hereby declare that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis.

IntroductionAustralia and Canada have parallel submission processes that allow companies to submit their dossier to the respective Health-Technology-Assessment (HTA) body before the market authorization is issued, aiming to provide timelier access to drugs. The objective of this study is to investigate the associations of parallel submissions with the rollout times and HTA recommendations of new active substances (NASs).MethodsPublic data from 208 HTA appraisals were collected from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) from Australia and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) for NASs obtaining regulatory approval between 2012 and 2020. We implemented multivariable logistic and linear regression models allowing for type of submission (parallel or sequential) and jurisdiction (Australia and Canada) to examine associations with first HTA recommendation (positive and positive with restrictions vs negative) and rollout time (regulatory submission to HTA recommendation), respectively.ResultsA total of 121 appraisals followed a parallel submission. The therapeutic products that most used a parallel submission were antineoplastic agents (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Code=L;47.11%). A similar proportion of chemical and biotechnological products followed parallel submissions.Multivariable linear regression showed that parallel submission presented 14-months decrease in rollout time when compared to sequential (p<0.001). Regarding jurisdictions, longer rollout times were seen for Canada when compared to Australia (β:4.0, p-value=0.024).Parallel submission showed no association with HTA recommendation. Canada had higher odds of receiving a positive recommendation (Odds Ratio:4.84, 95% confidence interval:2.63-9.18) when compared with Australia (p<0.001).ConclusionsAntineoplastic agents were the main products using parallel submissions. Appraisals following a parallel submission showed a considerably faster rollout time than those following the traditional sequential submission, illustrating the advantage of this approach for dossier submission. The submission type did not have an impact on the HTA recommendation, indicating that although quicker, the HTA decision was not affected. Canada has a more restrictive criteria regarding the timing of dossier submission compared to Australia, which may lead to disparities in their rollout time.

IntroductionThe orphan designation has been used by the European Medicines Agency to incentivize the development of drugs treating rare diseases with high-unmet medical needs by supporting their development process and economic returns. This study evaluated the impact of the regulatory orphan designation and other drug development-related factors on the rollout times and Health-Technology-Assessment (HTA) recommendations of new active substances (NASs).MethodsA total of 656 HTA appraisals from 6 European countries were collected for NASs that received regulatory approval between 2012 and 2020. Multivariable logistic (positive and positive with restrictions vs. negative HTA recommendation as dependent variable) and linear regression (rollout time as dependent variable) models examined associations with regulatory orphan designation, expedited process, product type (biotechnological vs chemical), and jurisdiction (France, England, Germany, Poland, Scotland and Sweden). Rollout time was defined as months elapsed from regulatory submission to HTA recommendation (mean± standard deviation).ResultsMultivariable logistic regression analysis identified disparities in HTA recommendations between countries. Every month increase in rollout time conferred a 3 percent reduction in the odds of a positive recommendation (p<0.001). Review and product type did not show associations with HTA recommendation. Interestingly, orphan products showed a 99% increase in the odds of obtaining a positive HTA recommendation compared to non-orphan (p-value=0.003). We found 244 appraisals (37%) assessing an orphan product, of which 202 (83%) received a positive HTA recommendation.Multivariable linear regression analysis indicated that orphan products presented a 4.4-month rise in rollout time when compared to non-orphan products (p<0.001). The mean rollout time in months for orphan products were 25±12 in France, 30±15 in England, 21±9.1 in Germany, 37±16 in Poland, 25±12 in Scotland and 27±14 in Sweden.ConclusionsOrphan designated products showed greater odds of receiving a positive HTA recommendation compared with non-orphan. A more detailed review of orphan products could result in their longer rollout time compared with non-orphan counterparts. Considerable differences were found between HTA recommendations and rollout times between jurisdictions.

Conventional drug solubilisation strategies limit the understanding of the full potential of poorly water-soluble drugs during drug screening. Here, we propose a screening approach in which poorly water-soluble drugs are entrapped in poly (2-(methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine)-poly(2-(diisopropylaminoethyl methacryate) (PMPC-PDPA) polymersomes (POs) to enhance drug solubility and facilitate intracellular delivery. By using a human paediatric glioma cell model, we demonstrated that PMPC-PDPA POs mediated intracellular delivery of cytotoxic and epigenetic drugs by receptor-mediated endocytosis. Additionally, when delivered in combination, drug-loaded PMPC-PDPA POs triggered both an enhanced drug efficacy and synergy compared to that of a conventional combinatorial screening. Hence, our comprehensive synergy analysis illustrates that our screening methodology, in which PMPC-PDPA POs are used for intracellular co-delivery of drugs, allows us to identify potent synergistic profiles of anticancer drugs.