PP128 在上市授权时评估医疗技术创新性的透明方法

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

定义药物创新可能具有挑战性,对于什么是真正的“创新”药物没有共识。意大利药品管理局(AIFA)已经建立了一种基于治疗需求、附加治疗价值和证据质量来评估创新性的方法。然而,当只有初步证据(通常来自非比较或非随机试验)可用时,判断可能是主观的,并且可能不足以在上市许可时进行评估。我们开发了一种透明的方法,用于在上市许可时对创新性进行早期评估,基于AIFA指南。方法:由于视角是上市许可日期,因此仅考虑来自机构医学评论或关键试验出版物的数据。重新审视了AIFA标准,使用过去10年批准的肿瘤药物作为基本案例。考虑了初步证据的影响和不充分的研究设计。结果每次评估应参考首次批准的特定适应症和预先确定的临床相关结局。当有多于一项研究时,选择方法学质量最好、样本量较大和/或随访时间较长的研究。建立了四个领域:治疗需求:替代疗法的存在和临床益处;与这些替代方案相比,临床获益增加;考虑足够的比较组、相关结果评估和随机化的研究设计的适宜性;偏见风险。对于每个领域,卫生技术评估(HTA)专家组一致确定了明确和具体的标准,并适用于所有被评估的癌症药物。可用于上市许可的有效性证据往往基于初步数据,这些数据来自单个随机临床试验甚至非比较研究,这给早期评估创新性带来了困难。因此,透明和可重复的方法不仅对卫生保健协会机构有用,而且对制药市场中的其他关键利益攸关方(如投资者、研究人员、医生和政府)也有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信