Clinical pharmacology facing the real-world setting: Pharmacovigilance, pharmacoepidemiology and the economic evaluation of drugs.

Traditionally, clinical pharmacology has focused its activities on drug-organism interaction, from an individual or collective perspective. Drug efficacy assessment by performing randomized clinical trials and analysis of drug use in clinical practice by carrying out drug utilization studies have also been other areas of interest. From now on, Clinical pharmacology should move from the analysis of the drug-individual interaction to the analysis of the drug-individual-society interaction. It should also analyze the clinical and economic consequences of the use of drugs in the conditions of normal clinical practice, beyond clinical trials. The current exponential technological development that facilitates the analysis of real-life data offers us a golden opportunity to move to all these other areas of interest. This review describes the role that clinical pharmacology has played at the beginning and during the evolution of pharmacovigilance, pharmacoepidemiology and economic drug evaluations in Spain. In addition, the challenges that clinical pharmacology is going to face in the following years in these three areas are going to be outlined too.

Financing and Reimbursement of Approved Advanced Therapies in Several European Countries.

OBJECTIVES: The uncertainty in the cost-benefit of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) is a current challenge for their reimbursement in health systems. This study aimed to provide a comparative analysis of the National Health Authorities (NHAs) reimbursement recommendations issued in different European countries. METHODS: The NHA reimbursement recommendations for the approved ATMPs were compared among 8 European Union (EU) Countries (EU8: Ireland, England/Wales, Scotland, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy). The search was carried out until December 31, 2021. RESULTS: A total of 19 approved ATMPs and 76 appraisal reports were analyzed. The majority of the ATMPs were reimbursed, although with uncertainty in added therapeutic value. No relationship between the type of the European Medicines Agency approval and reimbursement was found. Managed entry agreements, such as payment by results, were necessary to ensure market access. The main issue during the evaluation was to base the cost-effectiveness analyses on assumptions because of the limited long-term data. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio among countries reveals high variability. Overall, the median time to NHA recommendation for the EU8 is in the range of 9 to 17 months. CONCLUSIONS: Transparent, harmonized, and systematic assessments across the EU NHAs in terms of cost-effectiveness, added therapeutic value, and grade of innovativeness are needed. This could lead to a more aligned access, increasing the EU market attractiveness and raising public fairness in terms of patient access and pricing.

Comparison of regulatory pathways for the approval of advanced therapies in the European Union and the United States.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Regulatory agencies in the European Union (EU) and in the United States of America (USA) have adapted and launched regulatory pathways to accelerate patient access to innovative therapies, such as advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). The aim of this study is to analyze similarities and differences between regulatory pathways followed by the approved ATMPs in both regions. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the ATMPs approved by EU and US regulatory agencies was carried out until May 31, 2020. Data were collected on the features and timing of orphan drug designation (ODD), scientific advice (SA), expedited program designation (EP), marketing authorization application (MAA) and marketing authorization (MA) for both regions. RESULTS: In the EU, a total of fifteen ATMPs were approved (eight gene therapies, three somatic cell therapies, three tissue-engineered products and one combined ATMP), whereas in the USA, a total of nine were approved (five gene therapies and four cell therapies); seven of these were authorized in both regions. No statistical differences were found in the mean time between having the ODD or EP granted and the start of the pivotal clinical trial or MAA in the EU and USA, although the USA required less time for MAA assessment than the EU (mean difference, 5.44, P = 0.012). The MAA assessment was shorter for those products with a PRIME or breakthrough designation.. No differences were found in the percentage of ATMPs with expedited MAA assessment between the EU and the USA (33.3% versus 55.5%, respectively, P = 0.285) or in the time required for the MAA expedited review (mean difference 4.41, P = 0.105). Approximately half of the products in both regions required an Advisory Committee during the MAA review, and 60% required an oral explanation in the EU. More than half of the approved ATMPs (67% and 55.55% in the EU and the USA, respectively) were granted an ODD, 70% by submitting preliminary clinical data in the EU. The mean number of SA and protocol assistance per product conducted by the European Medicines Agency was 1.71 and 3.75, respectively, and only 13% included parallel advice with health technology assessment bodies. A total of 53.33% of the products conducted the first SA after the pivotal clinical study had started, reporting more protocol amendments. Finally, of the seven ATMPs authorized in both regions, the type of MA differed for only two ATMPs (28.6%), and four out of eight products non-commercialized in the USA had a non-standard MA in the EU. CONCLUSIONS: The current approved ATMPs mainly target orphan diseases. Although EU and US regulatory procedures may differ, the main regulatory milestones reached by the approved ATMPs are similar in both regions, with the exception of the time for MAA evaluation, the number of authorized products in the regions and the type of authorization for some products. More global regulatory convergence might further simplify and expedite current ATMP development in these regions.

Reimbursement Status and Recommendations Related to Orphan Drugs in European Countries.

Objective: To review the reimbursement recommendations issued by selected European health technology assessment agencies for orphan drugs and the reimbursement status of these drugs; to assess the relationship between the type of recommendation and reimbursement status. Methods: The list of orphan drugs to be included in the analysis was obtained from the European Medicines Agency and Orphanet. Seven European states were included in the analysis: Belgium, England, France, Germany, Poland, Scotland, and Spain. For all identified orphan drugs, relevant data on the reimbursement status and type of recommendation were collected for each country. The relationship between the type of recommendation and reimbursement status was evaluated separately for each considered country, using Cohen's kappa coefficient for the measurement of agreement; sub-analyses for oncology and metabolic drugs were performed. Results: Most reimbursement recommendations for orphan drugs were positive (71%), while approximately 17% were negative and almost 13% were conditional. The highest percentage of positive reimbursement recommendations was observed in Spain (97%) and France (95%) and the highest percentage of negative reimbursement recommendations was revealed for Poland (49%). On average, 65% of the 163 analyzed orphan drugs were reimbursed from public funds. The highest number of reimbursed orphan drugs was observed in Germany (n = 148), while the lowest, in Poland (n = 41). Considering all analyzed drugs, the highest agreement between recommendations and reimbursement status was observed for Spain (value of 1), and the lowest, for Germany (κ = -0.03). Conclusions: On average, more than 60% of identified orphan drugs were reimbursed from public funds in the included countries, and the majority of reimbursement recommendations were found to be positive. The agreement between reimbursement recommendations and reimbursement status differed between the countries, but overall, it did not show any patterns, as it ranged from -0.03 to 1 (κ coefficient).

Non-commercial vs. commercial clinical trials: a retrospective study of the applications submitted to a research ethics committee.

There are many difficulties in undertaking independent clinical research without support from the pharmaceutical industry. In this retrospective observational study, some design characteristics, the clinical trial public register and the publication rate of noncommercial clinical trials were compared to those of commercial clinical trials. A total of 809 applications of drug-evaluation clinical trials were submitted from May 2004 to May 2009 to the research ethics committee of a tertiary hospital, and 16.3% of trials were noncommercial. They were mainly phase IV, multicentre national, and unmasked controlled trials, compared to the commercial trials that were mainly phase II or III, multicentre international, and double-blind masked trials. The commercial trials were registered and published more often than noncommercial trials. More funding for noncommercial research is still needed. The results of the research, commercial or noncommercial, should be disseminated in order not to compromise either its scientific or its social value.

Policies to enhance the efficiency of prescribing in the Spanish Catalan region: impact and future direction.

AIM: To assess the impact of recent national and regional initiatives on the utilization and expenditure of four high-volume classes to provide future guidance. These were proton pump inhibitors, statins and ezetimibe, and renin-angiotensin drugs, as well as newer antidepressants. METHODS: An observational study of prescriptions dispensed in ambulatory care in Catalonia was conducted from 2003 to 2007. Utilization was converted into defined daily doses (DDDs) and DDDs per 1000 inhabitants per day, and compared over the study period, as well as with other European countries. RESULTS: As expected, there was increasing utilization of statins and renin-angiotensin drugs during the study period, as well as increased utilization of generics versus originators in each class; the latter figures were substantially greater than those published previously. There was also increased utilization of the proton pump inhibitors, which is a cause for concern. There were substantial reductions in the expenditure/DDDs of generics and originator products in 2007 versus 2003. For instance, expenditure/DDDs of generic and originator simvastatin were 81 and 72%, respectively, below 2003 originator prices. These reductions were much greater than those seen in previous publications. The increased utilization of generics, coupled with lower expenditure/DDDs for the classes, led to reduced reimbursed expenditure for the proton pump inhibitors, statins and newer antidepressants over time. CONCLUSION: The findings are in line with expectations and do provide direction to other European countries, especially those with higher expenditures/DDDs for generics. There is an opportunity for Catalonia to learn from other countries to further enhance the quality and efficiency of its prescribing, and possible initiatives are discussed.

An intervention to improve spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting by hospital physicians: a time series analysis in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in hospitals is scarce and several obstacles to such reporting have been identified previously. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention based on healthcare management agreements for improving spontaneous reporting of ADRs by physicians in a hospital setting. METHODS: In 2003, the spontaneous reporting of ADRs was included as one of the objectives of hospital physicians at the Vall d'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain, within the context of management agreements between clinical services and hospital managers. A continuous intervention related to these management agreements, including periodic educational meetings and economic incentives, was then initiated. We carried out an ecological time series analysis and assessed the change in the total number of spontaneous reports of ADRs, and the number of serious ADRs, unexpected ADRs, and ADRs associated with new drugs between a period previous to the intervention (from 1998 to 2002) and the period during the intervention (from 2003 to 2005). A time series analysis with ARIMA (Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average) models was performed. RESULTS: The median number of reported ADRs per year increased from 40 (range 23-55) in the first period to 224 (range 98-248) in the second period. In the first period, the monthly number of reported ADRs was stable (3.47 per month; 95% CI 1.90, 5.03), but in the second period the number increased progressively (increase of 0.74 per month; 95% CI 0.62, 0.86). In the second period, the proportion of reported serious ADRs increased nearly 2-fold (63.1% vs 32.5% in the first period). The absolute number of previously unknown or poorly known ADRs increased 4-fold in the second period (54 vs 13 in the first period). There was also an increase in the absolute number of suspected pharmacological exposures to new drugs (97 vs 28) and in the number of different new drugs suspected of causing ADRs (50 vs 19). CONCLUSION: A continuous intervention based on healthcare management agreements with economic incentives and educational activities is associated with a quantitative and qualitative improvement of spontaneous reporting of ADRs by hospital physicians.