Introduction: There is continued unmet medical need for new medicines across countries especially for cancer, immunological diseases, and orphan diseases. However, there are growing challenges with funding new medicines at ever increasing prices along with funding increased medicine volumes with the growth in both infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases across countries. This has resulted in the development of new models to better manage the entry of new medicines, new financial models being postulated to finance new medicines as well as strategies to improve prescribing efficiency. However, more needs to be done. Consequently, the primary aim of this paper is to consider potential ways to optimize the use of new medicines balancing rising costs with increasing budgetary pressures to stimulate debate especially from a payer perspective.Methods: A narrative review of pharmaceutical policies and implications, as well as possible developments, based on key publications and initiatives known to the co-authors principally from a health authority perspective.Results: A number of initiatives and approaches have been identified including new models to better manage the entry of new medicines based on three pillars (pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities). Within this, we see the growing role of horizon scanning activities starting up to 36 months before launch, managed entry agreements and post launch follow-up. It is also likely there will be greater scrutiny over the effectiveness and value of new cancer medicines given ever increasing prices. This could include establishing minimum effectiveness targets for premium pricing along with re-evaluating prices as more medicines for cancer lose their patent. There will also be a greater involvement of patients especially with orphan diseases. New initiatives could include a greater role of multicriteria decision analysis, as well as looking at the potential for de-linking research and development from commercial activities to enhance affordability.Conclusion: There are a number of ongoing activities across countries to try and fund new valued medicines whilst attaining or maintaining universal healthcare. Such activities will grow with increasing resource pressures and continued unmet need.

The successful models in Scotland and in Stockholm as well as the ongoing work in Catalonia were considered as examples of multifaceted approaches to improve the quality of medicine use across primary and hospital care.

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems. Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines. Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

BackgroundPreeclampsia is associated with an increased risk of hypertension later in life. The regulator of G protein signaling 2 negatively regulates several vasoconstrictors. We recently demonstrated an association between preeclampsia and the CG or GG genotype of the C1114G polymorphism (rs4606) of the regulator of G protein signaling 2 gene. Here, we examined the polymorphism with respect to the development of hypertension after pregnancy.MethodsWe genotyped 934 women on average 15.1 years after preeclampsia and 2011 age matched women with previous normotensive pregnancy. All women in this study were retrospectively recruited from the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT2). Information from HUNT2 was linked to the Medical Birth Registry of Norway to identify women with a history of preeclampsia and women without a history of preeclampsia.ResultsNo significant association was found between hypertension (blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg and/or taking antihypertensive drugs) and the polymorphism in crude analysis (OR (95% CI): CG genotype: 1.07 (0.90-1.27); GG genotype: 1.23 (0.90-1.67)). However, in a minimally adjusted model (age and BMI adjusted), a significant association between the GG genotype and hypertension was found (OR (95% CI): 1.49 (1.05-2.11)). This association remained significant also after adjustment for a history of preeclampsia (OR (95% CI): 1.46 (1.02-2.09)), but not in a model adjusted for multiple other variables (OR (95% CI): 1.26 (0.82-1.94)). In multivariate, but not in crude, analysis, the GG genotype of rs4606 (OR (95% CI): 1.93 (1.05-3.53)) was significantly and independently associated with severe hypertension later in life, defined as systolic blood pressure ≥160 mmHg (stage 2 hypertension) and/or taking antihypertensive drugs. A significant association was also found for the merged CG and GG genotypes (OR (95% CI): 1.43 (1.02-2.00)). Moreover, an interaction with physical activity was found. A history of preeclampsia was a significant and independent predictor of either definition of hypertension, both in crude and adjusted analyses.ConclusionWomen carrying the rs4606 CG or GG genotype are at elevated risk for developing hypertension after delivery. Physical activity may interact with the association. Preeclampsia remains an independent risk factor for subsequent hypertension after adjusting for this polymorphism and classical CVD risk factors.

Preeclampsia is a pregnancy specific disorder and a risk factor for later cardiovascular disease. The cause and detailed pathophysiology remains unknown. G protein signaling is involved in a variety of physiological processes, including blood pressure regulation. We assessed whether distributions of 3 single nucleotide polymorphisms in genes coding for components of G protein signaling pathways that have been associated with hypertension differ between women with preeclampsia and normotensive pregnant women; the G protein β3 subunit gene ( GNB3 ) C825T polymorphism (rs5443), the angiotensin II type 1 receptor gene ( AGTR1 ) 3′UTR A1166C polymorphism (rs5186), and the regulator of G protein signaling 2 gene ( RGS2 ) 3′UTR C1114G polymorphism (rs4606). Two separate Norwegian study populations were used; a large population based study and a smaller, but clinically well-described pregnancy biobank. A descriptive study of 43 women with eclampsia was additionally included. In the population-based study, an increased odds of preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.21; [95% confidence interval, 1.05–1.40]; P =0.009) and recurrent preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.43; [95% confidence interval, 1.06–1.92];, P =0.017) was found in women carrying the rs4606 CG or GG genotype. In early-onset preeclamptic patients with decidual spiral artery biopsies available (n=24), the rs4606 CG or GG genotype was more frequent in those with acute atherosis (resembling early stage of atherosclerosis) compared with those without: odds ratio, 15.0; (95% confidence interval, 2.02–111.2); P =0.004. No association was found between preeclampsia and the rs5443 or the rs5186. The genotype distribution in eclamptic women was not different from preeclamptic women. In conclusion, RGS2 rs4606 may affect the risk and progression of preeclampsia.