Search

In the past few decades, the regulatory system has changed its approach to speed up the assessment and approval of drugs for the treatment of serious and orphan diseases. However, too early assessments may fail to provide solid evidence to define the therapeutic value of drugs and their fair price. As for rare diseases, patients' expectations amplify such criticalities due to the lack of therapeutic alternatives. The revision of the EU regulation on orphan medicinal products represents an opportunity to promote greater integration between the development and approval of drugs with their subsequent access. For this reason, we propose: 1) establishing a process for evaluating the comparative efficacy and quantification of the therapeutic benefit of a drug at a European level, while addressing incentives towards rarer diseases to support their development and marketing; 2) downsizing the impact of orphan drugs on general sustainability, considering that incentives supporting their development and marketing cannot transform them into new 'blockbusters'. In this perspective, a European procurement - initially intended for drugs for ultra-rare diseases - could improve access by all EU countries through simplifying the burdensome procedures for the pharmaceutical industry; 3) enhancing the contribution of post-authorization research from a public-private partnership perspective to steer the development of drugs already approved towards rarer pathologies or mutations of little commercial interest.

Objective: To compare antibiotic sales in eight high-income countries using the 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) Access, Watch and Reserve (AWaRe) classification and the target of 60% consumption of Access category antibiotics., Methods: We analysed data from a commercial database of sales of systemic antibiotics in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America over the years 2013-2018. We classified antibiotics according to the 2019 AWaRe categories: Access, Watch, Reserve and Not Recommended. We measured antibiotic sales per capita in standard units (SU) per capita and calculated Access group sales as a percentage of total antibiotic sales., Findings: In 2018, per capita antibiotic sales ranged from 7.4 SU (Switzerland) to 20.0 SU (France); median sales of Access group antibiotics were 10.9 SU per capita (range: 3.5-15.0). Per capita sales declined moderately over 2013-2018. The median percentage of Access group antibiotics was 68% (range: 22-77 %); the Access group proportion increased in most countries between 2013 and 2018. Five countries exceeded the 60% target; two countries narrowly missed it (> 55% in Germany and Italy). Sales of Access antibiotics in Japan were low (22%), driven by relatively high sales of oral cephalosporins and macrolides., Conclusion: We have identified changes to prescribing that could allow countries to achieve the WHO target. The 60% Access group target provides a framework to inform national antibiotic policies and could be complemented by absolute measures and more ambitious values in specific settings., ((c) 2021 The authors; licensee World Health Organization.)

Objective: To compare the medicines included in national essential medicines lists with the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Model list of essential medicines , and assess the extent to which countries' characteristics, such as WHO region, size and health care expenditure, account for the differences., Methods: We searched the WHO's Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal for national essential medicines lists. We compared each national list of essential medicines with both the 2017 WHO model list and other national lists. We used linear regression to determine whether differences were dependent on WHO Region, population size, life expectancy, infant mortality, gross domestic product and health-care expenditure., Findings: We identified 137 national lists of essential medicines that collectively included 2068 unique medicines. Each national list contained between 44 and 983 medicines (median 310: interquartile range, IQR: 269 to 422). The number of differences between each country's essential medicines list and WHO's model list ranged from 93 to 815 (median: 296; IQR: 265 to 381). Linear regression showed that only WHO region and health-care expenditure were significantly associated with the number of differences (adjusted R 2 : 0.33; P  < 0.05). Most medicines (1248; 60%) were listed by no more than 10% (14) of countries., Conclusion: The substantial differences between national lists of essential medicines are only partly explained by differences in country characteristics and thus may not be related to different priority needs. This information helps to identify opportunities to improve essential medicines lists.