32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Since the introduction of the German health care reform in January 2011, an early benefit assessment (EBA) is required for all new medicines. Pharmaceutical manufacturers have to submit a benefit dossier for evaluation by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). A final decision is made by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). The aim of this investigation was to analyse the outcomes 18 months after introduction of the new legislation and to identify critical areas requiring further discussion and development.

          Methods

          All EBAs commenced prior to June 2012 were included. The G-BA website was used to obtain manufacturers’ benefit dossiers, IQWiG assessments, and G-BA decisions. Four areas of interest were analysed: levels of additional benefit, appropriate comparative therapy (ACT), patient-relevant endpoints, and adverse events.

          Results

          Twenty-seven EBAs were analysed. IQWiG stated a benefit in 50 % of EBAs, whereas G-BA stated a benefit in 63 %, but only in 50 % of identified subgroups and 40 % of patients involved. In 12 EBAs, the ACT suggested by G-BA differed from the comparator used in phase III trials. The G-BA reported no benefits on health-related quality of life. Discrepancies arose in morbidity outcomes such as ‘progression-free survival’ and ‘sustained virological response’. Categorisation and balancing of adverse events was conducted within various assessments.

          Conclusions

          Considerable variance was observed in the levels of additional benefit reported by pharmaceutical manufacturers, IQWiG and G-BA. The areas of disagreement included ACT selection, definition of subgroups and patient-relevant endpoints, and classification and balancing of adverse events.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          An update on the first decade of the European centralized procedure: how many innovative drugs?

          In a previous paper, we proposed an algorithm to assess the degree of therapeutic innovation of the agents approved by the European centralized procedure, which must be followed by biotechnological products and is optional for drugs claimed as innovative. A low overall degree of therapeutic innovation (about 30%) was found. This figure may be an underestimate of the actual level of innovation, because common biotechnological products, such as recombinant human insulins, must follow this procedure. To test the hypothesis that therapeutic innovation prevails among nonbiotechnological products, we evaluated separately the degree of therapeutic innovation of biotechnological vs. nonbiotechnological agents in the first decade of European Medicines Agency activity, also studying a possible time trend. We assessed, for each drug: (i) the seriousness of the target disease, (ii) the availability of previous treatments, and (iii) the extent of therapeutic effect according to the previously proposed algorithm. Our analysis considered 251 medicinal products corresponding to 198 active substances, classified according to four main areas as therapeutic agents (88.9%), diagnostics (5.5%), vaccines (5.1%) and life-style drugs (0.5%). Among all therapeutic agents, 49 out of 176 agents (28%) were classified as having an important degree of therapeutic innovation. Fifteen out of 60 biotechnological therapeutic agents were considered important therapeutic innovations (25%), whereas this figure was 29% for nonbiotechnological agents. Among active substances claimed as innovative by the manufacturers, only a minority deserve this definition according to our algorithm.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            New drugs: evidence relating to their therapeutic value after introduction to the market.

            Drug approval is based on three criteria: quality, efficacy, and safety. We investigated the types of study design and statistical methods employed to demonstrate safety and efficacy of proprietary medicinal products (PMPs) that were approved for use in the European Union through the centralized procedure.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Arzneimittel-Nutzenbewertungsverordnung (AM-NutzenV)

              (2010)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +49-7624-143166 , +49-7624-143208 , joerg.ruof@roche.com
                Journal
                Eur J Health Econ
                Eur J Health Econ
                The European Journal of Health Economics
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                1618-7598
                1618-7601
                16 June 2013
                16 June 2013
                2014
                : 15
                : 577-589
                Affiliations
                [ ]Roche Pharma AG, Emil-Barrell-Str. 1, 79639 Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany
                [ ]Medical School of Hanover, Hanover, Germany
                [ ]Leibniz University of Hanover, Hanover, Germany
                [ ]German Association of Research-based Pharmaceutical Companies (vfa), Berlin, Germany
                [ ]Department of Public Health, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany
                Article
                495
                10.1007/s10198-013-0495-y
                4059963
                23771769
                466cb857-2bfc-44ed-b547-102a3be1f172
                © The Author(s) 2013

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

                History
                : 24 October 2012
                : 28 May 2013
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

                Economics of health & social care
                health care reform,(early) benefit assessment,appropriate comparative therapy,market access,amnog,i10,i11,i18

                Comments

                Comment on this article