Search

Objective: This systematic review aims to update the evidence on Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in Italy, describing the epidemiology, quality of life (QoL) of patients and caregivers, treatment adherence, and economic impact of DMD. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science up to January 2023. Literature selection process, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021245196). Results: Thirteen studies were included. The prevalence of DMD in the general population is 1.7-3.4 cases per 100,000, while the birth prevalence is 21.7-28.2 per 100,000 live male births. The QoL of DMD patients and caregivers is lower than that of healthy subjects, and the burden for caregivers of DMD children is higher than that of caregivers of children with other neuromuscular disorders. The compliance of real-world DMD care to clinical guidelines recommendations in Italy is lower than in other European countries. The annual cost of illness for DMD in Italy is € 35,000-46,000 per capita while, adding intangible costs, the total cost amounts to € 70,000. Conclusion: Although it is a rare disease, DMD represents a significant burden in terms of quality of life of patients and their caregivers, and economic impact.

Acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD) is an ultra-rare disease, and several gaps of knowledge on various issues remain, particularly at a regional/national level. Expert opinions collected through well-defined consensus methodologies are increasingly used to make available reliable information in the context of rare/ultra-rare diseases. With the aim to provide indications on infantile neurovisceral ASMD (also formerly known as Niemann–Pick disease type A), chronic neurovisceral ASMD (formerly known as Niemann–Pick disease type A/B) and chronic visceral ASMD (formerly known as Niemann–Pick disease type B) in Italy, we conducted a Delphi consensus of experts focused on five main areas: (i) patients and disease characteristics; (ii) unmet needs and quality of life; (iii) diagnostic issues; (iv) treatment-related aspects; and (v) patient journey. Pre-specified, objective criteria were used to outline the multidisciplinary panel, based on 19 Italian experts in ASMD in paediatric and adult patients from different Italian Regions, including both clinicians (n = 16) and ASMD patients’ advocacy or payors with expertise in rare diseases (n = 3). During two Delphi rounds, a high ratio of agreement was found on several topics related to ASMD characteristics, diagnosis, management and disease burden. Our findings may provide valuable indications for management of ASMD at a public health level in Italy.

Introduction: There are an estimated 26 million rare disease patients in Europe, about 2 million in Italy. Access to orphan drugs has been evaluated nationally and internationally, and delays have been observed due to evaluation of price and therapeutic value. The objectives of this study are: to assess the availability of EMA-authorized orphan drugs at national and regional level; to study time trends and regional variability in consumption and spending, and to estimate the time to access in Italian regions. Methods: We evaluate the availability of EMA authorized orphan drugs in Italy. Based on data from the Traceability of medicines dataflow for period 2016-2021 we evaluate the expenditure, consumption and availability of orphan drugs in each region. To estimate the time to access we consider the days between the end of negotiation procedure and the first purchase by regions. Results: In 2021 in Italy are available 94% of EMA authorized orphan drugs. The expenditure and consumption have grown during the last decade. The availability is higher in bigger regions, that also take care of patients from smaller regions. The pro capite expenditure and consumption in DDD/1,000 ab die is similar in all the geographic area. Time to regional access is on average 123 days, that grows to 224 excluding the orphan drugs dispensed before the end of reimbursement procedure.

Spasticity is a well-known motor dysfunction occurring after a stroke. A group of Italian physicians' experts in treating post-stroke spasticity (PSS) reviewed the current scientific evidence concerning the state-of-the-art clinical management of PSS management and the appropriate use of botulinum toxin, aiming to identify issues, possible actions, and effective management of the patient affected by spasticity. The participants were clinicians specifically selected to cover the range of multidisciplinary clinical and research expertise needed to diagnose and manage PSS. When evidence was not available, the panel discussed and agreed on the best way to manage and treat PSS. To address the barriers identified, the panel provides a series of consensus recommendations. This systematic review provides a focused guide in the evaluation and management of patients with PSS and its complications. The recommendations reached by this panel of experts should be used by less-experienced doctors in real life and should be used as a guide on how to best use botulinum toxin injection in treating spasticity after a stroke.

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.

The current COVID pandemic crisis made it even clearer that the solutions to several questions that public health must face require the access to good quality data. Several issues of the value and potential of health data and the current critical issues that hinder access are discussed in this paper. In particular, the paper (i) focuses on “real-world data” definition; (ii) proposes a review of the real-world data availability in our country; (iii) discusses its potential, with particular focus on the possibility of improving knowledge on the quality of care provided by the health system; (iv) emphasizes that the availability of data alone is not sufficient to increase our knowledge, underlining the need that innovative analysis methods (e.g., artificial intelligence techniques) must be framed in the paradigm of clinical research; and (v) addresses some ethical issues related to their use. The proposal is to realize an alliance between organizations interested in promoting research aimed at collecting scientifically solid evidence to support the clinical governance of public health.