methods are needed that fit the dynamics of medical technology. Best practices should be shared to optimize both the innovation process and the methods to perform an early value assessment.

Hypertension after preeclampsia and relation to the C1114G polymorphism (rs4606) in RGS2: data from the Norwegian HUNT2 study.

BACKGROUND: Preeclampsia is associated with an increased risk of hypertension later in life. The regulator of G protein signaling 2 negatively regulates several vasoconstrictors. We recently demonstrated an association between preeclampsia and the CG or GG genotype of the C1114G polymorphism (rs4606) of the regulator of G protein signaling 2 gene. Here, we examined the polymorphism with respect to the development of hypertension after pregnancy. METHODS: We genotyped 934 women on average 15.1 years after preeclampsia and 2011 age matched women with previous normotensive pregnancy. All women in this study were retrospectively recruited from the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT2). Information from HUNT2 was linked to the Medical Birth Registry of Norway to identify women with a history of preeclampsia and women without a history of preeclampsia. RESULTS: No significant association was found between hypertension (blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg and/or taking antihypertensive drugs) and the polymorphism in crude analysis (OR (95% CI): CG genotype: 1.07 (0.90-1.27); GG genotype: 1.23 (0.90-1.67)). However, in a minimally adjusted model (age and BMI adjusted), a significant association between the GG genotype and hypertension was found (OR (95% CI): 1.49 (1.05-2.11)). This association remained significant also after adjustment for a history of preeclampsia (OR (95% CI): 1.46 (1.02-2.09)), but not in a model adjusted for multiple other variables (OR (95% CI): 1.26 (0.82-1.94)). In multivariate, but not in crude, analysis, the GG genotype of rs4606 (OR (95% CI): 1.93 (1.05-3.53)) was significantly and independently associated with severe hypertension later in life, defined as systolic blood pressure ≥160 mmHg (stage 2 hypertension) and/or taking antihypertensive drugs. A significant association was also found for the merged CG and GG genotypes (OR (95% CI): 1.43 (1.02-2.00)). Moreover, an interaction with physical activity was found. A history of preeclampsia was a significant and independent predictor of either definition of hypertension, both in crude and adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: Women carrying the rs4606 CG or GG genotype are at elevated risk for developing hypertension after delivery. Physical activity may interact with the association. Preeclampsia remains an independent risk factor for subsequent hypertension after adjusting for this polymorphism and classical CVD risk factors.

Interface management of pharmacotherapy. Joint hospital and primary care drug recommendations.

PURPOSE: In September 2012 an interactive course on the "Interface Management of Pharmacotherapy" was organized by the Stockholm Drug and Therapeutics Committee in cooperation with Department of Clinical Pharmacology at Karolinska Institutet and at Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, in collaboration with the WHO. The basis for the course was the "Stockholm model" for the rational use of medicines but also contained presentations about successful models in interface management of pharmacotherapy in other European countries. METHODS: The "Stockholm model" consists of 8 components: 1) Independent Drug and Therapeutics Committee with key role for respected drug experts with policy for "interest of conflicts", 2) The "Wise List", recommendations of medicines jointly for primary and hospital care, 3) Communication strategy with continuous medical education, 4) Systematic introduction of new expensive medicines, 5) E-pharmacological support at "point of care", 6) Methods and tools for follow-up of medicines use, 7) Medicines policy strategy and 8) Operative resources. RESULTS: The course highlighted the importance of efficient and targeted communication of drug recommendations building on trust among prescribers and patients for the guidelines to achieve high adherence. Trust is achieved by independent Drug and Therapeutics Committees with a key role for respected experts and a strict policy for "conflicts of interest". Representations of GPs are also crucial for successful implementation, being the link between evidence based medicine and practice. CONCLUSION: The successful models in Scotland and in Stockholm as well as the ongoing work in Catalonia were considered as examples of multifaceted approaches to improve the quality of medicine use across primary and hospital care.

[Drugs that may trigger or exacerbate myasthenia gravis]. / Medikamenter som kan utløse og forverre myasthenia gravis.

Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune disease causing muscle weakness due to impaired transmission at the neuromuscular junction. MG or a MG-like condition may be triggered or exacerbated by several drugs used for treatment of other diseases. Drugs may interfere with the neuromuscular transmission through several mechanisms, either by affecting pre- or postsynaptic ion channels or by affecting acetylcholinesterase. Based on a literature search in PubMed and the authors' own clinical experiences, we provide an overview focusing on the most frequently used drugs that may exacerbate weakness in patients with MG. In our experience, symptomatic MG-patients who have a generalised disease are especially vulnerable to drug-induced exacerbations, while stable MG patients with few symptoms more seldom are. Nevertheless, patients with MG must receive treatment for co-existing conditions. It is important to be aware of a possible increase in muscle weakness when introducing a new drug. If the patient deteriorates, the new treatment must be withdrawn or the dose reduced.

Corrigendum to "Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2021/9996193.].

Challenges and Opportunities With Routinely Collected Data on the Utilization of Cancer Medicines. Perspectives From Health Authority Personnel Across 18 European Countries.

Background: Rising expenditure for new cancer medicines is accelerating concerns that their costs will become unsustainable for universal healthcare access. Moreover, early market access of new oncology medicines lacking appropriate clinical evaluation generates uncertainty over their cost-effectiveness and increases expenditure for unknown health gain. Patient-level data can complement clinical trials and generate better evidence on the effectiveness, safety and outcomes of these new medicines in routine care. This can support policy decisions including funding. Consequently, there is a need for improving datasets for establishing real-world outcomes of newly launched oncology medicines. Aim: To outline the types of available datasets for collecting patient-level data for oncology among different European countries. Additionally, to highlight concerns regarding the use and availability of such data from a health authority perspective as well as possibilities for cross-national collaboration to improve data collection and inform decision-making. Methods: A mixed methods approach was undertaken through a cross-sectional questionnaire followed-up by a focus group discussion. Participants were selected by purposive sampling to represent stakeholders across different European countries and healthcare settings. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze quantifiable questions, whilst content analysis was employed for open-ended questions. Results: 25 respondents across 18 European countries provided their insights on the types of datasets collecting oncology data, including hospital records, cancer, prescription and medicine registers. The most available is expenditure data whilst data concerning effectiveness, safety and outcomes is less available, and there are concerns with data validity. A major constraint to data collection is the lack of comprehensive registries and limited data on effectiveness, safety and outcomes of new medicines. Data ownership limits data accessibility as well as possibilities for linkage, and data collection is time-consuming, necessitating dedicated staff and better systems to facilitate the process. Cross-national collaboration is challenging but the engagement of multiple stakeholders is a key step to reach common goals through research. Conclusion: This study acts as a starting point for future research on patient-level databases for oncology across Europe. Future recommendations will require continued engagement in research, building on current initiatives and involving multiple stakeholders to establish guidelines and commitments for transparency and data sharing.

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications.

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems.Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines.Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus rates and associated costs continue to rise across Europe enhancing health authority focus on its management. The risk of complications is enhanced by poor glycaemic control, with long-acting insulin analogues developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve patient convenience. There are concerns though with their considerably higher costs, but moderated by reductions in complications and associated costs. Biosimilars can help further reduce costs. However, to date, price reductions for biosimilar insulin glargine appear limited. In addition, the originator company has switched promotional efforts to more concentrated patented formulations to reduce the impact of biosimilars. There are also concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. As a result, there is a need to assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues and biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, among multiple European countries to provide future direction. Methodology. Health authority databases are examined to assess utilisation and expenditure patterns for insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine. Explanations for patterns seen were provided by senior-level personnel. RESULTS: Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.

The Expiry of Humira® Market Exclusivity and the Entry of Adalimumab Biosimilars in Europe: An Overview of Pricing and National Policy Measures.

Background: From October 2018, adalimumab biosimilars could enter the European market. However, in some countries, such as Netherlands, high discounts reported for the originator product may have influenced biosimilar entry. Objectives: The aim of this paper is to provide a European overview of (list) prices of originator adalimumab, before and after loss of exclusivity; to report changes in the reimbursement status of adalimumab products; and discuss relevant policy measures. Methods: Experts in European countries received a survey consisting of three parts: 1) general financing/co-payment of medicines, 2) reimbursement status and prices of originator adalimumab, and availability of biosimilars, and 3) policy measures related to the use of adalimumab. Results: In May 2019, adalimumab biosimilars were available in 24 of the 30 countries surveyed. Following introduction of adalimumab biosimilars, a number of countries have made changes in relation to the reimbursement status of adalimumab products. Originator adalimumab list prices varied between countries by a factor of 2.8 before and 4.1 after loss of exclusivity. Overall, list prices of originator adalimumab decreased after loss of exclusivity, although for 13 countries list prices were unchanged. When reported, discounts/rebates on originator adalimumab after loss of exclusivity ranged from 0% to approximately 26% (Romania), 60% (Poland), 80% (Denmark, Italy, Norway), and 80-90% (Netherlands), leading to actual prices per pen or syringe between €412 (Finland) and €50 - €99 (Netherlands). To leverage competition following entry of biosimilar adalimumab, only a few countries adopted measures specifically for adalimumab in addition to general policies regarding biosimilars. In some countries, a strategy was implemented even before loss of exclusivity (Denmark, Scotland), while others did not report specific measures. Conclusion: Even though originator adalimumab is the highest selling product in the world, few countries have implemented specific policies and practices for (biosimilar) adalimumab. Countries with biosimilars on the market seem to have competition lowering list or actual prices. Reported discounts varied widely between countries.

Barriers for Access to New Medicines: Searching for the Balance Between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets.

Introduction: There is continued unmet medical need for new medicines across countries especially for cancer, immunological diseases, and orphan diseases. However, there are growing challenges with funding new medicines at ever increasing prices along with funding increased medicine volumes with the growth in both infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases across countries. This has resulted in the development of new models to better manage the entry of new medicines, new financial models being postulated to finance new medicines as well as strategies to improve prescribing efficiency. However, more needs to be done. Consequently, the primary aim of this paper is to consider potential ways to optimize the use of new medicines balancing rising costs with increasing budgetary pressures to stimulate debate especially from a payer perspective. Methods: A narrative review of pharmaceutical policies and implications, as well as possible developments, based on key publications and initiatives known to the co-authors principally from a health authority perspective. Results: A number of initiatives and approaches have been identified including new models to better manage the entry of new medicines based on three pillars (pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities). Within this, we see the growing role of horizon scanning activities starting up to 36 months before launch, managed entry agreements and post launch follow-up. It is also likely there will be greater scrutiny over the effectiveness and value of new cancer medicines given ever increasing prices. This could include establishing minimum effectiveness targets for premium pricing along with re-evaluating prices as more medicines for cancer lose their patent. There will also be a greater involvement of patients especially with orphan diseases. New initiatives could include a greater role of multicriteria decision analysis, as well as looking at the potential for de-linking research and development from commercial activities to enhance affordability. Conclusion: There are a number of ongoing activities across countries to try and fund new valued medicines whilst attaining or maintaining universal healthcare. Such activities will grow with increasing resource pressures and continued unmet need.

Heterotrimeric G proteins and disease.

Heterotrimeric G proteins attached to the cell membrane convey signals from G protein-coupled receptors in response to stimulation by a number of hormones, neurotransmitters, chemokines, and pharmacological agents to intracellular signaling cascades. The heterotrimeric G proteins are also located in the cell interior, and receptor-independent mechanisms may elicit their activation. Thus, G proteins may possibly exert cellular functions other than acting as signaling transducers. There is also increasing evidence for roles in different diseases including infections, inflammation, neurological diseases, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and endocrine disorders. This review describes characteristics of the heterotrimeric G proteins, evidence for their involvement in different diseases, and outlines some of the therapeutic options utilizing G protein targets.

Treatment options and individualized medicine.

Although several drug targets are identified, current strategies in therapy do not take into account that patients vary in their response to drugs, both with respect to efficacy and toxic side effects. Whereas both clinical and histopathologic predictors of prognosis are established in some diseases, a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms that determine treatment response should play an important role in the development of individualized medicine. Treatment optimization will rely on the ability to adjust treatment algorithms for use in the individual patient based on the identification and validation of the factors that critically determine treatment outcomes, including diagnosis, disease phase and characteristics, organ functions, age, and gender. Although the analysis of a single genetic marker (e.g., CYP polymorphisms) may yield significant information that predicts drug response, the prediction obtained from the analysis of several genetic and epigenetic markers is potentially more powerful in selecting patients for effective therapy, whereas sparing those who would not respond or would suffer undesirable side effects. In this chapter, several relevant examples are presented.

Adaptive Pathways: Possible Next Steps for Payers in Preparation for Their Potential Implementation.

Medicines receiving a conditional marketing authorization through Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients (MAPPs) will be a challenge for payers. The "introduction" of MAPPs is already seen by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a fait accompli, with payers not consulted or involved. However, once medicines are approved through MAPPs, they will be evaluated for funding by payers through different activities. These include Health Technology Assessment (HTA) with often immature clinical data and high uncertainty, financial considerations, and negotiations through different types of agreements, which can require monitoring post launch. Payers have experience with new medicines approved through conditional approval, and the fact that MAPPs present additional challenges is a concern from their perspective. There may be some activities where payers can collaborate. The final decisions on whether to reimburse a new medicine via MAPPs will have more variation than for medicines licensed via conventional processes. This is due not only to increasing uncertainty associated with medicines authorized through MAPPs but also differences in legal frameworks between member states. Moreover, if the financial and side-effect burden from the period of conditional approval until granting full marketing authorization is shifted to the post-authorization phase, payers may have to bear such burdens. Collection of robust data during routine clinical use is challenging along with high prices for new medicines during data collection. This paper presents the concept of MAPPs and possible challenges. Concerns and potential ways forward are discussed and a number of recommendations are presented from the perspective of payers.

Available Tools to Facilitate Early Patient Access to Medicines in the EU and the USA: Analysis of Conditional Approvals and the Implications for Personalized Medicine.

Scientific knowledge and our understanding of the human body and diseases have limited any possible treatment tailoring to each patient. The technological advances enabling the integration of various data sets (e.g. '-omics', microbiome, epigenetics and environmental exposure) have facilitated a greater understanding of the human body, the molecular basis of disease and all the factors influencing disease onset, progression and response to treatment, thereby ushering in the era of personalized medicine. We evaluate the regulatory approaches available to facilitate early patient access to efficacious and safe compounds in the EU and the USA in order to make more informed recommendations in the future as to the gaps in regulations for early patient access. An in-depth analysis of conditional approvals (EU) and accelerated approvals (USA) is performed based on the publicly available information (European public assessment reports and a summary review of products approved under both programmes). The types of product, indications, time to approval and type of evidence submitted were analysed. Between 2007 and early 2015, 17 products were conditionally approved in the EU and 25 in the USA, most of them in the area of oncology and based on evidence from phase II clinical trial data. Early approval of promising products based on data from early phases of development is already possible in the EU and the USA. Some of the improvements could entail implementing a rolling assessment of evidence in Europe and extending the scope of early dialogues.

Ca2+-mediated activation of ERK in hepatocytes by norepinephrine and prostaglandin F2 alpha: role of calmodulin and Src kinases.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that several agents that stimulate heptahelical G-protein coupled receptors activate the extracellular signal regulated kinases ERK1 (p44mapk) and ERK2 (p42mapk) in hepatocytes. The molecular pathways that convey their signals to ERK1/2 are only partially clarified. In the present study we have explored the role of Ca2+ and Ca2+-dependent steps leading to ERK1/2 activation induced by norepinephrine and prostaglandin (PG)F2alpha. RESULTS: Pretreatment of the cells with the Ca2+ chelators BAPTA-AM or EGTA, as well as the Ca2+ influx inhibitor gadolinium, resulted in a partial decrease of the ERK response. Furthermore, the calmodulin antagonists W-7, trifluoperazine, and J-8 markedly decreased ERK activation. Pretreatment with KN-93, an inhibitor of the multifunctional Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase, had no effect on ERK activation. The Src kinase inhibitors PP1 and PP2 partially diminished the ERK responses elicited by both norepinephrine and PGF2alpha. CONCLUSION: The present data indicate that Ca2+ is involved in ERK activation induced by hormones acting on G protein-coupled receptors in hepatocytes, and suggest that calmodulin and Src kinases might play a role in these signaling pathways.

PP084. Hypertension after preeclampsia in women with C1114G polymorphism in rgs2 (the regulator of g protein signaling 2).

INTRODUCTION: Women with preeclampsia have increased risk of developing hypertension later in life. We recently demonstrated an association between preeclampsia and the CG or GG genotype of the rs4606 in the regulator of G protein signaling 2 (RGS2) gene. RGS2 negatively regulates several vasoconstrictors. OBJECTIVES: To explore the potential association between the rs4606 and hypertension after pregnancy in women with previous preeclampsia or controls. METHODS: DNA from 933 women with a history of preeclampsia and 2010 women without a history of preeclampsia was analyzed for the rs4606 in RGS2. RESULTS: Preeclampsia, but not the rs4606, was significantly associated with hypertension (systolic blood pressure ⩾140mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ⩾90mmHg and/or taking antihypertensive drugs) in both univariate and multivariate analyses, including adjustment for classical cardiovascular risk factors. For women with hypertension defined as blood pressure above 160/100mmHg and/or taking antihypertensive drugs, the rs4606 was significantly associated with hypertension in multivariate analysis. Our data further suggested an association between the rs4606 and physical activity in relation to hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Women with the rs4606 CG or GG genotype may be at elevated risk for severe hypertension. However, a history of preeclampsia remained an independent predictor of hypertension after accounting for this polymorphism and classical cardiovascular risk factors.

Single nucleotide polymorphisms in G protein signaling pathway genes in preeclampsia.

Preeclampsia is a pregnancy specific disorder and a risk factor for later cardiovascular disease. The cause and detailed pathophysiology remains unknown. G protein signaling is involved in a variety of physiological processes, including blood pressure regulation. We assessed whether distributions of 3 single nucleotide polymorphisms in genes coding for components of G protein signaling pathways that have been associated with hypertension differ between women with preeclampsia and normotensive pregnant women; the G protein ß3 subunit gene (GNB3) C825T polymorphism (rs5443), the angiotensin II type 1 receptor gene (AGTR1) 3'UTR A1166C polymorphism (rs5186), and the regulator of G protein signaling 2 gene (RGS2) 3'UTR C1114G polymorphism (rs4606). Two separate Norwegian study populations were used; a large population based study and a smaller, but clinically well-described pregnancy biobank. A descriptive study of 43 women with eclampsia was additionally included. In the population-based study, an increased odds of preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.21; [95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.40]; P=0.009) and recurrent preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.43; [95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.92];, P=0.017) was found in women carrying the rs4606 CG or GG genotype. In early-onset preeclamptic patients with decidual spiral artery biopsies available (n=24), the rs4606 CG or GG genotype was more frequent in those with acute atherosis (resembling early stage of atherosclerosis) compared with those without: odds ratio, 15.0; (95% confidence interval, 2.02-111.2); P=0.004. No association was found between preeclampsia and the rs5443 or the rs5186. The genotype distribution in eclamptic women was not different from preeclamptic women. In conclusion, RGS2 rs4606 may affect the risk and progression of preeclampsia.