Financing Pull Mechanisms for Antibiotic-Related Innovation: Opportunities for Europe

Årdal, Christine; Lacotte, Yohann; Ploy, Marie-Cécile

doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa153

Cited by 17 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The definitions of each financial model are provided in Table S6 in Online Resource 1. They conclude that a transferable exclusivity voucher is the only financing mechanism that could finance antibiotic innovation on its own, although it has an extremely high cost and with little guarantee of access, and for the remaining three financing models, it should be considered in combination [ 74 , 75 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Definitions and Incentives Adopted for Innovation for Pharmaceutical Products in Five High-Income Countries: A Systematic Literature Review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The concept of health care innovation varies across organizations and countries. Harmonizing the definitions of innovation can augment the discovery of new therapies, minimize costs, and streamline drug development and approval processes. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to gather insights surrounding different elements of innovation in the USA, the UK, France, Germany, and Japan. The SLR identified studies that have defined innovation and captured the types of incentives provided to promote innovation. Methods The MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit databases were searched via the OVID SP platform on October 22, 2020. A secondary desk search literature review was performed to identify additional information of interest in regional languages: French, German, and Japanese. All the relevant literature in English was screened using the Linguamatics natural language processing (NLP) tool, except for articles from EconLit, which were screened manually using structured search strategies. Articles that describe a definition of innovation or refer to a definition of innovation published were included. All full-text articles were reviewed manually, and two reviewers independently screened the full texts for eligibility. Results After screening, 90 articles were considered to meet the SLR objectives. The most common dimension of innovation identified was therapeutic benefit as a measure of innovation, followed by newness and novelty aspects of innovations. Incentives around exclusivities were found to be the most prevalent in the data set, followed by rewards and premiums. Among the different therapy areas, the largest number of innovations was targeted at oncology. Conclusions This SLR highlights the lack of a unified definition of innovation among regulatory authorities and health technology assessment bodies in five countries, and variation in the types of incentives associated with innovation. The targeted countries cover different dimensions of definition and incentives of innovation at varying levels, with a few focused on specific therapy areas. Harmonization and consensus for innovation would be needed across countries because drug development is a global undertaking. This SLR envisages a more holistic approach to evaluation, wherein the value provided to patients and health systems is accounted for. The results of this SLR will help to promote broader discussion among different stakeholders and decision makers across countries to identify gaps in policies and develop sustainable strategies to promote innovation for pharmaceutical products. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40290-022-00457-5.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Definitions and Incentives Adopted for Innovation for Pharmaceutical Products in Five High-Income Countries: A Systematic Literature Review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This will help investors, developers, regulators, health system payers and governments to prioritise their approach to AMR in general and will facilitate development of novel reimbursement mechanisms to incentivise the antibacterial pipeline. A recent European initiative with in-depth interviews with multi-country stakeholders [ 28 , 29 ] emphasised that countries broadly support the concept of pull incentives for antibacterials, but they are uncertain of how to value new antibacterials, and they are unclear about how to prioritise new antibacterials suitable for a ‘subscription’ or ‘pull incentive’ approach. There could also be other therapeutic areas where this approach is justifiable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the UK ‘Netflix’ Payment Model Boost the Antibacterial Pipeline?

Leonard

Crabb

Glover³

et al. 2023

Appl Health Econ Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The silent pandemic of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global issue needing prompt attention. A comprehensive one-health approach across human and animal health, agriculture and the environment is needed to solve this, addressing overuse of antibacterials, and of course, optimising measures for preventing and controlling infection. We also need a robust pipeline of new antibacterials. However, the current pipeline is inadequate and several companies with new antibacterials have gone bankrupt due to low sales, leading to a ‘broken market’. To address this, the UK has completed a project using novel approaches to value assessment and reimbursement for two antibacterials. The new funding arrangements for these products commenced on 1st July 2022, delinking reimbursement from volume of sales; a so-called ‘pull incentive’, with payments based on the added value to the whole-health and social-care system, not just to individual patients. This article describes how the project was devised, developed, and progressed. The learning from this work might help other countries to adopt or adapt the approach to fit with their national systems, and collectively achieve a global incentive to reinvigorate the antibacterial pipeline. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40258-022-00786-1.

show abstract

“…Push mechanisms provide direct or indirect upfront savings to reduce the costs of research and development and the barriers to entry, especially for SMEs ( Luepke et al, 2017 ; Renwick et al, 2016 ; Roope et al, 2019 ). Pull mechanisms reward successful products by increasing returns and/or reducing the uncertainty of returns on investment ( Luepke et al, 2017 ; Renwick et al, 2016 ; Roope et al, 2019 ; Årdal et al, 2020 ). Though both push and pull mechanisms are important, for a variety of reasons push incentives have been more widely implemented ( Simpkin et al, 2017 ; Årdal et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%