Search

In accordance with European regulation, medicines containing a new active substance to treat neurodegenerative diseases as well as autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions must be approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) through the centralized procedure before they can be marketed. However, after EMA approval, each country is responsible for national market access, following the assessment performed by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies with regard to the therapeutic value. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of HTA recommendations issued by three EU countries (France, Germany, and Italy) for new drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) following EMA approval. In the reference period, we identified 11 medicines authorized in Europe for MS, including relapsing forms of MS (RMS; n = 4), relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS; n = 6), secondary progressive MS (SPMS; n = 1), and the primary progressive form (PPMS; n = 1). We found no agreement on the therapeutic value (in particular, the “added value” compared to the standard of care) of the selected drugs. Most evaluations resulted in the lowest score (“additional benefit not proven/no clinical improvement”), underlining the need for new molecules with better efficacy and safety profiles for MS, especially for some forms and clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In accordance with European regulation, medicines containing a new active substance to treat neurodegenerative diseases as well as autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions must be approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) through the centralized procedure before they can be marketed. However, after EMA approval, each country is responsible for national market access, following the assessment performed by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies with regard to the therapeutic value. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of HTA recommendations issued by three EU countries (France, Germany, and Italy) for new drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) following EMA approval. In the reference period, we identified 11 medicines authorized in Europe for MS, including relapsing forms of MS (RMS; n = 4), relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS; n = 6), secondary progressive MS (SPMS; n = 1), and the primary progressive form (PPMS; n = 1). We found no agreement on the therapeutic value (in particular, the “added value” compared to the standard of care) of the selected drugs. Most evaluations resulted in the lowest score (“additional benefit not proven/no clinical improvement”), underlining the need for new molecules with better efficacy and safety profiles for MS, especially for some forms and clinical settings.

Even for products centrally approved, each European country is responsible for national market access after European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval. This step can result in inequalities in terms of access, due to different opinions about the therapeutic value assessed by Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of HTA recommendations issued by EU countries (France, Germany, and Italy) for new neurological drugs following EMA approval. In the reference period, we identified 11 innovative medicines authorized in Europe for five neurological diseases (cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, metachromatic leukodystrophy, migraine, and polyneuropathy in patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis), including eight drugs for genetic rare diseases. We found no agreement on the therapeutic value (in particular the "added value" compared to the standard of care) of the selected drugs. Despite the differences in terms of assessment, the access has been usually guaranteed even if with various types of limitations. The heterogeneity of the HTA assessment of clinical data among countries is probably related to the uncertainties about clinical value at the time of EMA approval and the lack of long-term data and of direct comparison with available alternatives. Given the importance of new medicines especially for rare diseases, it is crucial to understand and act on the causes of inconsistency among the HTA assessments, in order to ensure rapid and uniform access to innovation for patients who can benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even for products centrally approved, each European country is responsible for national market access after European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval. This step can result in inequalities in terms of access, due to different opinions about the therapeutic value assessed by Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of HTA recommendations issued by EU countries (France, Germany, and Italy) for new neurological drugs following EMA approval. In the reference period, we identified 11 innovative medicines authorized in Europe for five neurological diseases (cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, metachromatic leukodystrophy, migraine, and polyneuropathy in patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis), including eight drugs for genetic rare diseases. We found no agreement on the therapeutic value (in particular the “added value” compared to the standard of care) of the selected drugs. Despite the differences in terms of assessment, the access has been usually guaranteed even if with various types of limitations. The heterogeneity of the HTA assessment of clinical data among countries is probably related to the uncertainties about clinical value at the time of EMA approval and the lack of long-term data and of direct comparison with available alternatives. Given the importance of new medicines especially for rare diseases, it is crucial to understand and act on the causes of inconsistency among the HTA assessments, in order to ensure rapid and uniform access to innovation for patients who can benefit.