Search

ObjectiveThis investigation aimed to guarantee the principles of transparency in public administration; to inform citizens about the time to patient access to reimbursed medicines; to assess the duration of the P&R process for the first time in the period 2018–2020; and to evaluate whether and how the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic affected the P&R activity. This study analyzed the timelines of pricing and reimbursement procedures submitted in Italy by the pharmaceutical marketing authorization holder (MAH) from 2018 to 2020.MethodsThe analysis was run through an AIFA web-based platform that collects data about P&R procedures for each step of the Italian Price and Reimbursement (P&R) procedure, including dates of the Technical Scientific Committee (CTS) and Price and Reimbursement Committee (CPR) meetings from January 2018 to December 2020. On this basis, four indicators were developed relating to the completion time of each stage of the P&R negotiation process and were defined in terms of days. In this regard, descriptive analyses, graphical boxplots, and survival curves (Kaplan–Meier) were carried out, studying these indicators in relation to the typology of pharmaceutical procedures.ResultsOverall, in the period 2018–2020, 57.1% of the 2,445 procedures entered were represented by the Off-patent pharmaceuticals procedures (generics, biosimilars, copies, and/or parallel trade). In 2020, the overall process duration for Off-patent pharmaceuticals procedures was equal to 129.8 average days [95% CI: (122.3–137.2)], with a median value of 108.0, whereas for In-patent pharmaceuticals procedures, it was equal to 283.1 average days [95% CI: (267.8–298.5)], with a median value of 284.0. Over time, the trend of the entire duration of the P&R process tended to decrease. In terms of estimated timing for the conclusion of each stage of the P&R negotiation process, the difference between Off-patent and In-patent pharmaceutical procedures was statistically significant by the Log-Rank test.Discussion and conclusionThis is the first study to examine the time of the P&R process in Italy, from MAH submission to the publication of the final decision in the Italian Official Journal. The time span considered is 3 years, including the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to European average times, in Italy, the time necessary for evaluation, authorization for reimbursement, and definition of the price of a medicine can be considered satisfactory.

IntroductionThe aim of the study was to evaluate, in a regulated generics market, the effect of the number of manufacturers of generic drugs on the amplitude of off-patent products price reduction and the price evolution of originators and generics after the patent expiry of pharmaceuticals dispensed by community pharmacies and reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service (INHS).MethodsThe AIFA “transparency list” was utilized to select unbranded and branded off-patent drug dispensed by community pharmacies and reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service between 2012 and 2018. The unbranded drug entry in the transparency list database was considered as a proxy of its patent expiry.ResultsA total of 42 different active ingredients were included in the analysis. The relative price per dose at time t of unbranded and branded drugs, considering as common denominator the price per dose a year before the patent expiry, (t-1) decreased with the increase of unbranded manufacturers. At the time of the patent expiry, the price of unbranded drugs was almost 50% less than that of branded drugs at t-1 and the price of branded drugs started to decrease before the first unbranded entry.ConclusionAn inverse relation between the number of generic drug entrants and the price of generics and originators was detected. The patent expiry determines a price decline, more concentrated in the first year of patent expiry.

IntroductionIt is well acknowledged that the price of orphan drugs is normally higher than that resulting from the value-based pricing. A correlation between the cost of therapy for orphan drugs and the epidemiology (prevalence and incidence) of the related rare disease can be hypothesized.MethodsThis analysis includes all approved orphan drugs by European Medicines Agency whose reimbursement was granted for the first therapeutic indication in the years 2014–2019 in Italy. Regression and correlation analyses were performed to analyze the possible correlations between the logarithm of the annual therapy cost and the epidemiology of the rare diseases, between orphan drugs consumption and epidemiology of related rare disease and between therapy cost and the consumption.ResultsThe regression analysis between the annual cost of therapy estimated on the published ex-factory price and the prevalence showed a slightly decreasing, not statistically significant, trend (coefficient: −0.10, p-value: 0.41). The results were similar when using the price resulting from the application of Managed Entry Agreements (coefficient: −0.11, p-value: 0.40). The regression analysis between sales volume and prevalence showed a positive slope without an acceptable level of significance (p-value: 0.04). The correlation analysis between the therapy cost and the sales volume highlighted again an absence of significant association, similarly if considering only ATC L orphan drugs, or the incidence.DiscussionThe definition of the price of an orphan drug seems not to depend on the rarity of the disease, and sales volumes do not correlate with the epidemiology of the rare disease and with the annual cost of therapy.

Objectives: Starting from April 2017, the Italian Medicine Agency (AIFA) has approved new criteria for defining any new medicinal product with an innovative indication. The purpose of the study is to analyze the activity of innovativeness evaluation according to the new approach, to estimate the weight of each criterion considered for innovativeness definition, and to evaluate how the new approach works in terms of consistency and reproducibility.Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on the final reports evaluating the drug innovativeness assessment published on the AIFA's website between April 2017 and January 2021. Descriptive statistics, chi-square test, whether the conditions were respected, or Fisher's exact test was used to explore the association between characteristics of drugs and the innovativeness status and the association between the three criteria. Profiles of the decision process and their relationship with innovativeness response were described. In order to evaluate the weight of each criterion in predicting the innovativeness status, a Classification Tree (CT) algorithm was applied.Results: Overall, of the 109 published drugs reports, 37 (33.9%) were recognized as fully innovative, 29 (26.6%) were considered conditionally innovative, while for 43 (39.4%) reports innovativeness was not recognized. Considering the three criteria of the decision process, the added therapeutic value was the only criterion statistically associated with a drug's degree of innovation (p < 0.001). The therapeutic need and the quality of clinical evidence were statistically associated (p = 0.008) even if only a mild association was observed. The added therapeutic value was the most important variable in predicting the innovativeness status according to the classification tree (CT) model applied, achieving an accuracy of 89.4%. No difference was found between orphans and non-orphan drugs or oncological and non-oncological drugs.Discussion: The added therapeutic value is the most important criterion of the multidimensional approach for the innovativeness status definition of a new medical product. A mild association was found between the therapeutic need and the quality of evidence. Overall, similar decision profiles bring the same evaluation of innovativeness status, indicating a good consistency and reproducibility between decisions.