Early access programs for medicines: comparative analysis among France, Italy, Spain, and UK and focus on the Italian case.
Early access programs
France
Italy
Medicines
Off-label
Spain
UK
Journal
Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice
ISSN: 2052-3211
Titre abrégé: J Pharm Policy Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101627192
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 May 2023
17 May 2023
Historique:
received:
17
01
2023
accepted:
02
05
2023
medline:
18
5
2023
pubmed:
18
5
2023
entrez:
17
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Early access programs (EAPs) generally refer to patient access to medicines/indications before marketing authorization, possibly extended to price and reimbursement approval. These programs include compassionate use, which is usually covered by pharmaceutical companies, and EAPs reimbursed by third-party payers. This paper aims at comparing EAPs in four European countries (France, Italy, Spain, UK) and providing empirical evidence on EAPs in Italy. The comparative analysis was conducted through a literature review (including scientific and grey literature), complemented by 30-min semi-structured interviews with local experts. The Italian empirical analysis employed data available on the National Medicines Agency website. Although EAPs are very different across countries, they exhibit some common features: (i) eligibility criteria refer to the absence of valid therapeutic alternatives and a presumed favourable risk-benefit profile; (ii) payers do not allocate a pre-determined budget to these programs; (iii) total spending on EAPs is unknown. The French EAPs seem to be the most structured, financed through social insurance, covering pre-marketing, post-marketing and pre-reimbursement phases and providing for data collection. Italy's approach to EAPs has been varied, with several programs covered by different payers, including the cohort-based 648 List (for both early access and off-label use), the nominal-based 5% Fund, and Compassionate Use. Most applications to EAPs are from the Antineoplastic and immunomodulating drug class (ATC L). Some 62% of indications in the 648 List are either not under clinical development or have never been approved (pure off-label use). For those subsequently approved, most approved indications coincide with those covered through EAPs. Only the 5% Fund provides data on economic impact (€ 81.2 million in 2021; average cost per patient € 61.5K). Diverse EAPs are a possible source of inequalities in access to medicines across Europe. A harmonization of these programs, though difficult to achieve, could be modelled on the French EAPs and provide key advantages, not least of which a common effort to collect real-world data in parallel with clinical trials and clear separation between EAPs and off-label use programs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37198599
doi: 10.1186/s40545-023-00570-z
pii: 10.1186/s40545-023-00570-z
pmc: PMC10193685
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
67Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Trials. 2016 Jan 12;17:21
pubmed: 26758369
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Dec 4;21(1):1303
pubmed: 34863155
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011 Jul 01;10(7):495-506
pubmed: 21720406
BMJ. 2005 Sep 10;331(7516):572-4
pubmed: 16150772
Ann Oncol. 2016 Jan;27(1):96-105
pubmed: 26487583
Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Aug 15;17(16):5220-5
pubmed: 21844037
Perspect Clin Res. 2016 Jan-Mar;7(1):4-8
pubmed: 26955570
Recenti Prog Med. 2021 Nov;112(11):749-756
pubmed: 34782810
Cancer. 2021 Jul 1;127(13):2181-2183
pubmed: 33788953