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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.