Cargando…
Key drivers of innovativeness appraisal for medicines: the Italian experience after the adoption of the new ranking system
OBJECTIVE: In 2017, the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA) introduced a standardised process to appraise innovativeness of medicines. Innovative medicines are provided speeder market access and dedicated funds. Innovativeness criteria are: unmet therapeutic need, added the...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7812109/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33441356 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041259 |
_version_ | 1783637599688065024 |
---|---|
author | Galeone, Carlotta Bruzzi, Paolo Jommi, Claudio |
author_facet | Galeone, Carlotta Bruzzi, Paolo Jommi, Claudio |
author_sort | Galeone, Carlotta |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: In 2017, the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA) introduced a standardised process to appraise innovativeness of medicines. Innovative medicines are provided speeder market access and dedicated funds. Innovativeness criteria are: unmet therapeutic need, added therapeutic value and quality of the evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method). We investigated the role played by these three criteria on the final decision aimed to understand how the new Italian innovativeness appraisal framework was implemented. DESIGN: A desk research gathered AIFA’s appraisal reports on innovativeness and data analyses were conducted. No patients were directly involved in this study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We scrutinised all 77 appraisal reports available on AIFA’s website (2017–2020). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The impact of the three domains on final decision was investigated through a series of univariate analyses. RESULTS: Among 77 appraisal reports on innovativeness available, 49 (64%) and 28 (36%) were for oncology and non-oncology medicines, respectively. The appraisals were equally distributed among ‘fully innovative’ (36%), ‘conditionally innovative’ (30%) and ‘not innovative’ (34%). Added therapeutic value was the most important driver on innovativeness decision, followed by quality of the evidence. Drugs for rare diseases and with paediatric/mixed indications were appraised ‘innovative’ by a larger proportion, but no statistical significance was found. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations, including the moderate number of appraisals, this paper provides an insight into the determinants of innovativeness appraisals for medicines in Italy and the accuracy of the appraisal process. This has important implications in terms of transparency and accountability in the prioritisation process applied to innovative medicines. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7812109 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78121092021-01-25 Key drivers of innovativeness appraisal for medicines: the Italian experience after the adoption of the new ranking system Galeone, Carlotta Bruzzi, Paolo Jommi, Claudio BMJ Open Health Policy OBJECTIVE: In 2017, the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA) introduced a standardised process to appraise innovativeness of medicines. Innovative medicines are provided speeder market access and dedicated funds. Innovativeness criteria are: unmet therapeutic need, added therapeutic value and quality of the evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method). We investigated the role played by these three criteria on the final decision aimed to understand how the new Italian innovativeness appraisal framework was implemented. DESIGN: A desk research gathered AIFA’s appraisal reports on innovativeness and data analyses were conducted. No patients were directly involved in this study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We scrutinised all 77 appraisal reports available on AIFA’s website (2017–2020). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The impact of the three domains on final decision was investigated through a series of univariate analyses. RESULTS: Among 77 appraisal reports on innovativeness available, 49 (64%) and 28 (36%) were for oncology and non-oncology medicines, respectively. The appraisals were equally distributed among ‘fully innovative’ (36%), ‘conditionally innovative’ (30%) and ‘not innovative’ (34%). Added therapeutic value was the most important driver on innovativeness decision, followed by quality of the evidence. Drugs for rare diseases and with paediatric/mixed indications were appraised ‘innovative’ by a larger proportion, but no statistical significance was found. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations, including the moderate number of appraisals, this paper provides an insight into the determinants of innovativeness appraisals for medicines in Italy and the accuracy of the appraisal process. This has important implications in terms of transparency and accountability in the prioritisation process applied to innovative medicines. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7812109/ /pubmed/33441356 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041259 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Health Policy Galeone, Carlotta Bruzzi, Paolo Jommi, Claudio Key drivers of innovativeness appraisal for medicines: the Italian experience after the adoption of the new ranking system |
title | Key drivers of innovativeness appraisal for medicines: the Italian experience after the adoption of the new ranking system |
title_full | Key drivers of innovativeness appraisal for medicines: the Italian experience after the adoption of the new ranking system |
title_fullStr | Key drivers of innovativeness appraisal for medicines: the Italian experience after the adoption of the new ranking system |
title_full_unstemmed | Key drivers of innovativeness appraisal for medicines: the Italian experience after the adoption of the new ranking system |
title_short | Key drivers of innovativeness appraisal for medicines: the Italian experience after the adoption of the new ranking system |
title_sort | key drivers of innovativeness appraisal for medicines: the italian experience after the adoption of the new ranking system |
topic | Health Policy |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7812109/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33441356 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041259 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT galeonecarlotta keydriversofinnovativenessappraisalformedicinestheitalianexperienceaftertheadoptionofthenewrankingsystem AT bruzzipaolo keydriversofinnovativenessappraisalformedicinestheitalianexperienceaftertheadoptionofthenewrankingsystem AT jommiclaudio keydriversofinnovativenessappraisalformedicinestheitalianexperienceaftertheadoptionofthenewrankingsystem |