Search

Abstract Background The EuroQol Group recently developed two new instruments, the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) and the EQ Health and Wellbeing short version (EQ-HWB-S). The EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S are intended to capture a broad range of health and broader quality of life aspects, which may be relevant to general public members, patients, their families, social care users and informal carers. This study assesses the content validity of the Italian version of the two instruments in a sample of Italian patients, social care users and informal carers. Methods Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling approach. One-on-one interviews were carried out using video-conferencing interviews. A semi-structured topic guide was used to guide the interview procedures, with open-ended questions supplemented by probes. Participants were asked to explain important aspects of their health and quality of life, to complete the questionnaires and verbalize their thoughts. Results Twenty participants comprising of patients (n = 9), informal carers (n = 6), and members of the general public (n = 5) participated to the study. Content validity was summarized into six main themes: comprehension, interpretation, acceptability, relevance, response options and recall period. All participants found the instruments easy or quite easy to understand and to respond to. Items were relevant for all three groups of participants, and response options appropriate. Conclusions The Italian version of the EQ-HWB showed content validity in measuring health and wellbeing in a mixed Italian population.

This paper illustrates the recommendations of a Working Group (WG) on the assessment of drugs innovativeness and the negotiation of price and reimbursement. The WG included researchers, institutions, clinicians, patient representatives and pharmaceutical companies. The first part of the contribution summarizes the literature on drug pricing models, which was considered in the WG, and, in particular, the pricing criteria, the evaluation and negotiation processes, the management of the uncertainty of the evidence, the use of cross-reference pricing and price negotiation for new indications of existing drugs. The second part illustrates the results of the WG with a focus on innovativeness assessment, value framework and price negotiation. The main recommendations of the WG are: to define more specific criteria for the identification of comparators and endpoints for macro therapeutic areas/settings; to produce guidelines on the use of indirect comparisons and studies supporting this evidence; to consider the drug value as the main driver of price and reimbursement negotiation; to maintain flexibility in the negotiation process, but, at the same time, to give greater structure and predictability in the assessment of value for money, with a more qualified role of cost-effectiveness and a range of threshold values for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; to selectively reintroduce Managed Entry Agreements and the Indication-based pricing model; to implement an early dialogue between the Italian Medicine Agency and the pharmaceutical companies in order to optimize the negotiation process, and a structured involvement of scientific societies and patient representatives.

The present paper illustrates a reform proposal on early access for medicines. In this proposal early access stands for patient’s access, outside of clinical trials and covered by the Italian National Health Service (Servizio Sanitario Nazionale, SSN), to a new medicine or an indication of an already approved medicine before the approval o in between the approval and the decision on price and reimbursement status. The proposal emerged from a multi-stakeholder working group within the Sixth Edition of the “Seminari di Mogliano Veneto”. The reform proposal is aimed at converting the current early access programs (mainly, the programs introduced with Laws 648/96 and 326/03) into a single program inspired by the one introduced in France in 2021. The proposal provides indications on eligibility criteria for drugs and patients, application procedure, evaluation process, economic safeguard clauses, data collection, issues derived from the circumstance that the drug/indication included into the early access program is not reimbursed afterwards and the actions to implement this program.

Introduction: This paper describes the peculiarities of the plasma-derived medicinal product (PDMP) market and illustrates the results of a review of the literature on policies aimed at counteracting the shortage of PDMPs.Characteristics of PDMPs: Plasma is primarily used for the industrial production of blood products (80%). The demand for PDMPs, particularly immunoglobulins (IGs), is increasing. However, the production of PDMPs is complex, long (7–12 months), and expensive, accounting, according to US estimates, for 57% of the total costs of PDMPs compared to 14% for small molecules.PDMP market: Unexpected increases in clinical need cannot be addressed in the short term. Once the demand for some diseases is satisfied, the collection and fractionation of plasma will only be used to supply some specific patients. Hence, the full weight of the marginal costs, which remain constant, are borne by a few products. According to last liter economics, the industry stops producing when the marginal revenue equals the marginal cost, thereby reducing the convenience of producing the most commonly used PDMPs (albumin and IG). The imbalance between the demand and supply of PDMPs was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which further increased the cost of plasma collection.Shortage issue and possible solutions: Policies to counteract this imbalance have also been discussed. If the demand is inappropriate, it should be reduced. If the demand is appropriate and supply cannot be increased, the demand should be prioritized for patients for whom PDMPs are the only available treatment. If the shortage depends on insufficient supply and technical and allocative efficiency, both production and supply should be improved, together with incentives for all stakeholders involved in the PDMP market to increase the sustainability of production/supply. The paper is focused on this second issue, that is supply-driven unbalance.

Background: Compassionate use programs (CUP) for medicines allow patients, not recruited in trials, accessing medicines before marketing approval. The evidence on the economic impact of CUP is limited to one paper that did not include the possible long-term economic impact of medicines used in CUP compared to alternative treatments, like avoided hospitalization costs. This paper aims at covering this information gap, updating and integrating the existing evidence, with a cost analysis in the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (SSN). Methods: Data were retrieved from the Roche CUP Database, the peer-reviewed literature (e.g. published cost-effectiveness studies, if any), the gray literature (e.g. regional documents for the alternative treatment cost) and unpublished data (e.g. cost-effectiveness analysis provided for price and reimbursement negotiation for medicines in CUP). Results: We retrieved data from 14 CUPs and 3,485 patients (70% affected by tumors) (Jan 2015-August 2022). The alternative treatment mean cost per patient ranged from € 11.1 k to € 18.8 k. The net economic benefit ranged from € 47 million to € 75 million (€ 13.5 k-€ 21.5 k per patient). Avoiding alternative treatments mostly contributes to the economic benefit. The long-term economic impact accounted for 20/30% of the net economic impact. The net economic benefit for cancer drugs ranged from € 12.6 million to € 40.0 million. Conclusions: Despite research limitations, this paper provides additional evidence on the economic impact of CUP in Italy. This could represent the first step of a broader analysis of the economic impact of early access schemes for drugs.

Abstract Background Chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) represent an innovation but raise issues for healthcare payers because of the uncertainty on impact at market launch, high cost and important organisational impact. The literature has focused on their assessment, appraisal and market access solutions. No evidence on the costs sustained to implement CAR-T is available and a few studies reported the cost of the CAR-T clinical pathway, including the activities that are remunerated through inpatient or outpatient fee-for-service/episode. This paper aims at filling the information gap, assessing the cost of implementing CAR-T activity and the full cost of managing the CAR-T clinical pathway. Methods Cost analysis relied on the Activity Based Costing approach, which was applied to two Italian healthcare organisations, both CAR-T Centres authorized by the regional governments with a minimum of 20 patients treated with the first two CAR-T therapies launched on the market. Results The cost of implementing CAR-T was estimated at €1.31 million (calculated for one of the organizations with complete data). Most of these costs (77%) were generated by quality assurance activity. The mean cost per patient entering the CAR-T pathway (59 and 27) and surviving at follow-up (21 and 5) ranges from €48K to €57K and from €96K to €106K, respectively. Fees for hospitalization and infusion of gene therapy accounts for more than 70% of these costs. The actual hospitalisation cost varies greatly across patients and is in general lower than the fee-for-episode paid by the region to the hospital. Conclusions Despite its limitations (exploratory nature; the time spent by staff on activities which are not remunerated through fees was estimated through interviews with the CAR-T coordinators; cost items are not fully comparable), this research highlighted the relevant organisational and economic impact of CAR-T and provided important insights for policy makers and healthcare managers: the necessity to invest resources in CAR-T implementation; the need for assessing activities which are not remunerated through fees for service / episode; the opportunity to shift from fee-for-episode / service to bundled payments for CAR-T clinical pathway.

Neurodegenerative diseases represent a growing burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have shown promise as a potential therapy due to their neuroregenerative, neuroprotective, and immunomodulatory properties, which are, however, linked to the bioactive substances they release, collectively known as secretome. This paper provides an overview of the most recent research on the safety and efficacy of MSC-derived secretome and extracellular vesicles (EVs) in clinical (if available) and preclinical models of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, Huntington's disease, acute ischemic stroke, and spinal cord injury. The article explores the biologically active substances within MSC-secretome/EVs, the mechanisms responsible for the observed therapeutic effects, and the strategies that may be used to optimize MSC-secretome/EVs production based on specific therapeutic needs. The review concludes with a critical discussion of current clinical trials and a perspective on potential future directions in translating MSC-secretome and EVs into the clinic, specifically regarding how to address the challenges associated with their pharmaceutical manufacturing, including scalability, batch-to-batch consistency, adherence to Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) guidelines, formulation, and storage, along with quality controls, access to the market and relative costs, value for money and impact on total expenditure.

Regional Formularies (RF) are considered part of pharmaceutical policies implemented by regions to govern access of medicines to regional market. However, they have been actually challenged, because of their presumed impact on differences of patient’s access across the regions. The paper aimed at investigating the current status of RF and Regional Therapeutic Committees (CTR) and at suggesting/recommending possible reforms. The current status was investigated through a questionnaire administered to the regional pharmaceutical departments. Recommendations were retrieved from a multi-stakeholder work group carried out on 30-31 March 2023, embedded into a Forum focused on the regional pharmaceutical policies. Nineteen out of twenty-one regions responded to the survey: 12 use RF, mainly managed by the CTR; the RF frequency of update and the time needed for drugs listing greatly vary across regions; pharmacists, specialists and general practitioners are always represented in CTR, whereas other healthcare professionals and experts are more rarely involved; in 3 regions the CTR does not publish any RF update; the CTR mainly rely, to take decisions, on the dimension of the target population, the cost of therapy compared to alternative treatments and the impact on pharmaceutical expenditure. The working group recommended to overcome the RFs, if they are merely considered a list of available drugs at regional level, focusing CTR activities to ensure market access and to govern the prescribing behaviour, and strengthening/anticipating the flow of information from the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) to the regions, to enable a more efficient approach to local access to drugs.

Abstract Background The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes. Methods A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered. Results The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates. Conclusions The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses.

Abstract Early access programs (EAPs) generally refer to patient access to medicines/indications before marketing authorization, possibly extended to price and reimbursement approval. These programs include compassionate use, which is usually covered by pharmaceutical companies, and EAPs reimbursed by third-party payers. This paper aims at comparing EAPs in four European countries (France, Italy, Spain, UK) and providing empirical evidence on EAPs in Italy. The comparative analysis was conducted through a literature review (including scientific and grey literature), complemented by 30-min semi-structured interviews with local experts. The Italian empirical analysis employed data available on the National Medicines Agency website. Although EAPs are very different across countries, they exhibit some common features: (i) eligibility criteria refer to the absence of valid therapeutic alternatives and a presumed favourable risk–benefit profile; (ii) payers do not allocate a pre-determined budget to these programs; (iii) total spending on EAPs is unknown. The French EAPs seem to be the most structured, financed through social insurance, covering pre-marketing, post-marketing and pre-reimbursement phases and providing for data collection. Italy’s approach to EAPs has been varied, with several programs covered by different payers, including the cohort-based 648 List (for both early access and off-label use), the nominal-based 5% Fund, and Compassionate Use. Most applications to EAPs are from the Antineoplastic and immunomodulating drug class (ATC L). Some 62% of indications in the 648 List are either not under clinical development or have never been approved (pure off-label use). For those subsequently approved, most approved indications coincide with those covered through EAPs. Only the 5% Fund provides data on economic impact (€ 81.2 million in 2021; average cost per patient € 61.5K). Diverse EAPs are a possible source of inequalities in access to medicines across Europe. A harmonization of these programs, though difficult to achieve, could be modelled on the French EAPs and provide key advantages, not least of which a common effort to collect real-world data in parallel with clinical trials and clear separation between EAPs and off-label use programs.

Vitiligo is a chronic depigmenting disorder characterized by characteristic, non-scaly, chalky-white skin macules and patches, due to the loss of skin pigment. Its exact pathogenesis is still not fully understood but it seems to be an autoimmune disease where the combination of genetic, environmental, and immune factors contributes to the destruction of melanocytes in the epidermis. Vitiligo is classified into different types based on its clinical characteristics and distribution patterns. The two main forms of vitiligo are non-segmental vitiligo (NSV) and segmental vitiligo (SV). NSV is the predominant form, characterized by symmetrical skin patches, that tend to evolve over time. In contrast, SV has unilateral or band-shaped lesions that progress rapidly but often stabilize early. Herein, current unmet needs in terms of psychosocial consequences and relative lack of valid therapeutic approaches are critically analyzed and put in perspective in the Italian prescribing scenario. Finally, available management guidelines are illustrated and briefly compared, to provide context for upcoming treatment options.

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.

Multi-indication pricing models for medicines and some international impact evidence are available in the literature. Data on the Italian context are more limited. This paper illustrates the results of a study aimed at gathering the opinion on this topic of experts, members of the ISPOR Italy Rome Chapter. The opinion was collected through a structured questionnaire, validated by two potential responders, and administered online in the period October/July 2022. There were 45 responders (20% of the members); 67% of responders work in pharmaceutical companies and 13% in consultancy firms. The remainder belongs to regulators/payers and universities. The survey highlighted a preference for (i) non-automatic models, as automatic approaches are mainly based on price cuts/discount increases in relation to an increase in volumes, (ii) an “indication-based-pricing” model (where prices are differentiated by indication through discounts/risk sharing agreements), since it is more consistent with a value-based approach, even if more complex to manage, (iii) a mix of discounts/agreements according to existing evidence. The opinion collected is consistent with the opinions available in the literature, but not consistent with the Italian trend, where, compared to the past, a blended approach is prevailing. A blended pricing envisages a renegotiation of the single price for all indications, essentially based on a change in the discount. Our hope is that in the future the experts’ opinion will be taken into consideration and that a targeted indication-based-pricing will be adopted again.

IntroductionCAR T-cell therapy has emerged as a promising new immuno-oncology treatment that engages the patient’s immune system to fight certain hematological malignancies, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). In the European Union (EU), CAR T-cell therapies have been approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL patients since 2018, but patient access is often still limited or delayed. This paper is aimed at discussing challenges to access and possible solutions in the largest four EU countries.MethodsThe analysis relied on literature review, market data collection, since homogeneous data coming from registries were not available, and discussion with experts coming from all four countries.ResultsWe calculated that in 2020, between 58% and 83% of R/R DLBCL patients (EMA approved label population) or between 29% and 71% of the estimated medically eligible R/R DLBCL patients, were not treated with a licensed CAR T-cell therapy. Common challenges along the patient journey that may result in limited access or delays to CAR T-cell therapy were identified. These include timely identification and referral of eligible patients, pre-treatment funding approval by authorities and payers, and resource needs at CAR T-cell centers.DiscussionThese challenges, existing best practices and recommended focus areas for health systems are discussed here, with the aim to inform necessary actions for overcoming patient access challenges for current CAR T-cell therapies as well as for future cell and gene therapies.

Abstract Background Compassionate use programs (CUP) for medicines respond to the ethical imperative of providing access to medicines before marketing approval to patients not recruited in trials. The economic impact of clinical trials has previously been investigated. No evidence on the net economic benefit of CUP exists. This research aims to address this information gap by estimating the economic consequences of 11 CUP in Italy conducted between March 2015 and December 2020 from the perspective of public health care system in Italy (National Health Service). Eight programs concern cancer treatments, two refer to spinal muscular atrophy, and one is indicated for multiple sclerosis. Methods Since CUP medicines are covered by the industry, the net economic benefit includes: (i) avoided costs of the Standard of Care (SoC) the patients would have received had they not joined the CUP, (ii) costs not covered by the pharmaceutical industry sponsor, but instead sustained by payers, such as those associated with adverse events (only severe side effects resulting in hospitalisation and attributable to CUP medicines), and (iii) costs for combination therapies and diagnostic procedures not used with the SoC. The SoC costing relied on publicly available data. Information on adverse events and diagnostic procedures was retrieved from the CUP and monetized using the relevant fee for episode or service. One CUP was excluded since a SoC was not identified. Results 2,713 patients were treated in the 11 CUP where a SoC was identified. The SoC mean cost per patient ranged from €11,415 to €20,299. The total cost of the SoC ranged between €31.0 and €55.1 million. The mean cost per patient covered by hospitals hosting CUP was equal to €1,646, with a total cost of €4.5 million. The net economic benefit ranged €26.5 million - €50.6 million. Conclusions Despite research limitations, this paper illustrates for the first time the net economic impact of CUP from a public payer perspective. It is important to integrate these estimates with the prospective effects of CUP implementation, i.e., the economic value of the comparative benefit profile of medicines used in CUP versus the SoC, including effects from a societal perspective.

Abstract Background and aim Evidence on determinants of prices for orphan medicines is scarce and not available for Italy. The aim of this paper is to provide an evidence on variables affecting the annual treatment cost of orphan drugs in Italy, testing the hypothesis of a negative correlation with the dimension of the target population and a positive correlation with the added therapeutic value of the drug and the quality of the evidence of pivotal studies. Methods Drugs with a European orphan designation reimbursed in Italy in the last 6 years (2014–2019) were considered. Univariate, cluster analysis and multiple regression models were used to investigate the correlation between the annual treatment cost and, as explanatory variables, the dimension of the target population, the existence of Randomized Clinical Trials as a proxy of the quality of the pivotal studies, the added therapeutic value. Results In the univariate analysis prevalence and added therapeutic value, as expected, have a negative and positive correlation with cost respectively. The correlation with RCT is not significant. In the multivariate model, coefficients for prevalence and added value are confirmed but for the latter are not significant anymore. We also found, through an interaction analysis, that the existence of an RCT has a positive impact on annual treatment cost when the target population is very small. Conclusions Our results suggest that value arguments and sustainability (dimension of the target population and its impact on budget impact) issues are considered for orphan drugs pricing: the role played by sustainability is systematically supported by our results. A more transparent and reproducible price negotiation process for orphan drugs is needed in Italy. This paper has contributed to highlight the implicit drivers of this process.

This document illustrates the results of a discussion of two multi-disciplinary expert panels on pricing and reimbursement of medicines. Experts work in different organizations. The discussion focused on comparator(s), endpoint(s), negotiation of prices of new medicines and/or indications to include in the List 648, as well as the role of cost-effectiveness in the price and reimbursement negotiation. The debate took place during the fourth edition of the Seminari di Mogliano, organized on the 30th of September/1st of October, 2021. The two panels agreed on a general need to enhance interaction among the different stakeholders, in the early assessment and negotiation phases, and to increase the transparency/reproducibility of the decisions taken. The experts have also emphasized the need (i) to improve clarity in the evaluation of additional therapeutic value and the place in therapy with respect to comparators and how comparators are identified; (ii) to create work groups to identify the most appropriate endpoint(s), for each therapeutic area and level of unmet needs; (iii) to provide for a systematic use of cost-effectiveness when an added therapeutic value is delivered by a new medicine. With regard to the 648 List, the experts advocated for an overall reorganization of the current rules governing the special uses of drugs.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process which supports policy “decision-making”, including those related to drug reimbursement and price negotiation based on comprehensive clinical and non-clinical evaluations. The discrepancies in HTA recommendations among European countries are related to the differences in health care systems and willingness to invest in health care, differences in assessment methodologies and appraisal practices, and variations in economic constraints, and may produce disparities in terms of patient access to medicines. The political discussion about the adoption of the European Regulation on HTA lasted for years due to concerns about its feasibility and its implications for national health care systems In this paper we highlighted the importance to harmonize HTA process in Europe and some critical issues emerged during the discussion among experts in the field carried out at the European Regulatory Conference.

Background. Several health care services are required to get eligibility to PCSK9-inhibitors medicines and the follow-up of patients being treated. The ultimate goal is making prescriptions appropriate and monitoring the effects of these drugs. Some recent papers (opinion / consensus documents) highlighted the necessity to make simpler this clinical pathway. Our paper illustrates the cost of this pathway incurred by patients (direct healthcare and non-healthcare costs, productivity losses by patients and their possible care-giver due to the time dedicated to healthcare services). Methods. The study relied on a retrospective data collection through a structured questionnaire administered to 240 patients, being on treatments with PCSK9-inhibiotrd drugs for at least one year. Patients were recruited in 4 Italian healthcare centres from June 2020 to July 2021. Results. Recruited patients are 64 years old on average. 64% of patients are males and 36% are actively employed and working. Mean cost incurred by patients amounts to € 926,1. Direct healthcare costs, direct non-healthcare costs and productivity losses equal to € 463,5 (50%), € 136,7 (15%) and € 325,9 (35%) respectively. Healthcare services fully covered by the National Health Service account for 56% of the total. Co-payments are applied to 26% of healthcare services, whereas patients pay the full price for 18% healthcare services. Discussion. Getting eligibility to PCSK9-inhibitors and managing patients’ follow-up generate important costs incurred by patients. Furthermore, these costs are very different across healthcare centres. We are fully aware that appropriateness of prescriptions and patients’ follow-up are very important. However, simplifying the clinical pathway would bring economic advantages and could make more homogenous the way this pathway is managed by healthcare centres.

CAR T-cell therapy has emerged as a potentially transformative immunotherapy for certain B-cell malignancies including relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Unhindered and appropriate access for eligible patients is essential to enable optimal outcomes and depends on effective interplay of stakeholders and processes along the patient’s therapeutic journey. In Italy, CAR T-cell therapies have been awarded innovation status by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and were integrated into routine patient care under specific criteria. However, our analysis indicates that fewer than one in five DLBCL patients eligible under the EMA authorization, or around one in three DLBCL patients eligible under the AIFA criteria, received treatment with a licensed CAR T-cell therapy product in 2020. This publication describes key patient access barriers to CAR T-cell therapies in Italy and provides recommendations on potential solutions at the health system level.

Background Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) represent an important cornerstone for innovation in healthcare. However, uncertainty on the value, the high average cost per patient and their one-shot nature has raised a debate on their assessment and appraisal process for pricing and reimbursement (P&R) purposes. This debate led experts providing for recommendations on this topic. Our primary objective is to investigate the ATMPs P&R process in the main five European countries and to understand if this process is consistent with published P&R expert recommendations. We also investigated the current ATMP pipelines to understand if future ATMPs will create challenges for their P&R process. Methods P&R framework for ATMPs in the European Major five (EU5) countries was investigated through a literature search on PubMed, institutional websites of National Health Authorities and grey literature. The ATMPs pipeline database was populated from a clinical trial database (clinicaltrials.gov), relying on inclusion and exclusion criteria retrieved from the literature. Results Reimbursement status of ATMPs is different across the EU5 countries, with the exception of CAR-Ts which are reimbursed in all countries. Standard P&R process in place for other medicinal products is extended to ATMPs, with the exception of some cases in Germany. List prices, where available, are high and, tend to be aligned across countries. Outcome-based Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) have been extensively used for ATMPs. Extra-funds for hospitals managing ATMPs were provided only in Germany and, as additional fund per episode, in France. The accreditation process of hospitals for ATMPs management was in most countries managed by the national authorities. As far as ATMPs pipeline is concerned, ATMPs in development are mostly targeting non-rare diseases. Conclusions Expert recommendations for ATMPs P&R were partially applied: the role of outcome-based MEAs has increased and the selection process of the centres authorized to use these treatments has been enhanced; additional funding for ATMPs management to accredited centres has not been completely considered and annuity payment and broader perspective in cost considerations are far from being put in place. These recommendations should be considered for future P&R negotiations to pursue rational resource allocation and deal with budget constraints.

Objectives To measure and explain financial toxicity (FT) of cancer in Italy, where a public healthcare system exists and patients with cancer are not expected (or only marginally) to pay out-of-pocket for healthcare.Setting Ten clinical oncological centres, distributed across Italian macroregions (North, Centre, South and Islands), including hospitals, university hospitals and national research institutes.Participants From 8 October 2019 to 11 December 2019, 184 patients, aged 18 or more, who were receiving or had received within the previous 3 months active anticancer treatment were enrolled, 108 (59%) females and 76 (41%) males.Intervention A 30-item prefinal questionnaire, previously developed within the qualitative tasks of the project, was administered, either electronically (n=115) or by paper sheet (n=69).Primary and secondary outcome measures According to the protocol and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research methodology, the final questionnaire was developed by mean of explanatory factor analysis and tested for reliability, internal consistency (Cronbach’s α test and item-total correlation) and stability of measurements over time (test–retest reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient and weighted Cohen’s kappa coefficient).Results After exploratory factor analysis, a score measuring FT (FT score) was identified, made by seven items dealing with outcomes of FT. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the FT score was 0.87 and the item-total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.53 to 0.74. Further, nine single items representing possible determinants of FT were also retained in the final instrument. Test–retest analysis revealed a good internal validity of the FT score and of the 16 items retained in the final questionnaire.Conclusions The Patient-Reported Outcome for Fighting FInancial Toxicity (PROFFIT) instrument consists of 16 items and is the first reported instrument to assess FT of cancer developed in a country with a fully public healthcare system.Trial registration number NCT03473379.

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.

Introduction: Dedicated Funds for Innovative Medicines were introduced in 2017 for cancer and non-cancer drugs in Italy. After three years, their impact on patient access to the relevant treatments and critical issues about their management has been poorly investigated. Aims and scope. This paper aims at bridging the literature gap and providing possible reforms scenarios. Methods: Our analysis relied on a qualitative approach. The personal opinions of twelve Italian experts coming from the Ministry of Economy and Finance, the Scientific Committee of the Italian Medicines Agency, the Regions and Patient Associations, the Oncologists’ Scientific Societies and Hospital Pharmacists were elicited through a Delphi approach. A consensus on final recommendations was reached in two rounds. Results: Experts were in favour of maintaining dedicated Funds for Innovative Medicines and had a distinct preference for a single Fund. Most of them suggested to extend access to Funds to more than three years, if, for the relevant indication, there are no alternatives to the innovative drug and provided that this does not represent a barrier to new entries. Responders advocated for Funds being covered by on top resources and the production of more evidence on their impact. They finally claimed a speeder flow of information to the regions on expenditure for innovative treatments and an enhancement of controls on prescribing behaviour, to avoid prescriptions be dependent on Funds capacity. Conclusions: The consensus document provides for eight recommendations that could be taken into account for possible reforms and future research on this topic.

Introduction: Dose banding is an original approach that manages intravenous (IV) chemotherapy preparation by generating on a weekly basis a series of bags containing scaled dosages of the active agent. These predetermined, fixed dosage bags are intended to replace the traditional bags prepared daily that contain fully individualized dosages. Methods: Three different scenarios were examined: (1) the current method of daily preparation of individualized bags at the hospital pharmacy; (2) the weekly preparation at the hospital pharmacy of non-individualized bags containing discrete, predefined doses covering an adequate range of doses (dose banding); (3) the use of commercial ready-to-use bags based on the same approach of dose banding. The objective of this study was to compare these three different approaches in terms of cost per patient. We considered five cancer drugs (gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, paclitaxel, trastuzumab and 5-fluorouracil) that were suitable for the dose ranging approach. Appropriate dose bands for these five agents were identified. Costs were estimated for each of the three approaches. Results: A total of 13,490 fully individualized bags were studied, which corresponded to the real bags prepared at our institution for these five agents in 2018. Dose banding was predicted to determine savings ranging from €10,998 (−0.84%) for trastuzumab to €169,429.60 (−8.39%) for paclitaxel. Conclusion: The introduction of dose banding can determine economic savings along with other advantages, such as improved work conditions, management reorganization and containment of waste. The pharmaceutical industry can hopefully support these experiences by producing ready-to-use bags in predetermined dosages.

Objective In 2017, the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA) introduced a standardised process to appraise innovativeness of medicines. Innovative medicines are provided speeder market access and dedicated funds. Innovativeness criteria are: unmet therapeutic need, added therapeutic value and quality of the evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method). We investigated the role played by these three criteria on the final decision aimed to understand how the new Italian innovativeness appraisal framework was implemented.Design A desk research gathered AIFA’s appraisal reports on innovativeness and data analyses were conducted. No patients were directly involved in this study.Setting and participants We scrutinised all 77 appraisal reports available on AIFA’s website (2017–2020).Primary and secondary outcome measures The impact of the three domains on final decision was investigated through a series of univariate analyses.Results Among 77 appraisal reports on innovativeness available, 49 (64%) and 28 (36%) were for oncology and non-oncology medicines, respectively. The appraisals were equally distributed among ‘fully innovative’ (36%), ‘conditionally innovative’ (30%) and ‘not innovative’ (34%). Added therapeutic value was the most important driver on innovativeness decision, followed by quality of the evidence. Drugs for rare diseases and with paediatric/mixed indications were appraised ‘innovative’ by a larger proportion, but no statistical significance was found.Conclusions Despite some limitations, including the moderate number of appraisals, this paper provides an insight into the determinants of innovativeness appraisals for medicines in Italy and the accuracy of the appraisal process. This has important implications in terms of transparency and accountability in the prioritisation process applied to innovative medicines.

Background and research question: Label extension for treatments and the relevant disease cross-coverage may produce an economic benefit. This paper assesses this benefit for dupilumab in the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. Dupilumab was approved for reimbursement for severe atopic dermatitis (AD), severe and refractory asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). The analysis focused on the crowding-out effect of dupilumab on alternative treatments. Methods: The research relied on a simplified budget impact model. The model was populated by data from published evidence and relied on three alternative scenarios for market penetration (15%-30%-100%). Results: Avoidable direct health annual costs due to cross-coverage for (i) asthma in patients treated for AD ranged from 0.46 to 3.43 million euros, (ii) asthma in patients treated for CRSwNP ranged from 0.08 to 0.88 million euros, (iii) CRSwNP in patients treated for asthma ranged from 0.41 to 4.05 million euros respectively. The total economic benefit ranges from 0.95 to 8.36 million euros. Discussion: The research estimated the crowding-out effect of dupilumab on alternative treatments. It did not incorporate avoided/incremental events due to a possible better/worse risk-benefit profile of dupilumab vs alternative treatments and the economic benefit of cross-coverage on lower diseases severity (for example mild asthma). Nonetheless, the analysis relies on the best available evidence for Italy to shed light on a topic which has not been sufficiently investigated, and provides data that will be potentially very important for policy-makers, payers and those who manage new treatments.

Introduction: Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) provides a framework that enhances transparency and repeatability of decisions taken on a multicriteria basis. Objective: This analysis aims at assessing obinutuzumab compared to rituximab used as a first-line treatment for Follicular Lymphoma (FL) in the Italian health care system, using an MCDA approach. Materials and Methods: We used the EVIDEM V10 MCDA framework and a Delphi approach to scrutinize the views of a panel of physicians, payers and patients on value domains and their application to our research target. Results: All stakeholders attached medium-high scores to FL severity (patients at higher risk of relapsing), unmet needs, obinutuzumab clinical benefit and evidence quality, and lower scores to organizational impact and, except for payers, to costs. The comparative analysis highlighted positive scores for the domains “incremental efficacy” (2.6: range −5/+5) and “incremental patient benefit” (1.5: range −5/+5) of obinutuzumab compared to rituximab. A slight increase of severe adverse events (≥3) for obinutuzumab was estimated by the panellists. Obinutuzumab compared to rituximab received a neutral evaluation for costs and for organizational impact. Conclusion: This study reveals that MCDA could be a useful framework for evaluating a drug and it can be used to elicit the views of different stakeholder groups (as patients). The key criteria driving the value of obinutuzumab. (HTA & Market Access)

Introduction Financial toxicity (FT) is a well-recognised problem in oncology. US-based studies have shown that: (a) cancer patients have a 2.7 times risk of bankruptcy; (b) patients who declare bankruptcy have a 79% greater hazard of death; (c) financial burden significantly impairs quality of life (QoL) and (d) reduces compliance and adherence to treatment prescriptions. The aim of the project is to develop and validate a patient-reported-outcome (PRO) measure to assess FT of cancer patients in Italy, where, despite the universal health coverage provided by the National Health Service, FT is an emerging issue.Methods and analysis Our hypothesis is that a specific FT measure, which considers the relevant sociocultural context and healthcare system, would allow us to understand the main determinants of cancer-related FT in Italy, in order to address and reduce these factors. According to the International Society for Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Research guidelines on PROs, the project will include the following steps: (1) concept elicitation (from focus groups with patients and caregivers; literature; oncologists; nurses) and analysis, creating a coding library; (2) item generation (using a format that includes a question and a response on a 4-point Likert scale) and analysis through patients’ cognitive interviews of item importance within different coding categories to produce the draft instrument; (3) factor analysis and internal validation (with Cronbach’s alpha and test–retest for reliability) to produce the final instrument; (4) external validation with QoL anchors and depression scales. The use of the FT measure in prospective trials is also planned.Ethics and dissemination The protocol is approved by the ethical committees of all the participating centres. The project will tentatively produce a validated tool by the spring 2021. The project might also represent a model and the basis for future cooperation with other European countries, with different healthcare systems and socioeconomic conditions.Trial registration number NCT03473379.

Background: PCSK9 inhibitors are indicated for primary hypercholesterolemia (heterozygous familial and non-familial) and for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (only evolocumab). They are subject to a drug registry for patient eligibility and follow-up. Patient access to PCSK9 inhibitors is still very limited and varies across regions. Aim: This paper aimed to investigate the cost of the PCSK9-treated patient pathway and main barriers to patient access to medicines and to suggest some changes to this pathway. Methods: The research was conducted through a literature review and an expert panel, which was surveyed through a Delphi approach. The panel included seven clinicians and five pharmacists. Results: If patients are exempt from co-payment, the Italian National Health Service spends €169.70 and €276.93 per year to manage the PCSK9-treated patient pathway, depending on registry coverage (six or three treatment months, respectively). Non-exempt patients pay €176,43 and €271.53 (for six and three months of coverage, respectively) per year. The referral process and the length of the pre-PCSK9 treatment period were considered the main barriers to access. The panelists suggested that the pre-PCSK9 treatment period be shortened to three months; they recommended six months of registry coverage, thereby decreasing the costs compared to three months’ coverage; and they advised that outpatient specialists also be authorized to manage the follow-up. These actions may reduce pathway costs and enhance awareness of the disease. Discussion: The study shows that the pathway of patients eligible for PCSK9 inhibitors can be improved. The surveyed experts integrated pathway-specific recommendations with broader advice to increase awareness on hypercholesterolemia in both citizens and general practitioners.

The paper analyses the potential economic impact of switching drugs from prescription-only to over the counter status, using Italy as a case-study. The study assumes a societal perspective, investigating the effects of switches (and consequent delisting) on drugs spending, avoided visits by GPs (General Practitioners) and avoided time spent by patients for these visits. It overcomes the main pitfalls of previous studies, providing a rational for listing switchable products and applying both a static (no impact of switch on prices and volumes consumed) and a dynamic approach (impact on pricing policies and volumes depending on price-elasticity). Different scenarios were assumed including shorter/longer time spent for visits and inclusion/exclusion of the economic value of time of retiree patients. Results show that switching policy provides with societal savings ranging from 1 to 2.1 1 billion Euro. The economic impact on patients is less straightforward and depends on the scenarios used. If a longer time is spent on visits, the economic value of this time will compensate the cost of the switch to patients due to delisting. Despite the net economic benefit should be carefully interpreted, the results demonstrate how switching can contribute to the sustainability of the health care system in the middle-long run thanks to the more rational use of resources, combined with an increased awareness and responsibility of the involved stakeholders.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has adopted assessment systems and drug registration procedures to respond to the needs for rapid patient access to therapies, such as Conditional Marketing Approval (CMA) and Under Exceptional Circumstances approval (UEC). The Italian Medicine Agency (AIFA) has introduced tools for governing prescriptive behaviour in order to promote appropriateness and correct use of drugs and to manage the uncertainty of financial impact, including Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs). The MEAs are conditional access agreements to the market for new drugs aimed at managing the uncertainty on the clinical and economic effects of the drugs themselves. The aim of this study is to analyse, through the use of the information systems of the AIFA and the institutional website of the EMA, how the drugs authorised by EMA with CMA or UEC have been managed on the access side to the Italian NHS. This in order to understand how the uncertainty deriving from the authorisation processes was subsequently reflected on the reimbursement processes to be borne by the NHS. From the analyses carried out, it emerges that 64% of the drugs approved with CMA were admitted to reimbursement and 68% of those approved with the UEC procedure. Furthermore, it can be noted that approval with CMA is predictive for the application of a financial-based or outcome-based MEA (61%), with the application of a monitoring register, unlike the drugs approved UEC for which no conditional reimbursement arrangements have been applied at the patient level. Furthermore, by carrying out a comparative analysis of the time of access to market following negotiation, from the positive opinion of the CHMP to the decision published in the Official Gazette of the Italian Republic, it emerged that the drugs approved by the UEC procedure take on average more time (897 days) to arrive at the price and reimbursement (P&R) compared to CMA drugs (636 days). Considering instead only the period from the request for P&R to the determination of P&R for the same group of drugs, the process seems to be on average faster for the drugs classified as UEC than for those with CMA (329 vs. 510 days).

Introduction: This article aims at investigating the 5-year budget impact of rituximab biosimilars in Italy. Methods: A budget impact analysis model was developed in accordance with the International Society For Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research recommendations. Drug acquisition and drug administration costs were considered since the risk/benefit profile of biosimilars and the originator was assumed to be overlapping. The perspectives of hospitals and payers were used. Input data were retrieved from the literature and validated/integrated by an expert panel of seven clinicians from various Italian regions. A dynamic incidence-based approach was used. Results: From the hospital perspective, adopting a rituximab biosimilar would produce savings of €79.2 and €153.6 million over 3 and 5 years, respectively. The results are very similar if the payer perspective is considered, with a cumulated savings of about €153.4 million in 5 years. Lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia would account for the most significant savings. Discussion: Despite its limitations, this study provides the first Italian evaluation of the financial impact of rituximab biosimilars and also incorporates the effects of biosimilars on the pricing strategies of the originator (dynamic impact). This dynamic effect is more relevant than the impact of the treatment shift from the originator to biosimilars. Our hope is that these savings will be used to cover new cost-effective drugs and not just for cost-cutting policies.

Introduction: This paper aims at investigating the role of Patients’ Associations in drugs assessment and appraisal in Italy. Methods: Information were gathered through a mostly structured (forced ranking) questionnaire. The questionnaire, once validated, was administered to two national HTA organisations (AIFA and ISS) and Therapeutic Committees / Departments of five regions (Lombardy, Veneto, Emilia Romagna, Latium, Sicily). The average rank and the Kendall rank correlation coefficient were calculated where respondents were forced ranking. Results: The interactions with Patients’ Associations are very different across HTA organisations, with only three respondents declaring a systematic relationship with these Associations and a focus on therapeutic targets more affected by new drugs launches. Patients’ Associations are perceived more expert on the organisation of the Italian health care system and drugs reimbursement process than on technical issues (e.g. PROs – Patient Reported Outcomes). Respondents declared that fragmentation of relationships, with many associations involved, is the most important barrier to a systematic interaction with Patients’ Associations and advocated for a stronger integration among them. Discussion: The interaction between HTA organisations and Patients’ Associations is expected to increase in the future. To make this interaction more useful, Patients’ Associations should improve their knowledge on drugs assessment techniques - mainly PRO - and enhance their awareness on budget issues for payers: the former could create a virtuous cycle that may drive HTA organisations paying more attention to PROs; the latter may help Patients’ Associations and payers agreeing on actions aimed at making drugs more sustainable.

INTRODUCTION:This study systematically reviews costing studies of seasonal influenza-like illness (ILI) in high-income countries. Existing reviews on the economic impact of ILI do not report information on drug consumption and its costs, nor do they provide data on the overall cost per episode. METHODS:The PRISMA-P checklist was used to design the research protocol. Studies included were cost of illness analysis (COI) and modeling studies that estimated the cost of ILI episodes. Records were searched from January 2000 to December 2016 in electronic bibliographic databases including Medline, Embase, Science Direct, the Cochrane Library, the Centre for Reviews and Disseminations of the University of York, and Google scholar. References from the included studies were hand-searched for completion. Abstract screening, full-text analysis and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently and discrepancies were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. A standardized, pre-piloted form was used for data extraction. All costs were converted to 2015 US$ Purchasing Power Parities. RESULTS:The literature search identified 5,104 records. After abstract and title screening, 76 studies were analyzed full-text and 27 studies were finally included in the review. Full estimates of the cost per episode range from US$19 in Korea to US$323 in Germany. Particularly, the cost per episode of laboratory confirmed influenza cases was estimated between US$64 and US$73. Inpatient and outpatient services account for the majority of the costs. Differences in the estimates may reflect country-specific characteristics, as well as other study-specific features including study design, identification strategy of ILI cases, study populations and types of costs included in the analysis. Children usually register higher costs, whereas evidence for the elderly is less conclusive. Patients risk-profile, co-morbidities and complications are the other important cost-drivers. None of the papers considered appropriateness in resource use (e.g. abuse of antibiotics). Despite cost of illness studies have ultimately a descriptive role, evidence on (in)appropriateness is useful for policy-makers.

Objectives: To describe the length of time taken by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) to formulate pricing and reimbursement decisions for drugs approved via centralized procedures and to evaluate possible differences between categories of drugs (innovative drugs, oncological and rare disease drugs, products negotiated with Managed Entry Agreements and/or managed via registry). Methods: Monthly meeting reports of the Technical Scientific Committee (CTS) and the Price and Reimbursement Committee (CPR) as well European and Italian Official Journals were scrutinized from January 2015 to January 2018. Results: In the scrutinized period, 85 out of 190 drugs obtained reimbursement and were included in the analysis. Overall, time-to-market (CTS assessment opening to Official Journal) was 258 days. About one third of the whole procedure was dedicated to administrative steps, without significant differences between drug categories. Conclusions: Our analysis shows that transparency makes it possible to determine the length of time taken by AIFA to conclude the Price and Reimbursement (P&R) process. It also suggests that administrative procedures may still be optimized to allow faster access to treatments for patients and provides a starting point to determine future policies in this area.

Background: Many established products (EPs – marketed for eight years or more) are widely used off-label despite little evidence on benefit–risk ratio. This exposes patients to risks related to safety and lack of efficacy, and healthcare providers to liability. Introducing new indications for EPs may represent a high societal value; however, manufacturers rarely invest in R&D for EPs. The objective of this research was to describe incentives and disincentives for developing new indications for EPs in Europe and to investigate consequences of current policies. Methods: Targeted literature search and expert panel meetings. Results: Within the current European-level and national-level regulatory framework there are limited incentives for development of new indications with EPs. Extension of indication normally does not allow the price to be increased or maintained, the market protection period to be extended, or exclusion from a reference price system. New indication frequently triggers re-evaluation, resulting in price erosion, regardless of the level of added value with the new indication. In consequence, manufacturers are more prone to undertake R&D efforts at early to mid-stage of product life cycle rather than with EPs, or to invest in new chemical entities, even in therapeutic areas with broad off-label use. This represents a potentially missed opportunity as developing new indications for EPs offers an alternative to off-label use or lengthy and expensive R&D for new therapies, opens new opportunities for potentially cost-effective treatment alternatives, as well as greater equity in patients’ access to treatment options. Conclusion: There are potential benefits from the development of new indications for EPs that are currently not being realized due to a lack of regulatory and pricing incentives in Europe. Incentives for orphan or paediatric drugs have proven to be effective in promoting R&D. Similarly, incentives to promote R&D in EPs should be developed, for the benefit of patients and healthcare systems.

Value of health technologies, HTA and decisionsHTA is a multifaceted discipline, and several themes are key to an in-depth analysis of its current and future role in shaping access of new health technologies. The first theme is an accurate definition of innovation (added value); the second is how innovation can be assessed to support an efficient allocation of scarce resources; the third, and perhaps most relevant, is how payers convert health technologies assessement into decisions (reimbursement status, prices and recommendations for their users). In this editorial, each of these themes is briefly discussed with a specific focus on the economic aspects of innovation and the growing role of real world evidence in its definition. Several considerations point to the fact that, without any doubt, HTA will play a critical role in warranting the economic sustainability of the National health system and in properly rewarding innovation adding real value to it.

This paper scrutinises pipelines for Neglected Diseases (NDs), through freely accessible and at-least-weekly updated trials databases. It updates to 2012 data provided by recent publications, and integrates these analyses with information on location of trials coordinators and patients recruitment status. Additionally, it provides (i) disease-specific information to better understand the rational of investments in NDs, (ii) yearly data, to understand the investment trends. The search identified 650 clinical studies. Leishmaniasis, Arbovirus infection, and Dengue are the top three diseases by number of clinical studies. Disease diffusion risk seems to be the most important driver of the clinical trials target choice, whereas the role played by disease prevalence and unmet need is controversial. Number of trials is stable between 2005 and 2010, with an increase in the last two years. Patient recruitment was completed for most studies (57.6%), and Phases II and III account for 35% and 28% of trials, respectively. The primary purpose of clinical investigations is prevention (49.3%), especially for infectious diseases with mosquitoes and sand flies as the vector, and treatment (43.2%), which is the primary target for parasitic diseases Research centres and public organisations are the most important clinical studies sponsors (58.9%), followed by the pharmaceutical industry (24.1%), foundations and non-governmental organisations (9.3%). Many coordinator centres are located in less affluent countries (43.7%), whereas OECD countries and BRICS account for 34.7% and 17.5% of trials, respectively. Information was partially missing for some parameters. Notwithstanding, and despite its descriptive nature, this research has enhanced the evidence of the literature on pipelines for NDs. Future contributions may further investigate whether trials metrics are consistent with the characteristics of the interested countries and the explicative variables of trials location, target (disease) choice, and the object of the trials.