Search

Introduction: This paper describes the peculiarities of the plasma-derived medicinal product (PDMP) market and illustrates the results of a review of the literature on policies aimed at counteracting the shortage of PDMPs. Characteristics of PDMPs: Plasma is primarily used for the industrial production of blood products (80%). The demand for PDMPs, particularly immunoglobulins (IGs), is increasing. However, the production of PDMPs is complex, long (7 - 12 months), and expensive, accounting, according to US estimates, for 57% of the total costs of PDMPs compared to 14% for small molecules. PDMP market: Unexpected increases in clinical need cannot be addressed in the short term. Once the demand for some diseases is satisfied, the collection and fractionation of plasma will only be used to supply some specific patients. Hence, the full weight of the marginal costs, which remain constant, are borne by a few products. According to last liter economics, the industry stops producing when the marginal revenue equals the marginal cost, thereby reducing the convenience of producing the most commonly used PDMPs (albumin and IG). The imbalance between the demand and supply of PDMPs was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which further increased the cost of plasma collection. Shortage issue and possible solutions: Policies to counteract this imbalance have also been discussed. If the demand is inappropriate, it should be reduced. If the demand is appropriate and supply cannot be increased, the demand should be prioritized for patients for whom PDMPs are the only available treatment. If the shortage depends on insufficient supply and technical and allocative efficiency, both production and supply should be improved, together with incentives for all stakeholders involved in the PDMP market to increase the sustainability of production/supply. The paper is focused on this second issue, that is supply-driven unbalance., Competing Interests: MB reported serving as an advisory board member and a paid speaker for CSL Vifor and CSL Behring, outside the submitted work. CJ reported serving as an advisory board member and a paid speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, CSL Behring, Gilead, Incyte, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda., (Copyright © 2024 Bolcato and Jommi.)

Background: The EuroQol Group recently developed two new instruments, the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) and the EQ Health and Wellbeing short version (EQ-HWB-S). The EQ-HWB and EQ-HWB-S are intended to capture a broad range of health and broader quality of life aspects, which may be relevant to general public members, patients, their families, social care users and informal carers. This study assesses the content validity of the Italian version of the two instruments in a sample of Italian patients, social care users and informal carers., Methods: Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling approach. One-on-one interviews were carried out using video-conferencing interviews. A semi-structured topic guide was used to guide the interview procedures, with open-ended questions supplemented by probes. Participants were asked to explain important aspects of their health and quality of life, to complete the questionnaires and verbalize their thoughts., Results: Twenty participants comprising of patients (n = 9), informal carers (n = 6), and members of the general public (n = 5) participated to the study. Content validity was summarized into six main themes: comprehension, interpretation, acceptability, relevance, response options and recall period. All participants found the instruments easy or quite easy to understand and to respond to. Items were relevant for all three groups of participants, and response options appropriate., Conclusions: The Italian version of the EQ-HWB showed content validity in measuring health and wellbeing in a mixed Italian population., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: New indications for existing medicines are increasing over time. In most countries, drug pricing and reimbursement conditions are renegotiated every time a new indication is approved. There is a growing interest in the price negotiation model for new indications, specifically comparing an indication-based versus blended approach. However, little evidence currently exists regarding the complexity of these negotiations and their impact on actual prices. Italy has recently transitioned from an indication-based approach to a blended price model. This study aims to measure the impact of price and reimbursement negotiation of new indications on discounts (i.e. actual prices) and on the negotiation duration, used as a proxy of its complexity., Methods: We considered new indications approved through a European centralized procedure from January 2013 to March 2022 for which the price and reimbursement status was approved in Italy between January 2015 and March 2022, amounting to 52 new indications. Data on the timeframe of the Italian price and reimbursement process and its phases were obtained from publicly available sources. Discounts for the first indication and their subsequent increases for new indications were estimated by comparing ex-factory prices and tendered prices. To calculate p-values, we employed the Mann-Whitney test, and multiple regression models were utilized to examine correlations between negotiation time and the characteristics of the medicines., Results: The mean time to reimbursement was 603 days, in contrast to 583 days for the first launch. Price negotiation took longer for rare diseases, cancer drugs, and in case of therapies with minor added therapeutic value. On average, the additional discount (on top of discounts for prior indications) was 13%, significantly lower than the mean discount for the first indications approved (24.9%). The discounts increment was lower, but negotiation took longer if a Managed Entry Agreement accompanied the final agreement. Additionally, discounts have increased over the years., Conclusion: The negotiation for new indications takes longer than the first one, and provides, on average, an additional discount of 13%. While our findings bear the potential for significant policy implications, they necessitate prudent interpretation due to a limited number of observations. The increasing trend in additional discounts over time applied to all indications in recent negotiations, may suggest a descending trend of value for new indications and a shift from an indication-based pricing approach to a blended model. Otherwise, budget impact considerations might have outweighed a value-based approach in the recent negotiations. If so, two potential options for restoring a value-based approach are returning to an indication-based pricing or giving explicit and higher weight to value within a blended model., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) represent an innovation but raise issues for healthcare payers because of the uncertainty on impact at market launch, high cost and important organisational impact. The literature has focused on their assessment, appraisal and market access solutions. No evidence on the costs sustained to implement CAR-T is available and a few studies reported the cost of the CAR-T clinical pathway, including the activities that are remunerated through inpatient or outpatient fee-for-service/episode. This paper aims at filling the information gap, assessing the cost of implementing CAR-T activity and the full cost of managing the CAR-T clinical pathway., Methods: Cost analysis relied on the Activity Based Costing approach, which was applied to two Italian healthcare organisations, both CAR-T Centres authorized by the regional governments with a minimum of 20 patients treated with the first two CAR-T therapies launched on the market., Results: The cost of implementing CAR-T was estimated at €1.31 million (calculated for one of the organizations with complete data). Most of these costs (77%) were generated by quality assurance activity. The mean cost per patient entering the CAR-T pathway (59 and 27) and surviving at follow-up (21 and 5) ranges from €48K to €57K and from €96K to €106K, respectively. Fees for hospitalization and infusion of gene therapy accounts for more than 70% of these costs. The actual hospitalisation cost varies greatly across patients and is in general lower than the fee-for-episode paid by the region to the hospital., Conclusions: Despite its limitations (exploratory nature; the time spent by staff on activities which are not remunerated through fees was estimated through interviews with the CAR-T coordinators; cost items are not fully comparable), this research highlighted the relevant organisational and economic impact of CAR-T and provided important insights for policy makers and healthcare managers: the necessity to invest resources in CAR-T implementation; the need for assessing activities which are not remunerated through fees for service / episode; the opportunity to shift from fee-for-episode / service to bundled payments for CAR-T clinical pathway., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Vitiligo is a chronic depigmenting disorder characterized by characteristic, non-scaly, chalky-white skin macules and patches, due to the loss of skin pigment. Its exact pathogenesis is still not fully understood but it seems to be an autoimmune disease where the combination of genetic, environmental, and immune factors contributes to the destruction of melanocytes in the epidermis. Vitiligo is classified into different types based on its clinical characteristics and distribution patterns. The two main forms of vitiligo are non-segmental vitiligo (NSV) and segmental vitiligo (SV). NSV is the predominant form, characterized by symmetrical skin patches, that tend to evolve over time. In contrast, SV has unilateral or band-shaped lesions that progress rapidly but often stabilize early. Herein, current unmet needs in terms of psychosocial consequences and relative lack of valid therapeutic approaches are critically analyzed and put in perspective in the Italian prescribing scenario. Finally, available management guidelines are illustrated and briefly compared, to provide context for upcoming treatment options.

Background: The Patient Reported Outcome for Fighting FInancial Toxicity (PROFFIT) questionnaire was developed to measure financial toxicity (FT) and identify its determinants. The aim of the present study was to confirm its validity in a prospective cohort of patients receiving anticancer treatment., Patients and Methods: From March 2021 to July 2022, 221 patients were enrolled at 10 Italian centres. Selected items of the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire represented the anchors, specifically, question 28 (Q-28) on financial difficulties, and questions 29-30 measuring global health status/quality of life (HR-QOL). The study had 80% power to detect a 0.20 correlation coefficient (r) between anchors and PROFFIT-score (items 1-7, range 0-100, 100 indicating maximum FT) with bilateral alpha 0.05 and 80% power. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. FT determinants (items 8-16) were described., Results: Median age of patients was 65 years, 116 (52.5%) were females, 96 (43.4%) had low education level. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed goodness of fit of the PROFFIT-score. Significant partial correlation of PROFFIT-score was found with Q-28 (r = 0.51) and HR-QOL (r = -0.23). Mean (SD) PROFFIT-score at baseline was 36.5 (24.9); it was statistically significantly higher for patients living in South Italy, those with lower education level, those who were freelancer/unemployed at diagnosis and those who reported significant economic impact from the COVID-19 pandemic. Mean (SD) scores of determinants ranged from 17.6 (27.1) for item 14 (support from medical staff) to 49.0 (36.3) for item 10 (expenses for medicines or supplements). PROFFIT-score significantly increased with worsening response to determinants., Conclusions: External validation of PROFFIT-score in an independent sample of patients was successful. The instrument is now being used in clinical studies., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: CJ reported serving as an advisory board member and a paid speaker for Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Gilead, Incyte, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, outside the submitted work. CP reports outside the submitted work personal fees for advisory role, speaker engagements and travel and accommodation expenses from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Incyte, Merck-Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and Servier. MM has no conflict of interest to declare.

Objectives: The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medicines is performed separately at the country level with some differences, but Italy, France, and Germany have implemented price and reimbursement systems strongly focused on the Added Therapeutic Value (ATV). This study investigates the level of agreement on ATV assessments by Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), and Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA)., Methods: A database was created collecting all information about drugs with innovativeness status requests in Italy from July 2017 to December 2022 and populated with the corresponding HAS and G-BA ATV assessments. The primary comparative analysis was conducted by grouping the ATV ratings into "higher added value" and "lower or no added value", while a secondary analysis considered the Italian innovativeness status as a criterion to include the quality of evidence assessment. The concordance between ATV assessments was investigated through percentage agreement and unweighted Cohen k-value., Results: 189 medicines/indications were included. The greatest agreement was found when comparing G-BA versus HAS (82 percent; k = 0.61, substantial agreement). Lower levels of agreements were observed for AIFA versus HAS and AIFA versus G-BA (respectively 52 percent; k = 0.17 and 57 percent; k = 0.25). The secondary analysis led to a reconciliation to moderate agreement for AIFA versus HAS (72 percent; k = 0.45) and AIFA versus G-BA (74 percent; k = 0.47)., Conclusions: A high degree of concordance between HTA organizations is reached when considering jointly ATV and quality of evidence, suggesting that the system is extensively mature to make a Joint Clinical Assessment, avoiding duplications and reducing access inequalities.

Purpose: The investigation of multiple molecular targets with next-generation sequencing (NGS) has entered clinical practice in oncology, yielding to a paradigm shift from the histology-centric approach to the mutational model for personalized treatment. Accordingly, most of the drugs recently approved in oncology are coupled to specific biomarkers. One potential tool for implementing the mutational model of precision oncology in daily practice is represented by the Molecular Tumor Board (MTB), a multidisciplinary team whereby molecular pathologists, biologists, bioinformaticians, geneticists, medical oncologists, and pharmacists cooperate to generate, interpret, and match molecular data with personalized treatments., Patients and Methods: Since May 2020, the institutional MTB set at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan met weekly via teleconference to discuss molecular data and potential therapeutic options for patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors., Results: Up to October 2021, among 1,996 patients evaluated, we identified >10,000 variants, 43.2% of which were functionally relevant (pathogenic or likely pathogenic). On the basis of functionally relevant variants, 711 patients (35.6%) were potentially eligible to targeted therapy according to European Society of Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets tiers, and 9.4% received a personalized treatment. Overall, larger NGS panels (containing >50 genes) significantly outperformed small panels (up to 50 genes) in detecting actionable gene targets across different tumor types., Conclusion: Our real-world data provide evidence that MTB is a valuable tool for matching NGS data with targeted treatments, eventually implementing precision oncology in clinical practice.

Neurodegenerative diseases represent a growing burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have shown promise as a potential therapy due to their neuroregenerative, neuroprotective, and immunomodulatory properties, which are, however, linked to the bioactive substances they release, collectively known as secretome. This paper provides an overview of the most recent research on the safety and efficacy of MSC-derived secretome and extracellular vesicles (EVs) in clinical (if available) and preclinical models of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, Huntington's disease, acute ischemic stroke, and spinal cord injury. The article explores the biologically active substances within MSC-secretome/EVs, the mechanisms responsible for the observed therapeutic effects, and the strategies that may be used to optimize MSC-secretome/EVs production based on specific therapeutic needs. The review concludes with a critical discussion of current clinical trials and a perspective on potential future directions in translating MSC-secretome and EVs into the clinic, specifically regarding how to address the challenges associated with their pharmaceutical manufacturing, including scalability, batch-to-batch consistency, adherence to Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) guidelines, formulation, and storage, along with quality controls, access to the market and relative costs, value for money and impact on total expenditure., Competing Interests: Maria Luisa Torre is a co-founder and member of the advisory board of Pharmaexceed S.r.l., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Introduction: CAR T-cell therapy has emerged as a promising new immuno-oncology treatment that engages the patient's immune system to fight certain hematological malignancies, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). In the European Union (EU), CAR T-cell therapies have been approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL patients since 2018, but patient access is often still limited or delayed. This paper is aimed at discussing challenges to access and possible solutions in the largest four EU countries., Methods: The analysis relied on literature review, market data collection, since homogeneous data coming from registries were not available, and discussion with experts coming from all four countries., Results: We calculated that in 2020, between 58% and 83% of R/R DLBCL patients (EMA approved label population) or between 29% and 71% of the estimated medically eligible R/R DLBCL patients, were not treated with a licensed CAR T-cell therapy. Common challenges along the patient journey that may result in limited access or delays to CAR T-cell therapy were identified. These include timely identification and referral of eligible patients, pre-treatment funding approval by authorities and payers, and resource needs at CAR T-cell centers., Discussion: These challenges, existing best practices and recommended focus areas for health systems are discussed here, with the aim to inform necessary actions for overcoming patient access challenges for current CAR T-cell therapies as well as for future cell and gene therapies., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Canales Albendea, Canonico, Cartron, Deiters, Jommi, Marks, Rioufol, Sancho Cia, Santoro and Wagner-Drouet.)

Early access programs (EAPs) generally refer to patient access to medicines/indications before marketing authorization, possibly extended to price and reimbursement approval. These programs include compassionate use, which is usually covered by pharmaceutical companies, and EAPs reimbursed by third-party payers. This paper aims at comparing EAPs in four European countries (France, Italy, Spain, UK) and providing empirical evidence on EAPs in Italy. The comparative analysis was conducted through a literature review (including scientific and grey literature), complemented by 30-min semi-structured interviews with local experts. The Italian empirical analysis employed data available on the National Medicines Agency website. Although EAPs are very different across countries, they exhibit some common features: (i) eligibility criteria refer to the absence of valid therapeutic alternatives and a presumed favourable risk-benefit profile; (ii) payers do not allocate a pre-determined budget to these programs; (iii) total spending on EAPs is unknown. The French EAPs seem to be the most structured, financed through social insurance, covering pre-marketing, post-marketing and pre-reimbursement phases and providing for data collection. Italy's approach to EAPs has been varied, with several programs covered by different payers, including the cohort-based 648 List (for both early access and off-label use), the nominal-based 5% Fund, and Compassionate Use. Most applications to EAPs are from the Antineoplastic and immunomodulating drug class (ATC L). Some 62% of indications in the 648 List are either not under clinical development or have never been approved (pure off-label use). For those subsequently approved, most approved indications coincide with those covered through EAPs. Only the 5% Fund provides data on economic impact (€ 81.2 million in 2021; average cost per patient € 61.5K). Diverse EAPs are a possible source of inequalities in access to medicines across Europe. A harmonization of these programs, though difficult to achieve, could be modelled on the French EAPs and provide key advantages, not least of which a common effort to collect real-world data in parallel with clinical trials and clear separation between EAPs and off-label use programs., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the specific evidence needs for assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness of cell and gene therapies, and to explore the extent that the relevant categories of evidence are considered in health technology assessment (HTA) processes., Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the specific categories of evidence relevant to the assessment of these therapies. Forty-six HTA reports for 9 products in 10 cell and gene therapy indications across 8 jurisdictions were analysed to determine the extent to which various items of evidence were considered., Results: The items to which the HTA bodies reacted positively were: treatment was for a rare disease or serious condition, lack of alternative therapies, evidence indicating substantial health gains, and when alternative payment models could be agreed. The items to which they reacted negatively were: use of unvalidated surrogate endpoints, single arm trials without an adequately matched alternative therapy, inadequate reporting of adverse consequences and risks, short length of follow-up in clinical trials, extrapolating to long-term outcomes, and uncertainty around the economic estimates., Conclusions: The consideration by HTA bodies of evidence relating to the particular features of cell and gene therapies is variable. Several suggestions are made for addressing the assessment challenges posed by these therapies. Jurisdictions conducting HTAs of these therapies can consider whether these suggestions could be incorporated within their existing approach through strengthening deliberative decision-making or performing additional analyses., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Innovative medicines are provided with dedicated funds and immediate market access in Italy. Innovativeness evaluation considers unmet need, added therapeutic value, and quality of the evidence., Objective: We aimed to evaluate the internal consistency and drivers of the innovativeness appraisal process., Methods: Appraisal reports on innovativeness refer to 1997-2021. We used both a descriptive approach and probabilistic multivariate analysis, using logistic regression models to compute odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. The dependent variable is innovativeness status (innovative vs. non-innovative; full innovativeness vs. conditional innovativeness). Explanatory variables, besides the three above-mentioned domains, are the year of evaluation, drug type, target disease and population, and the number and type of available studies., Results: Among the 141 medicines scrutinized, 31.9%, 29.8%, and 38.3% were evaluated as fully innovative, conditionally innovative, and non-innovative, respectively. Added therapeutic value and the quality of the evidence were associated with the odds of receiving innovative status, and full compared with conditional innovativeness; unmet need was not a predictive variable. Other factors played a minor role: medicines for both solid tumours and rare diseases are more likely to be judged innovative; conditional innovativeness is more probable for medicines for rare diseases., Conclusions: Innovativeness status is driven by the added therapeutic value and quality of evidence. The appraisal process is internally consistent and predictable. This provides industry with a clear indication of what is needed to ensure that access to their medicines is prioritized., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objectives: This study aimed to provide normative data obtained in response to the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire in Italy and compare this with data from other countries., Methods: A sample of the Italian adult population (aged ≥ 18 years) was recruited and interviewed online using videoconferencing software (Zoom) between November 2020 and February 2021. The distribution of answers was estimated as per the descriptive system of the EQ-5D-5L, and descriptive statistics were calculated for the EQ VAS score and EQ-5D-5L index value in the whole sample and relevant subgroups. An ordinary least square (OLS) regression was performed to evaluate the impact of sociodemographic variables on EQ-5D-5L results. Lastly, a comparison was made with EQ-5D-5L population norms of other countries. Data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel and Stata 13., Results: Overall, 1182 people representative of the Italian population (2020) in terms of sex and geographical area responded to the survey. Of the 3125 potential EQ-5D-5L health states, only 106 (3.4%) were selected, and the '11111' and '11112' states were chosen by half of the participants. In terms of EQ-5D-5L dimensions, the frequency of any problems (from slight to extreme) associated with anxiety and depression was high among the very young (18-24 years, 56.0%) and in women of all ages (49.7%). The mean index value (± standard deviation [SD]) was 0.93 (± 0.11) for the entire sample and gradually decreased with age, moving from 0.95 (± 0.06) in the youngest group (18-24 years) to 0.91 (± 0.13) in the oldest age group (≥ 75 years). Similarly, the mean EQ VAS score (± SD) was 81.8 (± 13.5), and decreased from 87.0 (± 8.9) in the 18-24 years age group to 75.1 (± 16.4) among participants > 75 years of age. The existence of self-reported chronic conditions (e.g., cardiovascular disease), female sex, and social assistance recipiency were negatively associated with the EQ-5D index value, while the EQ VAS score was significantly lower in people with chronic conditions and aged > 55 years. Conversely, higher income levels had a positive impact on both the EQ-5D index value and the EQ VAS score. Lastly, both the EQ-5D index value and EQ VAS score in Italy were, on average, higher than in most European countries., Conclusions: EQ-5D-5L population norms provide useful insights into the health status of the Italian population and can be used as a reference for other surveys using the same instrument., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors declare no potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article. The authors declare the following competing interests.

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The Authors declare no potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

CAR T-cell therapy has emerged as a potentially transformative immunotherapy for certain B-cell malignancies including relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Unhindered and appropriate access for eligible patients is essential to enable optimal outcomes and depends on effective interplay of stakeholders and processes along the patient's therapeutic journey. In Italy, CAR T-cell therapies have been awarded innovation status by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and were integrated into routine patient care under specific criteria. However, our analysis indicates that fewer than one in five DLBCL patients eligible under the EMA authorization, or around one in three DLBCL patients eligible under the AIFA criteria, received treatment with a licensed CAR T-cell therapy product in 2020. This publication describes key patient access barriers to CAR T-cell therapies in Italy and provides recommendations on potential solutions at the health system level., Competing Interests: The reviewer JCC declared a past co-authorship with the author AS to the handling editor. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Jommi, Bramanti, Pani, Ghirardini and Santoro.)

Objectives: An increasing number of innovative therapies (e.g., gene- and cell-based treatments) have been developed in the past 20 years. Despite the significant clinical potential of these therapies, access delays may arise because of differing perspectives of manufacturers and payers regarding issues such as the value of the product, clinical and financial uncertainties, and sustainability.Managed entry agreements (MEAs) can enable access to treatments that would not be reimbursed by conventional methods because of such concerns. However, although MEA typologies exist, there is currently no structured process to come to agreements on MEAs, which can be difficult to decide upon and implement.To facilitate more structured MEA negotiations, we propose a conceptual "value-based negotiation framework" with corresponding application tools., Methods: The framework was developed based on an iterative process of scientific literature review and expert input., Results: The framework aims to (i) systematically identify and prioritize manufacturer and payer concerns about a new treatment, and (ii) select a mutually acceptable combination of MEA terms that can best address priority concerns, with the lowest possible implementation burden., Conclusions: The proposed framework will be tested in practice, and is a step toward supporting payers and manufacturers to engage in more structured, transparent negotiations to balance the needs of both sides, and enabling quicker, more transparent MEA negotiations and patient access to innovative products.

The debate around unmet clinical need (UCN) is still very much alive. How do we define UCN? How does it influence the definition of clinically relevant outcomes in a therapeutic area? Who defines UCN? What are the consequences of recognizing different grading of UCN? In this paper we will address these questions and finally formulate proposals for the Italian context. The paper is based on a discussion within a panel of experts. This topic is even more stimulating as this work takes place in a historical period which, on the one hand, sees the start of a new course of negotiation rules recently published by AIFA and, on the other hand, poses unprecedented challenges that emerged during the pandemic crisis. The working group formulated suggestions and proposals to further enhance the role of the UCN in decision-making processes, also in the light of the new negotiation procedure, and to help refine the tools for grading the UCN and the value of medicines in the interests of patients and society as a whole.

Objectives: To test the feasibility of using videoconferencing (VC) administered interviews and to derive an EQ-5D-5L value set for Italy., Methods: Preferences were collected using the EuroQol standardized valuation protocol (EQ-VT) administered via VC. Two valuation methods were employed, composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE). Technical, organizational and protocol feasibility were tested in a pilot of 198 interviews. Upon positive assessment, data collection continued with a target sample of 1000-1200 participants including the pilot. Quality control (QC) procedures were employed to monitor interviewers' performance during the pilot and the data collection. Data were modelled using GLS, Tobit, Logit and Hybrid models with different error specifications. Monotonicity of coefficients, statistical significance, and theoretical considerations informed the model choice., Results: Dropouts and technical problems occurred in less than 5% of the 198 pilot interviews. Protocol compliance was demonstrated with significant improvements in QC parameters and limited interviewers' effects, for all interviewers. Overall, interviewers were satisfied with this mode of administration, highlighting it allows flexibility and efficient scheduling. Based on these results, VC was deemed as a feasible mode of administration. The study collected preferences for 1182 responders, including the pilot interviews. The demographic characteristics of the sample were representative of the Italian general population for age, gender and geographical macro-areas. The hybrid Tobit heteroscedastic model without constant estimated on the full sample (including pilot) was selected for the derivation of the value set. Values ranged from -0.571 for the worst health state (55555) to 1 for the best health state (11111). Pain/discomfort registered the largest decrement, followed by mobility, anxiety/depression, self-care, and usual activities. 523 health states were worse than dead., Conclusions: VC is viable for the conduct of valuation interviews. The Italian value set for the EQ-5D-5L can be used for value determinations of health technologies., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Compassionate use programs (CUP) for medicines respond to the ethical imperative of providing access to medicines before marketing approval to patients not recruited in trials. The economic impact of clinical trials has previously been investigated. No evidence on the net economic benefit of CUP exists. This research aims to address this information gap by estimating the economic consequences of 11 CUP in Italy conducted between March 2015 and December 2020 from the perspective of public health care system in Italy (National Health Service). Eight programs concern cancer treatments, two refer to spinal muscular atrophy, and one is indicated for multiple sclerosis., Methods: Since CUP medicines are covered by the industry, the net economic benefit includes: (i) avoided costs of the Standard of Care (SoC) the patients would have received had they not joined the CUP, (ii) costs not covered by the pharmaceutical industry sponsor, but instead sustained by payers, such as those associated with adverse events (only severe side effects resulting in hospitalisation and attributable to CUP medicines), and (iii) costs for combination therapies and diagnostic procedures not used with the SoC. The SoC costing relied on publicly available data. Information on adverse events and diagnostic procedures was retrieved from the CUP and monetized using the relevant fee for episode or service. One CUP was excluded since a SoC was not identified., Results: 2,713 patients were treated in the 11 CUP where a SoC was identified. The SoC mean cost per patient ranged from €11,415 to €20,299. The total cost of the SoC ranged between €31.0 and €55.1 million. The mean cost per patient covered by hospitals hosting CUP was equal to €1,646, with a total cost of €4.5 million. The net economic benefit ranged €26.5 million - €50.6 million., Conclusions: Despite research limitations, this paper illustrates for the first time the net economic impact of CUP from a public payer perspective. It is important to integrate these estimates with the prospective effects of CUP implementation, i.e., the economic value of the comparative benefit profile of medicines used in CUP versus the SoC, including effects from a societal perspective., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Early access of medicines occurs with an uncertainty in the evidence even higher than the one experienced when price and reimbursement status is negotiated. Our aim is discussing the role of managed entry agreements (MEA) within early access programs (EAP) in Italy., Methods: The discussion relied on a Focus Group, participated by twelve experts, including clinicians and representatives of regulatory authorities, regional and local pharmaceutical departments, pharmaceutical companies, and an association advocating for active citizenship., Results: The Focus Group emphasised that the topic under discussion should be embedded into a more general reform of EAP in Italy. The 648 List mostly includes mature products and indications that are rarely launched into the market afterwards. The 5% Fund is affected by an important administrative burden uncertainty of the timing of reimbursement., Conclusions: Starting from the discussion on MEA and EAP, the Focus Group recommended a new legislation better regulating EAP, that early access concerns specific classes of medicines selected on the grounds of the need to guarantee a rapid access and to collect real world data, that early access can be accompanied by outcome-based and population-based MEA, and that MEA are embedded into the subsequent price and reimbursement negotiation.

Objectives: To measure and explain financial toxicity (FT) of cancer in Italy, where a public healthcare system exists and patients with cancer are not expected (or only marginally) to pay out-of-pocket for healthcare., Setting: Ten clinical oncological centres, distributed across Italian macroregions (North, Centre, South and Islands), including hospitals, university hospitals and national research institutes., Participants: From 8 October 2019 to 11 December 2019, 184 patients, aged 18 or more, who were receiving or had received within the previous 3 months active anticancer treatment were enrolled, 108 (59%) females and 76 (41%) males., Intervention: A 30-item prefinal questionnaire, previously developed within the qualitative tasks of the project, was administered, either electronically (n=115) or by paper sheet (n=69)., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: According to the protocol and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research methodology, the final questionnaire was developed by mean of explanatory factor analysis and tested for reliability, internal consistency (Cronbach's α test and item-total correlation) and stability of measurements over time (test-retest reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient and weighted Cohen's kappa coefficient)., Results: After exploratory factor analysis, a score measuring FT (FT score) was identified, made by seven items dealing with outcomes of FT. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the FT score was 0.87 and the item-total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.53 to 0.74. Further, nine single items representing possible determinants of FT were also retained in the final instrument. Test-retest analysis revealed a good internal validity of the FT score and of the 16 items retained in the final questionnaire., Conclusions: The Patient-Reported Outcome for Fighting FInancial Toxicity (PROFFIT) instrument consists of 16 items and is the first reported instrument to assess FT of cancer developed in a country with a fully public healthcare system., Trial Registration Number: NCT03473379., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SR has received personal fees from CSL-Behring and GlaxoSmithKline Foundation. MDM has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, Eisai, Takeda. FE has received personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Amgen, Orsenix, Takeda and research grant (Institution) from Amgen. VM has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Italfarmaco; a member of his family is employee in Bayer. CJ has received personal fees from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda and Sanofi. CMV has received personal fees from from Baxter, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Sanofi Genzyme. CP acted as a Speaker and/or Consultant for MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Pfizer, Eisai, EUSA, Novartis, Merck, General Electrics and Angelini; furthermore, was an Expert Testimony for Pfizer and EUSA. LDM has received personal fees from Eli Lilly, Roche, MSD, Novartis, Genomic Health, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Astra Zeneca, Ipsen, Eisai. VZ has received personal fees from BMS, MSD, Eisai, Italfarmaco, Roche, Astellas Pharma, Servier, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Janssen, Ipsen and research grant (Institution) from Bayer, Roche, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Ipsen, Astellas. RB reports personal fees from Bayer, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, Amgen, Hoffmann La Roche, Pfizer, Janssen Cilag, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck. MCP reports personal fees from Daichii Sankyo, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from MSD, grants from Roche, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, non-financial support from Bayer. FP has received personal fees from Bayer, Ipsen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sandoz, Incyte, Celgene, Pierre Fabre, Janssen-Cilag and research grants (Institution) from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Roche, Merck, Pfizer, Incyte, Sanofi, BioClin, Tesaro. All the above disclosures are outside the submitted work. The other Authors have no conflict to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Aim: Evidence on determinants of prices for orphan medicines is scarce and not available for Italy. The aim of this paper is to provide an evidence on variables affecting the annual treatment cost of orphan drugs in Italy, testing the hypothesis of a negative correlation with the dimension of the target population and a positive correlation with the added therapeutic value of the drug and the quality of the evidence of pivotal studies., Methods: Drugs with a European orphan designation reimbursed in Italy in the last 6 years (2014-2019) were considered. Univariate, cluster analysis and multiple regression models were used to investigate the correlation between the annual treatment cost and, as explanatory variables, the dimension of the target population, the existence of Randomized Clinical Trials as a proxy of the quality of the pivotal studies, the added therapeutic value., Results: In the univariate analysis prevalence and added therapeutic value, as expected, have a negative and positive correlation with cost respectively. The correlation with RCT is not significant. In the multivariate model, coefficients for prevalence and added value are confirmed but for the latter are not significant anymore. We also found, through an interaction analysis, that the existence of an RCT has a positive impact on annual treatment cost when the target population is very small., Conclusions: Our results suggest that value arguments and sustainability (dimension of the target population and its impact on budget impact) issues are considered for orphan drugs pricing: the role played by sustainability is systematically supported by our results. A more transparent and reproducible price negotiation process for orphan drugs is needed in Italy. This paper has contributed to highlight the implicit drivers of this process., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

This article illustrates a consensus opinion of an expert panel on the need and usefulness of a framework for price and reimbursement (P&R) process and managed entry agreements (MEAs) for orphan medicines in Italy. This opinion was gathered in three rounds: an introductory document was sent to the panel and discussed during a recorded online meeting. A second document was sent to the panel for their review. In the third step the final document was validated. Members of the expert panel are the authors of the article. The panel agreed that Italy does not need a specific value framework for orphan medicines, driving the P&R process. Rather, a more structured value framework for all medicines tailored to the specific drugs can be useful. For orphan drugs, the panel advocated for a multidisciplinary approach and the contribution of different stakeholders to value assessment, and acknowledged the importance of addressing, more than for other drugs, unmet needs, equity issues and societal value. The panel raised the need of increasing the importance of patient-reported outcomes. Experts, acknowledging the growing criticisms in implementation of outcome-based agreements in Italy, expressed their position against their abandonment in favour of discounts only and supported orphan medicines as natural candidates for these agreements. Finally, the panel made some recommendations on the appraisal process for orphan medicines, including an early discussion on the uncertainty of the evidence generated and the adoption of a structured approach to identify the agreement, which better responds to the uncertainty., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the costs of a next-generation sequencing-based (NGS-based) panel testing strategy to those of a single-gene testing-based (SGT-based) strategy, considering different scenarios of clinical practice evolution., Methods: Three Italian hospitals were analysed, and four different testing pathways (paths 1, 2, 3, and 4) were identified: two for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients and two for unresectable metastatic colon-rectal cancer (mCRC) patients. For each path, we explored four scenarios considering the current clinical practice and its expected evolution. The 16 testing cases (4 scenarios × 4 paths) were then compared in terms of differential costs between the NGS-based and SGT-based approaches considering personnel, consumables, equipment, and overhead costs. Break-even and sensitivity analyses were performed. Data gathering, aimed at identifying the hospital setup, was performed through a semi-structured questionnaire administered to the professionals involved in testing activities., Results: The NGS-based strategy was found to be a cost-saving alternative to the SGT-based strategy in 15 of the 16 testing cases. The break-even threshold, the minimum number of patients required to make the NGS-based approach less costly than the SGT-based approach, varied across the testing cases depending on molecular alterations tested, techniques adopted, and specific costs. The analysis found the NGS-based approach to be less costly than the SGT-based approach in nine of the 16 testing cases at any volume of tests performed; in six cases, the NGS-based approach was found to be less costly above a threshold (and in one case, it was found to be always more expensive). Savings obtained using an NGS-based approach ranged from €30 to €1249 per patient; in the unique testing case where NGS was more costly, the additional cost per patient was €25., Conclusions: An NGS-based approach may be less costly than an SGT-based approach; also, generated savings increase with the number of patients and different molecular alterations tested.

Purpose: This paper illustrates a conceptual model for a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) aimed at measuring financial toxicity (FT) in oncological setting in Italy, where citizens are provided universal healthcare coverage., Methods: Focus groups with overall 34 patients/caregivers in three different Italian centers (from Northern, Centre, and Southern Italy) and an open-ended survey with 97 medical oncologists were undertaken. Transcripts from focus groups and the open-ended survey were analyzed to identify themes and links between themes. Themes from the qualitative research were supplemented with those reported in the literature; concepts identified formed the basis for item development that were then tested through the importance analysis (with 45 patients) and the cognitive debriefing (with other 45 patients) to test relevance and comprehension of the first draft PRO instrument., Results: Ten domains were extracted by analyzing 156 concepts generated from focus groups and the open-ended survey. After controlling for redundancy, 55 items were generated and tested through the importance analysis. After controlling comprehension and feasibility through cognitive debriefing interviews, a first version of the questionnaire consisting of 30 items was devised., Conclusions: This qualitative study represents the first part of a study conducted to develop a new PROM to assess FT in Italy, by using a bottom-up approach that makes the most of patients' experiences and the health system analysis., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03473379 first posted on March 22, 2018.

Background and Objectives: Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for schizophrenia show different risk profiles, whose evidence has been evaluated through comparative reviews on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies., Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of weight gains, metabolic and cardiovascular side effects of SGAs, relying on both RCTs and observational studies, by comparing variations between the start of treatment and the end of follow-up. The systematic review refers to papers published from June 2009 to November 2020. PRISMA criteria were followed. No restrictions on heterogeneity level have been considered for meta-analysis. A test for the summary effect measure and heterogeneity (I 2 metric) was used., Results: Seventy-nine papers were selected from 3076 studies (61% RCTs, 39% observational studies). Olanzapine and risperidone reported the greatest weight gain and olanzapine the largest BMI increase. Paliperidone showed the highest increase in total cholesterol, but is the only drug reporting an increase in the HDL cholesterol. Quetiapine XR showed the highest decrease in fasting glucose. Lurasidone showed the lowest increase in body weight and a reduction in BMI and was also the only treatment reporting a decrease in total cholesterol and triglycerides. The highest increase in systolic and diastolic blood pressure was reported by quetiapine XR., Conclusions: Despite some limitations (differences in the mean dosages per patient and other side effects not included) this paper provides the first complete meta-analysis on SGAs in variations on metabolic risk profile between start of treatment and end of follow-up, with useful results for clinical practice and possibly for future economic evaluation studies.

Introduction: Dose banding is an original approach that manages intravenous (IV) chemotherapy preparation by generating on a weekly basis a series of bags containing scaled dosages of the active agent. These predetermined, fixed dosage bags are intended to replace the traditional bags prepared daily that contain fully individualized dosages., Methods: Three different scenarios were examined: (1) the current method of daily preparation of individualized bags at the hospital pharmacy; (2) the weekly preparation at the hospital pharmacy of non-individualized bags containing discrete, predefined doses covering an adequate range of doses (dose banding); (3) the use of commercial ready-to-use bags based on the same approach of dose banding. The objective of this study was to compare these three different approaches in terms of cost per patient. We considered five cancer drugs (gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, paclitaxel, trastuzumab and 5-fluorouracil) that were suitable for the dose ranging approach. Appropriate dose bands for these five agents were identified. Costs were estimated for each of the three approaches., Results: A total of 13,490 fully individualized bags were studied, which corresponded to the real bags prepared at our institution for these five agents in 2018. Dose banding was predicted to determine savings ranging from €10,998 (-0.84%) for trastuzumab to €169,429.60 (-8.39%) for paclitaxel., Conclusion: The introduction of dose banding can determine economic savings along with other advantages, such as improved work conditions, management reorganization and containment of waste. The pharmaceutical industry can hopefully support these experiences by producing ready-to-use bags in predetermined dosages., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors have nothing to disclose. The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.

Background: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) represent an important cornerstone for innovation in healthcare. However, uncertainty on the value, the high average cost per patient and their one-shot nature has raised a debate on their assessment and appraisal process for pricing and reimbursement (P&R) purposes. This debate led experts providing for recommendations on this topic. Our primary objective is to investigate the ATMPs P&R process in the main five European countries and to understand if this process is consistent with published P&R expert recommendations. We also investigated the current ATMP pipelines to understand if future ATMPs will create challenges for their P&R process., Methods: P&R framework for ATMPs in the European Major five (EU5) countries was investigated through a literature search on PubMed, institutional websites of National Health Authorities and grey literature. The ATMPs pipeline database was populated from a clinical trial database (clinicaltrials.gov), relying on inclusion and exclusion criteria retrieved from the literature., Results: Reimbursement status of ATMPs is different across the EU5 countries, with the exception of CAR-Ts which are reimbursed in all countries. Standard P&R process in place for other medicinal products is extended to ATMPs, with the exception of some cases in Germany. List prices, where available, are high and, tend to be aligned across countries. Outcome-based Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) have been extensively used for ATMPs. Extra-funds for hospitals managing ATMPs were provided only in Germany and, as additional fund per episode, in France. The accreditation process of hospitals for ATMPs management was in most countries managed by the national authorities. As far as ATMPs pipeline is concerned, ATMPs in development are mostly targeting non-rare diseases., Conclusions: Expert recommendations for ATMPs P&R were partially applied: the role of outcome-based MEAs has increased and the selection process of the centres authorized to use these treatments has been enhanced; additional funding for ATMPs management to accredited centres has not been completely considered and annuity payment and broader perspective in cost considerations are far from being put in place. These recommendations should be considered for future P&R negotiations to pursue rational resource allocation and deal with budget constraints.

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: CJ, PA, AB, FC and MO report grants from MSD during the conduct of the study, but no interferences occurred in carrying out the research project and in writing the manuscript for which the authors have the sole responsibility; CJ reports personal fees from BMS, Celgene, Dephaforum, Gilead, Incyte, MA Provider, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, Wellmera (now Alira Health) outside of the submitted work.

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CG is a senior consultant at Statinfo. CJ and PB have received a consultant fee from Celgene as scientific consultants for the project., (© 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.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: CJ and WC have received fees from Sanofi for the participation in Advisory Boards and Conferences.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of olaparib maintenance therapy compared with no maintenance therapy after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in newly diagnosed advanced BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian cancer from the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective., Methods: We developed a lifetime Markov model in which a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed advanced BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian cancer was assigned to receive either olaparib maintenance therapy or active surveillance (Italian standard of care) after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy to compare cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of the 2 strategies. Data on clinical outcomes were obtained from related clinical trial literature and extrapolated using parametric survival analyses. Data on costs were derived from Italian official sources and relevant real-world studies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) were computed and compared against an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of €16,372 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. We used deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to assess how uncertainty affects results; we also performed scenario analyses to compare results under different pricing settings., Findings: In the base-case scenario, during a 50-year time horizon, the total costs for patients treated with olaparib therapy and active surveillance were €124,359 and €97,043, respectively, and QALYs gained were 7.29 and 4.88, respectively, with an ICER of €9,515 per life-year gained, an ICUR of €11,345 per QALY gained, and an INMB of €12,104. In scenario analyses, considering maximum selling prices for all other drugs, ICUR decreased to €11,311 per QALY and €7,498 per QALY when a 10% and 20% discount, respectively, was applied to the olaparib official price, and the INMB increased to €12,186 and €21,366, respectively. DSA found that the model results were most sensitive to the proportion of patients with relapsing disease in response to platinum-based chemotherapy, time receiving olaparib first-line maintenance treatment, and subsequent treatments price. According to PSAresults, olaparib was associated with a probability of being cost-effective at a €16,372 per QALY WTP threshold ranging from 70% to 100% in the scenarios examined., Implications: Our analysis indicates that olaparib maintenance therapy may deliver a significant health benefit with a contained upfront cost during a 50-year time horizon, from the Italian NHS perspective, providing value in a setting with curative intent., Competing Interests: Disclosures Nicoletta Colombo declares the following: consulting and advisory services, speaking or writing engagements, public presentations: Roche, AstraZeneca, Pharmamar, Tesaro, Clovis, Advaxis, Pfizer, Takeda, Immunogen, Biocad; institutional financial interests: Roche, Pharmamar, AstraZeneca, Pfizer; nonfinancial interests: subject editor for gynecological cancer, ESMO Clinical Guidelines. Patrizio Armeni is a Topic Editor for Clinical Therapeutics. The authors have indicated that they have no other conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of durvalumab consolidation therapy compared with no consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 expression ≥1% from the Italian National Health Service perspective., Methods: We developed a 12-month decision tree combined with a lifetime cohort Markov model in which patients were assigned to receive durvalumab consolidation therapy or active follow-up (Italian standard of care) after chemoradiotherapy to compare cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of the two strategies during a 40-year period. Clinical outcomes data were obtained from the respective clinical trials and extrapolated using survival analysis; cost data were derived from Italian official sources and relevant real-world studies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental cost-utility ratio, and incremental net monetary benefit were computed and compared against a 16,372 € per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) willingness-to-pay threshold. We performed deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess how uncertainty affected results; we also performed scenario analyses to compare results under different pricing settings., Findings: In the base-case scenario, during a 40-year period, the total costs for patients treated with durvalumab consolidation therapy and active follow-up were €59,860 and €49,840 respectively; life-years gained were 3.47 and 3.31, respectively; and QALYs gained were 2.73 and 2.50, respectively, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €62,131 per life-year, an incremental cost-utility ratio of €42,322 per QALY, and an incremental net monetary benefit of €-6,144. We found that durvalumab was cost-effective (incremental net monetary benefit = 0) when a discount of 13% and 30% on its official price was applied, considering all other drugs priced according to official or maximum selling prices, respectively. Results were most sensitive to the progression-free survival rate for durvalumab and active follow-up, health utility in progression-free state, and price of subsequent treatments., Implications: Our analysis indicates that durvalumab consolidation is cost-effective when a discount is applied on its official price. These results suggest that durvalumab may deliver an incremental health benefit with a contained upfront cost during a 40-year period, from the Italian National Health Service perspective, providing added value in a potentially curative care setting., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Grossi reports serving an advisory role for ad hoc advisory boards/consultations (last 3 years) for Eli Lilly, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Merck, and Otsuka; receiving honoraria for seminars or talks to industry (last 3 years) for Eli Lilly, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, AMGEN, Celgene, BMS, and MSD; and receiving research funding (last 3 years) from AstraZeneca, BMS, and MSD. The authors have indicated that they have no other conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Oral nutritional supplements (ONS) represent a cost-effective method for treating malnutrition. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of public policies on patient access to ONS, using the Italian regionalized health care system as a case study, subsequently compared with the centralized British National Health Service., Methods: Regional policies in the nine largest Italian regions and British policies were gathered through a literature review; interviews with officers responsible for clinical nutrition policies at the regional level in Italy were also conducted. Total ONS regional sales in Italy were gathered from industry sources., Results: Regulation by Italian regions focused on patient access and local prescribing issues (facilities and specialists allowed to prescribe reimbursed ONS, clinical pathways for malnutrition or disease-related malnutrition, length of prescriptions, and distribution of ONS). British policies focused on organizational issues (clinical governance through multidisciplinary Nutrition Support Teams, Nutrition Steering Committees and Clinical Commissioning Groups), education and referral by health care professionals. Neither per capita reimbursed ONS expenditure nor the proportion covered by public funds seem dependent on policies implemented at the regional level in Italy. There is no cutting-edge evidence that British policies produced broader diffusion of ONS, but they appear to have standardized their use within a more homogenous framework., Conclusion: As no clear relation between regional policies and variation in patient access to ONS emerges in Italy, national policies should be encouraged to enhance awareness of malnutrition among health care professionals and encourage the diffusion of multidisciplinary nutrition teams in health care organizations., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Value-based pricing (VBP) is well established in markets for common goods and services, but wide consensus on VBP for pharmaceuticals is lacking. In principle, VBP implies that prices are mainly driven by a drug's value (value for money) and that the impact on budget (sustainability) is a second-order driver of price regulation. Although the literature provides descriptive analyses on regulations governing medicine price negotiation, there are few insights on whether and how price negotiation regulations have been implemented. The goal of this article was to cover this information gap for 5 European countries and the United States. VBP has been applied according to two models: (1) direct models in which cost-effectiveness is a driver; and (2) indirect, multi-attribute models characterized by greater discretion on the integration between the different value domains and the evaluation of consistency between costs and value. In these models, cost-effectiveness is not a driver. In addition, it is hard to evaluate within these models the actual implementation of VBP. Identifying whether and how VBP is applied requires a clear predefined link between added value and the premium price, as well as transparency in the way added value is converted into a premium price. In general, for these countries, it remains difficult to determine whether pricing is mostly driven by value (value-for-money) or impact on budget (sustainability). In instances in which thresholds on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio are used, it becomes easier to understand whether VBP has been implemented. If VBP relies on a multi-criteria approach, greater transparency on which criteria have been used to assess a new drug and how they have been converted into a reasonable price may help in understanding whether a value-based approach has been used., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Financial toxicity (FT) is a well-recognised problem in oncology. US-based studies have shown that: (a) cancer patients have a 2.7 times risk of bankruptcy; (b) patients who declare bankruptcy have a 79% greater hazard of death; (c) financial burden significantly impairs quality of life (QoL) and (d) reduces compliance and adherence to treatment prescriptions. The aim of the project is to develop and validate a patient-reported-outcome (PRO) measure to assess FT of cancer patients in Italy, where, despite the universal health coverage provided by the National Health Service, FT is an emerging issue., Methods and Analysis: Our hypothesis is that a specific FT measure, which considers the relevant sociocultural context and healthcare system, would allow us to understand the main determinants of cancer-related FT in Italy, in order to address and reduce these factors. According to the International Society for Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Research guidelines on PROs, the project will include the following steps: (1) concept elicitation (from focus groups with patients and caregivers; literature; oncologists; nurses) and analysis, creating a coding library; (2) item generation (using a format that includes a question and a response on a 4-point Likert scale) and analysis through patients' cognitive interviews of item importance within different coding categories to produce the draft instrument; (3) factor analysis and internal validation (with Cronbach's alpha and test-retest for reliability) to produce the final instrument; (4) external validation with QoL anchors and depression scales. The use of the FT measure in prospective trials is also planned., Ethics and Dissemination: The protocol is approved by the ethical committees of all the participating centres. The project will tentatively produce a validated tool by the spring 2021. The project might also represent a model and the basis for future cooperation with other European countries, with different healthcare systems and socioeconomic conditions., Trial Registration Number: NCT03473379., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SR has received personal fees from CSL-Behring and GlaxoSmithKline Foundation. JB has received personal fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme. MDM has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, AstraZeneca, Janssen. FE has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Orsenyx and Amgen. LG has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb. CJ has received personal fees from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda and Sanofi. VM has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Italfarmaco; a member of his family is employee in Bayer. CMV has received personal fees from Baxter, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Sanofi Genzyme. FP has received personal fees from Bayer, Ipsen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sandoz, Incyte, Celgene, Pierre Fabre, Janssen-Cilag., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The aim of this paper is to investigate the determinants of the difference between the price proposal submitted by the industry and the final negotiated price. We used Italy as a case-study., Methods: Data were gathered through the information system used by Italian Medicines Agency. The time-frame for this analysis is 2013-2017. Factors influencing the delta price were analyzed through a regression analysis., Results: 44 orphan drugs and 89 new other molecular entities obtained reimbursement in the last five years. Following the negotiation process, prices were lowered by 25.1% and 28.6% on average for orphan drugs and other molecules respectively. The price reduction was higher for innovative drugs (-32.2%). Statistically significant determinants associated to higher price reduction were: i) the implementation of a product specific monitoring registry, ii) the negotiation of a financial-based Managed Entry Agreement, iii) a target population larger than 20,000 patients, iv) an expected National Health Service expenditure larger than €200 million., Discussion: The impact of some variables on the delta price was predictable (e.g. for drugs with an expected higher budget impact and a larger population target), others were more surprising (e.g. a significant price reduction for "innovative" drugs). The implementation of financial-based agreements, which often rely on confidential arrangements, was one of the determinants with higher impact on price reduction., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2018.01069.].