The challenges of access to innovative medicines with limited evidence in the European Union

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) fosters access to innovative medicines through accelerated procedures and flexibility in the authorization requirements for diseases with unmet medical needs, such as many rare diseases as well as oncological diseases. However, the resulting increase of medicines being marketed with conditional authorizations and in exceptional circumstances has lead to higher clinical uncertainty about their efficacy and safety than when the standard authorizations are applied. This uncertainty has significant implications for clinical practice and the negotiation of pricing and reimbursement, particularly as high prices are based on assumptions of high value, supported by regulatory prioritization. The burden of clinical development is often shifted towards public healthcare systems, resulting in increased spending budgets and opportunity costs. Effective management of uncertainty, through appropriate testing and evaluation, and fair reflection of costs and risks in prices, is crucial. However, it is important not to sacrifice essential elements of evidence-based healthcare for the sake of access to new treatments. Balancing sensitive and rational access to new treatments, ensuring their safety, efficacy, and affordability to healthcare systems requires thoughtful decision-making. Ultimately, a responsible approach to timely access to innovative medicines that balances the needs of patients with healthcare systems' concerns is necessary. This approach emphasizes the importance of evidence-based decision-making and fair pricing and reimbursement

Situación del dolor en los hospitales de Cataluña

En el ámbito hospitalario, diferentes estudios en todo el mundo han demostrado que el dolor es un problema relevante. La importancia de un tratamiento adecuado del dolor hospitalario ha sido reconocida de forma institucional por la Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations de los Estados Unidos, que ha incluido el tratamiento del dolor hospitalario entre los estándares de buena práctica clínica

Financing and Reimbursement of Approved Advanced Therapies in Several European Countries

Advanced medicinal products; Financing government; Health technology assessmentMedicamentos avanzados; Financiación del gobierno; Evaluación de tecnologías sanitariasMedicaments avançats; Finançament del govern; Avaluació de tecnologies sanitàriesObjectives The uncertainty in the cost-benefit of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) is a current challenge for their reimbursement in health systems. This study aimed to provide a comparative analysis of the National Health Authorities (NHAs) reimbursement recommendations issued in different European countries. Methods The NHA reimbursement recommendations for the approved ATMPs were compared among 8 European Union (EU) Countries (EU8: Ireland, England/Wales, Scotland, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy). The search was carried out until December 31, 2021. Results A total of 19 approved ATMPs and 76 appraisal reports were analyzed. The majority of the ATMPs were reimbursed, although with uncertainty in added therapeutic value. No relationship between the type of the European Medicines Agency approval and reimbursement was found. Managed entry agreements, such as payment by results, were necessary to ensure market access. The main issue during the evaluation was to base the cost-effectiveness analyses on assumptions because of the limited long-term data. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio among countries reveals high variability. Overall, the median time to NHA recommendation for the EU8 is in the range of 9 to 17 months. Conclusions Transparent, harmonized, and systematic assessments across the EU NHAs in terms of cost-effectiveness, added therapeutic value, and grade of innovativeness are needed. This could lead to a more aligned access, increasing the EU market attractiveness and raising public fairness in terms of patient access and pricing

Regulatory framework for advanced therapy medicinal products in Europe and United States

Europe; United States Food and Drug Administration; Legislation and jurisprudenceEuropa; Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de los Estados Unidos; Legislación y jurisprudenciaEuropa; Administració d'Aliments i Medicaments dels Estats Units; Legislació i jurisprudènciaAdvanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are a fast-growing field of innovative therapies. The European Union (EU) and the United States (US) are fostering their development. For both regions, ATMPs fall under the regulatory framework of biological products, which determines the legal basis for their development. Sub-classifications of advanced therapies are different between regions, while in EU, there are four major groups, i.e., gene therapy, somatic cell therapy, tissue-engineered therapies, and combined advanced therapies; in US, the sub-classification covers two major groups of products, i.e., gene therapy and cellular therapy. The inclusion criteria that define a gene therapy are equivalent in both regions, and the exclusion criteria are directly related to the indications of the product. In the EU, there is a clear differentiation between cell- and tissue-based products regarding their classification as advanced therapies or coverage by other legal frameworks, whereas in US, there is a broader classification about whether or not these products can be categorized as biologic products. Both in EU and in US, in order to classify a cell- or a tissue-based product as an advanced therapy, it must be ensured that the processing of the cells implies a manipulation that alters their biological characteristics, although the term of manipulation in US differentiates between structural and non-structural cells and tissues. The regulatory terminology used to define ATMPs and their sub-classification reveals some differences between EU and US

Methodological Characteristics of Clinical Trials Supporting the Marketing Authorisation of Advanced Therapies in the European Union

Advanced therapies; Clinical trials; Drug developmentTeràpies avançades; Assaigs clínics; Desenvolupament de fàrmacsTerapias avanzadas; Ensayos clínicos; Desarrollo de fármacosSeveral advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) have been approved in the European Union (EU). The aim of this study is to analyse the methodological features of the clinical trials (CT) that supported the marketing authorization (MA) of the approved ATMPs in the EU. A systematic review of the characteristics of pivotal CT of ATMPs approved in the EU until January 31st, 2021 was carried out. A total of 17 ATMPs were approved and 23 CT were conducted to support the MA (median, 1, range, 1–3). Of those studies, 8 (34.78%) were non-controlled and 7 (30.43%) used historical controls. Only 7 (30.4%) were placebo or active-controlled studies. Among all CT, 21 (91.3%) were open-label and 13 (56.52%) had a single-arm design. To evaluate the primary endpoint, 18 (78.26%) studies used an intermediate and single variable. The median (IQR) number of patients enrolled in the studies was 75 (22–118). To date, ATMPs’ approval in the EU is mainly supported by uncontrolled, single-arm pivotal CT. Although there is a trend toward an adaptive or a life cycle approach, a switch to more robust clinical trial designs is expected to better define the benefit and the therapeutic added value of ATMPs

Use of venous thromboprophylaxis and adherence to guideline recommendations : a cross-sectional study

Background: Consensus Conferences and Guidelines for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis have been published, which recommend the use of prophylactic heparins in patients with risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The aim of this study was the assessment of the prophylaxis of VTE and the adherence to accepted guideline recommendations throughout the hospital. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in a teaching hospital after guidelines were implemented. Patients' risk factors of deep vein thrombosis, risk categories of patients, and prophylaxis used in different wards were recorded. Appropriate adherence to the guidelines was analysed. Results: Of 397 patients, prophylaxis was used in 231 patients (58%), and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) were used in 224 of them (97%). Patients with prophylaxis had a higher mean number of risk factors (SD) than those without prophylaxis [3.1 (1.4) vs 1.9 (1.4); p < 0.05)]. Prophylaxis was used in 72% and 90% of moderate and high-risk patients respectively. Appropriate adherence to all guideline recommendations was observed in 42% of patients. Adherence to guidelines was high as regards the use of prophylaxis according to patients' risk factors (78%) and the use of appropriate types of prophylaxis (99%), but was low regarding appropriate heparin dosage (47%) and preoperative dosage (37%). Appropriate prophylaxis use was higher in critical care and surgical wards than in medical wards. Conclusion: Prophylaxis of VTE is generally used in risk patients, but appropriate adherence to guidelines is less frequent and variable among different wards. Continuing medical education, discussion and dissemination of guidelines, and regular clinical audit are necessary to improve prophylaxis of VTE in clinical practice

An update on adenosine A2A receptors as drug target in Parkinson's disease

Adenosine receptors are G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) that mediate the physiological functions of adenosine. In the central nervous system adenosine A2A receptors (A2ARs) are highly enriched in striatopallidal neurons where they form functional oligomeric complexes with other GPCRs such us the dopamine D2 receptor (D2R). Furthermore, it is assumed that the formation of balanced A2AR/D2R receptor oligomers are essential for correct striatal function as the allosteric receptor-receptor interactions established within the oligomer are needed for properly sensing adenosine and dopamine. Interestingly, A2AR activation reduces the affinity of striatal D2R for dopamine and the blockade of A2AR with specific antagonists facilitates function of the D2R. Thus, it may be postulated that A2AR antagonists are pro-dopaminergic agents. Therefore, A2AR antagonists will potentially reduce the effects associated with dopamine depletion in Parkinson's disease (PD). Accordingly, this class of compounds have recently attracted considerable attention as potential therapeutic agents for PD pharmacotherapy as they have shown potential effectiveness in counteracting motor dysfunctions and also displayed neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects in animal models of PD. Overall, we provide here an update of the current state of the art of these A2AR-based approaches that are under clinical study as agents devoted to alleviate PD symptom

Effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants for non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a population-based cohort study in primary healthcare in Catalonia

Oral anticoagulants; Atrial fibrillation; Primary healthcareAnticoagulants orals; Fibril·lació auricular; Atenció primària de salutAnticoagulantes orales; Fibrilación auricular; Atención primaria de saludObjectives: Our objective was to analyse effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants (OAC) for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Material and methods: Population-based cohort study including adults initiating oral anticoagulants, either direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) or vitamin K antagonists (VKA), during 2011–2020. Data source: SIDIAP, capturing information from the electronic health records of Primary Health Care in Catalonia, Spain. Study outcomes: stroke, cerebral and gastrointestinal (GI) haemorrhage, assessed by patients’ subgroups according to different clinical characteristics. Results: We included 90,773 patients. Male sex, older than 75, previous event, peripheral artery disease, deep vein thrombosis, or receiving antiplatelets, antidiabetics or proton pump inhibitors (PPI) was associated with higher stroke risk. For DOAC-treated, treatment switch increased stroke risk, while being adherent had a protective effect. Men, antidiabetic treatment or a previous event increased the risk of cerebral bleeding. Receiving direct oral anticoagulants had a protective effect in comparison to vitamin K antagonists. For DOAC-treated, treatment switch increased, and adherence decreased the bleeding risk. Men, people with chronic kidney disease or a previous event posed an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, whereas receiving PPI had a protective effect. For DOAC-treated, switch was associated with a higher bleeding risk. Conclusion: Being men, a previous event and DOAC-switch posed a higher risk for all study outcomes. direct oral anticoagulants had a protective effect against cerebral bleeding in comparison to vitamin K antagonists. Adherence to direct oral anticoagulants resulted in lower risk of stroke and cerebral bleeding. We found no differences in the risk of stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding when we compared direct oral anticoagulants vs. vitamin K antagonists

Implementing reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to assess orphan drugs value in the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut)

Catalan healthcare; Decision-making; Multi-criteria decision analysis; Orphan drugsSanitat catalana; Presa de decisions; Anàlisi de decisions multicriteri; Medicaments orfesSanidad catalana; Toma de decisiones; Análisis de decisiones multicriteria; Medicamentos huérfanosBACKGROUND: Orphan medicines show some characteristics that hinder the evaluation of their clinical added value. The often low level of evidence available for orphan drugs, together with a high budget impact and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio many times higher than drugs used for non-orphan diseases, represent challenges in their appraisal and effective access to clinical use. In order to explore how to handle these hurdles, the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut) began an initiative on a multidimensional assessment of drugs value during the appraisal process. Reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) using analytical methods was chosen, since it may help to standardise and contextualize all the relevant data related with the drug that could contribute to a decision. The aim of the study was to determine whether the implementation of reflective MCDA methodology could support the decision-making process about orphan medicines in the context of CatSalut. METHODS: The assessment and decision-making process for orphan drugs in the Programa d'Harmonització Farmacoterapeutica (PHF) of CatSalut was prioritized to test the implementation of the reflective MCDA both a qualitative and quantitatively. A staged approach was used with the following main steps: selection and structuration of quantitative criteria (Core Model) and qualitative criteria (Contextual Tool), framework scoring and assessment of three orphan drug case studies. This proof-of-concept would grant a continued refinement of the methodology and, if and when validated, its potential integration to other therapeutic areas of the PHF. RESULTS: The final framework was composed by 10 quantitative criteria (Core Model) and 4 qualitative criteria (Contextual Tool) according to the PHF goals being the most important criteria "disease severity", "unmet need", "comparative effectiveness" and "comparative safety /tolerability". The matrix developed for the case studies served as a guide for the selection of the essential information that the decision-makers were expected to include in a framework. The reflective discussion was considered the most relevant phase of the approach to support inputs for health decision-making processes reflecting both drug value and place in therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that reflective MCDA methodology could be implemented to complement the decision-making process in CatSalut, as an aid to determine the clinical added value for orphan medicines. MCDA provided transparency and a structured discussion during the committee meetings, thus increasing transparency and predictability of the relevant items supporting the agreements adopted on orphan drugs access

Regulatory framework for advanced therapy medicinal products in Europe and United States

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are a fast-growing field of innovative therapies. The European Union (EU) and the United States (US) are fostering their development. For both regions, ATMPs fall under the regulatory framework of biological products, which determines the legal basis for their development. Sub-classifications of advanced therapies are different between regions, while in EU, there are four major groups, i.e., gene therapy, somatic cell therapy, tissue-engineered therapies, and combined advanced therapies; in US, the sub-classification covers two major groups of products, i.e., gene therapy and cellular therapy. The inclusion criteria that define a gene therapy are equivalent in both regions, and the exclusion criteria are directly related to the indications of the product. In the EU, there is a clear differentiation between cell- and tissue-based products regarding their classification as advanced therapies or coverage by other legal frameworks, whereas in US, there is a broader classification about whether or not these products can be categorized as biologic products. Both in EU and in US, in order to classify a cell- or a tissue-based product as an advanced therapy, it must be ensured that the processing of the cells implies a manipulation that alters their biological characteristics, although the term of manipulation in US differentiates between structural and non-structural cells and tissues. The regulatory terminology used to define ATMPs and their sub-classification reveals some differences between EU and US