Search

Defining innovation in the field of medical devices can be extremely challenging due to the peculiarity of the products within this class. Short life-cycle, incrementality, learning curve effect, impact of the organizational setting, uncertainty of effect and level of evidence are only some of these aspects. A clear set of criteria to define innovation would be of paramount relevance in this field. Twelve criteria to define innovation were proposed to a multistakeholder panel within a consensus process. A Delphi method on two rounds was used to reach consensus. In total, 53 of the 93 (47%) invited panelists responded to the first round of the survey. Among them, 51 (96%) completed also the second round. At the first round, consensus was reached for four of the 12 proposed criteria. Three of the remaining eight criteria reached consensus at the second round. It was not possible to reach consensus for the remaining five criteria. The criteria that collected the highest scores (close to 100%) were from the clinical impact domain, namely the ability of the technology to offer significant advantages over existing alternatives in terms of improving relevant clinical outcomes, and the ability to address an unmet need defined in terms of unavailability of diagnosis/treatment alternatives. High levels of consensus (about 80%) were registered on criteria belonging to non-clinical domains of analysis and, in particular, the ability of the technology to introduce organizational benefits, and the ability of the technology to bring cost reduction providing the same clinical benefit of current alternatives.

Acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD) is an ultra-rare disease, and several gaps of knowledge on various issues remain, particularly at a regional/national level. Expert opinions collected through well-defined consensus methodologies are increasingly used to make available reliable information in the context of rare/ultra-rare diseases. With the aim to provide indications on infantile neurovisceral ASMD (also formerly known as Niemann–Pick disease type A), chronic neurovisceral ASMD (formerly known as Niemann–Pick disease type A/B) and chronic visceral ASMD (formerly known as Niemann–Pick disease type B) in Italy, we conducted a Delphi consensus of experts focused on five main areas: (i) patients and disease characteristics; (ii) unmet needs and quality of life; (iii) diagnostic issues; (iv) treatment-related aspects; and (v) patient journey. Pre-specified, objective criteria were used to outline the multidisciplinary panel, based on 19 Italian experts in ASMD in paediatric and adult patients from different Italian Regions, including both clinicians (n = 16) and ASMD patients’ advocacy or payors with expertise in rare diseases (n = 3). During two Delphi rounds, a high ratio of agreement was found on several topics related to ASMD characteristics, diagnosis, management and disease burden. Our findings may provide valuable indications for management of ASMD at a public health level in Italy.

The current COVID pandemic crisis made it even clearer that the solutions to several questions that public health must face require the access to good quality data. Several issues of the value and potential of health data and the current critical issues that hinder access are discussed in this paper. In particular, the paper (i) focuses on "real-world data" definition; (ii) proposes a review of the real-world data availability in our country; (iii) discusses its potential, with particular focus on the possibility of improving knowledge on the quality of care provided by the health system; (iv) emphasizes that the availability of data alone is not sufficient to increase our knowledge, underlining the need that innovative analysis methods (e.g., artificial intelligence techniques) must be framed in the paradigm of clinical research; and (v) addresses some ethical issues related to their use. The proposal is to realize an alliance between organizations interested in promoting research aimed at collecting scientifically solid evidence to support the clinical governance of public health.

Fabry disease (FD) is a genetic disease included in the group of lysosomal storage disorders, caused by X-linked deficiency of the enzyme alpha-galactosidase A. The aim of this study was to evaluate different aspects related to the quality of life (QoL) of a multicentre cohort of Italian patients with FD. An observational survey was conducted to measure health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in FD patients using the CAPI (Computer-Assisted Personal Interview) method: 106 patients (mostly women) responded to the questionnaire. Geographically, 53.7% of patients lived in northern Italy, 18.9% in central Italy and 27.4% in southern Italy or the Islands. All data were collected through a five-dimensional EuroQoL questionnaire referring to functional aspects (mobility, personal care, routine activities) and perception of physical/mental well-being (pain or discomfort, anxiety or depression). A descriptive analysis of responses was performed; FD patients were compared in terms of QoL with subjects suffering from other chronic diseases, such as Crohn’s disease, chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis and multiple sclerosis. Difficulty in normal daily activities was reported by 47.2% of FD patients. About one third of subjects also had mobility difficulties. Feelings of loneliness and isolation were reported by 33.3% of those being 60–69 years old. Anxiety was equally reported in both oldest and youngest patients (66.7%), while depression, relational problems, fear of other people’s judgement increased along with age, reaching 66.7% in the over-70-years group. Male patients were largely troubled about the risk of physical disability, particularly those aged 60 years or over. Furthermore, FD patients had a poorer QoL than people suffering from other chronic inflammatory disorders. Our study upholds that FD patients have a poor QoL, as already known, negatively impacting psychic well-being and social activities. Our survey has also found a worse QoL in FD patients compared with other se

Purpose: Over the last few years, the share of public spending for orphan drugs (ODs) has increased in several western countries, raising concern on the exemptions granted to this sector with respect to the implementation of health technology assessment (HTA) principles. The aim of this paper is to shed light on both the HTA criteria adopted and the international agreements implemented in the OD regulation, given the new challenges imposed on western countries by a growing number of therapies for rare diseases. Methods: We carried out a literature review to analyse the development of the international debate on the adaptability of HTA criteria for the OD assessment and regulation. The time span lies between January 1990 and May 2018, and the policies considered relate to both market authorization and reimbursement decisions within western countries. We focus specifically on HTA criteria in some of the dimensions included in the Core Model of the European net for HTA (EUnetHTA). Results: OD high prices, the absence of clarity on the possible high revenues realized by the distribution of a new OD outside the national borders, the risk that – once marketed – a new OD can be used to treat common diseases, are all issues that raise concern on OD regulation and have to be carefully monitored by policymakers in the next future. Conclusions: Across western countries, the preferential track granted to ODs in the implementation of HTA principles is not homogeneous, but fragmented and differentiated. The need for common rules at an international level is underlined, with a view to assessing the sustainability of a sector which, due to this regulatory void, can lend itself to producers’ strategic and opportunistic behaviours.