Added therapeutic value of new drugs approved in Brazil from 2004 to 2016 / Valor terapêutico acrescentado de novos medicamentos aprovados no Brasil de 2004 a 2016 / Valor terapéutico añadido de los nuevos medicamentos aprobados en Brasil desde 2004 a 2016

Abstract: This study aimed to assess the level of therapeutic innovation of new drugs approved in Brazil over 13 years and whether they met public health needs. Comparative descriptive analysis of therapeutic value assessments performed by the Brazilian Chamber of Drug Market Regulation (CMED) and the French drug bulletin Prescrire for new drugs licensed in Brazil, from January 1st 2004 to December 31st 2016. The extent to which new drugs met public health needs was examined by: checking inclusions into government-funded drug lists and/or clinical guidelines; comparing Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) codes and drug indications with the list of conditions contributing the most to the national disease burden; and assessing new medicines aimed to treat neglected diseases. 253 new drugs were approved. Antineoplastics, immunossupressants, antidiabetics and antivirals were the most frequent. Thirty-three (14%) out of 236 drugs assessed by the Brazilian chamber and sixteen (8.2%) out of 195 assessed by the French bulletin Prescrire were considered innovative. Thirty-six drugs (14.2%) were selected for coverage by the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS), seven of which were therapeutically innovative, and none were aimed to treat neglected disease. About 1/3 of the drugs approved aimed to treat conditions among the top contributors to Brazil's disease burden. Few therapeutically innovative drugs entered the Brazilian market, from which only a small proportion was approved to be covered by the SUS. Our findings suggest a divergence between public health needs, research & development (R&D) and drug licensing procedures.

Resumo: O objetivo foi avaliar o nível de inovação terapêutica de novos medicamentos aprovados no Brasil ao longo de 13 anos e se eles atendem a necessidades de saúde pública. Foi feita uma análise comparativa descritiva da avaliação de valor terapêutico realizada pela Câmara de Regulação do Mercado de Medicamentos (CMED) e pelo boletim de medicamentos francês Prescrire para novos medicamentos licenciados no Brasil entre 1º de janeiro de 2004 e 31 de dezembro de 2016. Examinamos em que medida os novos medicamentos atendem a necessidade de saúde pública por meio de: checagem da inclusão em listas de medicamentos financiados pelo governo e/ou diretrizes clínicas; comparação de códigos da Classificação Anatômica Terapêutica Química (ATC, em inglês) e indicações de medicamentos com a lista de condições que mais contribuem para a carga de doença nacional; e avaliação de se os novos medicamentos tinham por objetivo tratar doenças negligenciadas. Foram aprovados 253 novos medicamentos. Antineoplásicos, imunossupressores, antidiabéticos e antivirais foram os mais frequentes. Trinta e três (14%) dos 236 medicamentos avaliados pela Câmara brasileira e 16 (8,2%) dos 195 avaliados pelo boletim francês Prescrire foram considerados inovadores. Trinta e seis medicamentos (14,2%) foram selecionados para cobertura no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), sete dos quais eram inovadores do ponto de vista terapêutico e nenhum dos quais tinha por objetivo tratar uma doença negligenciada. Em torno de 1/3 dos medicamentos aprovados tinha por objetivo o tratamento de doenças que figuram entre as principais contribuidoras da carga de doença no Brasil. Poucos medicamentos inovadores do ponto de vista terapêutico entraram no mercado brasileiro, dos quais apenas uma pequena proporção foi aprovada para ser coberta pelo SUS. Nossos resultados sugerem uma divergência entre necessidades de saúde pública, pesquisa e desenvolvimento (P&D) e procedimentos de licenciamento de medicamentos.

Resumen: El objetivo fue evaluar el nivel de innovación terapéutica de los nuevos medicamentos aprobados en Brasil durante 13 años y si cumplen con las necesidades sanitarias. Llevamos a cabo un análisis comparativo descriptivo acerca del valor terapéutico presente en las evaluaciones realizadas por la Cámara de Regulación del Mercado de Medicamentos (CMED) y la revista francesa Prescrire sobre los nuevos medicamentos autorizados en Brasil, desde el 1º de enero 2004 hasta el 31de diciembre de 2016. Su alcance, es decir, hasta qué punto los nuevos medicamentos cumplían con las necesidades de salud pública se comprobaron revisando las inclusiones en listas de medicamentos subvencionados por el gobierno y/o directrices clínicas; comparando los códigos de la Classificación Anatómicos Terapéuticos Químicos (ATC por sus siglas en inglés) y las indicaciones de los medicamentos respecto a la lista de enfermedades que contribuían a la mayor carga de morbilidad nacional; y asesorando si los nuevos medicamentos tenían como objetivo tratar enfermedades desatendidas. Se aprobaron 253 nuevos medicamentos. Los antineoplásicos, inmunosupresores, antidiabéticos y antivirales fueron los más frecuentes. Treinta y tres (14%), aparte de los 236 medicamentos evaluados por la Cámara Brasileña, y 16 (8,2%), aparte de los 195 evaluados por la revista francesa Prescrire, se consideraron innovadores. Treinta y seis medicamentos (14,2%) se seleccionaron para que tuvieran cobertura por el Sistema Único de Salud (SUS), siete de ellos eran terapéuticamente innovadores, y ninguno tenía como meta tratar enfermedades desatendidas. Alrededor de 1/3 de las medicinas aprobadas tenían como meta tratar problemas de salud entre las enfermedades con mayor carga de morbilidad en Brasil. Pocos medicamentos terapéuticamente innovadores accedieron al mercado brasileño y de éstos sólo una pequeña parte fueron aprobados para que fueran cubiertos por el SUS. Nuestros resultados sugieren una divergencia entre las necesidades públicas de salud, investigación & desarrollo (I&D) y los procedimientos para la autorización de medicamentos.

The impact of quality-of-life data in relative effectiveness assessments of new anti-cancer drugs in European countries.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to investigate the role of health-related quality-of-life (QoL) data in relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of new anti-cancer drugs across European jurisdictions, during health technology assessment procedures. METHODS: Comparative analysis of guidelines and publicly available REAs in six European jurisdictions of anti-cancer drugs approved by EMA between 2011 and 2013. RESULTS: Fourteen anti-cancer drugs were included, adding up to 79 REAs. Whilst all guidelines state that QoL is a relevant endpoint to determine the relative effectiveness of new cancer drugs, QoL data were included in only 54% of the 79 reports and their impact on the recommendations was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst national guidelines recognize the relevance of QoL to determine the relative effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs, this is not well-reflected in current assessments. Developing and implementing into REAs specific evidence requirements for QoL data would improve the use of this patient-centred outcome in future reimbursement and pricing decisions.

Can a Joint Assessment Provide Relevant Information for National/Local Relative Effectiveness Assessments? An In-Depth Comparison of Pazopanib Assessments.

BACKGROUND: In many European jurisdictions, relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of pharmaceuticals are performed during the reimbursement decision-making process. International collaboration in the production of these assessments may prevent the duplication of information in various jurisdictions. A first pilot of a joint REA (pazopanib for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma) was published in 2011. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to investigate how well the methods used in the joint REA match the methods used in the national/local assessments on the same topic. METHODS: National/local assessments from European jurisdictions, available in English language, were identified through a literature search and an e-mail request to health technology assessment organizations. Data were abstracted from joint and national/local assessments using a structured data abstraction form. Results were compared for differences and similarities. RESULTS: In total, five national/local reports were included (Belgium, England/Wales, France, The Netherlands, and Scotland). The general methods (indication, main comparator, main end points, main trial) were similar. The details of the assessment (e.g., exact wording of indication, additional comparators, additional trials included, and method of indirect comparison), however, varied. Despite these differences, the joint REA included nearly all comparators, end points, trials, and methods of analysis that were used in national/local REA reports. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown overlap in the methods national/local REA bodies in Europe have chosen for a pazopanib REA for renal cell carcinoma, except for the use and methods of indirect comparisons. Although some additional comparators and outcomes differed between national/local REAs, they can be captured in a comprehensive joint REA.

From molecule to market access: drug regulatory science as an upcoming discipline.

Regulatory science as a discipline has evolved over the past years with the object to boost and promote scientific rationale behind benefit/risk and decision making by regulatory authorities. The European Medicines Agency, EMA, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, and the Japanese Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency, PMDA, highlighted in their distinct ways the importance of regulatory science as a basis of good quality assessment in their strategic plans. The Medicines Evaluation Board, MEB, states: 'regulatory science is the science of developing and validating new standards and tools to evaluate and assess the benefit/risk of medicinal products, facilitating sound and transparent regulatory decision making'. Through analysis of regulatory frameworks itself and their effectiveness, however, regulatory science can also advance knowledge of these systems in general. The comprehensive guidance that is issued to complete an application dossier for regulatory product approval has seldomly been scrutinized for its efficiency. Since it is the task of regulatory authorities to protect and promote public health, it is understood that they take a cautious approach in regulating drugs prior to market access. In general, the authorities are among the first to be blamed if dangerous or useless drugs were allowed to the market. Yet, building a regulatory framework that is not challenged continuously in terms of deliverables for public health and cost-effectiveness, might be counterproductive in the end. Regulatory science and research can help understand how and why regulatory decisions are made, and where renewed discussions may be warranted. The MEB supports regulatory science as an R&D activity to fuel primary regulatory processes on product evaluation and vigilance, but also invests in a 'looking into the mirror' approach. Along the line of the drug life-cycle, publicly available data are reviewed and their regulatory impact highlighted. If made explicit, regulatory research can open the door to evidence based regulatory practice and serve the regulator's contribution to innovative drug licensing today.

Differences in the availability of medicines for chronic and acute conditions in the public and private sectors of developing countries.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate potential differences in the availability of medicines for chronic and acute conditions in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: Data on the availability of 30 commonly-surveyed medicines - 15 for acute and 15 for chronic conditions - were obtained from facility-based surveys conducted in 40 developing countries. Results were aggregated by World Bank country income group and World Health Organization region. FINDINGS: The availability of medicines for both acute and chronic conditions was suboptimal across countries, particularly in the public sector. Generic medicines for chronic conditions were significantly less available than generic medicines for acute conditions in both the public sector (36.0% availability versus 53.5%; P = 0.001) and the private sector (54.7% versus 66.2%; P = 0.007). Antiasthmatics, antiepileptics and antidepressants, followed by antihypertensives, were the drivers of the observed differences. An inverse association was found between country income level and the availability gap between groups of medicines, particularly in the public sector. In low- and lower-middle income countries, drugs for acute conditions were 33.9% and 12.9% more available, respectively, in the public sector than medicines for chronic conditions. Differences in availability were smaller in the private sector than in the public sector in all country income groups. CONCLUSION: Current disease patterns do not explain the significant gaps observed in the availability of medicines for chronic and acute conditions. Measures are needed to better respond to the epidemiological transition towards chronic conditions in developing countries alongside current efforts to scale up treatment for communicable diseases.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of testing for angiotensin-converting enzyme genotype before starting beta-hydroxy-beta-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor therapy in men.

This study aimed to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of screening men for their angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-genotype before starting statin therapy. We used a combination of decision-analytic and Markov modelling techniques to evaluate the long-term incremental clinical and economic effects associated with genetic testing of men with hypercholesterolemia before starting treatment with statins. The study was performed from a health care payer perspective. We used data from the Rotterdam study, a prospective population-based cohort study in the Netherlands, which was started in 1990 and included 7983 subjects aged 55 years and older. Men treated with cholesterol-lowering drugs at baseline or with a baseline total cholesterol > or = 6.5 mmol/l were included. The ratio of difference in lifelong costs between the screening strategy and the no screening strategy to difference in life expectancy between these strategies was calculated. We also performed a cost-utility analysis. The base case was a 55-year-old man with hypercholesterolemia who was initially untreated. Several univariate sensitivity analyses were performed. All costs were discounted with an annual rate of 5%. Screening men for their ACE-genotype was the dominant strategy for the base case analysis, because the screening strategy saved money (851 Euro), but life expectancy was not changed. Screening was the dominant strategy for all age-groups in our cohort. Even in 80-year-old subjects, with the shortest life-expectancy, it was cheaper to screen than to give lifelong treatment to men with a DD genotype without success. Even if all DD subjects were treated with other (non-statin) cholesterol-lowering drugs, screening remained the cost-effective strategy. The results of the cost-utility analysis were similar. Discounting the effects with 5% per year also had no major impact on the conclusions. If other studies confirm that men with the DD genotype do not benefit from treatment with statins, screening for ACE genotype in men most likely will be a cost-effective strategy before initiating statin therapy.

Genetic polymorphisms: importance for response to HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors.

Coronary artery disease is among the leading causes of death worldwide. Clinical trials show a protective effect of statins against the sequelae of coronary artery disease. The mean risk reductions for subjects using statins compared with placebo found in these trials is about 30%. These are average reductions for all patients included in the trials. Important factors in interpreting the variability in the outcome of drug therapy include the patient's health profile, prognosis, disease severity, quality of drug prescribing, compliance with prescribed pharmacotherapy and the genetic profile of the patient. This review aims to give an overview of the known polymorphisms (Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein polymorphism, Stromelysin-1 polymorphism, -455G/A and TaqI polymorphisms of the beta-fibrinogen gene, apoE4, Asp(9)Asn mutation in the lipoprotein lipase gene, the -514 CT polymorphism in the hepatic lipase gene and the ACE deletion type gene) that have an influence on the effects of statins in the general population. The expectation is that in the future a subject's genotype may determine whether he will be treated with statins or not. Determining the genotype will not deny therapy to a subject, but will help in deciding the therapy that will suit the patient best.