A decade of early benefit assessment of ophthalmic drugs in Germany: success story or not?

References

• AMNOG. Act to reorganize the pharmaceuticals’ market in the SHI system (Arzneimittelneuordnungsgesetz-AMNOG). In: BGBl (Federal Law Gazette. I Nr. 67. 2010. p. 2262–2277.
   Google Scholar
• Gerber A, Stock S, Dintsios CM. Reflections on the changing face of German pharmaceutical policy: how far is Germany from value-based pricing? PharmacoEconomics. 2011;29(7):549–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AM-NutzenV. Verordnung über die Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln nach § 35a Absatz 1 SGB V für Erstattungsvereinbarungen nach § 130b SGB V. In: BGBl (Federal Law Gazette).I Nr. 68. 2010. p. 2324–2328.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Joint Committee. 2011. Supplement to the FJC rules of procedure. Chapter 5.
   Google Scholar
• Busse R, Blumel M. Germany: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2014;16(2): 1–296. xxi.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dintsios CM, Worm F, Ruof J, et al. Different interpretation of additional evidence for HTA by the commissioned HTA body and the commissioning decision maker in Germany: whenever IQWiG and Federal Joint Committee disagree. Health Econ Rev. 2019;9(1):35. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IQWiG. General methods. Version 6.0 of 5 November 2020. (Ed.^(Eds) (2020).
   Google Scholar
• Skipka G, Wieseler B, Kaiser T, et al. Methodological approach to determine minor, considerable, and major treatment effects in the early benefit assessment of new drugs. Biom J. 2016;58(1):43–58. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IQWiG. Validity of surrogate endpoints in oncology. Version 1.1. (Ed.^(Eds) (IQWiG., Cologne, 2011)
   Google Scholar
• Bouslouk M. G-BA benefit assessment of new orphan drugs in Germany: the first five years. Expert Opin Orphan Drugs. 2016;4(5):453–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worm F, Dintsios C-M. Determinants of orphan drug prices in Germany. PharmacoEconomics. 2020;38(4):397–411. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bender H, Dintsios CM. [Health-related quality of life in the context of early benefit assessment of drugs according to section sign 35a of the German Social Code Book V: a challenging endpoint for all the involved stakeholders]. Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany). 2018;80(2):132–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GKV-SV. Framework agreement between the National Association of SHI Funds and Pharmaceutical Companies Associations [in German]. (Ed.^(Eds). (2016)
   Google Scholar
• Ludwig S, Dintsios CM. Arbitration board setting reimbursement amounts for pharmaceutical innovations in Germany when price negations between payers and manufacturers fail: an empirical analysis of 5 years’ experience. Value Health. 2016;19(8):1016–1025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruof J, Schwartz FW, Schulenburg JM, et al. Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(6):577–589.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hörn H, Nink K, McGauran N, et al. Early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany – results from 2011 to 2012. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2014;116(2–3):147–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer KE, Stargardt T. Early benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany: manufacturers’ expectations versus the Federal Joint Committee’s decisions. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(8):1030–1047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong WL, Su X, Li X, et al. Global prevalence of age-related macular degeneration and disease burden projection for 2020 and 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(2):e106–116. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colijn JM, Buitendijk GHS, Prokofyeva E, et al. Prevalence of age-related macular degeneration in Europe: the past and the future. Ophthalmology. 2017;124(12):1753–1763.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li JQ, Welchowski T, Schmid M, et al. Prevalence and incidence of age-related macular degeneration in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;104:1077–1084.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li JQ, Welchowski T, Schmid M, et al. Prevalence, incidence and future projection of diabetic eye disease in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35(1):11–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menzler J, Neubauer AS, Haritoglou C, et al. Incidence and prevalence of vitreomacular traction with and without macular hole in Germany. Clin Ophthalmol (Auckland, N.Z.). 2019;13: 177–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauschitz MM, Li JQ, Larsen PP, et al. [Epidemiology of severe visual impairment and blindness of old people in Germany]. Der Ophthalmologe: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft. 2019;116(2):201–212.
   Google Scholar
• Freund KB, Korobelnik JF, Devenyi R, et al. Treat-and-extend regimens with anti-VEGF agents in retinal diseases: a literature review and consensus recommendations. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.). 2015;35(8):1489–1506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augustin AJ, Sahel JA, Cerulli L, et al. Treating retinal vein occlusions in France, Germany, and Italy: an analysis of treatment patterns, resource consumption, and costs. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2012;22(5):776–784.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neubauer AS, Haritoglou C, Ulbig MW. [Cost comparison of licensed intravitreal therapies for insufficiently anti-VEGF responding Fovea involving diabetic macular edema in Germany]. Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde. 2019;236(2):180–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chuvarayan Y, Finger RP, Koberlein-Neu J. Economic burden of blindness and visual impairment in Germany from a societal perspective: a cost-of-illness study. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(1):115–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spitzenverband Bund der Krankenkassen. Januar bis Dezember 2019. Konsolidierte Daten. Ausführlicher Bericht zum Quartalsende. GKV-Arzneimittel-Schnellinformation für Deutschland.Berlin; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Vreman RA, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Hövels AM, et al. Differences in health technology assessment recommendations among European jurisdictions: the role of practice variations. Value Health. 2020;23(1):10–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LAUER-FISCHER GmbH. German drug directory. (Ed.^(Eds) (2020)
   Google Scholar
• Detournay B, Borel T, Trancart M, et al. Clinical added value of drugs: an empirical survey of French transparency committee opinions. Therapie. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.therap.2018.10.004
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gandjour A, Schüßler S, Hammerschmidt T, et al. Predictors of negotiated prices for new drugs in Germany. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(7):1049–1057. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohowetz LJ. Off-label use of bevacizumab in the treatment of retinal disease: ethical implications. J Med Ethics. 2019;45(10):668–672.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bro T, Derebecka M, Øk J, et al. Off-label use of bevacizumab for wet age-related macular degeneration in Europe. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020;258(3):503–511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenzel M, Dick HB, Scharrer A, et al. Ambulante und stationäre Intraokularchirurgie 2019: Ergebnisse der aktuellen Umfrage von BDOC, BVA, DGII und DOG. OPHTHALMO-CHIRURGIE. 2020;32:341–350.
   Google Scholar
• Molitor M, Dintsios CM. Failure due to formal reasons within German benefit assessment of medicinal products: the dilemma between marketing authorization and HTA. Exp Rev Pharm Out Res. 2020. 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683–691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bangalore S, Kamalakkannan G, Parkar S, et al. Fixed-dose combinations improve medication compliance: a meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2007;120(8):713–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheibler F, Finger RP, Grosselfinger R, et al. [Patient-reported and patient-weighted outcomes in ophthalmology]. Der Ophthalmologe: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft. 2010;107(3): 235–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appelrath M, Glaeske G. [Assessing the added benefit of new ophthalmic drugs: which additional insights can be extracted from the early benefit assessment?]. Der Ophthalmologe: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft. 2017;114(12):1135–1148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appelrath M. Bewertung des Patientennutzens von Arzneimitteln in Deutschland: Zulassung und frühe Nutzenbewertung am Beispiel von Aflibercept in der Augenheilkunde. Oldenburg: Oldenburger Verlag für Wirtschaft, Informatik und Recht; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Niehaus I, Dintsios CM. Confirmatory versus explorative endpoint analysis: decision-making on the basis of evidence available from market authorization and early benefit assessment for oncology drugs. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2018;122:599–606.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwabe U, Paffrath D, Ludwig W, et al. Arzneiverordnungs-Report. Springer-Verlag. Berlin. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Dintsios CM, Beinhauer I. The impact of additive or substitutive clinical study design on the negotiated reimbursement for oncology pharmaceuticals after early benefit assessment in Germany. Health Econ Rev. 2020;10(1):7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma A, Reddy P, Kuppermann BD, et al. Biosimilars in ophthalmology: “Is there a big change on the horizon?”. Clin Ophthalmol (Auckland, N.Z.). 2018;12: 2137–2143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heier JS, Brown DM, Chong V, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept (VEGF trap-eye) in wet age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(12):2537–2548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EMA. Product information Zirabev. (2021).
   Google Scholar
• Wieseler B, McGauran N, Kaiser T. New drugs: where did we go wrong and what can we do better? BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2019;366:l4340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motola D, De Ponti F, Rossi P, et al. Therapeutic innovation in the European Union: analysis of the drugs approved by the EMEA between 1995 and 2003. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;59(4):475–478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maison P, Zanetti L, Solesse A, et al. The public health benefit of medicines: how it has been assessed in France? The principles and results of five years’ experience. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2013;112(3):273–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grzybowski A, Kanclerz P. Benefits of noninferiority studies in ophthalmology. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45(4):534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vennedey V, Danner M, Evers SM, et al. Using qualitative research to facilitate the interpretation of quantitative results from a discrete choice experiment: insights from a survey in elderly ophthalmologic patients. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:993–1002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danner M, Vennedey V, Hiligsmann M, et al. Focus Groups in elderly ophthalmologic patients: setting the stage for quantitative preference elicitation. Patient. 2016;9(1):47–57.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• GSAV. Act for safety in the supply of pharmaceuticals (GSAV). In: BGBl (Federal Law Gazette). I Nr. 30. 2019. p. 1202–1220.
   Google Scholar
• AMVSG. SHI pharmaceutical care strengthening act. In: BGBl (Federal Law Gazette). I Nr. 25. 2017. p. 1050–1056.
   Google Scholar
• EAMIV. Electronic drug information regulation. In: BGBl (Federal Law Gazette). I Nr. 28. 2019. p. 1110–1111.
   Google Scholar
• Staab TR, Walter M, Mariotti Nesurini S, et al. “Market withdrawals” of medicines in Germany after AMNOG: a comparison of HTA ratings and clinical guideline recommendations. Health Econ Rev. 2018;8(1):23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar