PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 6, 2026Journal of Market Access & Health Policy0 citationsOpen Access

Assessment and Appraisal of Drug Innovativeness in Italy: Ultimate Evidence on Key Drivers and Consistency

View Full Paper
AVAlvise VerdeFTFederica TuratiCTClara Trimarchi

Key Points

  • To evaluate drivers of drug innovativeness in Italy and assess their consistency and regulatory implications.
  • Appraisals retrieved from AIFA from July 2017 to December 2024
  • Associations analyzed using odds ratios
  • Utilized binary and multinomial logistic regression models
  • Examined metrics related to unmet need and therapeutic value
  • Assessed internal consistency of the appraisal process
  • Innovativeness status was linked to added therapeutic value with an OR > 70
  • Medicines for rare diseases had a higher chance of conditional innovativeness (OR = 2.95)
  • Full innovativeness was more common in paediatric indications (OR = 3.60)
  • Internal consistency of the appraisal process was high
  • Recommendations on innovativeness criteria were suggested for future reforms

Abstract

This study aims to update and integrate empirical evidence on the key drivers and consistency of the appraisals of drug innovativeness in Italy by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA), and discuss if this evidence is supportive of the reform and requirements implemented in 2025. Appraisals from July 2017 to December 2024 were retrieved from the AIFA website. The association between the innovativeness appraisal, the innovativeness domains (unmet need/added therapeutic value/quality of evidence) and disease/drug/evidence-specific variables was assessed using odds ratios (ORs) from binary/multinomial logistic regression models. Innovativeness status was strongly associated with added therapeutic value (OR > 70). Medicines for rare diseases were more likely to receive conditional innovativeness (OR = 2.95). Full innovativeness was more frequently recognized for indications including paediatric patients (OR = 3.60). References to severe diseases and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) had a higher, not statistically significant, likelihood of innovativeness, whereas reference to indirect treatment comparisons had a lower likelihood (OR = 0.18). The appraisal process showed high internal consistency, but its regulation needs more specific guidance. The innovativeness regulation was reformed in July 2025, including specific recommendations on the criteria to identify the alternative treatments; the role and robustness of indirect comparisons; and the role and requirements for PROs. Our evidence provides an empirical rationale for this reform.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Verde et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69faa28f04f884e66b5332f6https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp14020028
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper