European Priority Review Vouchers for Neglected Disease Product Development
SSRN, ISSN: 1556-5068
2023
- 85Usage
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Background: Neglected diseases are a significant global health challenge. Encouraging the development of therapeutics and vaccines for these diseases would address an important unmet medical need. We propose a priority review voucher program for the European Union (EU). The developer of a drug or vaccine for a neglected disease would receive a voucher for accelerated assessment of a different product at the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: We calculated the value of the proposed voucher program through a five-step approach: (1) estimating the time saved in the EMA accelerated regulatory review; (2) gauging time reductions in accelerated pricing and reimbursement decisions by EU member states; (3) selecting ten high-revenue products launched between 2015 and 2020 representing typical voucher users; (4) analyzing IQVIA MIDAS sales data for the selected products; and (5) calculating the net present value of the voucher based on the ten products. Findings: The accelerated EMA review would reduce regulatory time by an average of 182 days. Additionally, products could save more than a year in many member states through an expedited 120-day pricing and reimbursement review. For instance, in France, this would save an average of 322 days on top of the 182-day regulatory review reduction. The estimated net present value of regulatory acceleration by two quarters would be €100 million. In addition, if France, Italy, and Spain reviewed pricing and reimbursement in only 120 days, then the value would double. Interpretation: An EU voucher estimated at more than €100 million, coupled with a $100 million US counterpart, offers a meaningful incentive for novel product development. However, the voucher program should be part of a comprehensive strategy for tackling neglected diseases, rather than a standalone solution. Funding: The study was supported by Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung (DSW) and Duke University. DSW received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Declaration of Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Bibliographic Details
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know