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.

Trends and patterns in EU(7)-PIM prescribing to elderly patients in Germany.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore patterns and long-term development in prescribing potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) according to the EU(7)-PIM list to elderly patients in Germany. METHODS: We analysed anonymized German claims data. The study population comprised 6.0 million insured individuals at least 65 years old, including all their prescriptions reimbursed in 2019. For the analysis of long-term development, we used data for the years 2009-2019. Factors associated with PIM prescribing were considered from two perspectives: patient-oriented analysis was performed with logistic regression and prescriber-oriented analysis was performed with multiple linear regression. RESULTS: EU(7)-PIM prevalence was reduced from 56.9% in 2009 to 45.1% in 2019. Average annual volume (DDDs/insured) decreased from 145 in 2009 to 121 in 2019. These figures are substantially greater than those for the older PRISCUS list. The majority of investigated ATC level 2 groups with the highest EU(7)-PIM DDD volume exhibited substantial decreases; moderate increases were found for antihypertensive and urological drugs. Antithrombotics increased strongly with the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants. The most prevalent EU(7)-PIM medication was diclofenac; however, in the age group 85+ years, apixaban was twice as prevalent as diclofenac. Polypharmacy, female sex, age < 90 years, need for nursing care and living in Eastern regions were identified as risk factors. Prescriber specialty was the most marked factor in the prescriber-oriented analysis. CONCLUSION: Although the use of EU(7)-PIMs has been declining, regional differences indicate considerable room for improvement. The comparison with PRISCUS highlights the necessity of regular updates of PIM lists.

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.

Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) consist of a set of instruments to reduce the uncertainty and the budget impact of new high-priced medicines; however, there are concerns. There is a need to critically appraise MEAs with their planned introduction in Brazil. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to identify and appraise key attributes and concerns with MEAs among payers and their advisers, with the findings providing critical considerations for Brazil and other high- and middle-income countries. METHODS: An integrative review approach was adopted. This involved a review of MEAs across countries. The review question was 'What are the health technology MEAs that have been applied around the world?' This review was supplemented with studies not retrieved in the search known to the senior-level co-authors including key South American markets. It also involved senior-level decision makers and advisers providing guidance on the potential advantages and disadvantages of MEAs and ways forward. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Most MEAs included medicines (96.8%), focused on financial arrangements (43%) and included mostly antineoplastic medicines. Most countries kept key information confidential including discounts or had not published such data. Few details were found in the literature regarding South America. Our findings and inputs resulted in both advantages including reimbursement and disadvantages including concerns with data collection for outcome-based schemes. CONCLUSIONS: We are likely to see a growth in MEAs with the continual launch of new high-priced and often complex treatments, coupled with increasing demands on resources. Whilst outcome-based MEAs could be an important tool to improve access to new innovative medicines, there are critical issues to address. Comparing knowledge, experiences, and practices across countries is crucial to guide high- and middle-income countries when designing their future MEAs.

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.

Proposal for a regulation on health technology assessment in Europe - opinions of policy makers, payers and academics from the field of HTA.

INTRODUCTION: In January 2018 the European Commission published a Proposal for a Regulation on Health Technology Assessment (HTA): 'Proposal for a Regulation on health technology assessment and amending Directive 2011/24/EU'. A number of stakeholders, including some Member States, welcomed this initiative as it was considered to improve collaboration, reduce duplication and improve efficiency. There were however a number of concerns including its legal basis, the establishment of a single managing authority, the preservation of national jurisdiction over HTA decision-making and the voluntary/mandatory uptake of joint assessments by Member States. Areas covered: This paper presents the consolidated views and considerations on the original Proposal as set by the European Commission of a number of policy makers, payers, experts from pricing and reimbursement authorities and academics from across Europe. Expert commentary: The Proposal has since been extensively discussed at Council and while good progress has been achieved, there are still divergent positions. The European Parliament gave a number of recommendations for amendments. If the Proposal is approved, it is important that a balanced, improved outcome is achieved for all stakeholders. If not approved, the extensive contribution and progress attained should be sustained and preserved, and the best alternative solutions found.

Impact of EU risk assessment process and administrative regulations for manufacturers of combined hormonal contraceptive prescribing. An analysis of developments in Germany and the implications.

OBJECTIVE: Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC) exhibit differing risks for cardiovascular and thrombotic events (VTE). A European referral process confirmed higher VTE risks for 3rd generation gestagens and drospirenone. CHC are now grouped in risk classes (RC) I, II, and III, with RC III having a higher risk than RC I and X (risk not yet known). Marketing authorization holders were obliged to implement pharmacovigilance measures and risk minimization measures including changes of prescribing information. The study assessed whether these activities induced changes in prescription patterns. METHODS: German prescription data for 1.1 million women below 20 years of age were used to analyze the effects of interventions and potential influence factors using logistic regression. Descriptive statistics were calculated for prescriptions for 3.3 million women from January 2011 to March 2016. RESULTS: Shares of RC I and RC X recipients rose substantially over the observation period, while RC III recipient share showed a steady decrease. The referral induced a slightly faster decrease in RC III and increase in RC X. The implementation of pharmacovigilance measures manifested no additional effect. CONCLUSION: The decrease in RC III share already observed before the referral process can be explained with pre-existing discussions around CHC. The effect attributable to the referral was statistically significant, although very small. While evidence for a connection between interventions and prescription change is only indirect, the study shows that routine data are suitable for impact analyses, and monitoring prescribing patterns can be recommended as feedback after regulatory or political interventions. This is being followed up.

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.

Policies for biosimilar uptake in Europe: An overview.

BACKGROUND: Across European countries, differences exist in biosimilar policies, leading to variations in uptake of biosimilars and divergences in savings all over Europe. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to provide an overview of different initiatives and policies that may influence the uptake of biosimilars in different European countries. Recommendations will be formulated on how to create sustainable uptake. METHODS: An overview of policies on biosimilars was obtained via a questionnaire, supplemented with relevant articles. Topics were organized in five themes: availability, pricing, reimbursement, demand-side policies, and recommendations to enhance uptake. RESULTS: In all countries studied, biological medicines are available. Restrictions are mainly dependent on local organization of the healthcare system. Countries are willing to include biosimilars for reimbursement, but for commercial reasons they are not always marketed. In two thirds of countries, originator and biosimilar products may be subjected to internal reference pricing systems. Few countries have implemented specific incentives targeting physicians. Several countries are implementing pharmacist substitution; however, the scope and rules governing such substitution tend to vary between these countries. Reported educational policies tend to target primarily physicians, whereas fewer initiatives were reported for patients. Recommendations as proposed by the different country experts ranged from the need for information and communication on biosimilars to competitive pricing, more support for switching and guidance on substitution. CONCLUSIONS: Most countries have put in place specific supply-side policies for promoting access to biosimilars. To supplement these measures, we propose that investments should be made to clearly communicate on biosimilars and educate stakeholders. Especially physicians need to be informed on the entry and use of biosimilars in order to create trust. When physicians are well-informed on the treatment options, further incentives should be offered to prescribe biosimilars. Gainsharing can be used as an incentive to prescribe, dispense or use biosimilars. This approach, in combination with binding quota, may support a sustainable biosimilar market.

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.

Quality indicators as a tool in improving the introduction of new medicines.

Quality indicators are increasingly used as a tool to achieve safe and quality clinical care, cost-effective therapy, for professional learning, remuneration, accreditation and financial incentives. A substantial number focus on drug therapy but few address the introduction of new medicines even though this is a burning issue. The objective was to describe the issues and challenges in designing and implementing a transparent indicator framework and evaluation protocol for the introduction of new medicines and to provide guidance on how to apply quality indicators in the managed entry of new medicines. Quality indicators need to be developed early to assess whether new medicines are introduced appropriately. A number of key factors need to be addressed when developing, applying and evaluating indicators including dimensions of quality, suggested testing protocols, potential data sources, key implementation factors such as intended and unintended consequences, budget impact and cost-effectiveness, assuring the involvement of the medical professions, patients and the public, and reliable and easy-to-use computerized tools for data collection and management. Transparent approaches include the need for any quality indicators developed to handle conflict of interests to enhance their validity and acceptance. The suggested framework and indicator testing protocol may be useful in assessing the applicability of indicators for new medicines and may be adapted to healthcare settings worldwide. The suggestions build on existing literature to create a field testing methodology that can be used to produce country-specific quality indicators for new medicines as well as a cross international approach to facilitate access to new medicines.

Are new models needed to optimize the utilization of new medicines to sustain healthcare systems?

Medicines have made an appreciable contribution to improving health. However, even high-income countries are struggling to fund new premium-priced medicines. This will grow necessitating the development of new models to optimize their use. The objective is to review case histories among health authorities to improve the utilization and expenditure on new medicines. Subsequently, use these to develop exemplar models and outline their implications. A number of issues and challenges were identified from the case histories. These included the low number of new medicines seen as innovative alongside increasing requested prices for their reimbursement, especially for oncology, orphan diseases, diabetes and HCV. Proposed models center on the three pillars of pre-, peri- and post-launch including critical drug evaluation, as well as multi-criteria models for valuing medicines for orphan diseases alongside potentially capping pharmaceutical expenditure. In conclusion, the proposed models involving all key stakeholder groups are critical for the sustainability of healthcare systems or enhancing universal access. The models should help stimulate debate as well as restore trust between key stakeholder groups.

Improving the managed entry of new medicines: sharing experiences across Europe.

The 3-day course on the managed entry of new medicines was run by the Piperska group, which is a pan-European group striving to enhance the health of the public as a whole and the individual patient through exchanging ideas and research around the rational use of drugs. Participants included health authority and health insurance personnel, academics and those from commercial organizations. The principal aim of the conference was to bring together people to discuss ways to improve the managed entry of new drugs.

[Assessment of the number of cardio- and cerebrovascular events due to rofecoxib (Vioxx) in Germany between 2001 and 2004]. / Schätzung der unter Rofecoxib (Vioxx) in Deutschland in den Jahren 2001-2004 aufgetretenen kardio- und zerebrovaskulären Ereignisse.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: After the recall of rofecoxib (Vioxx), there was repeated national and international discussion on the potential number of patients harmed by causally related cardio- and cerebrovascular events. In individual cases, it cannot be determined whether a myocardial infarction or stroke that occurred during rofecoxib therapy was actually directly caused by this drug. On the basis of the results of the Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research (VIGOR) trial and German prescription data provided by the Scientific Institute of the Local Health Care Fund, the authors therefore conservatively estimated the number of patients harmed by rofecoxib in Germany between 2001 and 2004. METHODS: Under simplifying assumptions that, as in the VIGOR study, the risk of rofecoxib or naproxen therapy can be described by a Cox model with exponentially distributed event times, it is possible to calculate the daily risk of cardio- and cerebrovascular events in patients treated with these drugs. The estimated number of patients experiencing cardio- and cerebrovascular events under rofecoxib or naproxen therapy can be calculated by multiplying the daily risks by the defined daily doses prescribed in Germany. The difference between these numbers produces the estimated number of patients harmed by rofecoxib. RESULTS: On the basis of the data pool, a total of 7,092 additional diseased or deceased patients due to rofecoxib therapy were estimated (95% confidence interval: 2,004-15,416). The simplifying assumptions made together with the underreporting of events in the VIGOR trial are more likely to lead to an underestimation than an overestimation of affected patients. When assessing the benefit-harm ratio of rofecoxib, it needs to be considered that its protective gastrointestinal effects were not assessed compared with the optimum long-term therapy. It can be assumed that a comparison of rofecoxib with a combination of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and gastric mucosal barrier protectors (e. g., misoprostol) would not have shown an advantage in favor of rofecoxib therapy. CONCLUSION: The example of rofecoxib and the relatively high number of patients harmed by it in Germany indicate that, before widely prescribing a new drug, a more thorough assessment of the benefit-harm ratio of the drug is required as well as a stronger consideration of therapeutic alternatives and a timely conduct of meaningful clinical studies. The results of these studies should be promptly communicated in full to physicians and patients.