5 research outputs found
The impact of level of documentation on the accessibility and affordability of new drugs in Norway
Introduction: Over the preceding decade, an increasing number of drugs have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with limited knowledge of their relative efficacy. This is due to the utilization of non-randomized, single-arm studies, surrogate endpoints, and shorter follow-up time. The impact of this trend on the accessibility and affordability of newly approved drugs in Europe remains uncertain. The primary objective of this study is to provide insights into the issues of accessibility and affordability of new drugs in the Norwegian healthcare system.Method: The presented study entails an analysis of all reimbursement decisions for hospital drugs in Norway spanning 2021–2022. The included drugs were approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2022, with the majority (91%) receiving approval between 2018 and 2022. The drugs were categorized based on the level of documentation of relative efficacy. Approval rates and costs (confidential net-prices) were compared.Results: A total of 35% (70/199) of the reimbursement decisions were characterized by limited certainty regarding relative efficacy and as a consequence the Norwegian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body did not present an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the HTA report. Within this category, a lower percentage of drugs (47%) gained reimbursement approval compared to those with a higher certainty level, which were presented with an ICER (58%). On average, drugs with an established relative efficacy were accepted with a 4.4-fold higher cost (confidential net-prices). These trends persisted when specifically examining oncology drugs.Conclusion: Our study underscores that a substantial number of recently introduced drugs receive reimbursement regardless of the level of certainty concerning relative efficacy. However, the results suggest that payers prioritize documented over potential efficacy. Given that updated information on relative efficacy may emerge post-market access, a potential solution to address challenges related to accessibility and affordability in Europe could involve an increased adoption of market entry agreements. These agreements could allow for price adjustments after the presentation of new knowledge regarding relative efficacy, potentially resolving some of the current challenges
Generic pregabalin : current situation and implications for health authorities, generics and biosimilars manufacturers in the future
The manufacturer of pregabalin has a second use patent covering prescribing for neuropathic pain: its principal indication. The manufacturer has threatened legal action in the UK if generic pregabalin rather than Lyrica is prescribed for this indication. No problems exist for practitioners who prescribe pregabalin for epilepsy or generalized anxiety disorder. This has serious implications for health authorities. In Germany, however, generics could be legally prescribed for any approved indication once one indication loses its patent. We aim to establish the current situation with pregabalin among principally European countries. Personnel from 33 regional and national health authorities mainly from Europe, and nine from universities across Europe working as advisers to health authorities or with insight into their activities, were surveyed regarding four specific questions via email to shed light on the current situation with Lyrica and pregabalin in their country. The information collated from each country was subsequently checked for accuracy with each co-author by email and face-to-face contact and collated into five tables. The scenarios ranged from extending the patent life of Lyrica (e.g. France), endorsing the prescribing of Lyrica for neuropathic pain (e.g. Catalonia and South Korea), and current prescribing of pregabablin for all indications (e.g. Serbia and Germany). Little activity has taken place in European countries in which generic pregabalin is not yet reimbursed. The availability of generic pregabalin has prompted a number of different activities to be undertaken among the 33 countries and regions surveyed. The situation in Serbia and the historic situation in Germany provide examples of ways to maximize savings once a product loses its patent for at least one indication
Table1_The impact of level of documentation on the accessibility and affordability of new drugs in Norway.docx
Introduction: Over the preceding decade, an increasing number of drugs have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with limited knowledge of their relative efficacy. This is due to the utilization of non-randomized, single-arm studies, surrogate endpoints, and shorter follow-up time. The impact of this trend on the accessibility and affordability of newly approved drugs in Europe remains uncertain. The primary objective of this study is to provide insights into the issues of accessibility and affordability of new drugs in the Norwegian healthcare system.Method: The presented study entails an analysis of all reimbursement decisions for hospital drugs in Norway spanning 2021–2022. The included drugs were approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2022, with the majority (91%) receiving approval between 2018 and 2022. The drugs were categorized based on the level of documentation of relative efficacy. Approval rates and costs (confidential net-prices) were compared.Results: A total of 35% (70/199) of the reimbursement decisions were characterized by limited certainty regarding relative efficacy and as a consequence the Norwegian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body did not present an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the HTA report. Within this category, a lower percentage of drugs (47%) gained reimbursement approval compared to those with a higher certainty level, which were presented with an ICER (58%). On average, drugs with an established relative efficacy were accepted with a 4.4-fold higher cost (confidential net-prices). These trends persisted when specifically examining oncology drugs.Conclusion: Our study underscores that a substantial number of recently introduced drugs receive reimbursement regardless of the level of certainty concerning relative efficacy. However, the results suggest that payers prioritize documented over potential efficacy. Given that updated information on relative efficacy may emerge post-market access, a potential solution to address challenges related to accessibility and affordability in Europe could involve an increased adoption of market entry agreements. These agreements could allow for price adjustments after the presentation of new knowledge regarding relative efficacy, potentially resolving some of the current challenges.</p
Pricing of oral generic cancer medicines in 25 European countries; findings and implications
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 manufacture
Pricing of oral generic cancer medicines in 25 European countries; findings and implications
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: Twenty-five European countries participated. The research found
the following issues: (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 generally 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
stabilizing.
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