Search

In this latest update, we look at recent developments in market access including the pricing agreement of Libmeldy by the Beneluxa Initiative, the financial impact of managed entry agreements in Italy and the restructuring of Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA). We also highlight the collaboration between FINOSE and the New Expensive Drug (NED) section of the Nordic Pharmaceutical Forum.

Objective: This paper aims to investigate the duration of the pricing & reimbursement (P&R) procedures submitted in Italy by pharmaceutical marketing authorization holders (MAH) for drugs indicated for rare diseases. Methods: All the data used in this analysis were publicly available on different sources of the Italian Ministry of Health, the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and other official websites. The information was systematically collected to investigate the timeline (days) needed to complete the P&R process. The process was divided into 6 simplified steps and the median and range of days needed for each phase were estimated based on data reported in official/published documents. The analysis was stratified considering every single step of the assessment phase and included segmentation of drugs into indications for rare diseases, Orphan designation, Innovation assessment and Managed entry agreements (MEAs). Results: Overall, 181 first indication procedures were submitted to AIFA in the period considered and, of these, 167 (92.3%) were completed and 129 procedures were considered for the final analysis and the median duration of the entire process (MAH submission to final Gazette publication) was 434 days (range 176.0-918.0). The duration of procedures for rare diseases (n = 53) was longer than those for non-rare-disease procedures (n = 76) (463.0 days vs 407.5 days respectively). Among rare disease procedures, orphan designation and MEAs represent predictors for time prolongation while innovation is associated with a shorter assessment time. Conclusion: The study describes the time spent in each phase of the assessment and the appraisal process and demonstrates that uncertainty represents the main driver for the increment in the overall time.

Trabectedin is a marine‐derived anticancer drug approved for the treatment of patients with advanced soft‐tissue sarcomas (STS). Here, we aimed to analyze its use in a large cohort of STS patients treated in Italy in a real‐world setting. Data on STS patients treated with trabectedin in Italy were prospectively collected from January 2013 to December 2019 by the national drug regulator, the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). Time‐to‐off‐treatment (TToT) was defined as the time between the initial prescription of trabectedin and the date of treatment discontinuation for any cause. The impact of the different baseline covariates, including the initial prescribed dose of trabectedin, on TToT was evaluated using an accelerated failure time (AFT) models with log‐logistic distribution. In total, we analyzed data from 2633 sarcoma patients and 14 950 individual cycles of trabectedin. The median number of cycles of trabectedin received per patient was 3 (interquartile range 2‐7). The labeled 1.5 mg/sqm dose was used in 27.3% of all first prescriptions. Overall, the median TToT was 93 days. In the final AFT model, the variables significantly associated to longer TToT were female gender (+13% increase in TToT); ECOG performance status 0 (+50%); histological diagnosis of leiomyosarcoma (+22%), well‐differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcoma (+72%) or myxoid liposarcoma (+61%); receiving treatment in a high‐volume center (+23%). In this large real‐world cohort of STS patients treated with trabectedin, our findings support the use of trabectedin in STS patients, in particular in leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma patients, and highlight the role of treatment center volume in their management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This paper aims to investigate the duration of the pricing & reimbursement (P&R) procedures submitted in Italy by pharmaceutical marketing authorization holders (MAH) for drugs indicated for rare diseases. Methods: All the data used in this analysis were publicly available on different sources of the Italian Ministry of Health, the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and other official websites. The information was systematically collected to investigate the timeline (days) needed to complete the P&R process. The process was divided into 6 simplified steps and the median and range of days needed for each phase were estimated based on data reported in official/published documents. The analysis was stratified considering every single step of the assessment phase and included segmentation of drugs into indications for rare diseases, Orphan designation, Innovation assessment and Managed entry agreements (MEAs). Results: Overall, 181 first indication procedures were submitted to AIFA in the period considered and, of these, 167 (92.3%) were completed and 129 procedures were considered for the final analysis and the median duration of the entire process (MAH submission to final Gazette publication) was 434 days (range 176.0-918.0). The duration of procedures for rare diseases (n = 53) was longer than those for non-rare-disease procedures (n = 76) (463.0 days vs 407.5 days respectively). Among rare disease procedures, orphan designation and MEAs represent predictors for time prolongation while innovation is associated with a shorter assessment time. Conclusion: The study describes the time spent in each phase of the assessment and the appraisal process and demonstrates that uncertainty represents the main driver for the increment in the overall time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveThis investigation aimed to guarantee the principles of transparency in public administration; to inform citizens about the time to patient access to reimbursed medicines; to assess the duration of the P&R process for the first time in the period 2018–2020; and to evaluate whether and how the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic affected the P&R activity. This study analyzed the timelines of pricing and reimbursement procedures submitted in Italy by the pharmaceutical marketing authorization holder (MAH) from 2018 to 2020.MethodsThe analysis was run through an AIFA web-based platform that collects data about P&R procedures for each step of the Italian Price and Reimbursement (P&R) procedure, including dates of the Technical Scientific Committee (CTS) and Price and Reimbursement Committee (CPR) meetings from January 2018 to December 2020. On this basis, four indicators were developed relating to the completion time of each stage of the P&R negotiation process and were defined in terms of days. In this regard, descriptive analyses, graphical boxplots, and survival curves (Kaplan–Meier) were carried out, studying these indicators in relation to the typology of pharmaceutical procedures.ResultsOverall, in the period 2018–2020, 57.1% of the 2,445 procedures entered were represented by the Off-patent pharmaceuticals procedures (generics, biosimilars, copies, and/or parallel trade). In 2020, the overall process duration for Off-patent pharmaceuticals procedures was equal to 129.8 average days [95% CI: (122.3–137.2)], with a median value of 108.0, whereas for In-patent pharmaceuticals procedures, it was equal to 283.1 average days [95% CI: (267.8–298.5)], with a median value of 284.0. Over time, the trend of the entire duration of the P&R process tended to decrease. In terms of estimated timing for the conclusion of each stage of the P&R negotiation process, the difference between Off-patent and In-patent pharmaceutical procedures was statistically significant by the Log-Rank test.Discussion and conclusionThis is the first study to examine the time of the P&R process in Italy, from MAH submission to the publication of the final decision in the Italian Official Journal. The time span considered is 3 years, including the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to European average times, in Italy, the time necessary for evaluation, authorization for reimbursement, and definition of the price of a medicine can be considered satisfactory.

The rapid development of effective vaccines against COVID-19 is an extraordinary achievement. However, no medical product can ever be considered risk-free. Several countries have a pharmacovigilance system that detects, assesses, understands, and prevents possible adverse effects of a drug. To benefit from such huge data sources, specialists and researchers need advanced big data analysis tools able to extract value and find valuable insights. This paper defines a general framework for a pharmaceutical data analysis application that provides a predefined (but extensible) set of functions for each data processing step (i.e., data collection, filtering, enriching, analysis, and visualization). As a case study, we present here an analysis of the potential side effects observed following the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines. The experimental evaluation shows that: (i) most adverse events can be classified as non-serious and concern muscle/joint pain, chills and nausea, headache, and fatigue; (ii) the notification rate is higher in the age group 20–39 years and decreases in older age groups and in very young people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionIt is well acknowledged that the price of orphan drugs is normally higher than that resulting from the value-based pricing. A correlation between the cost of therapy for orphan drugs and the epidemiology (prevalence and incidence) of the related rare disease can be hypothesized.MethodsThis analysis includes all approved orphan drugs by European Medicines Agency whose reimbursement was granted for the first therapeutic indication in the years 2014–2019 in Italy. Regression and correlation analyses were performed to analyze the possible correlations between the logarithm of the annual therapy cost and the epidemiology of the rare diseases, between orphan drugs consumption and epidemiology of related rare disease and between therapy cost and the consumption.ResultsThe regression analysis between the annual cost of therapy estimated on the published ex-factory price and the prevalence showed a slightly decreasing, not statistically significant, trend (coefficient: −0.10, p-value: 0.41). The results were similar when using the price resulting from the application of Managed Entry Agreements (coefficient: −0.11, p-value: 0.40). The regression analysis between sales volume and prevalence showed a positive slope without an acceptable level of significance (p-value: 0.04). The correlation analysis between the therapy cost and the sales volume highlighted again an absence of significant association, similarly if considering only ATC L orphan drugs, or the incidence.DiscussionThe definition of the price of an orphan drug seems not to depend on the rarity of the disease, and sales volumes do not correlate with the epidemiology of the rare disease and with the annual cost of therapy.

In this latest update, we look at recent developments in market access including the pricing agreement of Libmeldy ® by the Beneluxa Initiative, the financial impact of managed entry agreements in Italy and the restructuring of Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA). We also highlight the collaboration between FINOSE and the New Expensive Drug (NED) section of the Nordic Pharmaceutical Forum.

The definition of criteria and processes for the submission of price and reimbursement requests (P&R) of a drug in Italy cannot be separated from the definition of an overall “Pharmaceutical Policy” that includes, in an organic vision: (i) the governance related to the research, marketing and monitoring of drugs in the Italian market; (ii) the availability of drugs on the national territory as an element included in the essential levels of care (LEA) and the related conditions in terms of timing and equity of access between different regions, as well as towards other European countries; (iii) the assessment criteria used. The decree published in the Italian Official Journal in the summer of 2020, which defines the new criteria for the regulation of P&R of medicines in Italy, focuses on the final part of the process, i.e. the price negotiation. It would be necessary to frame this last step within a broader and more organic structure of drug policies aimed at: 1. optimising healthcare funding by encouraging competition between healthcare technologies; 2. reducing assessment time by simplifying processes; 3. improving early access to drugs for unmet need; 4. increasing the quality of P&R dossiers by improving interaction with the companies; 5. encouraging innovative agreements and complementary elements to the price; 6. encouraging the reproducibility of assessment methodologies in a value-based pricing system; 7. considering cost-benefit analyses as tools for the definition of price and conditions of reimbursability; 8. creating a place for discussion on drug policies.

Objective. To compare the time-to-reimbursement of the last two committees of the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), respectively appointed in 2015 and in 2018. Methods. The analysis was run through a specific internal database created by MA-Provider. The database was populated with information regarding European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved new drugs, including each step of the Italian Price and Reimbursement (P&R) process reported in the monthly outcomes of Technical Scientific Committee (CTS) and Price and Reimbursement Committee (CPR) meetings from September 2015 to April 2020. Results. The 2015 and the 2018 committees have reimbursed respectively 39 and 28 drugs by comparing their initial 19 months of activity. Significant differences have been observed in negotiated economic conditions, in particular an increase in the number of drugs with confidential discount (2018-committee: 96.4% vs 2015-committee: 64.1%; p = 0.003) and a reduction in the application of Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) (2018-committee: 10.7% vs 2015-committee: 33.3%; p = 0.036). The average duration of the P&R procedure managed by the 2018-committee has increased by 45 days compared to the 2015-committee (287 days vs 242 days; p = 0.071) and this trend of delay is associated to the active scientific/economic assessment phase by CTS and CPR (particularly by the latter) and not to administrative phases (e.g. Official Journal publications). Conclusions. The observed differences between committees may be explained by the higher number of oncological and/or innovative drugs assessed by the 2018-committee (regarding the time delay, probably linked to greater difficulties in finding a win-win agreement able to satisfy both AIFA and Pharmaceutical Company).

In this viewpoint, we discuss the approach promoted by the Italian Drug Agency (AIFA) to the assessment of the value of new pharmaceuticals in the Italian Healthcare Service. On top of traditionally acknowledged components, such as quality adjusted life years gained and net costs, the overall value framework might include other elements such as productivity and adherence, equity, severity of disease, reduction in uncertainty, spillover effects. There is a residual dimension in the value framework that may capture the option value or reduction in fear of contagion for infectious disease treatments. We debate measurement issues on these elements of value and discuss open issues from a methodological and policy standpoint.

At the end of 2020, a vaccination campaign against COVID-19 was launched. In 2021, legal obligations for health workers, as well as specific regulations for all workers, were introduced. The global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was followed by epochal changes in life, school, and work habits in Italy. Therefore, the pharmacovigilance work currently being conducted in Italy by the AIFA concerning the recording and analysing of adverse reactions related to the use of vaccines has proved to be very important. The latest report, including a period of 10 months from December 2020 to September 2021, has allowed us to combine the results received so far, and to compare the safety of all vaccines currently available in Italy. The results of this analysis are highly encouraging and reveal the statistical reliability of the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines currently used in Italy. The dissemination of these findings could increase the public’s awareness of vaccines and their ability to make free and informed choices concerning vaccination. The potential increase in the Italian population’s adherence to the vaccination campaign could ultimately be a decisive factor in achieving herd immunity and the final resolution of the pandemic.

Abstract Background Health Technology Assessments (HTA) procedures differ substantially across the various European countries. We reviewed recent appraisals of a pharmaceutical manufacturer in three major European markets (France; Italy; Germany) and identified and categorized related decision drivers. Methods New marketing authorisation between January 2011 and August 2017, and Roche being the Marketing Authorization Holder, were included. Outcome of HTA appraisals by the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), and Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G-BA) were reviewed. Respective decision drivers were identified and commonalities and differences across the three countries were determined leveraging the EUnetHTA conceptual taxonomy (i.e. the 9 domains of the EUnetHTA core model). Results Within that time period Roche received European marketing authorization for eight new molecular entities (10 indications, respectively). Outcome of HTA appraisals was heterogeneous across the three countries. However, the four clinical domains of the EUnetHTA core model were driving the national HTA appraisals, with the clinical effectiveness domain being of most importance. Important drivers related to the other three clinical domains included the target patient population (subgroups, Germany), the current management of the condition (unmet need, Italy), the regulatory status (Orphan Designation, Germany), as well as safety considerations (all three countries). Average time between EMA approval and full commercial availability of new medicines was 63 (Germany), 459 (Italy), and 557 days (France). Conclusions The clinical domains of the EUnetHTA framework are mainly driven by national HTA appraisals, providing a suitable starting point for further developing a joint European view on value and evidence. Underlying topics and issues still reveal considerable differences.

• In 2018, in Italy, the overall pharmaceutical expenditure (public and private) was 29.1 billion euro (without considering the MEAs application), with a stable trend in comparison to the previous year (−0.1%): the public outpatient expenditure (including both medicines procured and dispensed by community pharmacies and medicines procured by public health facilities for outpatient use, so-called direct and per conto distribution), accounting for 60% of expenditure, amounted to 12.4 billion euro, a decrease of 4% compared to 2017. • The total private expenditure, including the cost-sharing and pharmaceuticals directly paid by patients, increased by 3.8% compared to 2017 (amounting to 8.3 billion euro). • Inpatient public expenditure (7.6 billion euro) steadily grows (+3.6% in comparison with the previous year) with oncologic and anti-infective medicines representing the most significant categories in terms of expenditure. • In 2018, the total consumption including INHS and private purchase was 1571.5 DDDs every 1000 inhabitants per day. • In the community, 978.8 DDDs of medicines procured by community pharmacies and reimbursed by INHS were dispensed, corresponding to 1.1 billion packs (18.2 packs per capita) which decreased by −0.7% compared to the previous year. The overall prevalence of medicines use, meaning the proportion of people who had received at least one prescription during the year, was 67%, with relevant differences amongst men (62%) and women (71%). • Cardiovascular medicines represented those with the highest impact in terms of overall consumption (519.5 DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day), followed by medicines in the category of alimentary tract and metabolism (243.4 DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day). In 2018 antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents are the group with the highest INHS expenditure (5.7 billion euro and 15.6 DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day), followed by cardiovascular medicines with the 3.2 billion euro of total expenditure. • In 2018, off-patent products accounted for 65.9% of expenditure and for 82.7% of consumption (DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day) of medicines dispensed and procured by community pharmacies. The generic medicines, products usually intended to be interchangeable with the originator brand product, manufactured without a license from the originator manufacturer(14), represented 19.0% of the expenditure and 29.4% of community consumption. The report showed great variability across Italian regions, with generic medicines expenditure ranging from 43% to 18% of the overall off-patent medicines expenditure (the Italian mean value in 2018 was 29%). In a context of financial constraints, an appropriate and efficient resource allocation represents the main issue of health care governance at any level of health decision-making processes. In these circumstances continuously monitoring how the resources are allocated, to make the necessary changes in a timely and efficient manner, is unavoidable. In this perspective, the Medicines Utilisation Monitoring Centre (OsMed), placed at Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), develops and publishes the National Report on Medicines Use. It also provides with an updated overview on the Italian pharmaceutical market in relation to policies, data of inpatient and outpatient consumption as well as expenditure. Data from the Medicines Utilisation Monitoring Centre, stated by a National Law in 1998, were used to describe the main figures on the Italian national pharmaceutical expenditure. In 2018 the overall Italian pharmaceutical expenditure (public and private) was 29.1 billion euro, almost the same as the previous year (-0.1%). The public outpatient expenditure amounted to 12.4 billion euro, corresponding to a decrease of 4% compared to 2017, while the inpatient public expenditure observed an increase. The total private expenditure, including the cost-sharing and pharmaceuticals directly paid by patients increased by 3.8% compared to 2017 (amounting to 8.4 billion euro). In 2018 the total consumption, including INHS and private purchase, was 1,571.5 DDDs per every 1,000 inhabitants per day. The Report aims to provide a common and comprehensive information base to equally support the local policies interventions. This document has been subject to a constant evolution in order to meet the evolving information needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To compare the time-to-reimbursement of the last two committees of the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), respectively appointed in 2015 and in 2018. Methods. The analysis was run through a specific internal database created by MA-Provider. The database was populated with information regarding European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved new drugs, including each step of the Italian Price and Reimbursement (P&R) process reported in the monthly outcomes of Technical Scientific Committee (CTS) and Price and Reimbursement Committee (CPR) meetings from September 2015 to April 2020. Results. The 2015 and the 2018 committees have reimbursed respectively 39 and 28 drugs by comparing their initial 19 months of activity. Significant differences have been observed in negotiated economic conditions, in particular an increase in the number of drugs with confidential discount (2018-committee: 96.4% vs 2015-committee: 64.1%; p = 0.003) and a reduction in the application of Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) (2018-committee: 10.7% vs 2015-committee: 33.3%; p = 0.036). The average duration of the P&R procedure managed by the 2018-committee has increased by 45 days compared to the 2015-committee (287 days vs 242 days; p = 0.071) and this trend of delay is associated to the active scientific/economic assessment phase by CTS and CPR (particularly by the latter) and not to administrative phases (e.g. Official Journal publications). Conclusions. The observed differences between committees may be explained by the higher number of oncological and/or innovative drugs assessed by the 2018-committee (regarding the time delay, probably linked to greater difficulties in finding a win-win agreement able to satisfy both AIFA and Pharmaceutical Company). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this viewpoint, we discuss the approach promoted by the Italian Drug Agency (AIFA) to the assessment of the value of new pharmaceuticals in the Italian Healthcare Service. On top of traditionally acknowledged components, such as quality adjusted life years gained and net costs, the overall value framework might include other elements such as productivity and adherence, equity, severity of disease, reduction in uncertainty, spillover effects. There is a residual dimension in the value framework that may capture the option value or reduction in fear of contagion for infectious disease treatments. We debate measurement issues on these elements of value and discuss open issues from a methodological and policy standpoint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The definition of criteria and processes for the submission of price and reimbursement requests (P&R) of a drug in Italy cannot be separated from the definition of an overall "Pharmaceutical Policy" that includes, in an organic vision: (i) the governance related to the research, marketing and monitoring of drugs in the Italian market; (ii) the availability of drugs on the national territory as an element included in the essential levels of care (LEA) and the related conditions in terms of timing and equity of access between different regions, as well as towards other European countries; (iii) the assessment criteria used. The decree published in the Italian Official Journal in the summer of 2020, which defines the new criteria for the regulation of P&R of medicines in Italy, focuses on the final part of the process, i.e. the price negotiation. It would be necessary to frame this last step within a broader and more organic structure of drug policies aimed at: 1. optimising healthcare funding by encouraging competition between healthcare technologies; 2. reducing assessment time by simplifying processes; 3. improving early access to drugs for unmet need; 4. increasing the quality of P&R dossiers by improving interaction with the companies; 5. encouraging innovative agreements and complementary elements to the price; 6. encouraging the reproducibility of assessment methodologies in a value-based pricing system; 7. considering cost-benefit analyses as tools for the definition of price and conditions of reimbursability; 8. creating a place for discussion on drug policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Content centric networking (CCN) where content/named data as the first entity has become one of the most promising architectures for the future Internet. To achieve better security, the Interest NACK[AQ ID=Q1]mechanism is introduced into CCN; however, it has not attracted enough attention and most of the CCN architectures do not embed Interest NACK until now. This study focuses on analysing the urgency of implementing Interest NACK into CCN, by designing a novel network threat named advanced interest flooding attack (AIFA) to attack CCN, which can not only exhaust the pending interest table (PIT) resource of each involved router just as normal interest flooding attack (IFA), but also keep each PIT entry unexpired until it finishes, making it harder to detect and more harmful when compared with the normal IFA. Specifically, the damage of AIFA on CCN architecture with and without Interest NACK is evaluated and analysed, compared with normal IFA, and then the urgency of implementing Interest NACK is highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This investigation aimed to guarantee the principles of transparency in public administration; to inform citizens about the time to patient access to reimbursed medicines; to assess the duration of the P&R process for the first time in the period 2018-2020; and to evaluate whether and how the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic affected the P&R activity. This study analyzed the timelines of pricing and reimbursement procedures submitted in Italy by the pharmaceutical marketing authorization holder (MAH) from 2018 to 2020., Methods: The analysis was run through an AIFA web-based platform that collects data about P&R procedures for each step of the Italian Price and Reimbursement (P&R) procedure, including dates of the Technical Scientific Committee (CTS) and Price and Reimbursement Committee (CPR) meetings from January 2018 to December 2020. On this basis, four indicators were developed relating to the completion time of each stage of the P&R negotiation process and were defined in terms of days. In this regard, descriptive analyses, graphical boxplots, and survival curves (Kaplan-Meier) were carried out, studying these indicators in relation to the typology of pharmaceutical procedures., Results: Overall, in the period 2018-2020, 57.1% of the 2,445 procedures entered were represented by the Off-patent pharmaceuticals procedures (generics, biosimilars, copies, and/or parallel trade). In 2020, the overall process duration for Off-patent pharmaceuticals procedures was equal to 129.8 average days [95% CI: (122.3-137.2)], with a median value of 108.0, whereas for In-patent pharmaceuticals procedures, it was equal to 283.1 average days [95% CI: (267.8-298.5)], with a median value of 284.0. Over time, the trend of the entire duration of the P&R process tended to decrease. In terms of estimated timing for the conclusion of each stage of the P&R negotiation process, the difference between Off-patent and In-patent pharmaceutical procedures was statistically significant by the Log-Rank test., Discussion and Conclusion: This is the first study to examine the time of the P&R process in Italy, from MAH submission to the publication of the final decision in the Italian Official Journal. The time span considered is 3 years, including the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to European average times, in Italy, the time necessary for evaluation, authorization for reimbursement, and definition of the price of a medicine can be considered satisfactory., Competing Interests: All authors were employed by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) at the time the study was carried out. GA is at present employed by the Ministry of Health., (Copyright © 2022 Gallo, Alessi, Montilla, Altamura, Traversa and Trotta.)

Spontaneous adverse drugs reaction (ADRs) reporting represents a precious resource for control and information about the drug's safety and pharmacovigilance. The current reporting system is mainly based on handwritten forms and later manually loaded into a national electronic database by few local pharmacovigilance centers. This reporting system is complicated for both reporters and pharmacovigilance centers which often avoid reporting ADRs for several reasons such as the lack of data on the report. The reporting system might be implemented by improving online platform for ADRs upload; this could allow inspecting all ADRs loaded. Currently, the database is only accessible by the Italian Medicine Agency (AIFA) and local pharmacovigilance centers; neither reporters nor other healthcare professionals can access the database. Finally, it would be right to implement pharmacovigilance centers with specific professional figures qualified in the pharmacovigilance to support both citizens and reporters on various aspects of ADRs reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is the basis of pharmacovigilance. In fact, ADRs are associated with a high degree of morbidity and mortality. However, underreporting by all healthcare professionals remains the major problem in Italy and in the rest of the world. The dissemination of pharmacovigilance knowledge among Italian healthcare professionals, and the new pharmacovigilance regulations may promote the early detection and reporting of ADRs. This review examines the legislative framework concerning the pharmacovigilance in Italy. Materials and Methods: The information was collected from scientific articles and the websites of the Italian Ministry of Health and the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA). Results: The pharmacovigilance system, both in Italy and Europe, has undergone profound changes. European legislation on pharmacovigilance has been changed in 2010 according to the EU Regulation 1235/2010 and Directive 2010/84/EU. Basically, the changes tend to increase the efficiency, speed and transparency of pharmacovigilance activities. The new Regulation (1235/2010) and the Directive (2010/84/EU) aim to strengthen the system of pharmacovigilance, establish more precisely who is obliged to do what, and allow faster and easier circulation and retrieval of information about ADRs. Conclusion: A greater knowledge on what is the Italian pharmacovigilance legislation will be useful to improve the status of ADRs reporting and spread the culture of spontaneous reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The post-marketing registries, established by the Italian Medicines Agency in 2005, represent the example of a national application of an automated workflow handling the personalized drug distribution in hospital pharmacies and local public pharmaceutical services, with the intent of both improving the efficacy/efficiency of analysis and regulatory activities themselves, as well as closely monitoring the clinical activity. In fact, within the correct clinical practice the prescriber shall take into account the parameters, such as therapeutic drug indication, actual benefit the patient should gain in comparison to the trials, potential and actual risk of adverse reactions, drugs interactions, and cost of the therapy. On the track of the cancer registry's experience, the Italian Medicines Agency has extended the scope to the following areas: ophthalmology, rheumatology, dermatology, orphan drugs, cardiology, diabetology, respiratory, and neurological diseases. It involves more than 60 drugs (most of them with risk sharing schemes on a population of over 400 000 patients) and is available from http://monitoraggio-farmaci.agenziafarmaco.it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the end of 2020, a vaccination campaign against COVID-19 was launched. In 2021, legal obligations for health workers, as well as specific regulations for all workers, were introduced. The global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was followed by epochal changes in life, school, and work habits in Italy. Therefore, the pharmacovigilance work currently being conducted in Italy by the AIFA concerning the recording and analysing of adverse reactions related to the use of vaccines has proved to be very important. The latest report, including a period of 10 months from December 2020 to September 2021, has allowed us to combine the results received so far, and to compare the safety of all vaccines currently available in Italy. The results of this analysis are highly encouraging and reveal the statistical reliability of the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines currently used in Italy. The dissemination of these findings could increase the public's awareness of vaccines and their ability to make free and informed choices concerning vaccination. The potential increase in the Italian population's adherence to the vaccination campaign could ultimately be a decisive factor in achieving herd immunity and the final resolution of the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: It is well acknowledged that the price of orphan drugs is normally higher than that resulting from the value-based pricing. A correlation between the cost of therapy for orphan drugs and the epidemiology (prevalence and incidence) of the related rare disease can be hypothesized., Methods: This analysis includes all approved orphan drugs by European Medicines Agency whose reimbursement was granted for the first therapeutic indication in the years 2014-2019 in Italy. Regression and correlation analyses were performed to analyze the possible correlations between the logarithm of the annual therapy cost and the epidemiology of the rare diseases, between orphan drugs consumption and epidemiology of related rare disease and between therapy cost and the consumption., Results: The regression analysis between the annual cost of therapy estimated on the published ex-factory price and the prevalence showed a slightly decreasing, not statistically significant, trend (coefficient: -0.10, p- value: 0.41). The results were similar when using the price resulting from the application of Managed Entry Agreements (coefficient: -0.11, p- value: 0.40). The regression analysis between sales volume and prevalence showed a positive slope without an acceptable level of significance ( p- value: 0.04). The correlation analysis between the therapy cost and the sales volume highlighted again an absence of significant association, similarly if considering only ATC L orphan drugs, or the incidence., Discussion: The definition of the price of an orphan drug seems not to depend on the rarity of the disease, and sales volumes do not correlate with the epidemiology of the rare disease and with the annual cost of therapy., Competing Interests: FV, ADF, AP, AC, DS, and FT were employed by Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA). GT was employed by Zorginstituut Nederland. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Villa, Di Filippo, Pierantozzi, Genazzani, Addis, Trifirò, Cangini, Tafuri, Settesoldi and Trotta.)

The new European Union (EU) regulations on pharmacovigilance require that the national systems are strengthened in order to fit the new requirements. The Italian Pharmacovigilance System, coordinated by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), is made by local and regional structures. In 2007, a program for funding active pharmacovigilance projects in the Italian Regions was established by the National law. The AIFA is responsible for the preparation of guidelines aimed at the identification of research areas and for the approval of the projects submitted by the regions. In April 2012, the AIFA started a program of visits at the regional pharmacovigilance centers (RPCs), aimed at monitoring their performances, evaluating the quality of the activities in order to understand the main differences and discrepancies and with a view to start a program of harmonization of the procedures in place. The outcome of the visits program highlighted major differences among the quality management systems of the various centers; hence, AIFA has decided to launch an initiative to promote in the next months the harmonization of procedures. The synergy among AIFA, regional structures, RPCs, and local structure responsible for pharmacovigilance is needed in order to establish a robust pharmacovigilance system working in full compliance with the provisions of the new EU legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]