Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37580971›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2023

Do France, Germany, and Italy agree on the added therapeutic value of medicines?

Giorgio Casilli, Dario Lidonnici, Claudio Jommi, Marika De Nigris, Armando A Genazzani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Closing the first wave of drug innovativeness in italy: final evidence from 2017 to 2025.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. France versus Germany: differences and similarities in determining the added therapeutic value of medicines.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Global & regional health technology assessment
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Giorgio CasilliMore Than Access (MTA) Srl SB, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5181-5099
Dario LidonniciMore Than Access (MTA) Srl SB, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3136-0327
Claudio JommiDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Università del Piemonte Orientale "Amedeo Avogadro", Novara, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2862-2990
Marika De NigrisPharmalex Italy SpA, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2224-3840
Armando A GenazzaniDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Università del Piemonte Orientale "Amedeo Avogadro", Novara, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1923-7430

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medicines is performed separately at the country level with some differences, but Italy, France, and Germany have implemented price and reimbursement systems strongly focused on the Added Therapeutic Value (ATV). This study investigates the level of agreement on ATV assessments by Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), and Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA).

methodsA database was created collecting all information about drugs with innovativeness status requests in Italy from July 2017 to December 2022 and populated with the corresponding HAS and G-BA ATV assessments. The primary comparative analysis was conducted by grouping the ATV ratings into "higher added value" and "lower or no added value", while a secondary analysis considered the Italian innovativeness status as a criterion to include the quality of evidence assessment. The concordance between ATV assessments was investigated through percentage agreement and unweighted Cohen k-value.

results189 medicines/indications were included. The greatest agreement was found when comparing G-BA versus HAS (82 percent; k = 0.61, substantial agreement). Lower levels of agreements were observed for AIFA versus HAS and AIFA versus G-BA (respectively 52 percent; k = 0.17 and 57 percent; k = 0.25). The secondary analysis led to a reconciliation to moderate agreement for AIFA versus HAS (72 percent; k = 0.45) and AIFA versus G-BA (74 percent; k = 0.47).

conclusionsA high degree of concordance between HTA organizations is reached when considering jointly ATV and quality of evidence, suggesting that the system is extensively mature to make a Joint Clinical Assessment, avoiding duplications and reducing access inequalities.

Indexed as

Technology Assessment, BiomedicalFranceGermanyItalyadded therapeutic valuehealth technology assessmentHTA organizationsinnovativenessJoint Clinical Assessment

Identifiers

PMID37580971
PMCPMC11570191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.