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.

Do France, Germany, and Italy agree on the added therapeutic value of medicines?

OBJECTIVES: The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medicines is performed separately at the country level with some differences, but Italy, France, and Germany have implemented price and reimbursement systems strongly focused on the Added Therapeutic Value (ATV). This study investigates the level of agreement on ATV assessments by Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), and Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA). METHODS: A database was created collecting all information about drugs with innovativeness status requests in Italy from July 2017 to December 2022 and populated with the corresponding HAS and G-BA ATV assessments. The primary comparative analysis was conducted by grouping the ATV ratings into "higher added value" and "lower or no added value", while a secondary analysis considered the Italian innovativeness status as a criterion to include the quality of evidence assessment. The concordance between ATV assessments was investigated through percentage agreement and unweighted Cohen k-value. RESULTS: 189 medicines/indications were included. The greatest agreement was found when comparing G-BA versus HAS (82 percent; k = 0.61, substantial agreement). Lower levels of agreements were observed for AIFA versus HAS and AIFA versus G-BA (respectively 52 percent; k = 0.17 and 57 percent; k = 0.25). The secondary analysis led to a reconciliation to moderate agreement for AIFA versus HAS (72 percent; k = 0.45) and AIFA versus G-BA (74 percent; k = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: A high degree of concordance between HTA organizations is reached when considering jointly ATV and quality of evidence, suggesting that the system is extensively mature to make a Joint Clinical Assessment, avoiding duplications and reducing access inequalities.

Added Therapeutic Value of Medicinal Products for French and German Health Technology Assessment Organizations: A Systematic Comparison.

OBJECTIVES: Determining the price and reimbursement of a new medicine is a national competence within the Member States of the European Union that is carried out by health technology authorities and is based mainly on the added therapeutic value (ATV). The primary objective of this study was to compare the ATVs granted by the French (Haute Autorité de Santé, HAS) and the German (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, IQWIG) authorities. The secondary objective was to analyze the reasons for the discrepancies observed. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of all ATVs assigned by HAS and IQWIG for the period 2011 to 2017. ATV assessments were classified as major, considerable, minor, no benefit, or not quantifiable. The concordance between the authorities was evaluated, and a qualitative analysis of highly discordant assessments was performed. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-one drugs were evaluated by both agencies. The overall percentage of agreement was 50.3%. It was 73.1% for no benefit of ATVs, 37.5% for minor ATVs, 31.2% for considerable ATVs, and 5% for major ATVs. Highly conflicting assessments (n = 35) mainly concerned antineoplastic drugs (n = 14) and anti-infectives (n = 14). The main reasons for inconsistency concerned the following: a different appreciation of the subgroup analysis of efficacy data (n = 15), the appropriateness of comparators (n = 15), the surrogate endpoints (n = 10), methodological differences (n = 8), and the benefit/risk criteria that were used (n = 6). CONCLUSION: In the context of the common assessment of ATVs promoted by the European Commission, the harmonization between member states regarding the way evaluation criteria are assessed deserves to be addressed.

Using GRADE methodology to assess innovation of new medicinal products in Italy.

AIM: In April 2017 the Italian Medicine Agency (AIFA) developed new criteria to grant any new medicinal product with an innovative designation. The aim of this study is to describe this new model and how it works. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive analysis was performed on the results of the assessment process of innovativeness of new medicinal products (or therapeutic indications) based on the AIFA's new innovation criteria (therapeutic need, added therapeutic value and quality of clinical evidence through GRADE methodology) carried out between April 2017 and February 2019 and made publicly available on the AIFA website starting from January 2018. RESULTS: A total of 37 full reports (22 for oncological indications) explaining the rationale for the AIFA's decision is made publicly available on the agency's website. A total of 12 therapeutic indications (5 oncological) were evaluated as fully innovative, 13 indications (11 oncological) were evaluated as conditionally innovative, while 12 indications (6 oncological) as non-innovative. CONCLUSION: The new AIFA innovation criteria resulted in a much more flexible and transparent model to define and assess what constitutes a therapeutic innovation. In particular, the choice of AIFA to use the GRADE methodology to evaluate the quality of clinical evidence within a process of drug innovativeness assessment is essential for the early identification of the discrepancy between the need for patients of a rapid access to innovative therapies and the available clinical data needed to make decisions on drug innovativeness.

Whatever happened to the Norwegian Medical Need Clause? Lessons for current debates in EU pharmaceutical regulation.

Until 1994, pharmaceutical products seeking market authorisation in Norway were required to demonstrate a fulfilment of unmet medical need. This clause enabled the national regulator to dramatically limit the number of products on the market whilst encouraging price competition to keep drug expenditure low and was credited with encouraging the development of drugs with genuine added therapeutic value and reducing the incidence of antimicrobial resistance. Norway was forced to abandon its Medical Need Clause (MNC) when it joined the European Economic Area as it was incompatible with the acquis communautaire of the European Union. This article reviews Norway's experience with its MNC in light of contemporary debates in European health policy. It discusses the potential contribution of an MNC-style regulation to improving health, reducing illness, ensuring sustainable health systems and fostering pharmaceutical innovation. It concludes by asking how these findings can inform current European Union debates over the growing cost of prescription drugs and direction of pharmaceutical development.

Pharmaceutical innovativeness index: methodological approach for assessing the value of medicines - a case study of oncology drugs.

BACKGROUND: We propose a framework to assess the value of pharmaceutical innovations, with explicit clinical and methodological parameters, based on the therapeutic value and health needs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study was based on the adaptation of health technology assessment methods documented in the literature, which was applied to a sample of oncological drugs. Difficulties and issues during the application of those tools were identified and addressed to develop a new framework with new and revised domains and clear classification criterion for each domain. Scores were assigned to each level and domain according to their relevance to generate the final score of innovativeness. RESULTS: The Pharmaceutical Innovation Index (PII) includes four domains, two related to clinical and social dimensions - Therapeutic Need and Added Therapeutic Value - and other two about methodological features - Study Design and Quality (risk of bias). The scores combined after assigned to each domain results Index of the Innovativeness of the medicines represents the degree of pharmaceutical innovation. CONCLUSION: This work proposes a transparent methodology with well-defined criteria and script; the algorithm developed with authors' weightings and criteria may be switched to best adjust to other applications, perspective or clinical indications, while keeping the transparency and objectiveness.

The Assessment of the Innovativeness of a New Medicine in Italy.

Objectives: Starting from April 2017, the Italian Medicine Agency (AIFA) has approved new criteria for defining any new medicinal product with an innovative indication. The purpose of the study is to analyze the activity of innovativeness evaluation according to the new approach, to estimate the weight of each criterion considered for innovativeness definition, and to evaluate how the new approach works in terms of consistency and reproducibility. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on the final reports evaluating the drug innovativeness assessment published on the AIFA's website between April 2017 and January 2021. Descriptive statistics, chi-square test, whether the conditions were respected, or Fisher's exact test was used to explore the association between characteristics of drugs and the innovativeness status and the association between the three criteria. Profiles of the decision process and their relationship with innovativeness response were described. In order to evaluate the weight of each criterion in predicting the innovativeness status, a Classification Tree (CT) algorithm was applied. Results: Overall, of the 109 published drugs reports, 37 (33.9%) were recognized as fully innovative, 29 (26.6%) were considered conditionally innovative, while for 43 (39.4%) reports innovativeness was not recognized. Considering the three criteria of the decision process, the added therapeutic value was the only criterion statistically associated with a drug's degree of innovation (p < 0.001). The therapeutic need and the quality of clinical evidence were statistically associated (p = 0.008) even if only a mild association was observed. The added therapeutic value was the most important variable in predicting the innovativeness status according to the classification tree (CT) model applied, achieving an accuracy of 89.4%. No difference was found between orphans and non-orphan drugs or oncological and non-oncological drugs. Discussion: The added therapeutic value is the most important criterion of the multidimensional approach for the innovativeness status definition of a new medical product. A mild association was found between the therapeutic need and the quality of evidence. Overall, similar decision profiles bring the same evaluation of innovativeness status, indicating a good consistency and reproducibility between decisions.

Health Technology Assessment of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products: Comparison Among 3 European Countries.

Even for centrally approved products, each European country is responsible for the effective national market access. This step can result in inequalities in terms of access, due to different opinions about the therapeutic value assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies. Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) represent a major issue with regard to the HTA in order to make them available at a national level. These products are based on genes, tissues, or cells, commonly developed as one-shot treatment for rare or ultrarare diseases and mandatorily authorized by the EMA with a central procedure. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of HTA recommendations issued by European countries (France, Germany, and Italy) following EMA approval of ATMPs. We found a low rate of agreement on the therapeutic value (in particular the "added value" compared to the standard of care) of ATMPs. Despite the differences in terms of clinical assessment, the access has been usually guaranteed, even with different timing and limitations. In view of the importance of ATMPs as innovative therapies for unmet needs, it is crucial to understand and act on the causes of disagreement among the HTA. In addition, the adoption of the new EU regulation on HTA would be useful to reduce disparities of medicine's assessment among European countries.

Drug information by public health and regulatory institutions: Results of an 8-country survey in Europe.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the framework of drug information produced by public health and regulatory institutions in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a short survey asking editors of ISDB bulletins of the European region to indicate the main sources of drug information provided by public health and regulatory authorities in their countries, the specific kind of information produced and their opinions about strengths and weaknesses of such information. The availability of evaluations about the added therapeutic value of drugs and of tools facilitating the implementation of such information were particularly addressed and checked on the websites of those institutions. RESULTS: Answers pertaining to eight countries were available. Regulatory information and safety alerts are generally available, but just UK and Germany stand out by showing quite an advanced framework of evidence-based, comparative drug information for health professionals, decision-makers and for the general public. National plans to implement evidence-based drug information seem lacking. CONCLUSION: More efforts are warranted to develop sharp formats to make evidence-based drug information easier to access, understand and put in context, showing the place in therapy of medicines and their added therapeutic value. Harmonization of different sources, also at European level, would be important to favor their access and limit dispersion. Appropriate tools and specific plans are then necessary to favor implementation of information materials.