Agreement about Availability of Alternative Treatments for Innovative Drugs Assessed by the EMA and HTA Organizations.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and European national/regional health technology assessment (HTA) organizations consider the availability of existing treatments when evaluating a new drug. Since disagreement about the availability of alternative treatments may impact patient access to new drugs, this study aimed to investigate whether the EMA and HTA organizations agreed on the availability of alternative treatments and whether a lack of alternative treatments was associated with HTA organizations' added benefit assessment outcomes. For 97 innovative drugs authorized in 2019-2021 (excluding vaccines and diagnostic tools), assessments by the EMA and AEMPS (Spain), AIFA (Italy), HAS (France), IQWiG/G-BA (Germany), NICE (England and Wales), and ZIN (the Netherlands) were identified. Until 1 June 2022, 429 HTA drug-indication combinations were identified for these 97 drugs, of which 205 exactly matched the EMA's indication. For those, the overall agreement between the EMA and HTA organizations on whether alternative treatments were available was 87%. The agreement of HTA organizations with the EMA on whether available treatments were either pharmacological on-label, pharmacological off-label, or non-pharmacological was 87%, 21%, and 57%, respectively. For all 429 HTA drug-indication combinations, absence of alternative treatments as considered by HTA organizations was associated with a higher chance to provide added benefit: risk ratio 1.8 (95%-CI 1.4-2.3). In conclusion, although there was high overall agreement between the EMA and HTA organizations about whether alternative treatments exist, there were differences in the types of treatment considered. Parallel joint scientific consultations could inform drug developers about relevant alternative treatments to facilitate patient access to innovative drugs.

Cost of illness due to pertussis in adults ≥50 years of age in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Pertussis is an endemic respiratory tract infection caused by Bordetella pertussis that may affect all individuals from infants to older adults. Pertussis incidence in adults is often underreported and in various countries, including the United Kingdom (UK), there are evidence gaps on pertussis-associated economic burden in the older adult population. We aimed to quantify the economic burden of pertussis in adults aged ≥50 years in the UK. METHODS: A cost-of-illness study was conducted to estimate the cost of pertussis from a societal perspective. We utilized a sum diagnosis cost approach in which costs related to infection with pertussis were included. Medical, patient, and indirect costs were calculated individually and combined to calculate total costs. A framework was developed to assess costs for consecutive age groups from 50-54 years of age to ≥85 years of age. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were used to assess analysis uncertainty. RESULTS: The base-case analysis estimated the total annual economic burden of pertussis to be approximately £238 million (M). This comprised approximately £159 M in indirect costs, £66 M in medical costs, and £13 M in patient costs. Costs for the age group 55-59 years had the highest impact on the economic burden, with approximately £79 M in total annual costs. Visits to general practitioners and nurses were the largest contributors to medical costs (∼£37 M) followed by inpatient visits (∼£21 M). Transportation costs (∼£10 M) were the major patient costs. Productivity loss (∼£71 M) and leisure time loss (∼£72 M) had comparable contributions to annual indirect costs. Sensitivity and scenario analyses suggested that incidence rates, indirect costs, and underreporting estimates had the highest impact on outcomes. CONCLUSION: Total cost of pertussis in the UK among adults ≥50 years of age is substantial and highest for adults 55-59 years of age. Indirect costs were the main contributors to the economic burden.