Access to medicines for rare diseases: regulatory aspects and public health priorities.

Abstract

In the last decades, the development of drugs for rare diseases has been supported by regulatory and financial incentives. On the other hand, public health policies have increasingly taken into account the person affected by a rare disease in their strategies. In this perspective, we examined the relation between the regulatory framework on rare diseases and the regulatory framework on drug approval. Technical proposals have been brought forward to protect the needs of individuals. The legislative framework on rare diseases has developed both at a European and national level with the aim to strengthen the network of centers for diagnosis and care by increasing the degree of social and health protection, as well as to accelerate the assessment, approval and access to new drugs. Since 2000, 210 orphan drugs have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (compared to an estimated 7-8,000 rare diseases). Of the 118 orphan drugs active in the community register as of 2020, 97 (82.2%) were available in Italy: 17 (17.5%) in class A; 58 (59.8%) in class H; 12 (12.4%) in class C; 10 (10.3%) in class C-nn. In 2020, expenditure on drugs with an orphan indication accounted for 6% of the total pharmaceutical expenditure (+47% since 2016). These drugs have benefited from incentives at both European and national levels, as well as inclusion in national early access programs. However, the average duration of the assessment process is above the 100-day limit set by law. The legislation on rare diseases has developed in different directions, and drug legislation has undoubtedly played a major role in terms of the results achieved. However, orphan drugs enter the market with a high price, which increasingly represents a problem of sustainability for health systems but notwithstanding Italy shows a high ratio between the level of social protection and access times. In this perspective, it is necessary to be provided with tools for a better system balance with a view to optimize these timeframes. Introducing in Italy a system for tracking the negotiation process that considers the clock stops as the EMA does, would allow to know at what point the negotiation process is. In addition, once the 100-day period is over (net of any clock stops) and in case of failure to reach a negotiation agreement, a second 60-day negotiation round could be proposed and so on. In this way, all the parts involved the system would have a clear scope of action to conclude the process in a flexible but certain timeframe. In this regard, the joint clinical assessments foreseen by the new HTA Regulations provide an additional opportunity to harmonize central decisions with national requirements.