Skip to main content
×
×
Home

DEFINING INNOVATION WITH RESPECT TO NEW MEDICINES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW FROM A PAYER PERSPECTIVE

  • Oriol de Solà-Morales (a1), David Cunningham (a2), Mathias Flume (a3), Paul M. Overton (a4), Natalie Shalet (a5) and Stefano Capri (a6)...
Abstract
Objectives:

The aim of this study was to investigate how innovation is defined with respect to new medicines.

Methods:

MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit databases were searched for articles published between January 1, 2010 and May 25, 2016 that described a relevant definition of innovation. Identified definitions were analyzed by mapping the concepts described onto a set of ten dimensions of innovation.

Results:

In total, thirty-six articles were included, and described a total of twenty-five different definitions of innovation. The most commonly occurring dimension was therapeutic benefit, with novelty and the availability of existing treatments the second and third most common dimensions. Overall, there was little agreement in the published literature on what characteristics of new medicines constitute rewardable innovation.

Conclusions:

Alignment across countries and among regulators, health technology assessment bodies and payers would help manufacturers define research policies that can drive innovation, but may be challenging, as judgements about what aspects of innovation should be rewarded vary among stakeholders, and depend on political and societal factors.

Copyright
References
Hide All
1.London School of Economics. Tender loving care? Purchasing medicines for continuing therapeutic improvement and better health outcomes. 2016. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67824/ (accessed November 16, 2016).
2.Schnipper, LE, Bastian, A. New frameworks to assess value of cancer care: Strengths and limitations. Oncologist. 2016;21:654658.
3.Schnipper, LE, Davidson, NE, Wollins, DS, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: A conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:25632577.
4.Cherny, NI, Sullivan, R, Dafni, U, et al. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: The European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol. 2015;26:15471573.
5.Cox, C, Kamal, R, Jankiewicz, A, et al. Recent trends in prescription drug costs. JAMA. 2016;315:1326.
6.Penington, R, Stubbings, JA. Evaluation of specialty drug price trends using data from retrospective pharmacy sales transactions. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016;22:10101017.
7.Aronson, JK, Ferner, RE, Hughes, DA. Defining rewardable innovation in drug therapy. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11:253255.
8.Claxton, K, Martin, S, Soares, M, et al. Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19:1503.
9.McCabe, C, Bergmann, L, Bosanquet, N, et al. Market and patient access to new oncology products in Europe: A current, multidisciplinary perspective. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:403412.
10.Buxton, MJ, Chambers, JD. What values do the public want their health care systems to use in evaluating technologies? Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12:285288.
11.Kesselheim, AS, Wang, B, Avorn, J. Defining innovativeness in drug development: A systematic review. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;94:336348.
12.Andria, B, Auriemma, L, Attanasio, C, et al. The impact of innovation for biotech drugs: An Italian analysis of products licensed in Europe between 2004 and 2011. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2013;20:328335.
13.Mol, PGM, Arnardottir, AH, Motola, D, et al. Post-approval safety issues with innovative drugs: A European cohort study. Drug Safety. 2013;36:11051115.
14.Motola, D, De Ponti, F, Rossi, P, et al. Therapeutic innovation in the European Union: Analysis of the drugs approved by the EMEA between 1995 and 2003. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;59:475478.
15.Motola, D, De Ponti, F, Poluzzi, E, et al. An update on the first decade of the European centralized procedure: How many innovative drugs? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;62:610616.
16.Bryan, S, Lee, H, Mitton, C. ‘Innovation’ in health care coverage decisions: All talk and no substance? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18:5760.
17.Green, C. Considering the value associated with innovation in health technology appraisal decisions (deliberations): A NICE thing to do? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8:15.
18.Ferner, RE, Hughes, DA, Aronson, JK. NICE and new: Appraising innovation. BMJ. 2010;340:b5493.
19.Linley, WG, Hughes, DA. Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: A cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ. 2013;22:948964.
20.Rawlins, M, Barnett, D, Stevens, A. Pharmacoeconomics: NICE's approach to decision-making. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;70:346349.
21.Heible, C. Pharmacologic-technical progress and the economics of growth. Pharm Policy Law. 2013;15:103125.
22.Sorescu, AB, Chandy, RK, Prabhu, JC. Sources and financial consequences of radical innovation: Insights from pharmaceuticals. J Mark. 2003;67:82102.
23.Sternitzke, C. Knowledge sources, patent protection, and commercialization of pharmaceutical innovations. Res Policy. 2010;39:810821.
24.Adami, S, Ciampalini, S, Dell'Aera, M, et al. Defining innovations of therapeutic interventions: A position paper by the Italian Society of Hospital Pharmacists. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34:259262.
25.Alexander, GC, O'Connor, AB, Stafford, RS. Enhancing prescription drug innovation and adoption. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:833837.
26.Barbui, C, Cipriani, A, Lintas, C, et al. CNS drugs approved by the centralised European procedure: True innovation or dangerous stagnation? Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2007;190:265268.
27.Caprino, L, Russo, P. Developing a paradigm of drug innovation: An evaluation algorithm. Drug Discov Today. 2006;11:9991006.
28.Gonzalez, SS, Hofer, JM. FDA's “Breakthrough” drug therapy designation: A real regulatory breakthrough for innovations? Part 1. Pharm Ind. 2015;77:801808.
29.Gridchyna, I, Aulois-Griot, M, Maurain, C, Bégaud, B. How innovative are pharmaceutical innovations? The case of medicines financed through add-on payments outside of the French DRG-based hospital payment system. Health Policy. 2012;104:69–75.
30.Erice statement on drug innovation. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;65:440441.
31.Joppi, R, Bertele, V, Garattini, S. Disappointing biotech. BMJ. 2005;331:895897.
32.Kwong, WJ, Norton, EC. The effect of advertising on pharmaceutical innovation. Rev Ind Organ. 2007;31:221236.
33.Lexchin, J. International comparison of assessments of pharmaceutical innovation. Health Policy. 2012;105:221225.
34.Morgan, S, Lopert, R, Greyson, D. Toward a definition of pharmaceutical innovation. Open Med. 2008;2:e4-e7.
35.O'Connor, DJ, McDonald, K, Lam, SP. A regulator's guide to the UK early access to medicines scheme. Regul Rapp. 2016;13:1013.
36.Petrini, C. Innovative therapies: General aspects and ethical criteria for evaluating protocols. Clin Ter. 2013;164:e53-e61.
37.Puntmann, I, Schmacke, N, Melander, A, et al. EVITA: A tool for the early evaluation of pharmaceutical innovations with regard to therapeutic advantage. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2010;10:5.
38.Raymond, AS. EMA initiatives for innovation. Pharm Policy Law. 2010;12:1518.
39.Salter, B, Zhou, Y, Datta, S. Hegemony in the marketplace of biomedical innovation: Consumer demand and stem cell science. Soc Sci Med. 2015;131:156163.
40.Soleimani, F, Zenios, S. Disrupting incrementalism in health care innovation. Ann Surg. 2011;254:203208.
41.Wardell, WM, DiRaddo, J. The measurement of pharmaceutical innovation. J Clin Pharmacol. 1980;20:19.
42.Nelson, AL, Cohen, JT, Greenberg, D, Kent, DM. Much cheaper, almost as good: Decrementally cost-effective medical innovation. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:662667.
43.Cadranel, J, Créquit, P, Vieira, T, et al. How to provide an equal access to innovative therapies? Rev Mal Respir Actualites. 2015;7:462475.
44.Gonçalves, A, Maraninchi, D, Marino, P. Anticancer drugs: Which prices for therapeutic innovations? Bull Cancer. 2016;103:361367.
45.Autret-Leca, E. Most innovative drugs labelled during the last years in paediatrics: Does the paediatrician have the tools for their identification? Arch Pediatr. 2010;17:12371242.
46.Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Criteria for ranking therapeutic innovation of new drugs. 2007. http://www.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/allegati/integral_document.pdf (accessed August 19, 2016).
47.National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781 (accessed August 19 2016).
48.National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Single technology appraisal: User guide for company evidence submission template. 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg24/resources/single-technology-appraisal-user-guide-for-company-evidence-submission-template-pdf-72286715419333 (accessed August 19, 2016).
49.Haute Autorité de Santé. Methods for health economic evaluation. 2012. http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_2035665/en/methods-for-health-economic-evaluation (accessed August 19, 2016).
50.Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket. Health Economics evaluations of medical devices 2015. http://www.tlv.se/Upload/Medicinteknik/Slutrapport_medicinteknik_151221.pdf (accessed August 19, 2016).
51.Scottish Medicines Consortium. What we do now and how could we accommodate innovation concepts? 2012. https://www.ispor.org/congresses/Berlin1112/presentations/Ailsa-Brown-Galbraith-Wight.pdf (accessed August 19, 2016).
54.Berwick, DM. Disseminating innovations in health care. JAMA. 2003;289:19691975.
55.Schlander, M, Garattini, S, Kolominsky-Rabas, P, et al. Determining the value of medical technologies to treat ultra-rare disorders: A consensus statement. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2016. doi:10.3402/jmahp.v4.33039.
56.Toumi, M, Jadot, G. Economic impact of new active substance status on EU payers’ budgets: Example of dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera®) for multiple sclerosis. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2014. doi:10.3402/jmahp.v2.23932.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

de Solà-Morales et al. supplementary material
de Solà-Morales et al. supplementary material 1

 Word (37 KB)
37 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed