IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v8y2018i1d10.1186_s13561-018-0209-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Market withdrawals” of medicines in Germany after AMNOG: a comparison of HTA ratings and clinical guideline recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas R. Staab

    (Roche Pharma AG
    Medical School of Hanover)

  • Miriam Walter

    (nspm ltd)

  • Sonja Mariotti Nesurini

    (nspm ltd)

  • Charalabos-Markos Dintsios

    (Heinrich Heine University)

  • J.-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg

    (Leibniz University Hanover)

  • Volker E. Amelung

    (Medical School of Hanover)

  • Jörg Ruof

    (Medical School of Hanover
    r-connect ltd)

Abstract

Background According to the AMNOG act, the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) determines the additional benefit of new medicines as a basis for subsequent price negotiations. Pharmaceutical companies may withdraw their medications from the market at any time during the process. This analysis aims to compare recommendations in clinical guidelines and HTA appraisals of medicines that were withdrawn from the German market since the introduction of AMNOG in 2011. Methods Medications withdrawn from the German market between January 2011 and June 2016 following benefit assessment were categorized as opt-outs (max. 2 weeks after start of price negotiations) or supply terminations (during or after further price negotiations). Related guidelines were systematically analyzed. For all withdrawals, therapeutic area, additional benefit rating and recommendation status in relevant clinical guidelines were assessed. Results Among 139 medications, 10 opt-outs and 12 supply terminations were identified. Twenty-one out of 22 withdrawn medicines (95%) received ‘no additional benefit’ appraisal by the G-BA (average ‘no additional benefit’ rating for all AMNOG products: 47%). Of the 22 medicines, 15 (68%) were recommended by at least one guideline at the time of benefit assessment and 18 (82%) on 1 June 2016. Heterogeneity among guidelines was high. Acceptance of clinical trial endpoints was different between G-BA appraisals and clinical guidelines. Conclusion Our analysis revealed considerable differences across clinical guidelines as well as between clinical guidelines and HTA appraisals of the medicines that were withdrawn from the German market. Better alignment of the clinical perspective and close collaboration between all involved parties is required to achieve and maintain optimization of patient care.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas R. Staab & Miriam Walter & Sonja Mariotti Nesurini & Charalabos-Markos Dintsios & J.-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg & Volker E. Amelung & Jörg Ruof, 2018. "“Market withdrawals” of medicines in Germany after AMNOG: a comparison of HTA ratings and clinical guideline recommendations," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:8:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-018-0209-3
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-018-0209-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-018-0209-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-018-0209-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Melanie Büssgen & Tom Stargardt, 2023. "Does health technology assessment compromise access to pharmaceuticals?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 437-451, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:8:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-018-0209-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.