英国早期获得药物计划:吸收、批准和报销。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Christopher Felix Brewer
{"title":"英国早期获得药物计划:吸收、批准和报销。","authors":"Christopher Felix Brewer","doi":"10.1017/S0266462325100421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The UK Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS), launched in 2014, enables pre-license access to medicines for areas of high unmet medical need. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of the scheme by analyzing subsequent marketing authorization (MA), health technology assessment (HTA), and commissioning decisions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis of all completed EAMS programs from 2014 to April 2025, reviewing MA, HTA, and commissioning outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-one EAMS programs were completed, over half in oncology. Median times from Scientific Opinion (SO) to MA, and reimbursement outcomes in England and Scotland were 4.3 (Q1: 2.6 and Q3: 7.3), 14.5 (Q1: 9.4 and Q3: 20.9), and 15.0 months (Q1: 11.4 and Q3: 18.1), respectively. Of 48 products appraised by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) or National Health Service (NHS) England, 50 percent received positive recommendations, 44 percent were optimized, and 6 percent were rejected. Of 45 products appraised by the Scottish Medicines Consortium or NHS Scotland, 73 percent were positive, 18 percent optimized, and 9 percent rejected. EAMS was qualitatively referenced in 48 percent of NICE appraisals and quantitatively in 18 percent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to non-EAMS products, those entering the scheme achieve faster MA and HTA timelines and higher regulatory success. However, EAMS is referenced quantitatively in less than a fifth of NICE appraisals, and fewer than half of Promising Innovative Medicine designations progress to a full SO. Administrative burdens, data demands, and liability concerns may limit uptake; addressing these barriers could enhance the scheme's impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":"e62"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12390741/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The UK early access to medicines scheme: uptake, approvals, and reimbursement.\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Felix Brewer\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0266462325100421\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The UK Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS), launched in 2014, enables pre-license access to medicines for areas of high unmet medical need. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of the scheme by analyzing subsequent marketing authorization (MA), health technology assessment (HTA), and commissioning decisions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis of all completed EAMS programs from 2014 to April 2025, reviewing MA, HTA, and commissioning outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-one EAMS programs were completed, over half in oncology. Median times from Scientific Opinion (SO) to MA, and reimbursement outcomes in England and Scotland were 4.3 (Q1: 2.6 and Q3: 7.3), 14.5 (Q1: 9.4 and Q3: 20.9), and 15.0 months (Q1: 11.4 and Q3: 18.1), respectively. Of 48 products appraised by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) or National Health Service (NHS) England, 50 percent received positive recommendations, 44 percent were optimized, and 6 percent were rejected. Of 45 products appraised by the Scottish Medicines Consortium or NHS Scotland, 73 percent were positive, 18 percent optimized, and 9 percent rejected. EAMS was qualitatively referenced in 48 percent of NICE appraisals and quantitatively in 18 percent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to non-EAMS products, those entering the scheme achieve faster MA and HTA timelines and higher regulatory success. However, EAMS is referenced quantitatively in less than a fifth of NICE appraisals, and fewer than half of Promising Innovative Medicine designations progress to a full SO. Administrative burdens, data demands, and liability concerns may limit uptake; addressing these barriers could enhance the scheme's impact.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e62\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12390741/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462325100421\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462325100421","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:2014年启动的联合王国早期获得药物计划(EAMS)使未满足医疗需求高的地区能够在许可前获得药物。本研究旨在通过分析后续上市许可(MA)、卫生技术评估(HTA)和委托决策来评估该方案的结果。方法:我们对2014年至2025年4月完成的所有EAMS项目进行了回顾性分析,回顾了MA、HTA和调试结果。结果:完成了51个EAMS项目,超过一半是肿瘤学项目。在英格兰和苏格兰,从科学意见(SO)到MA和报销结果的中位数时间分别为4.3个月(第一季度:2.6和第三季度:7.3)、14.5个月(第一季度:9.4和第三季度:20.9)和15.0个月(第一季度:11.4和第三季度:18.1)。在英国国家健康与护理卓越研究所(NICE)或英国国民健康服务体系(NHS)评估的48种产品中,50%得到了积极的推荐,44%得到了优化,6%被拒绝。在苏格兰医药协会或苏格兰国家医疗服务体系评估的45种产品中,73%是积极的,18%是优化的,9%是拒绝的。EAMS在48%的NICE评估中被定性引用,在18%的评估中被定量引用。结论:与非eams产品相比,进入该方案的产品实现了更快的MA和HTA时间表和更高的监管成功率。然而,EAMS在不到五分之一的NICE评估中被定量引用,不到一半的有前途的创新药物指定进展到完全SO。行政负担、数据需求和责任问题可能会限制采用;解决这些障碍可以增强该计划的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The UK early access to medicines scheme: uptake, approvals, and reimbursement.

The UK early access to medicines scheme: uptake, approvals, and reimbursement.

The UK early access to medicines scheme: uptake, approvals, and reimbursement.

The UK early access to medicines scheme: uptake, approvals, and reimbursement.

Objectives: The UK Early Access to Medicines Scheme (EAMS), launched in 2014, enables pre-license access to medicines for areas of high unmet medical need. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of the scheme by analyzing subsequent marketing authorization (MA), health technology assessment (HTA), and commissioning decisions.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all completed EAMS programs from 2014 to April 2025, reviewing MA, HTA, and commissioning outcomes.

Results: Fifty-one EAMS programs were completed, over half in oncology. Median times from Scientific Opinion (SO) to MA, and reimbursement outcomes in England and Scotland were 4.3 (Q1: 2.6 and Q3: 7.3), 14.5 (Q1: 9.4 and Q3: 20.9), and 15.0 months (Q1: 11.4 and Q3: 18.1), respectively. Of 48 products appraised by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) or National Health Service (NHS) England, 50 percent received positive recommendations, 44 percent were optimized, and 6 percent were rejected. Of 45 products appraised by the Scottish Medicines Consortium or NHS Scotland, 73 percent were positive, 18 percent optimized, and 9 percent rejected. EAMS was qualitatively referenced in 48 percent of NICE appraisals and quantitatively in 18 percent.

Conclusions: Compared to non-EAMS products, those entering the scheme achieve faster MA and HTA timelines and higher regulatory success. However, EAMS is referenced quantitatively in less than a fifth of NICE appraisals, and fewer than half of Promising Innovative Medicine designations progress to a full SO. Administrative burdens, data demands, and liability concerns may limit uptake; addressing these barriers could enhance the scheme's impact.

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
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
15.60%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信