Ludmila Gargano, Isabela Freitas, Luila Henriques, Ariane André, Juliana Álvares-Teodoro, Francisco Acurcio, Augusto Guerra
{"title":"PP128 在上市授权时评估医疗技术创新性的透明方法","authors":"Ludmila Gargano, Isabela Freitas, Luila Henriques, Ariane André, Juliana Álvares-Teodoro, Francisco Acurcio, Augusto Guerra","doi":"10.1017/s0266462323002404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span>Introduction</span><p>Defining drug innovation can be challenging and there is no consensus on what a truly “innovative” medicine is. The Italian Medicine Agency (AIFA) has established an approach to assess innovativeness based on therapeutic need, added therapeutic value, and quality of evidence. However, judgment can be subjective and may not be adequate for assessment at the time of marketing authorization, when only preliminary evidence – often from non-comparative or non-randomized trials – are available. We developed a transparent methodology for early assessment of innovativeness at the time of marketing authorization, based on AIFA guidelines.</p><span>Methods</span><p>Since the perspective was the marketing authorization date, only data available at agency’s Medical Review or pivotal trial publications were considered. AIFA criteria were revisited, using oncology medicines approved in the last 10 years as a base case. Impact of preliminary evidence and inadequate study design was considered.</p><span>Results</span><p>Each assessment should refer to the first approved specific indication and predefined clinically relevant outcomes. When more than one study was presented, best methodological quality, larger sample and/or longer follow-up was selected. Four domains were established: Therapeutical need: existence and clinical benefits of alternative therapies; Clinical benefit added when compared to those alternatives; Suitability of study design considering adequate comparator group, relevant outcome assessed and randomization; Risk of bias. For each domain, clear and specific criteria were defined in consensus by a group of experts in health technology assessment (HTA) and were applied to all cancer drugs evaluated.</p><span>Conclusions</span><p>Efficacy evidence available for marketing authorization are often based on preliminary data, arising from single randomized clinical trials or even non-comparative studies, which difficult early assessments of innovativeness. For this reason, transparent and reproducible methodologies can be useful not only to HTA bodies, but also for other key stakeholders in the pharmaceutical market, such as investors, researchers, doctors, and governments.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PP128 A Transparent Methodology To Assess Innovativeness Of Health Technologies At Marketing Authorization Time\",\"authors\":\"Ludmila Gargano, Isabela Freitas, Luila Henriques, Ariane André, Juliana Álvares-Teodoro, Francisco Acurcio, Augusto Guerra\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0266462323002404\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span>Introduction</span><p>Defining drug innovation can be challenging and there is no consensus on what a truly “innovative” medicine is. The Italian Medicine Agency (AIFA) has established an approach to assess innovativeness based on therapeutic need, added therapeutic value, and quality of evidence. However, judgment can be subjective and may not be adequate for assessment at the time of marketing authorization, when only preliminary evidence – often from non-comparative or non-randomized trials – are available. We developed a transparent methodology for early assessment of innovativeness at the time of marketing authorization, based on AIFA guidelines.</p><span>Methods</span><p>Since the perspective was the marketing authorization date, only data available at agency’s Medical Review or pivotal trial publications were considered. AIFA criteria were revisited, using oncology medicines approved in the last 10 years as a base case. Impact of preliminary evidence and inadequate study design was considered.</p><span>Results</span><p>Each assessment should refer to the first approved specific indication and predefined clinically relevant outcomes. When more than one study was presented, best methodological quality, larger sample and/or longer follow-up was selected. Four domains were established: Therapeutical need: existence and clinical benefits of alternative therapies; Clinical benefit added when compared to those alternatives; Suitability of study design considering adequate comparator group, relevant outcome assessed and randomization; Risk of bias. For each domain, clear and specific criteria were defined in consensus by a group of experts in health technology assessment (HTA) and were applied to all cancer drugs evaluated.</p><span>Conclusions</span><p>Efficacy evidence available for marketing authorization are often based on preliminary data, arising from single randomized clinical trials or even non-comparative studies, which difficult early assessments of innovativeness. For this reason, transparent and reproducible methodologies can be useful not only to HTA bodies, but also for other key stakeholders in the pharmaceutical market, such as investors, researchers, doctors, and governments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462323002404\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462323002404","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
PP128 A Transparent Methodology To Assess Innovativeness Of Health Technologies At Marketing Authorization Time
Introduction
Defining drug innovation can be challenging and there is no consensus on what a truly “innovative” medicine is. The Italian Medicine Agency (AIFA) has established an approach to assess innovativeness based on therapeutic need, added therapeutic value, and quality of evidence. However, judgment can be subjective and may not be adequate for assessment at the time of marketing authorization, when only preliminary evidence – often from non-comparative or non-randomized trials – are available. We developed a transparent methodology for early assessment of innovativeness at the time of marketing authorization, based on AIFA guidelines.
Methods
Since the perspective was the marketing authorization date, only data available at agency’s Medical Review or pivotal trial publications were considered. AIFA criteria were revisited, using oncology medicines approved in the last 10 years as a base case. Impact of preliminary evidence and inadequate study design was considered.
Results
Each assessment should refer to the first approved specific indication and predefined clinically relevant outcomes. When more than one study was presented, best methodological quality, larger sample and/or longer follow-up was selected. Four domains were established: Therapeutical need: existence and clinical benefits of alternative therapies; Clinical benefit added when compared to those alternatives; Suitability of study design considering adequate comparator group, relevant outcome assessed and randomization; Risk of bias. For each domain, clear and specific criteria were defined in consensus by a group of experts in health technology assessment (HTA) and were applied to all cancer drugs evaluated.
Conclusions
Efficacy evidence available for marketing authorization are often based on preliminary data, arising from single randomized clinical trials or even non-comparative studies, which difficult early assessments of innovativeness. For this reason, transparent and reproducible methodologies can be useful not only to HTA bodies, but also for other key stakeholders in the pharmaceutical market, such as investors, researchers, doctors, and governments.