Search

Background. Diabetes mellitus rates and associated costs continue to rise across Europe enhancing health authority focus on its management. The risk of complications is enhanced by poor glycaemic control, with long-acting insulin analogues developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve patient convenience. There are concerns though with their considerably higher costs, but moderated by reductions in complications and associated costs. Biosimilars can help further reduce costs. However, to date, price reductions for biosimilar insulin glargine appear limited. In addition, the originator company has switched promotional efforts to more concentrated patented formulations to reduce the impact of biosimilars. There are also concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. As a result, there is a need to assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues and biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, among multiple European countries to provide future direction. Methodology. Health authority databases are examined to assess utilisation and expenditure patterns for insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine. Explanations for patterns seen were provided by senior-level personnel. Results. Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups. Conclusions. There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed., peer-reviewed

Objective: To explore the patients’ experiences on initiation of treatment with antineoplastic medicines for colorectal cancer., Design: A qualitative study using semistructured, face-to-face interviews based on the adapted patients’ lived experience with medicines conceptual model was conducted. Ethics approval was granted. Interviews took place while eligible patients were receiving their first cycle of antineoplastic medicines, audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was used., Settin: National oncology hospital in Malta., Participants: Adult patients over 18 years, newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer and initiating treatment with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) between October 2018 and September 2019 were recruited. Patients were included if fully aware of their diagnosis and the treatment being received. A purposive sample of 16 patients participated in the study., Results: Five themes emerged from our analysis: (1) beliefs and knowledge on cancer and treatment; (2) healthcare system in relation to treatment; (3) medicine-taking practice; (4) medicine-related impact and (5) personal support structure. In addition, 16 subthemes were identified to describe the interplay of all aspects of the patients’ experiences on initiation of treatment with antineoplastic medicines., Conclusion: This qualitative study illustrated that the patients find themselves in a complex situation on initiation of treatment with antineoplastic medicines. The patients’ knowledge on their specific treatment and active participation in making an informed decision need to be addressed. The healthcare system should develop tailored patient-centred services that specifically address the lack of patient empowerment and patient’s concern about treatment specific information., peer-reviewed

Introduction/Objectives: Health authorities are facing increasing challenges to the sustainability of their healthcare systems because of the growing expenditures on medicines, including new, high-priced oncology medicines, and changes in disease prevalence in their ageing populations. Medicine prices in European countries are greatly affected by the ability to negotiate reasonable prices. Concerns have been expressed that prices of patented medicines do not fall sufficiently after the introduction of lower-cost generic oncology medicines. The objective of this study was to examine the associations over time in selected European countries between the prices of oral oncology medicines, population size, and gross domestic product (GDP) before and after the introduction of generic versions. Evidence of periodic reassessments of the price, value, and place in treatment of these medicines was also looked for. The goal of this review was to stimulate debate about possible improvements in approaches to reimbursement negotiations. Methodology: Analysis was performed of reimbursed prices of three oral oncology medicines (imatinib, erlotinib and fludarabine) between 2013 and 2017 across Europe. Correlations were explored between GDP, population size, and prices. Findings were compared with previous research regarding prices of generic oral oncology medicines. Results: The prices of imatinib, erlotinib and fludarabine varied among European countries, and there was limited price erosion over time in the absence of generics. There appeared to be no correlation between population size and price, but higher prices of on-patent oral cancer medicines were seen among countries with higher GDP per capita. Conclusion: Limited price erosion for patented medicines contributed to increases in oncology medicine budgets across the region. There was also a concerning lack of evidence re-assessments of the price, value, and place in treatment of patented oncology medicines following the loss of patent protection of standard medicines. The use of such proactive re-assessments in negotiating tactics might positively impact global expenditures for oncology medicines.

Background: From October 2018, adalimumab biosimilars could enter the European market. However, in some countries, such as Netherlands, high discounts reported for the originator product may have influenced biosimilar entry.Objectives: The aim of this paper is to provide a European overview of (list) prices of originator adalimumab, before and after loss of exclusivity; to report changes in the reimbursement status of adalimumab products; and discuss relevant policy measures.Methods: Experts in European countries received a survey consisting of three parts: 1) general financing/co-payment of medicines, 2) reimbursement status and prices of originator adalimumab, and availability of biosimilars, and 3) policy measures related to the use of adalimumab.Results: In May 2019, adalimumab biosimilars were available in 24 of the 30 countries surveyed. Following introduction of adalimumab biosimilars, a number of countries have made changes in relation to the reimbursement status of adalimumab products. Originator adalimumab list prices varied between countries by a factor of 2.8 before and 4.1 after loss of exclusivity. Overall, list prices of originator adalimumab decreased after loss of exclusivity, although for 13 countries list prices were unchanged. When reported, discounts/rebates on originator adalimumab after loss of exclusivity ranged from 0% to approximately 26% (Romania), 60% (Poland), 80% (Denmark, Italy, Norway), and 80–90% (Netherlands), leading to actual prices per pen or syringe between €412 (Finland) and €50 – €99 (Netherlands). To leverage competition following entry of biosimilar adalimumab, only a few countries adopted measures specifically for adalimumab in addition to general policies regarding biosimilars. In some countries, a strategy was implemented even before loss of exclusivity (Denmark, Scotland), while others did not report specific measures.Conclusion: Even though originator adalimumab is the highest selling product in the world, few countries have implemented specific policies and practices for (biosimilar) adalimumab. Countries with biosimilars on the market seem to have competition lowering list or actual prices. Reported discounts varied widely between countries.

Introduction: The Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe (2020) proposes actions related to intellectual property (IP) rights as a means of ensuring patients’ access to medicines. This review aims to describe and discuss the European IP framework and its impact on accessibility of biological medicines and makes some recommendations., Methods: A non-systematic literature review on IP for biological medicines was conducted. Data on authorizations and patent and exclusivity expiry dates of biological medicines obtained from the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) website and literature was analysed quantitatively and qualitatively., Results: The analysis showed that as at end July 2021, 1,238 medicines were authorized in Europe, of which 332 (26.8%) were biological medicines. There were only 55 biosimilars for 17 unique biologicals. There is an increasing trend in biological authorizations but significant delays in submission of applications for marketing authorization of biosimilars, with no significant differences in the time for assessment for marketing authorization between originator biologicals and biosimilars. For some of the more recent biosimilars, applications for authorization were submitted prior to patent and exclusivity expiry. COVID vaccines confirmed the impact of knowledge transfer on accessibility, especially when linked to joint procurement., Discussion: IP protects originator products and impacts the development of biosimilars. Strategies to improve competition in the EU biological market are discussed. Pricing policies alone do not increase biosimilar uptake since patients are switched to second generation products. Evergreening strategies might be abusing the IP framework, and together with trade secrets and disproportionate prices compared to R & D and manufacturing costs lead to an imbalance between market access and innovation. Conclusion: The European Pharmaceutical Strategy should focus on IP initiatives that support earlier authorization of biosimilars of new biologicals. Recommendations include knowledge sharing, simplification of the regulatory framework and transparency of prices and R & D costs., peer-reviewed

Many decisions related to the marketing authorisation of medicinal products as well as decisions for processes such as Health Technology Assessment (HTA), reimbursement and pricing of medicines, and the setting of clinical guidelines, are taken in the face of significant uncertainties. Moreover, decision-making can be impacted by biases resulting from psychological heuristics. In other domains where decisions have to be taken with imperfect or incomplete evidence, Structured Expert Judgement (SEJ) has been found to be useful in making the best use of available evidence, and synthesising it with professional expertise, stakeholders’ values and concerns. To date, formal SEJ has only been used to a limited extent in healthcare. Aspects affecting decisions for marketing authorisation and health technology assessment, reimbursement and pricing of medicines are described and the main risks and uncertainties are identified. Some considerations and recommendations for the use of SEJ to strengthen these decisions are made.

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems. Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines. Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments., peer-reviewed

Background: From October 2018, adalimumab biosimilars could enter the European market. However, in some countries, such as Netherlands, high discounts reported for the originator product may have influenced biosimilar entry. Objectives: The aim of this paper is to provide a European overview of (list) prices of originator adalimumab, before and after loss of exclusivity; to report changes in the reimbursement status of adalimumab products; and discuss relevant policy measures. Methods: Experts in European countries received a survey consisting of three parts: 1) general financing/co-payment of medicines, 2) reimbursement status and prices of originator adalimumab, and availability of biosimilars, and 3) policy measures related to the use of adalimumab. Results: In May 2019, adalimumab biosimilars were available in 24 of the 30 countries surveyed. Following introduction of adalimumab biosimilars, a number of countries have made changes in relation to the reimbursement status of adalimumab products. Originator adalimumab list prices varied between countries by a factor of 2.8 before and 4.1 after loss of exclusivity. Overall, list prices of originator adalimumab decreased after loss of exclusivity, although for 13 countries list prices were unchanged. When reported, discounts/rebates on originator adalimumab after loss of exclusivity ranged from 0% to approximately 26% (Romania), 60% (Poland), 80% (Denmark, Italy, Norway), and 80–90% (Netherlands), leading to actual prices per pen or syringe between €412 (Finland) and €50 – €99 (Netherlands). To leverage competition following entry of biosimilar adalimumab, only a few countries adopted measures specifically for adalimumab in addition to general policies regarding biosimilars. In some countries, a strategy was implemented even before loss of exclusivity (Denmark, Scotland), while others did not report specific measures. Conclusion: Even though originator adalimumab is the highest selling product in the world, few countries have implemented specific policies and practices for (biosimilar) adalimumab. Countries with biosimilars on the market seem to have competition lowering list or actual prices. Reported discounts varied widely between countries.

The potential benefits of early patient access to new medicines in areas of high unmet medical need are recognised, but uncertainties concerning effectiveness, safety and added value when new medicines are authorised, and subsequently funded based on initial preliminary data only, have important implications. In 2016 olaratumab received accelerated conditional approval from both the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma, based on the claims of a substantial reduction in the risk of death with an 11.8-month improvement in median overall survival in a phase II trial in combination with doxorubicin vs. doxorubicin alone. The failure to confirm these benefits in the post-authorisation pivotal trial has highlighted key concerns regarding early access and conditional approvals for new medicines. Concerns include potentially considerable clinical and economic costs, so that patients may have received suboptimal treatment and any money spent has foregone the opportunity to improve access to effective treatments. As a result, it seems reasonable to reconsider current marketing authorisation models and approaches. Potential pathways forward include closer collaboration between regulators, pharmaceutical companies and payers to enhance the generation of rapid and comparative confirmatory trials in a safe and fair manner, with minimal patient exposure as required to achieve robust evidence. Additionally, it may be time to review early access systems, and to explore new avenues regarding who should pay or part pay for new treatments whilst information is being collected as part of any obligations for conditional marketing authorisation. Greater co-operation between countries regarding the collection of data in routine clinical care, and further research on post-marketing data analysis and interpretation, may also contribute to improved appraisal and continued access to new innovative cancer treatments.

Background Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are a set of instruments to facilitate access to new medicines. This study surveyed the implementation of MEAs in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) where limited comparative information is currently available. Method We conducted a survey on the implementation of MEAs in CEE between January and March 2017. Results Sixteen countries participated in this study. Across five countries with available data on the number of different MEA instruments implemented, the most common MEAs implemented were confidential discounts (n = 495, 73%), followed by paybacks (n = 92, 14%), price-volume agreements (n = 37, 5%), free doses (n = 25, 4%), bundle and other agreements (n = 19, 3%), and payment by result (n = 10, [1%). Across seven countries with data on MEAs by therapeutic group, the highest number of brand names associated with one or more MEA instruments belonged to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)-L group, antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (n = 201, 31%). The second most frequent therapeutic group for MEA implementation was ATCA, alimentary tract and metabolism (n = 87, 13%), followed by medicines for neurological conditions (n = 83, 13%). Conclusions Experience in implementing MEAs varied substantially across the region and there is considerable scope for greater transparency, sharing experiences and mutual learning. European citizens, authorities and industry should ask themselves whether, within publicly funded health systems, confidential discounts can still be tolerated, particularly when it is not clear which country and party they are really benefiting. Furthermore, if MEAs are to improve access, countries should establish clear objectives for their implementation and a monitoring framework to measure their performance, as well as the burden of implementation., peer-reviewed

Introduction: There are appreciable concerns among European health authorities with growing expenditure on cancer medicines and issues of sustainability. The enhanced use of low cost generics could help. Aims: Consequently, there is a need to comprehensively document current and future arrangements regarding the pricing of generic cancer medicines across Europe, and whether these are indication specific, as well as how this translates into actual prices to provide future direction. Methodology: Mixed method approach with qualitative research among senior health authority personnel and their advisers. Quantitative research via health authority databases to ascertain current prices for oral cancer medicines that had lost their patent and the influence of population size and economics on prices. Results: 25 European countries participated. Currently we see (a) variable approaches to the pricing of generic cancer medicines, which will continue; (b) no concerns with substitution for oral generic cancer medicines; (c) substantial price reductions versus originators for generic capecitabine (up to -93.1%), generic imatinib (up to -97.8%) and generic temozolomide (up to -80.7%). Prices for oncology medicines are not indication specific, and are not affected by population size although influenced by pricing approaches. There have also been price increases for some non-patented cancer medicines following manufacturer changes although now stabilising. Conclusion: The considerable price reductions seen for some generics means health authorities should further encourage the use of generic oncology medicines when they become available to fund increased volumes and new valued cancer medicines. Countries are also starting to address price increases for generics following changes in the manufacturer

Contains fulltext : 203380.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) INTRODUCTION: In January 2018 the European Commission published a Proposal for a Regulation on Health Technology Assessment (HTA): 'Proposal for a Regulation on health technology assessment and amending Directive 2011/24/EU'. A number of stakeholders, including some Member States, welcomed this initiative as it was considered to improve collaboration, reduce duplication and improve efficiency. There were however a number of concerns including its legal basis, the establishment of a single managing authority, the preservation of national jurisdiction over HTA decision-making and the voluntary/mandatory uptake of joint assessments by Member States. Areas covered: This paper presents the consolidated views and considerations on the original Proposal as set by the European Commission of a number of policy makers, payers, experts from pricing and reimbursement authorities and academics from across Europe. Expert commentary: The Proposal has since been extensively discussed at Council and while good progress has been achieved, there are still divergent positions. The European Parliament gave a number of recommendations for amendments. If the Proposal is approved, it is important that a balanced, improved outcome is achieved for all stakeholders. If not approved, the extensive contribution and progress attained should be sustained and preserved, and the best alternative solutions found.

Background: Across European countries, differences exist in biosimilar policies, leading to variations in uptake of biosimilars and divergences in savings all over Europe. Objectives: The aim of this article is to provide an overview of different initiatives and policies that may influence the uptake of biosimilars in different European countries. Recommendations will be formulated on how to create sustainable uptake. Methods: An overview of policies on biosimilars was obtained via a questionnaire, supplemented with relevant articles. Topics were organized in five themes: availability, pricing, reimbursement, demand-side policies, and recommendations to enhance uptake. Results: In all countries studied, biological medicines are available. Restrictions are mainly dependent on local organization of the healthcare system. Countries are willing to include biosimilars for reimbursement, but for commercial reasons they are not always marketed. In two thirds of countries, originator and biosimilar products may be subjected to internal reference pricing systems. Few countries have implemented specific incentives targeting physicians. Several countries are implementing pharmacist substitution; however, the scope and rules governing such substitution tend to vary between these countries. Reported educational policies tend to target primarily physicians, whereas fewer initiatives were reported for patients. Recommendations as proposed by the different country experts ranged from the need for information and communication on biosimilars to competitive pricing, more support for switching and guidance on substitution. Conclusions: Most countries have put in place specific supply-side policies for promoting access to biosimilars. To supplement these measures, we propose that investments should be made to clearly communicate on biosimilars and educate stakeholders. Especially physicians need to be informed on the entry and use of biosimilars in order to create trust. When physicians are well-informed on the treatment options, further incentives should be offered to prescribe biosimilars. Gainsharing can be used as an incentive to prescribe, dispense or use biosimilars. This approach, in combination with binding quota, may support a sustainable biosimilar market., peer-reviewed

Aim To identify medication errors in the Maltese pharmacovigilance database and describe the frequency and characteristics of these events. Method A retrospective analysis of the Adverse Drug Events (ADEs) reported over 5 years in Malta was conducted. Medication errors were identified by comparing use against the product's Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and then classified by type of medication error, seriousness and the stage of the medication use chain at which they occurred. Results 319 consolidated ADE reports met the inclusion criteria and were analysed. 56/319 consolidated ADEs were associated with serious patient harm. The 80-89 and the 50-59 age groups were associated with most medications used in error. 65% of errors originated in the community. Errors were identified in prescribing (52%), therapeutic monitoring (26%), patients' own (12%), dispensing (7%) and administration (3%) stages. The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antibiotics were most commonly used in errors involving wrong doses, lack of therapeutic monitoring, interactions; contra-indications, prescribing for an unlicensed indication as well as an inappropriate duration of therapy. Conclusion Pharmacovigilance databases are a useful source of information on medication errors and can be used to detect risks associated with the use of medicinal products.

It is highly appreciated that the European Society of Medical Oncology has developed a system to assess new oncologic compounds according to their value to patients. Consequently, offering decision-support to those who either want to use the new cancer therapies in clinical practice but cannot keep up-to-date with all therapy options or, alternatively, to those who have to decide whether or not to fund new oncology medicines or exclude from reimbursement due to their low value. This is particularly important with ever-rising prices for new oncology medicines which have increased up to ten fold in recent years.

– Purpose. The aim of this study was to identify common trends in the deficiencies identified in the quality part of the dossier during the evaluation of marketing authorisation applications for medicinal products for human use submitted through the EU’s centralised procedure. Methods. We analysed all the adopted Day 120 list of questions on the quality module of 52 marketing authorisation applications for chemical entity medicinal products submitted to the European Medicines Agency and evaluated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), during 12 consecutive plenary meetings held in 2007 and 2008. Subsequently we calculated the frequency of common deficiencies identified across these applications. Results. Frequencies and trends on quality deficiencies have been recorded and presented for 52 marketing authorisation applications. 32 “Major Objections” originated from 13 marketing authorisation applications. 13 concerned were raised regarding drug substances and 19 for drug products. Furthermore, 905 concerns on drug substance and 1,054 on drug product were also adopted. Conclusions. The impact of the frequencies and trends in quality deficiencies that were identified are discussed from a regulatory point of view. It is expected that the results of this study will not only be of interest to pharmaceutical companies but will also aid regulators’ in obtaining consistent information on drug products based on transparent rules safeguarding the necessary pharmaceutical quality of medicinal products.