Value added medicines: what value repurposed medicines might bring to society?

Background & objectives: Despite the wide interest surrounding drug repurposing, no common terminology has been yet agreed for these products and their full potential value is not always recognised and rewarded, creating a disincentive for further development. The objectives of the present study were to assess from a wide perspective which value drug repurposing might bring to society, but also to identify key obstacles for adoption of these medicines and to discuss policy recommendations. Methods: A preliminary comprehensive search was conducted to assess how the concept of drug repurposing was described in the literature. Following completion of the literature review, a primary research was conducted to get perspective of various stakeholders across EU member states on drug repurposing (healthcare professionals, regulatory authorities and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies/payers, patients, and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry developing medicines in this field). Ad hoc literature review was performed to illustrate, when appropriate, statements of the various stakeholders. Results: Various nomenclatures have been used to describe the concept of drug repurposing in the literature, with more or less broad definitions either based on outcomes, processes, or being a mix of both. In this context, Medicines for Europe (http://www.medicinesforeurope.com/value-added-medicines/) established one single terminology for these medicines, known as value added medicines, defined as ‘medicines based on known molecules that address healthcare needs and deliver relevant improvements for patients, healthcare professionals and/or payers’. Stakeholder interviews highlighted three main potential benefits for value added medicines: (1) to address a number of medicine-related healthcare inefficiencies related to irrational use of medicines, non-availability of appropriate treatment options, shortage of mature products, geographical inequity in medicine access; (2) to improve healthcare system efficiency; and (3) to contribute to sustainability of healthcare systems through economic advantages. Current HTA framework, generic stigma, and pricing rules, such as internal reference pricing or tendering processes in place in some countries, were reported as the current key hurdles preventing the full recognition of value added medicines’ benefits, discouraging manufacturers from bringing such products to the market. Discussion & conclusions: There is currently a gap between increasing regulatory authority interest in capturing value added medicines’ benefits and the resistance of HTA bodies/payers, who tend to ignore this important segment of the pharmaceutical field. This situation calls for policy changes to foster appropriate incentives to enhance value recognition of value added medicines and deliver the expected benefit to society. Policy changes from HTA perspective should include: absence of any legislative barriers preventing companies from pursuing HTA; HTA requirements proportionate to potential reward; HTA decision-making framework taking into account the specific characteristics of value added medicines; eligibility for early HTA dialogues; Policy changes from pricing perspective should encompass: tenders/procurement policies allowing differentiation from generic medicines; eligibility for early entry agreement; non-systematic implementation of external and internal reference pricing policies; recognition of indication-specific pricing. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry should engage all the stakeholders (patients, healthcare providers, HTA bodies/payers) in early dialogues to identify their expectations and to ensure the developed value added medicines address their needs

Gene therapies development: slow progress and promising prospect

Background: In 1989, the concept of human gene therapies has emerged with the first approved human gene therapy trial of Rosenberg et al. Gene therapies are considered as promising therapies applicable to a broad range of diseases. Objective: The objective of this study was to review the descriptive data on gene therapy clinical trials conducted worldwide between 1989 and 2015, and to discuss potential success rates of these trials over time and anticipated market launch in the upcoming years. Methods: A publicly available database, ‘Gene Therapy Clinical Trials Worldwide’, was used to extract descriptive data on gene therapy clinical trials: (1) number of trials per year between 1989 and 2015; (2) countries; (3) diseases targeted by gene therapies; (4) vectors used for gene delivery; (5) trials status; (6) phases of development. Results: Between 1989 and 2015, 2,335 gene therapy clinical trials have been completed, were ongoing or approved (but not started) worldwide. The number of clinical trials did not increase steadily over time; it reached its highest peak in 2015 (163 trials). Almost 95% of the trials were in early phases of development and 72% were ongoing. The United States undertook 67% of gene therapy clinical trials. The majority of gene therapies clinical trials identified targeted cancer diseases. Conclusion: The first gene therapy was approved in the European Union in 2012, after two decades of dashed expectations. This approval boosted the investment in developing gene therapies. Regulators are creating a specific path for rapid access of those new therapies, providing hope for manufacturers, healthcare professionals, and patients. However, payers are increasingly scrutinizing the additional benefits of the new therapies. Major steps forward are expected in the field of gene therapies in the future

Towards a more transparent HTA process in Poland: new Polish HTA methodological guidelines

Introduction: Health technology assessment (HTA) in Poland supports reimbursement decisions via the Polish HTA Agency (AOTMiT), whose guidelines were updated in 2016. Methods: We identified key changes introduced by the update and, before guideline publication, analysed discrepancies between AOTMiT assessments and the submitting marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) to elucidate the context of the update. We compared the clarity and detail of the new guidelines versus those of the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Results: The update specified more precise requirements for items such as indirect comparison or input data for economic modelling. Agency–MAH discrepancies relating to the subjects of the HTA update were found in 14.6% of published documents. The new Polish HTA guidelines were as clear and detailed as NICE’s on topics such as assessing quality of evidence and economic modelling, but were less informative when describing (for example) pairwise meta-analysis. Conclusions: The Polish HTA guidelines update demonstrates lessons learned from internal and external experiences. The new guidelines adhere more closely to UK HTA standards, being clearer and more informative. While the update is expected to reduce Agency–MAH discrepancies, there remain areas for development, such as providing templates to aid HTA submissions

Proposed changes to the reimbursement of pharmaceuticals and medical devices in Poland and their impact on market access and the pharmaceutical industry

International audienceIn Poland, two proposed amendments to the reimbursement act are currently in preparation ; these are likely to substantially change the pricing and reimbursement landscape for both drugs and medical devices. Proposed changes include: alignment of medical device reimbursement with that of pharmaceuticals; relaxing the strict reimbursement criteria for ultra-orphan drugs; establishment of an additional funding category for vaccines; introduction of compassionate use, and a simplified reimbursement pathway for well-established off-label indications; appreciation of manufacturers' innovation and research and development efforts by creating a dedicated innovation budget; introduction of a mechanism preventing excessive parallel import; prolonged duration of reimbursement decisions and reimbursement lists; and increased flexibility in defining drug programmes. Both amendments are still at a draft stage and many aspects of the new regulations remain unclear. Nonetheless, the overall direction of some of the changes is already evident and warrants discussion due to their high expected impact on pharmaceutical and device manufacturers. Here we evaluate the main changes proposed to the reimbursement of drugs, vaccines, and medical devices, and examine the impact they are likely to have on market access and pharmaceutical industry in Poland. ARTICLE HISTOR

Key drivers for market penetration of biosimilars in Europe

Background & Objectives: Potential drivers and barriers of biosimilar uptake were mainly analysed through qualitative approaches. The study objective was to conduct a quantitative analysis and identify drivers of biosimilar uptake of all available biosimilars in the European Union (EU). Methods: A three-step process was established to identify key drivers for the uptake of biosimilars in the top 10 EU member states (MS) pharmaceutical markets (Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the UK): (1) literature review to identify incentive policies in place to enhance biosimilars adoption; (2) assessment of biosimilar market dynamics based on database analysis; (3) regression model analysis on price using the following explicative variables: incentive policies; price difference between the biosimilar and the originator product; distribution channel; generic uptake and generic price cut; pharmaceutical expenditure per capita; and market competition. Results: At the study cut-off date, 20 biosimilars were available on the market. Incentive policies applied to biosimilars were found to be heterogeneous across countries, and uptakes of biosimilars were also very heterogeneous between different therapeutic classes and countries. Results from the model demonstrated that incentive policies and the date of first biosimilar market entry were correlated to biosimilar uptake. Pharmaceutical expenditure per capita and the highest generic uptake were inversely correlated with biosimilar uptake. Average generic price discount over originator and the number of biosimilars showed a trend toward statistical significance for correlation with biosimilar uptake, but did not reach the significance threshold. Biosimilar price discount over original biologic price, the number of analogues, and the distribution channel were not correlated with the biosimilar uptake. Conclusions: Understanding drivers of biosimilar uptake becomes a critical issue to inform policy decision-makers. This study showed that incentive policies to enhance uptake remain an important driver of biosimilar penetration, while biosimilar price discounts have no impact. Future research is warranted when the biosimilar market gains maturity

Supply-side and demand-side policies for biosimilars: an overview in 10 European member states

Objective: This study aimed to provide an overview of biosimilar policies in 10 EU MSs. Methods: Ten EU MS pharmaceutical markets (Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) were selected. A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify supply-side and demand-side policies in place in the selected countries. Results: Supply-side policies for biosimilars commonly include price linkage, price re-evaluation, and tendering; the use of internal or external reference pricing varies between countries; health technology assessment is conducted in six countries. Regarding demand-side policies, pharmaceutical prescription budgets or quotas and monitoring of prescriptions (with potential financial incentives or penalties) are in place in eight and in seven countries respectively. Switching is generally allowed, but is solely the physician’s responsibility. Automatic substitution is not recommended, or even forbidden, in most EU MSs. Prescription conditions or guidelines that apply to biosimilars are established in nearly all surveyed EU MSs. Conclusions: Important heterogeneity in policies on biosimilars was seen between (and even within) selected countries, which may partly explain variations in biosimilar uptake. Supply-side policies targeting price have been reported to limit biosimilar penetration in the long term, despite short-term savings, while demand-side policies are considered to positively impact uptake

Analysis of health economics assessment reports for pharmaceuticals in France – understanding the underlying philosophy of CEESP assessment

Background: Despite the guidelines for Economic and Public Health Assessment Committee (CEESP) submission having been available for nearly six years, the dossiers submitted continue to deviate from them, potentially impacting product prices. Objective: to review the reports published by CEESP, analyse deviations from the guidelines, and discuss their implications for the pricing and reimbursement process. Study design: CEESP reports published until January 2017 were reviewed, and deviations from the guidelines were extracted. The frequency of deviations was described by type of methodological concern (minor, important or major). Results: In 19 reports, we identified 243 methodological concerns, most often concerning modelling, measurement and valuation of health states and results presentation and sensitivity analyses; nearly 63% were minor, 33% were important and 4.5% were major. All reports included minor methodological concerns, and 17 (89%) included at least one important and/or major methodological concern. Global major methodological concerns completely invalidated the analysis in seven dossiers (37%). Conclusion: The CEESP submission dossiers fail to adhere to the guidelines, potentially invalidating the health economics analysis and resulting in pricing negotiations. As these negotiations tend to be unfavourable for the manufacturer, the industry should strive to improve the quality of the analyses submitted to CEESP

Current process and future path for health economic assessment of pharmaceuticals in France

International audienceThe Social Security Funding Law for 2012 introduced the Economic and Public Health Assessment Committee (Commission Evaluation Economique et de Santé Publique, or CEESP) in the Social Security Code as a specialised committee affiliated with the Haute Autorité de Santé in charge of providing recommendations and health economic opinions. This article provides an in-depth description of the CEESP's structure and working methods, and analyses the impact of health economic assessment on market access of drugs in France. It also points out the areas of uncertainty and the conflicting rules following the introduction of the health economic assessment in France. The authors also provide their personal opinion on the likely future of health economic assessment of drugs in France, including the possible merge of the CEESP and the Transparency Committee, the implementation of a French threshold, and the extension of health economic assessment to a larger number of products