Therapeutic innovation in the European Union: analysis of the drugs approved by the EMEA between 1995 and 2003

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 Origin of First-in-Class Drugs: Innovation Versus Clinical Benefit

First-in-class (FIC) designation became a hallmark of innovation, however, even at the marketing authorization stage, little is known about the clinical benefits these products deliver. We identified the provenance of the FIC drugs that entered the French market from 2008 to 2018 and matched these medicines to the clinical benefit grading by Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) and Prescrire. Analyses were performed using descriptive statistics to present our findings by drug origin and therapeutic area and to establish the degree of concordance between HAS and Prescrire. Of the 135 FIC drugs identified, 71.1% (n = 96) originated from the industry, 16.3% (n = 22) from academia, and 12.6% (n = 17) from joint partnerships. Three therapeutic areas accounted for most FIC medications: antineoplastic (25.9%, N = 35), anti-infective (14.1%, N = 19), and metabolic (11.1%, N = 15) agents. HAS and Prescrire agreed on 60.74% of clinical benefit gradings. According to HAS, only 5% of all FIC drugs had substantial added benefit, and only 3%, according to Prescrire. HAS and Prescrire graded 45.9% and 68.2%, respectively, of FIC drugs as no clinical benefit and 48.9% and 28.9%, respectively, as some clinical benefit. FIC-designated drugs are primarily of industry (> 70%) rather than academic origin. We found that 55% of FIC medicines that entered the French market over the 10-year period deliver no additional clinical benefit. Whereas FIC medicines may represent important scientific advancements in drug development, in > 50% of cases, the new mode of action does not translate into additional clinical benefits for patients.

Regulatory policy and pharmaceutical innovation in the United Kingdom after Brexit: Initial insights

Brexit was presented as an opportunity to promote innovation by breaking free from the European Union regulatory framework. Since the beginning of 2021 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has operated as the independent regulatory agency for the United Kingdom. The MHRA's regulatory activity in 2021 was analyzed and compared to that of other international regulatory bodies. The MHRA remained reliant on EU regulatory decision-making for novel medicines and there were significant regulatory delays for a small number of novel medicines in the UK, the reasons being so far unclear. In addition, the MHRA introduced innovation initiatives, which show early promise for quicker authorization of innovative medicines for cancer and other areas of unmet need. Longer-term observation and analysis is needed to show the full impact of post-Brexit pharmaceutical regulatory policy.

How innovation can be defined, evaluated and rewarded in health technology assessment

BACKGROUND

What constitutes innovation in health technologies can be defined and measured in a number of ways and it has been widely researched and published about. However, while many countries mention it as a criterion for pricing or reimbursement of health technologies, countries differ widely in how they define and operationalise it.

METHODS

We performed a literature review, using a snowballing search. In this paper, we explore how innovation has been defined in the literature in relation to health technology assessment. We also describe how a selection of countries (England, France, Italy, Spain and Japan) take account of innovation in their health technology assessment frameworks and explore the key methodologies that can capture it as a dimension of value in a new health technology. We propose a way of coming to, and incorporating into health technology assessment systems, a definition of innovation for health technologies that is independent of other dimensions of value that they already account for in their systems, such as clinical benefit. We use Spain as an illustrative example of how innovation might be operationalised as a criterion for decision making in health technology assessment.

RESULTS

The countries analysed here can be divided into 2 groups with respect to how they define innovation. France, Japan and Italy use features such as severity, unmet need and therapeutic added value as indicators of the degree of innovation of a health technology, while England, Spain consider the degree of innovation as a separate and additional criterion from others. In the case of Spain, a notion of innovation might be constructed around concepts of `step-change', `convenience', `strength of evidence base' and `impact on future research & development'.

CONCLUSIONS

If innovation is to be used as operational criteria for adoption, pricing and reimbursement of health technologies, the concept must be clearly defined, and it ought to be independent from other value dimensions already captured in their health technology assessment systems.

A decade of early benefit assessment of ophthalmic drugs in Germany: success story or not?

OBJECTIVE

To analyze how ophthalmic drugs fared in the early benefit assessment (EBA) after its introduction in Germany up to 2020 and to quantify its impact on their negotiated prices.

METHODS

Relevant documents were screened and essential content on added benefit outcomes and the underlying evidence was extracted next to pricing information. In addition to descriptive statistics, cross-stakeholder analyses and agreement statistics were implemented.

RESULTS

Thirteen completed EBA were identified involving eight drugs. Only four drugs (30.8%) received an added benefit. The OR for no added benefit of ophthalmic drugs versus all other drugs was 2.971 (0.902-9.781). The agreement between manufacturers' claims and decision-maker appraisals is fair (kappa 0.435). In all cases, evidence was derived for RCTs, but for different reasons, not all of them allowed direct comparisons with the comparator as defined by the decision-maker. The negotiated rebates on manufacturer's selling prices varied from 6.8% up to 47.4%. Nevertheless, the rebates for ophthalmic drugs (median 14.5%) were lower than those for all negotiated drugs (median 24%).

CONCLUSION

Over the past decade, the EBA of ophthalmic drugs was not necessarily a success story, but in most of the cases, the drugs were successful in the market.

Peptide-based therapeutics: quality specifications, regulatory considerations, and prospects

Exquisite selectivity, remarkable efficacy, and minimal toxicity are key attributes inherently assigned to peptides, resulting in increased research interest from the pharmaceutical industry in peptide-based therapeutics (PbTs). Pharmacopoeias develop authoritative standards for PbT by providing standard specifications and test methods. Nevertheless, a lack of harmonization in test procedures adopted for PbT in the latest editions of Pharmacopoeias has been observed. Adoption of a harmonized monograph could increase further the interest of the global pharmaceutical industry in PbTs. Here, we provide an overview of pharmacopoeial methodologies and specifications commonly observed in PbT monographs and highlight the main differences among the pharmacopoeias in terms of the active pharmaceutical ingredients that they focus on. We also address the prospects for PbTs to mature as a new therapeutic niche.

Analysis of new drugs registered in Brazil in view of the Unified Health System and the disease burden

The most important aspect of a new drug in terms of public health is its therapeutic value and benefit it provides for the patient and for the society. The aim of this study was to analyze new drugs registered in Brazil between 2003 and 2013 with respect to Pharmaceutical Assistance programs within the Brazilian health system and to the disease burden in the country. In our retrospective cohort study, new drugs registered in Brazil were identified through document analysis of databases and publicly available documents from National Health Surveillance Agency. The data on disease burden in Brazil was obtained from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2012, published by the World Health Organization. The level of therapeutic innovation was determined using the Motola algorithm. Although a total of 159 new medicines were used in the cohort, only 28 (17.6%) were classified as important therapeutic innovations. There is a disproportionate relationship between the percentage of new drugs and the burden of disease, with an under-representation of drugs for infectious respiratory diseases, heart disease, and digestive diseases. Incentive strategies for research and development of medicines should be prioritized to reduce the disparity regarding the burden of disease and to help develop innovative medicines necessary to improve health throughout the country.

Antidepressant-induced Dopamine Receptor Dysregulation: A Valid Animal Model of Manic-Depressive Illness

Background: Mania seems to be associated with an increased dopamine (DA) transmission. Antidepressant treatments can induce mania in humans and potentiated DA transmission in animals, by sensitizing DA D2 receptors in the mesolimbic system. We have suggested that the sensitization of D2 receptors may be responsible of antidepressant-induced mania. This review aims to report the experimental evidence that led to the hypothesis that antidepressant-induced DA receptors dysregulation can be considered an animal model of bipolar disorder.

Methods: We reviewed papers reporting preclinical and clinical studies on the role of DA in the mechanism of action of antidepressant treatments and in the patho-physiology of mood disorders.

Results: A number of preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that mania could be associated with an increased DA activity, while a reduced function of this neurotransmission might underlie depression. Chronic treatment with imipramine induces a sensitization of DA D2 receptors in the mesolimbic system, followed, after drug discontinuation, by a reduced sensitivity associated with an increased immobility time in forced swimming test of depression (FST). Blockade of glutamate NMDA receptors by memantine administration prevents the imipramine effect on DA receptors sensitivity and on the FST.

Conclusion: We suggest that chronic treatment with antidepressants induces a behavioural syndrome that mimics mania (the sensitization of DA receptors), followed by depression (desensitization of DA receptors and increased immobility time in the FST), i.e. an animal model of bipolar disorder. Moreover the observation that memantine prevents the “bipolar-like” behavior, suggests that the drug may have an antimanic and mood stabilizing effect. Preliminary clinical observations support this hypothesis.

DEFINING INNOVATION WITH RESPECT TO NEW MEDICINES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW FROM A PAYER PERSPECTIVE

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate how innovation is defined with respect to new medicines.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit databases were searched for articles published between January 1, 2010 and May 25, 2016 that described a relevant definition of innovation. Identified definitions were analyzed by mapping the concepts described onto a set of ten dimensions of innovation.

RESULTS

In total, thirty-six articles were included, and described a total of twenty-five different definitions of innovation. The most commonly occurring dimension was therapeutic benefit, with novelty and the availability of existing treatments the second and third most common dimensions. Overall, there was little agreement in the published literature on what characteristics of new medicines constitute rewardable innovation.

CONCLUSIONS

Alignment across countries and among regulators, health technology assessment bodies and payers would help manufacturers define research policies that can drive innovation, but may be challenging, as judgements about what aspects of innovation should be rewarded vary among stakeholders, and depend on political and societal factors.

Registries supporting new drug applications

PURPOSE

Knowledge of the benefits and risks of new drugs is incomplete at the time of marketing approval. Registries offer the possibility for additional, post-approval, data collection. For all new drugs, which were approved in the European Union between 2007 and 2010, we reviewed the frequency, the type, and the reason for requiring a registry.

METHODS

The European Public Assessment Reports, published on the website of the European Medicine Agency, were reviewed for drugs approved by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. We searched for key characteristics of these drugs, including therapeutic area (ATC1 level), level of innovation (the score is an algorithm based on availability of treatment and therapeutic effect), and procedural characteristics. In addition, we identified if these registries were defined by disease (disease registry) or exposure to a single drug (drug registry).

RESULTS

Out of 116 new drugs approved in the predefined period, for 43 (37%), 1 to 6 registry studies were identified, with a total of 73 registries. Of these 46 were disease registries and 27 (single) drug registries. For 9 drugs, the registry was a specific obligation imposed by the regulators. The level of innovation and the orphan status of the drugs were determinants positively predicting post-approval registries (OR 10.3 [95% CI 1.0-103.9] and OR 2.8 [95% CI 1.0-7.5], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of registries required by regulators are existing disease registries. Registries are an important and frequently used tool for post-approval data collection for orphan and innovative drugs.

Italian monitoring registries: a tool for a safer use of innovative drugs? Data from the national pharmacovigilance system

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to investigate the ADR reports of drugs with a monitoring registry (MR drugs), in particular those related to abuse/misuse, medication error, overdose, which might indicate an unsafe use. We compared these reports with those of similar drugs without a registry (non-MR drugs), thus verifying whether the registries could be useful tools for a safer use of innovative drugs.

METHODS

All ADR reports included in the Italian Pharmacovigilance Network database from January 1^st 2013 to December 31^st 2015 (vaccines and literature cases excluded) were analysed. We compared the ADR reports of MR and non-MR drugs with the same ATC class at III level.

RESULTS

The percentage of ADR reports with a completed 'Section 7' was significantly lower for MR compared to non-MR drugs (2.0 versus 6.2, p < 0.001). The difference concerned in particular the ADR reports related to abuse/misuse, medication errors and overdose. These reports, more strictly related to inappropriate use, were less frequent for MR drugs in all the considered ATC classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that monitoring registries could be a useful tool for the reduction of frequency of ADRs related to inappropriate use, besides the control of pharmaceutical budget.

Postmarketing Safety Events Relating to New Drugs Approved in Brazil Between 2003 and 2013: A Retrospective Cohort Study

This study investigated postmarketing safety events (PMSEs) for new drugs approved in Brazil and evaluated whether a range of drug characteristics influenced the time between approval and the first PMSE. This retrospective study included new drugs registered between 2003 and 2013 by the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA), which is responsible for medicines approval in Brazil. PMSEs were defined as any drug safety alert or drug withdrawal from the market. The existence of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Brazil were recorded. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve of the period between the date of ANVISA registration and the PMSE was calculated. We found a statistically significant difference between the time to PMSE for drugs with an FDA REMS compared with those without a REMS, with a log rank value (Mantel Cox) of 0.002. There was no association between the time to PMSE and the other drug characteristics investigated. This study demonstrated that the frequency of PMSEs for new drugs approved by ANVISA was statistically associated with the existence of an FDA REMS. The time between approval and first PMSE was shorter for drugs with an FDA REMS, and this finding may contribute to improved awareness of the risk/benefit balance required to ensure continued safe and effective use of new drugs.

How innovative are new drugs launched in the UK? A retrospective study of new drugs listed in the British National Formulary (BNF) 2001-2012

OBJECTIVES

Innovative new drugs offer potential benefits to patients, healthcare systems, governments and the pharmaceutical industry. Recent data suggest annual numbers of new drugs launched in the UK have increased in recent years, and we sought to understand whether this represents increasing numbers of highly innovative drugs being made available or the introduction of increasing numbers of drugs with limited additional therapeutic value.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective observational study of new drug entries in the British National Formulary (BNF).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of new drugs launched in the UK each year (based on first appearance in the BNF) from 2001 to 2012, including new chemical entities and new biological drugs, categorised by degree of innovativeness according to published criteria that incorporate both clinical usefulness and the nature of the innovation.

RESULTS

Highly innovative, moderately innovative and slightly innovative drugs made up 26%, 18% and 56% of all newly launched drugs, respectively, for the study period (n=290). There was an upward trend in annual numbers of slightly innovative drugs from 2004 onwards (R(2)=0.44), which aligned closely with the recovery in total numbers of new drugs launched each year since that time. There were no discernible time trends in the highly or moderately innovative categories. New drugs for malignancy and skin disease were most likely to be characterised as highly innovative (44% and 57%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Highly innovative new drugs comprise only around a quarter of all new drug launches in the UK. In contrast, drugs categorised as only slightly innovative comprised well over half of all new drugs and annual numbers in this category are increasing. Current policy initiatives that seek to increase the supply of innovative new drugs have long-lead times to impact, and will need careful assessment to ensure they deliver their aims without unintended consequences.

Post-approval safety issues with innovative drugs: a European cohort study

BACKGROUND

At time of approval, knowledge of the full benefit risk of any drug is limited, in particular with regards to safety. Post-approval surveillance of potential drug safety concerns is recognized as an important task of regulatory agencies. For innovative, often first-in-class drugs, safety knowledge at time of approval is often even less extensive and these may require tighter scrutiny post approval.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated whether more post-approval serious safety issues were identified for drugs with a higher level of innovation.

METHODS

A cohort study was performed that included all new active substances approved under the European Centralized Procedure and for which serious safety issues were identified post-approval from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2012. Serious safety issues were defined as issues requiring a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication to alert individual healthcare professionals of a new serious safety issue, or a safety-related drug withdrawal. Data were retrieved from publicly available websites of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board and the European Medicines Agency. The level of innovation was scored using a validated algorithm, grading drugs as important (A), moderate (B) or modest (C) innovations or as pharmacological or technological (pharm/tech) innovations. The data were analyzed using appropriate descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analysis, with a Mantel-Cox log-rank test, and Cox-regression models correcting for follow-up duration, to identify a possible trend in serious safety issues with an increasing level of innovation.

RESULTS

In Europe, 279 new drugs were approved between 1999 and 2011. Fifty-nine (21 %) were graded as important, 63 (23 %) moderate, or 34 (12 %) modest innovations and 123 (44 %) as non-innovative (pharm/tech), while 15 (25 %), 13 (21 %), 8 (24 %) and 17 (14 %) had post-approval safety issues, respectively (p = 0.06, linear-by-linear test). Five drugs were withdrawn from the market. The Kaplan-Meier-derived probability for having a first serious safety issue was statistically significant, log-rank (Mantel-Cox) p = 0.036. In the final adjusted Cox proportional hazard model there was no statistically significant difference in occurrence of a first serious safety issue for important, moderate and modest innovations versus non-innovative drugs; hazard ratios 1.76 (95 % CI 0.82-3.77), 1.61 (95 % CI 0.76-3.41)], and 1.25 (95 % CI 0.51-3.06), respectively.

CONCLUSION

A higher level of innovation was not clearly related to an increased risk of serious safety issues identified after approval.

Assessment of the therapeutic value of new medicines marketed in Australia

Background

The belief that all new medicines bring a therapeutic innovation and better health outcomes is widely shared among the public, health professionals and policy makers.

Objectives

To examine the therapeutic value of new medicines marketed in Australia using two classification systems.

Methods

The therapeutic value of new medicines was categorised using the Motola’s s and the Ahlqvist-Rastad’s systems for all approvals made by the Australian Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) between 2005 and 2007. Scores were assigned independently by the three authors on the basis of the Public Summary Documents and Prescrire’ review articles.

Results

Overall, 217 approval recommendations were made including 81 (37.3%) for new indications and 69 (31.8%) for new medicines. In Motola’s rating system, 31 (52.5%) of the 59 drugs were rated as pharmacological or technological innovations and 28 (47.5%) were rated as therapeutic innovations. Only seven of the 59 drugs (11.9%) were rated as important innovations. In Ahlqvist-Rastad’s system, only a third of the new drugs were rated as “added therapeutic value”.

Conclusion

Only a minority of the new medicines marketed in Australia provide added therapeutic value compared to existing treatments. Stricter regulatory approval criteria would ensure better safety of the public and simplify the reimbursement processes.

The most transformative drugs of the past 25 years: a survey of physicians

Strategic and legislative efforts to catalyse pharmaceutical innovation may be hampered by a lack of consensus over what characterizes an innovative drug. To help clarify this issue, we conducted an extensive survey on transformative drug development, involving ∼180 expert physicians based at 30 leading US academic medical centres, covering 15 medical specialties. In an iterative Delphi process, the survey participants narrowed a list of all new drugs approved in their fields in the past 25 years and reached consensus over those that they considered to be most transformative, which are presented in this article. Participants were also asked how various factors affected their opinion; they most often invoked the effectiveness and superiority of the drugs over existing alternatives when identifying transformative drug innovation.

When direct health-care professional communications have an impact on inappropriate and unsafe use of medicines

Serious safety issues relating to drugs are communicated to health-care professionals via Direct Health-Care Professional Communications (DHPCs). We explored which characteristics determined the impact of DHPCs issued in the Netherlands for ambulatory-care drugs (2001-2008). With multiple linear regression, we examined the impact on the relative change in new drug use post-DHPC of the following: time to DHPC, trend in use, degree of innovation, specialist drug, first/repeated DHPC, DHPC template, and type of safety issue. DHPCs have less impact on use of specialist drugs than nonspecialist drugs (P < 0.05). The DHPCs' impact increased after availability of a template emphasizing the main problem (P < 0.05), and for safety issues with a risk of death and/or disability (both P < 0.05) (adjusted R² = 0.392). Risk communication can be effective, specifically in case of well-structured information, and very serious safety issues. Effectiveness may improve by tailoring DHPCs and adding other communication channels, for example for drugs that are increasingly being used.

A 3-dimensional view of access to licensed and subsidized medicines under single-payer systems in the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand

INTRODUCTION

Patients' access to medicines can be profoundly affected by the decisions made by medicine licensing bodies and public reimbursement agencies. The present study compares access to licensed and subsidized medicines under a single-payer system in each of the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand (NZ). These systems are the US Department of Veterans Affairs National Formulary (VANF), the UK NHS for England and Wales, Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and NZ's Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC). The VANF, PBS and PHARMAC all use positive lists of medicines that are subsidized, along with pharmacoeconomic analysis and price negotiations with suppliers. The NHS uses a negative list of medicines that are not to be subsidized, along with pharmacoeconomic analysis of a small number of medicines and caps on manufacturers' profits.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare licensed and subsidized medicines in terms of the following: (i) total numbers of entities (unique Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical [ATC] codes); (ii) times since first registration (age) of the entities; and (iii) numbers of innovative entities.

METHODS

This was an observational study in order to test pre-defined hypotheses. All products listed in a major prescribing reference in each country were included in the study. All products were classified by ATC code and their registration dates recorded. Products were collapsed by ATC code to determine 'best-case' licensing and subsidy for each entity, along with the date of first registration. Innovative entities selected for 'fast-track' approval by the US FDA or as a 'breakthrough or substantial improvement' by the Canadian Patented Medicines Prices Review Board were identified. Results were verified by a sensitivity analysis that excluded entities only available in injectable formulations (as these may not always be listed in general prescribing references), and by a parallel analysis done by active agent rather than ATC code.

RESULTS

Of the 918 entities and 64 innovative entities licensed in the US, 505 and 20, respectively, were subsidized by the VANF. In the UK, this was 1020 and 58 (1016 and 58 NHS subsidized); in Australia, this was 879 and 49 (567 and 30 PBS subsidized); and in NZ, this was 765 and 39 (503 and 19 PHARMAC subsidized). With the exception of the UK, entities licensed in the US were newer than elsewhere. The median ages were as follows: 6607 days in the US (VANF subsidized 8203 days; p < 0.001); 7319 days in the UK (NHS subsidized 7319 days; p = 0.903); 7795 days in Australia (PBS subsidized 8065 days; p = 0.406); and 8936 days in NZ (PHARMAC subsidized 10 724 days; p < 0.001). NHS subsidized entities were newer than elsewhere. VANF and PHARMAC subsidized entities were significantly older than licensed entities in their respective countries.

CONCLUSION

The single-payer systems examined differ in the number and age of licensed and subsidized entities, along with access to innovative entities. The NHS subsidized the most entities, the newest entities and the most innovative entities. NZ's PHARMAC system subsidized the fewest and oldest entities, and the fewest innovative entities. The VANF and PBS consistently fell between the other two systems in terms of the number of subsidized entities, age of subsidized entities and number of subsidized innovative entities.

Insight into recent reforms and initiatives in Austria: implications for key stakeholders

Pharmaceutical expenditure continued to rise steadily in Austria during the 1990s and early 2000s despite a variety of reforms. However, recent reforms and initiatives have moderated the growth rate. These initiatives include transparent pricing of new drugs and generics, greater restrictions on the prescribing of new drugs and voluntary price reductions. Alongside this, there have also been initiatives to enhance rational and efficient prescribing. The lack of published data makes it difficult to fully analyze the impact of individual reforms. In addition, some reforms have only recently been introduced. Despite this, implications can be drawn for key stakeholder groups in the future. This includes pharmaceutical companies continuing to need to demonstrate substantially added benefit for their new drug to command average European prices. Otherwise, premiums will be restricted to a maximum 10% above the price of current standards. In addition, companies will need to continue to lower the price of their brands in interchangeable classes as standards become available as generics. The alternative will be prescribing restrictions. Further reforms will be needed in Austria to meet government growth targets for pharmaceutical expenditure of only 3-4% per annum, while continuing to fund new innovative drugs and increased volumes with greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Possible future measures and their implications for key stakeholder groups will also be discussed.

Health economics and outcomes research within drug development: challenges and opportunities for reimbursement and market access within biopharma research

Healthcare decision makers who determine funding for new medical technologies depend on manufacturers to provide evidence of the technology's efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness. Constrained budgets and increasing reliance on formal health technology assessment (HTA) have created an abundance of external hurdles that manufacturers must navigate to ensure successful product commercialization. These demands have pushed pharmaceutical companies to adjust their internal structures to coordinate generation of appropriate evidence. In this article we summarize internal and external opportunities for manufacturers to establish a foundation of evidence for successful market access, starting in Phase I of development and continuing throughout the post-approval product lifecycle.

Conditional approval and approval under exceptional circumstances as regulatory instruments for stimulating responsible drug innovation in Europe

The need for fast drug innovation and the public demand for risk-free drugs creates a dilemma for regulatory authorities: less restrictive procedures involve uncertainties about benefit/risk profiles of new drugs. The European Union has introduced two instruments that regulate early market access: conditional approvals (CAs) and approvals under exceptional circumstances (ECs). We have studied whether these instruments compromise the safety of new drugs and whether they lead to earlier access to innovative drugs. Our study shows that neither of these regulatory pathways accelerates the approval process for innovative drugs. However, the CA pathway shortens the clinical development period. Approvals under ECs are associated with longer clinical development periods, but this regulatory pathway may open up opportunities for specific drugs to be admitted into the market because less comprehensive data are required. Despite the fact that these advanced approvals are based on limited safety databases, there are no special safety issues associated with using these pathways.

Ongoing pharmaceutical reforms in France: implications for key stakeholder groups

The rapid rise in pharmaceutical costs in France has been driven by new technologies and the growing prevalence of chronic diseases as well as considerable prescribing freedom and choice of physician among patients. This has led to the introduction of a number of reforms and initiatives in an attempt to moderate expenditure whilst ensuring universal coverage and rewarding innovation. These reforms include accelerating access to and granting average European prices for new innovative drugs, delisting drugs where there are concerns over their value and instigating rebates for excessive prescribing. Alongside this, ongoing initiatives to improve the quality and efficiency of prescribing include programmes to enhance generic prescribing and dispensing as well as to reduce antibacterial and anxiolytic/hypnotic prescribing. However, there have been few publications documenting the impact of specific reforms on the overall costs and quality of care, which have been exacerbated by compartmentalization of budgets. Estimates suggest savings of over 27 million euro/year by decreasing antibacterial prescribing, 450 million euro/year by not reimbursing ineffective drugs, 670 million euro/year from pharmaceutical company rebates and approximately 1 billion euro/year from increased prescribing and dispensing of generics (year 2003-7 values). Additional savings of at least 1.5 billion euro/year are seen as being possible from increased use of generics such as generic proton pump inhibitors, statins (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors) and ACE inhibitors instead of current branded products such as angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]). Delisting drugs when there are concerns about their value provides an example to other countries with currently limited demand-side measures. Other possible examples include price : volume agreements and multifaceted campaigns to enhance generic prescribing and dispensing and reduce antibacterial prescribing. Possible future initiatives could include adopting more stringent criteria for categorizing new drugs as innovative as well as further reductions in the prices of generics. Other initiatives could include further enhancement of the quality and efficiency of prescribing, including formal auditing of physician prescribing, as well as increasing efforts to monitor the risk : benefit ratio of new drugs post-launch in real-world practice.

No difference in between-country variability in use of newly approved orphan and non- orphan medicinal products--a pilot study

Background

Regulators and payers have to strike a balance between the needs of the patient and the optimal allocation of resources. Drugs indicated for rare diseases (orphan medicines) are a special group in this context because of their often high per unit costs. Our objective in this pilot study was to determine, for drugs used in an outpatient setting, how utilisation of centrally authorised drugs varies between countries across a selection of EU member states.

Methods

We randomly selected five orphan medicines and nine other drugs that were centrally authorised in the European Union between January 2000 and November 2006. We compared utilisation of these drugs in six European Union member states: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Portugal, The Netherlands, and Sweden. Utilisation data were expressed as Defined Daily Doses per 1000 persons per year. Variability in use across countries was determined by calculating the relative standard deviation for the utilisation rates of individual drugs across countries.

Results

No association between orphan medicine status and variability in use across countries was found (P = 0.52). Drugs with an orphan medicine status were more expensive and had a higher innovation score than drugs without an orphan medicine status.

Conclusions

The results show that the variability in use of orphan medicines in the different health care systems of the European Union appears to be comparable to the other newly authorised drugs that were included in the analysis. This means that, although strong heterogeneity in access may exist, this heterogeneity is not specific for drugs with an orphan status.

Something new every day: defining innovation and innovativeness in drug therapy

The word "innovation" comes from the Latin noun innovatio, derived from the verb innovare, to introduce [something] new. It can refer either to the act of introducing something new or to the thing itself that is introduced. In terms of commerce, it is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "the action of introducing a new product into the market; a product newly brought on to the market," a definition that illustrates both aspects of the word's meaning. "Innovativeness" is the property of being an innovation. Here I identify several different types of innovativeness in drug therapy, including structural, pharmacological or pharmacodynamic, pharmaceutical, and pharmacokinetic innovativeness, and I stress the over-riding importance of clinical innovativeness, which should result in a better benefit to harm balance at an affordable cost.

Prices for innovative pharmaceutical products that provide health gain: a comparison between Australia and the United States

OBJECTIVES

Pricing polices used in many countries are often viewed in the United States as a mechanism of price constraint. Support for this contention has arisen from pricing studies which demonstrate that the United States pays higher prices for many pharmaceutical products. No study to date, however, has examined the prices paid for pharmaceuticals that provide significant health gain, which might be expected to be lower where price constraints were operating. This study aimed to examine prices paid by federal government programs and agencies in Australia and the United States for pharmaceutical products that provide significant health gain.

METHODS

Products identified by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Canadian Patented Medicines Prices Review Board as likely to confer significant health gains between 1999 and 2004 were identified. Australian and USfederal government prices ($US) and US average manufacturer prices (AMP), which do not include discounts or rebates, during the second quarter of 2006 were compared.

RESULTS

Of 22 products for which comparisons were possible, Australian prices were higher than the US Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) prices for 14 (64%) products. When compared with AMP, Australian prices were higher for eight of the 22 products. Overall, Australian prices were higher on average by 4.2% when compared with the FSS and lower by 14.4% when compared with the AMP.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that Australian prices for medicines representing significant advances in therapy are similar to those paid under key US programs despite fundamental differences in policy contexts.

An update on the first decade of the European centralized procedure: how many innovative drugs?

AIMS

In a previous paper, we proposed an algorithm to assess the degree of therapeutic innovation of the agents approved by the European centralized procedure, which must be followed by biotechnological products and is optional for drugs claimed as innovative. A low overall degree of therapeutic innovation (about 30%) was found. This figure may be an underestimate of the actual level of innovation, because common biotechnological products, such as recombinant human insulins, must follow this procedure. To test the hypothesis that therapeutic innovation prevails among nonbiotechnological products, we evaluated separately the degree of therapeutic innovation of biotechnological vs. nonbiotechnological agents in the first decade of European Medicines Agency activity, also studying a possible time trend.

METHODS

We assessed, for each drug: (i) the seriousness of the target disease, (ii) the availability of previous treatments, and (iii) the extent of therapeutic effect according to the previously proposed algorithm.

RESULTS

Our analysis considered 251 medicinal products corresponding to 198 active substances, classified according to four main areas as therapeutic agents (88.9%), diagnostics (5.5%), vaccines (5.1%) and life-style drugs (0.5%). Among all therapeutic agents, 49 out of 176 agents (28%) were classified as having an important degree of therapeutic innovation. Fifteen out of 60 biotechnological therapeutic agents were considered important therapeutic innovations (25%), whereas this figure was 29% for nonbiotechnological agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Among active substances claimed as innovative by the manufacturers, only a minority deserve this definition according to our algorithm.

Developing a paradigm of drug innovation: an evaluation algorithm

Assessment of drug innovation is a burning issue because it involves so many different perspectives, mainly those of patients, decision- and policy-makers, regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Moreover, the innovative value of a new medicine is usually an intrinsic property of the compound, but it also depends on the specific context in which the medicine is introduced and the availability of other medicines for treating the same clinical condition. Thus, a model designed to assess drug innovation should be able to capture the intrinsic properties of a compound (which usually emerge during R&D) and/or modification of its innovative value with time. Here we describe the innovation assessment algorithm (IAA), a simulation model for assessing drug innovation. IAA provides a score of drug innovation by assessing information generated during both the pre-marketing and the post-marketing authorization phase.