ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2026
Assessment and Appraisal of Drug Innovativeness in Italy: Ultimate Evidence on Key Drivers and Consistency.
Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.