Introduction: There is continued unmet medical need for new medicines across countries especially for cancer, immunological diseases, and orphan diseases. However, there are growing challenges with funding new medicines at ever increasing prices along with funding increased medicine volumes with the growth in both infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases across countries. This has resulted in the development of new models to better manage the entry of new medicines, new financial models being postulated to finance new medicines as well as strategies to improve prescribing efficiency. However, more needs to be done. Consequently, the primary aim of this paper is to consider potential ways to optimize the use of new medicines balancing rising costs with increasing budgetary pressures to stimulate debate especially from a payer perspective.Methods: A narrative review of pharmaceutical policies and implications, as well as possible developments, based on key publications and initiatives known to the co-authors principally from a health authority perspective.Results: A number of initiatives and approaches have been identified including new models to better manage the entry of new medicines based on three pillars (pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities). Within this, we see the growing role of horizon scanning activities starting up to 36 months before launch, managed entry agreements and post launch follow-up. It is also likely there will be greater scrutiny over the effectiveness and value of new cancer medicines given ever increasing prices. This could include establishing minimum effectiveness targets for premium pricing along with re-evaluating prices as more medicines for cancer lose their patent. There will also be a greater involvement of patients especially with orphan diseases. New initiatives could include a greater role of multicriteria decision analysis, as well as looking at the potential for de-linking research and development from commercial activities to enhance affordability.Conclusion: There are a number of ongoing activities across countries to try and fund new valued medicines whilst attaining or maintaining universal healthcare. Such activities will grow with increasing resource pressures and continued unmet need.

Introduction: There are appreciable concerns among European health authorities with growing expenditure on cancer medicines and issues of sustainability. The enhanced use of low cost generics could help. Aims: Consequently, there is a need to comprehensively document current and future arrangements regarding the pricing of generic cancer medicines across Europe, and whether these are indication specific, as well as how this translates into actual prices to provide future direction. Methodology: Mixed method approach with qualitative research among senior health authority personnel and their advisers. Quantitative research via health authority databases to ascertain current prices for oral cancer medicines that had lost their patent and the influence of population size and economics on prices. Results: 25 European countries participated. Currently we see (a) variable approaches to the pricing of generic cancer medicines, which will continue; (b) no concerns with substitution for oral generic cancer medicines; (c) substantial price reductions versus originators for generic capecitabine (up to-93.1%), generic imatinib (up to-97.8%) and generic temozolomide (up to-80.7%). Prices for oncology medicines are not indication specific, and are not affected by population size although influenced by pricing approaches. There have also been price increases for some nonpatented cancer medicines following manufacturer changes although now stabilising. Conclusion: The considerable price reductions seen for some generics means health authorities should further encourage the use of generic oncology medicines when they become available to fund increased volumes and new valued cancer medicines. Countries are also starting to address price increases for generics following changes in the manufacturer

Background: Acromegaly and its comorbidities affect the patients' quality of life, each healthcare system and the society. This study aimed to evaluate clinical characteristics and treatment patterns and the economic burden of acromegaly.Materials and methods: All patients with acromegaly treated with expensive medicines and regularly followed up at the main expert clinical center for acromegaly in the country were included in this nationwide, retrospective, observational, population-based study. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, healthcare resource use, and costs were assessed for 1-year period (01. 01.2018-31.12.2018). Results were processed through statistical analysis using MedCalc software version 16.4.1.Results: A total of 191 acromegaly patients were observed. Approximately 67% were female, 45.5% were between 41 and 60 years and the mean age at diagnosis was 40.73 years. Surgical treatment was preferred as a first-line therapy among almost 89% of all diagnosed patients. The level of comorbidities was very high as more than 95% suffered from at least one concomitant disease. The most frequent comorbidities were other endocrine and metabolic diseases (96.7%), followed by cardiovascular diseases (70.7%). The most common first-line pharmacotherapy was long-acting somatostatin analogs (SSA) (38%) followed by dual combination SSA + pegvisomant (21%). The total economic burden of acromegaly was estimated to be 2,674,499.90 e in 2018 as the direct costs (medication costs, hospitalization costs covered by the patients and the National Health Insurance Fund) outnumbered indirect costs (loss of productivity due to hospitalization): 2,630,568.58 e vs. 43,931.32 e. The average annual per-patient direct and indirect costs were 14,002.62 e. Conclusions:The current study demonstrates a significant clinical and socio-economic burden of acromegaly in the country. Proper diagnosing and regular follow up of acromegaly patients in a specialized pituitary center ensure appropriate innovative pharmacotherapy with achievement of disease control.

To evaluate the expected life expectancy in patients with diabetes in Bulgaria and to compare it to the expected life expectancy of the non-diabetic population in the country. Methods It is a retrospective observational population study on individuals diagnosed with diabetes, compared to the non-diabetic population in Bulgaria for the period 2012-2015. Data from the national diabetes register and national statistical institute were used to construct lifetables with probability of survival with t-test and Chi Square test. Confounder analysis was done by age, sex, and type of diabetes. All-cause mortality and deaths in diabetic patients were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for each age group and a log-rank analysis was conducted. Results Average life expectancy in the non-diabetic population, patients with Type 1 DM and with Type 2 DM is 74.8; 70.96 and 75.19 years, respectively. For 2012-2015 the mortality in the non-diabetic population remained constant and lower (average-1.48%) compared to type-1 DM (5.25%) and Type-2 (4.27%). Relative risk of death in diabetics was higher overall (12%), after the age of 70 before which the relative risk was higher for the non-diabetic population. This was observed as a trend in all analyzed years. Conclusion Patients with type 2 DM have a longer life-expectancy than patients with type-1 DM and overall Diabetics life expectancy equals that of the non-diabetic population, which could

As part of the HTx (Next Generation Health Technology Assessment) project, this study was aimed at identifying the main barriers for application of real-world evidence (RWE) for the purposes of health technology assessment (HTA) in the Central and Eastern European countries. A mixed methods approach was employed to identify the main barriers: a scoping review of the literature and a series of discussions with stakeholders. Based on the applied approaches, we attempted to summarize the main barriers and challenges related to transferability of RWE in five main groups: technical, regulatory, clinical, scientific and perceptional barriers. Further research should pursue the development of detailed, consensus-based guidelines to improve the harmonization and standardization of RWE.

Patients' perspectives are important to identify preferences, estimate values and appreciate unmet medical needs in the process of research and development and subsequent assessment of new health technologies. Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is essential in understanding and assessing wider implications of coverage and reimbursement decisions for patients, their relatives, caregivers, and the general population. There are two approaches to incorporating the patients' voice in HTA, preferably used in a mix. In the first one, patients, caregivers and/or their representatives directly participate at discussions in different stages of the HTA process, often at the same table with other stakeholders. Secondly, patient involvement activities can be supported by evidence on patient value and experience collected directly from patients, caregivers and/or their representatives often by patient groups Patient involvement practices, however, are limited in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries without clear methodology or regulatory mechanisms to guide patient involvement in the HTA process. This poses the question of transferability of practices used in other countries, and might call for the development of new CEE-specific guidelines and methods. In this study we aim to map potential barriers of patient involvement in HTA in countries of the CEE region.

IntroductionDiabetes monitoring systems (DMS) are a possible approach for regular control of glucose levels in patients with Type 1 or 2 diabetes in order to improve therapeutic outcomes or to identify and modify inappropriate patient behaviors in a timely manner. Despite the significant number of studies observing the DMS, no collective evidence is available about the effect of all devices.GoalTo review and consolidate evidences from multiple systematic reviews on the diabetes monitoring systems and the outcomes achieved.Materials and methodsInternet-based search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane was performed to identify all studies relevant to the research question. The data regarding type of intervention, type of diabetes mellitus, type of study, change in clinical parameter(s), or another relevant outcome were extracted and summarized.ResultsThirty-three out of 1,495 initially identified studies, involving more than 44,100 patients with Type 1, Type 2, or gestational diabetes for real-time or retrospective Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGMS), Sensor Augmented Pump Therapy (SAPT), Self-monitoring Blood Glucose (SMBG), Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), Flash Glucose Monitoring (FGM), Closed-loop systems and telemonitoring, were included. Most of the studies observed small nominal effectiveness of DMS. In total 11 systematic reviews and 15 meta-analyses, with most focusing on patients with Type 1 diabetes (10 and 6, respectively), reported a reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels from 0.17 to 0.70% after use of DMS.ConclusionCurrent systematic review of already published systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggests that no statistically significant difference exists between the values of HbA1c as a result of application of any type of DMS. The changes in HbA1c values, number and frequency of hypoglycemic episodes, and time in glucose range are the most valuable for assessing the appropriateness and effectiveness of DMS. Future more comprehensive studies assessing the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness of DMS are needed to stratify them for the most suitable diabetes patients’ subgroups.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of the introduction of biosimilars in Bulgaria on the prices and utilization of biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD). It is a combined qualitative and quantitative analysis of time of entry of biosimilars on the national market and the respective changes in the prices and utilization during 2015–2020. We found 58 biosimilars for 16 reference products authorized for sale on the European market by the end of 2019, but for 2 of the reference products biosimilars were not found on the national market. Only inflammatory joint disease had more than one biosimilar molecule indicated for therapy. Prices of the observed bDMARD decreased by 17% down to 48%. We noted significant price decreases upon biosimilar entrance onto the market. In total, the reimbursed expenditures for the whole therapeutic group steadily increased from 72 to 99 million BGN. Utilization changed from to 0.5868 to 2.7215 defined daily dose (DDD)/1000inh/day. Our study shows that the entrance of biosimilars in the country is relatively slow because only half of the biosimilars authorized in Europe are reimbursed nationally. Introduction of biosimilars decreases the prices and changes the utilization significantly but other factors might also contribute to this.