Search

Copyright of Italian Journal of Health Education, Sport & Inclusive Didactics is the property of Edizioni Universitarie Romane and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Italian Journal of Health Education, Sport & Inclusive Didactics is the property of Edizioni Universitarie Romane and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Italian Journal of Health Education, Sport & Inclusive Didactics is the property of Edizioni Universitarie Romane and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Italian Journal of Health Education, Sport & Inclusive Didactics is the property of Edizioni Universitarie Romane and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The EU Orphan Regulation has successfully stimulated R&D of medicines for rare diseases, resulting in a substantial increase of orphan designations and authorized orphan medicinal products in the EU during last decade. Despite such advances, access to treatment across the 27 EU Member States is still highly variable. We provide an overview of the current situation of patient access to orphan drugs in the EU. We discuss the EU policy landscape regarding joint assessment and pricing & reimbursement negotiations of medicinal products, price and sustainability of orphan drugs for health care systems, and the importance of Real-World Data and registry infrastructures for rare diseases. Additionally, we provide recommendations for areas of improvement throughout the lifecycle of orphan drugs, aiming to preserve a positive R&D climate for rare diseases in the EU and accelerate patient access. The EU needs to maintain a patient-centric pharmaceutical ecosystem that encourages long-term investments and rewards innovation in areas of high unmet medical need. Areas of potential improvement range from enhanced alignment of regulatory and HTA evidence requirements and use of specific value frameworks for the assessment of orphan drugs to the development of registry infrastructures and innovative performance-based pricing agreements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: In April 2017 the Italian Medicine Agency (AIFA) developed new criteria to grant any new medicinal product with an innovative designation. The aim of this study is to describe this new model and how it works. Methods: A retrospective descriptive analysis was performed on the results of the assessment process of innovativeness of new medicinal products (or therapeutic indications) based on the AIFA's new innovation criteria (therapeutic need, added therapeutic value and quality of clinical evidence through GRADE methodology) carried out between April 2017 and February 2019 and made publicly available on the AIFA website starting from January 2018. Results: A total of 37 full reports (22 for oncological indications) explaining the rationale for the AIFA's decision is made publicly available on the agency's website. A total of 12 therapeutic indications (5 oncological) were evaluated as fully innovative, 13 indications (11 oncological) were evaluated as conditionally innovative, while 12 indications (6 oncological) as non‐innovative. Conclusion: The new AIFA innovation criteria resulted in a much more flexible and transparent model to define and assess what constitutes a therapeutic innovation. In particular, the choice of AIFA to use the GRADE methodology to evaluate the quality of clinical evidence within a process of drug innovativeness assessment is essential for the early identification of the discrepancy between the need for patients of a rapid access to innovative therapies and the available clinical data needed to make decisions on drug innovativeness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current European regulations only require drugs to be safe and effective, although there is heavy demand for comparative efficacy data to demonstrate the added value of new drugs. The objective of the analysis reported here was to assess the added value of new anticancer drugs for haematological malignancies that have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) based on the clinical data provided at the time of submission. Information on the evidence supporting the approval was extracted from the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Documents were surveyed for new applications and for subsequent extensions between January 1995, when the EMEA was set up, and May 2006. The added value of newly approved drugs was assessed by an algorithm that evaluates the strength of evidence based on methodological appropriateness (randomised comparison) and the importance of clinical advantage (in terms of the magnitude of benefit, hardness of outcome measures, adequacy of comparator). Eleven anticancer drugs were analysed. Of 17 indications, nine (53%) were approved on the basis of single-arm trials (SATs), and eight (47%) were approved on the basis of randomised controlled (clinical) trials (RCTs). The most frequently used endpoint was response rate (12 of 17 indications, 70%). On the basis of our criteria, only four of the 11 drugs show a consistent added value. We were unable to establish an added value for about two thirds of the drugs evaluated in this study, primarily due to methodological aspects related to study design and endpoint robustness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]