Key drivers of innovativeness appraisal for medicines: the Italian experience after the adoption of the new ranking system

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.

Pricing, Procurement and Reimbursement Policies for Incentivizing Market Entry of Novel Antibiotics and Diagnostics: Learnings from 10 Countries Globally

BACKGROUND

Fostering market entry of novel antibiotics and enhanced use of diagnostics to improve the quality of antibiotic prescribing are avenues to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which is a major public health threat. Pricing, procurement and reimbursement policies may work as AMR 'pull incentives' to support these objectives. This paper studies pull incentives in pricing, procurement and reimbursement policies (e.g., additions to, modifications of, and exemptions from standard policies) for novel antibiotics, diagnostics and health products with a similar profile in 10 study countries. It also explores whether incentives for non-AMR health products could be transferred to AMR health products.

METHODS

This research included a review of policies in 10 G20 countries based on literature and unpublished documents, and the production of country fact sheets that were validated by country experts. Initial research was conducted in 2020 and updated in 2023.

RESULTS

Identified pull incentives in pricing policies include free pricing, higher prices at launch and price increases over time, managed-entry agreements, and waiving or reducing mandatory discounts. Incentives in procurement comprise value-based procurement, pooled procurement and models that delink prices from volumes (subscription-based schemes), whereas incentives in reimbursement include lower evidence requirements for inclusion in the reimbursement scheme, accelerated reimbursement processes, separate budgets that offer add-on funding, and adapted prescribing conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

While a few pull incentives have been piloted or implemented for antibiotics in recent years, these mechanisms have been mainly used to incentivize launch of certain non-AMR health products, such as orphan medicines. Given similarities in their product characteristics, transferability of some of these pull incentives appears to be possible; however, it would be essential to conduct impact assessments of these incentives. Trade-offs between incentives to foster market entry and thus potentially improve access and the financial sustainability for payers need to be addressed.

From Indication-Based Pricing to Blended Approach: Evidence on the Price and Reimbursement Negotiation in Italy

BACKGROUND

New indications for existing medicines are increasing over time. In most countries, drug pricing and reimbursement conditions are renegotiated every time a new indication is approved. There is a growing interest in the price negotiation model for new indications, specifically comparing an indication-based versus blended approach. However, little evidence currently exists regarding the complexity of these negotiations and their impact on actual prices. Italy has recently transitioned from an indication-based approach to a blended price model. This study aims to measure the impact of price and reimbursement negotiation of new indications on discounts (i.e. actual prices) and on the negotiation duration, used as a proxy of its complexity.

METHODS

We considered new indications approved through a European centralized procedure from January 2013 to March 2022 for which the price and reimbursement status was approved in Italy between January 2015 and March 2022, amounting to 52 new indications. Data on the timeframe of the Italian price and reimbursement process and its phases were obtained from publicly available sources. Discounts for the first indication and their subsequent increases for new indications were estimated by comparing ex-factory prices and tendered prices. To calculate p-values, we employed the Mann-Whitney test, and multiple regression models were utilized to examine correlations between negotiation time and the characteristics of the medicines.

RESULTS

The mean time to reimbursement was 603 days, in contrast to 583 days for the first launch. Price negotiation took longer for rare diseases, cancer drugs, and in case of therapies with minor added therapeutic value. On average, the additional discount (on top of discounts for prior indications) was 13%, significantly lower than the mean discount for the first indications approved (24.9%). The discounts increment was lower, but negotiation took longer if a Managed Entry Agreement accompanied the final agreement. Additionally, discounts have increased over the years.

CONCLUSION

The negotiation for new indications takes longer than the first one, and provides, on average, an additional discount of 13%. While our findings bear the potential for significant policy implications, they necessitate prudent interpretation due to a limited number of observations. The increasing trend in additional discounts over time applied to all indications in recent negotiations, may suggest a descending trend of value for new indications and a shift from an indication-based pricing approach to a blended model. Otherwise, budget impact considerations might have outweighed a value-based approach in the recent negotiations. If so, two potential options for restoring a value-based approach are returning to an indication-based pricing or giving explicit and higher weight to value within a blended model.

The impact of level of documentation on the accessibility and affordability of new drugs in Norway

Introduction: Over the preceding decade, an increasing number of drugs have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with limited knowledge of their relative efficacy. This is due to the utilization of non-randomized, single-arm studies, surrogate endpoints, and shorter follow-up time. The impact of this trend on the accessibility and affordability of newly approved drugs in Europe remains uncertain. The primary objective of this study is to provide insights into the issues of accessibility and affordability of new drugs in the Norwegian healthcare system. Method: The presented study entails an analysis of all reimbursement decisions for hospital drugs in Norway spanning 2021-2022. The included drugs were approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2022, with the majority (91%) receiving approval between 2018 and 2022. The drugs were categorized based on the level of documentation of relative efficacy. Approval rates and costs (confidential net-prices) were compared. Results: A total of 35% (70/199) of the reimbursement decisions were characterized by limited certainty regarding relative efficacy and as a consequence the Norwegian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body did not present an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the HTA report. Within this category, a lower percentage of drugs (47%) gained reimbursement approval compared to those with a higher certainty level, which were presented with an ICER (58%). On average, drugs with an established relative efficacy were accepted with a 4.4-fold higher cost (confidential net-prices). These trends persisted when specifically examining oncology drugs. Conclusion: Our study underscores that a substantial number of recently introduced drugs receive reimbursement regardless of the level of certainty concerning relative efficacy. However, the results suggest that payers prioritize documented over potential efficacy. Given that updated information on relative efficacy may emerge post-market access, a potential solution to address challenges related to accessibility and affordability in Europe could involve an increased adoption of market entry agreements. These agreements could allow for price adjustments after the presentation of new knowledge regarding relative efficacy, potentially resolving some of the current challenges.

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.

The Evaluation of Drug Innovativeness in Italy: Key Determinants and Internal Consistency

BACKGROUND

Innovative medicines are provided with dedicated funds and immediate market access in Italy. Innovativeness evaluation considers unmet need, added therapeutic value, and quality of the evidence.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the internal consistency and drivers of the innovativeness appraisal process.

METHODS

Appraisal reports on innovativeness refer to 1997-2021. We used both a descriptive approach and probabilistic multivariate analysis, using logistic regression models to compute odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. The dependent variable is innovativeness status (innovative vs. non-innovative; full innovativeness vs. conditional innovativeness). Explanatory variables, besides the three above-mentioned domains, are the year of evaluation, drug type, target disease and population, and the number and type of available studies.

RESULTS

Among the 141 medicines scrutinized, 31.9%, 29.8%, and 38.3% were evaluated as fully innovative, conditionally innovative, and non-innovative, respectively. Added therapeutic value and the quality of the evidence were associated with the odds of receiving innovative status, and full compared with conditional innovativeness; unmet need was not a predictive variable. Other factors played a minor role: medicines for both solid tumours and rare diseases are more likely to be judged innovative; conditional innovativeness is more probable for medicines for rare diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Innovativeness status is driven by the added therapeutic value and quality of evidence. The appraisal process is internally consistent and predictable. This provides industry with a clear indication of what is needed to ensure that access to their medicines is prioritized.

Il bisogno insoddisfatto: definizioni, evidenze di letteratura e implicazioni per l’HTA

The present paper illustrates the definition of unmet need provided by the peer-reviewed literature and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) authorities across Europe in the assessment and appraisal process and within the early access schemes for medicines.

The analysis relied on a descriptive review of the peer-reviewed literature and HTA documents on the definition of need (disease severity) and the way it is satisfied (existence and validity of alternatives).

HTA agencies were found using (i) a narrow definition of need, focused on the clinical impact and the impact on health-related quality of life of the disease and (ii) a broad definition of comparators, including treatments used off-label in the clinical practice. Most of the contributions of the literature advocated for a broader definition of need, including additional dimensions (for example, the socio-economic impact of the disease) and the effects of existing treatments beyond their risk-benefit profile (for example, acceptability to patients).

On the one hand, these contributions should be considered by HTA agencies, considering its multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder nature. On the other one, the explicit inclusion of the unmet need domains, at present disregarded, should depend on the decisions taken on the ground of the assessment.

Value assessment of medicinal products by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and French National Authority for Health (HAS): Similarities and discrepancies

The evaluation of pharmaceutical innovation and therapeutic value is an increasingly complex exercise for which different approaches are adopted at the national level, despite the need for standardisation of processes and harmonisation of public health decisions. The objective of our analysis was to compare the approaches of the AIFA (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco) and the HAS (Haute Autorité de Santé) in assessing the same medicinal products. In Italy, the 1525/2017 AIFA Deliberation introduces a transparent scheme for the evaluation of innovative status (innovative, conditional, not innovative) based on the therapeutic added value (TAV), therapeutic need, and quality of evidence. In contrast, in France, the HAS makes judgements using the effective clinical benefit (Service Médical Rendu) and improvement of effective clinical benefit (Amélioration du Service Médical Rendu, ASMR). This analysis focused on medicinal products evaluated both by the AIFA and by the HAS from July 2017 to September 2021. Similarities between AIFA and HAS evaluations were investigated in terms of the TAV, recognition of innovativeness, and the ASMR. Both total and partial agreements were considered relevant. Therefore, raw agreement, Cohen's kappa (weighted and unweighted), and Bangdiwala's B-statistic were estimated. A total of 102 medicinal products were included in this study. Out of these, 38 (37.2%) were orphan drugs, while 56 (54.9%) had a clinical indication for the treatment of cancer. The AIFA and HAS reached a higher level of agreement on the innovativeness status compared with the TAV. A moderate total agreement emerged in the recognition of innovativeness (k = 0.463, p-value ≤0.0001), and partial agreement was substantial (equal weight k = 0.547, squared k = 0.638), while a lack of agreement resulted in a comparison of the TAV according to the AIFA and the ASMR recognised by the HAS. Indeed, whereas the AIFA determined the TAV to be important, the HAS considered it to be moderate. In addition, whereas the AIFA identified a bias towards a moderate TAV, the HAS identified a bias towards a minor ASMR. A higher level of agreement was reached, both on the TAV and on innovative status, for less critical medical products (non-cancer-related, or non-orphan, or with a standard European Medicines Agency approval). These results underline the importance of implementing European procedures that are more broadly aligned in terms of value definition criteria.

The future of oncology policy

To ensure the previous progress seen in cancer survival rates continues as we move through the 21st Century it is important to determine future effective policy related to oncology healthcare delivery and funding. Recent successes with, for example, the COVID vaccine response, the decision-making agility exhibited by governments and healthcare systems and the effective use of telehealth and real-world evidence highlight the progress that can be made with pooled efforts and innovative thinking. This shared approach is the basis for the European Beating Cancer Plan which outlines action points for governments and health systems for the period 2021-2025. It focuses on a whole government approach, centred on patients, maximising the potential of new technologies and insights across policy areas including employment, education, transport and taxation, enabling the tackling of cancer drivers in schools, workplaces, research labs, towns and cities and rural communities. Despite the plan there are still concerns that oncology policy has not adequately responded to the pace of innovation and the unique challenges generated by innovative oncological technologies. There needs to be focus on: gaining consensus on the most appropriate methods to assess and price combination therapies and cell and gene therapies, developing effective outcome-based payment models for personalised medicine and developing consensus on the ideal approach for multiple indication pricing. Finally, future policy needs to ensure pharmaceutical companies and other research organisations are adequately rewarded for innovation to ensure continued R&D and the development of innovative oncological products.

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.

The Evolution of AIFA Registries to Support Managed Entry Agreements for Orphan Medicinal Products in Italy

Italy has a well-established prominent system of national registries to support managed entry agreements (MEAs), monitoring innovative medicinal products (MPs) with clinical as well as economic uncertainties to ensure appropriate use and best value for money. The technological architecture of the registries is funded by pharmaceutical companies, but fully governed by the national medicines agency (AIFA). A desktop analysis was undertaken of data over a 15-year timeframe of all AIFA indication-based registries and associated EMA information. The characteristics of registries were evaluated, comparing orphan MPs vs. all MPs exploring cancer and non-cancer indications. OMP (orphan medicinal product) registries’ type vs. AIFA innovation status and EMA approval was reviewed. Of the 283 registries, 182 are appropriateness registries (35.2% relate to OMPs, with an almost equal split of cancer vs. non-cancer for OMPs and MPs), 35 include financial-based agreements [20% OMPs (2 non-cancer, 5 cancer)], and 60 registries are payment by result agreements [23.3% OMPs (4 non-cancer, 10 cancer)]. Most OMPs (53/88) came through the normal regulatory route. With the strengthening of the system for evaluation of innovation, fewer outcomes-based registries have been instigated. AIFA has overcome many of the challenges experienced with MEA through developing an integrated national web-based data collection system: the challenge that remains for AIFA is to move from using the system for individual patient decisions about treatment to reviewing the wealth of data it now holds to optimize healthcare.

Price and reimbursement for orphan medicines and managed entry agreements: does Italy need a framework?

This article illustrates a consensus opinion of an expert panel on the need and usefulness of a framework for price and reimbursement (P&R) process and managed entry agreements (MEAs) for orphan medicines in Italy. This opinion was gathered in three rounds: an introductory document was sent to the panel and discussed during a recorded online meeting. A second document was sent to the panel for their review. In the third step the final document was validated. Members of the expert panel are the authors of the article. The panel agreed that Italy does not need a specific value framework for orphan medicines, driving the P&R process. Rather, a more structured value framework for all medicines tailored to the specific drugs can be useful. For orphan drugs, the panel advocated for a multidisciplinary approach and the contribution of different stakeholders to value assessment, and acknowledged the importance of addressing, more than for other drugs, unmet needs, equity issues and societal value. The panel raised the need of increasing the importance of patient-reported outcomes. Experts, acknowledging the growing criticisms in implementation of outcome-based agreements in Italy, expressed their position against their abandonment in favour of discounts only and supported orphan medicines as natural candidates for these agreements. Finally, the panel made some recommendations on the appraisal process for orphan medicines, including an early discussion on the uncertainty of the evidence generated and the adoption of a structured approach to identify the agreement, which better responds to the uncertainty.

Skip pattern approach toward the early access of innovative anticancer drugs

BACKGROUND

With the rapid development of innovative anticancer treatments, the optimization of tools able to accelerate the access of new drugs to the market by the regulatory authority is a major issue. The aim of the project was to propose a reliable methodological pathway for the assessment of clinical value of new therapeutic innovative options, to objectively identify drugs which deserve early access (EA) priority for solid and possibly in other cancer scenarios, such as the hematological ones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After a comprehensive review of the European Public Assessment Report of 21 drugs, to which innovation had previously been attributed by the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA), an expert panel formulated an algorithm for the balanced use of three parameters: Unmet Medical Need (UMN) according to AIFA criteria, Added Benefit (AB) according to the European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) criteria and Quality of Evidence (QE) assessed by the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. By sequentially combining the above indicators, a final priority status (i.e. EA or not) was obtained using the skip pattern approach (SPA).

RESULTS

By applying the SPA to the non-curative setting in solid cancers, the EA status was obtained by 5 out of 14 investigated drugs (36%); by enhancing the role of some categories of the UMN, additional 4 drugs, for a total of 9 (64%), reached the EA status: 2 and 3 drugs were excluded for not achieving an adequate score according to AB and QE criteria, respectively. For hematology cancer, only the UMN criteria were found to be adequate.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of this model may represent a reliable tool for assessment available to the various stakeholders involved in the EA process and may help regulatory agencies in a more comprehensive and objective definition of new treatments' value in these contexts. Its generalizability in other national contexts needs further evaluation.

Accelerating patient access to oncology medicines with multiple indications in Europe

Background: In recent years, innovation in oncology has created new challenges for pricing and reimbursement systems. Oncology medicines with multiple indications face a number of access challenges: (1) the number of assessments and administrative burden; (2) aligning price to different values of the same product; (3) managing clinical uncertainty at time of launch; and (4) managing budget uncertainty. These challenges impact a range of stakeholders and can result in delayed patient access to life-saving treatments. Consequently, countries have taken steps to facilitate patient access. Methods: Drawing on the experience across Europe we have reviewed different mechanisms countries have adopted that address these challenges. These include approaches aimed directly at the issue, multi-year-multi-indication (MYMI) agreements (BE, NL), and other approaches to manage access: flexible access agreements for new indications with clinical uncertainty (UK); development of a new agreement for each new indication (IT); and immediate access for new indications and bundled assessments (DE). Results: MYMI agreements are valuable where existing rules mean that every indication faces the same upfront evaluation process that delays patient access. They are also useful in managing budget impact and uncertainty. Other approaches that adopt an indication-specific approach helps manage clinical uncertainty at the time of launch and realise different values for the same product. They can help align price to value, even though indication-based pricing does not exist. Bundled assessments reduce the administrative burden for stakeholders, and the benefits of immediate reimbursement is that patient access is not delayed. Conclusion: The challenges for medicines with multiple indications impact a range of stakeholders and can result in delayed patient access to life-saving treatments. MYMI agreements have created a more pragmatic approach to HTA for medicines with multiple indications to ensure both fast and broad patient access. Continued innovation in oncology will require further innovative approaches in pricing and reimbursement. It is important that policymakers, payers and manufacturers engage in early discussions and are willing to find new solutions to help accelerate patient access to innovative therapies.