Skip to main content

Table 1 EAP: comparison among the major European Countries

From: Early access programs for medicines: comparative analysis among France, Italy, Spain, and UK and focus on the Italian case

EAP

France

Italy

Spain

UK

General Label

Early access (ex-ATU and ex-PEC-T) + Others

Early access and off-label use

Availability of medicines under special circumstances

EAMS (Early Access to Medicine Schemes)

Regulatory reference

LOI n° 2020-1576 du 14 décembre 2020 de financement de la sécurité sociale pour 2021

648 List: Law 648/96, Law 79/2014, Decreto 2/8/2019 5% Fund: Law 326/03

Royal Decree 1015/2009 (under review)

No regulatory references so far

Named/Cohort

Named or cohort depending on the program

648 List: cohort

5% Fund: named

Named

Both: named/cohort

Coverage

Before the completion of the P&R process

Before MA

Foreign medicines: after MA Off-label: no MA

Only before MA

Process

    

Applicant

Industry/physicians—hospitals

648 List: Patients Associations, Scientific Societies, Health Care Organization, Universities, Clinicians

5% Fund: Health Care Organization (specialised centres), Clinicians

Physicians/hospitals

Industry/physicians—hospitals

Approval

ANSM (safety and efficacy) HAS (other selection criteria)

AIFA (CTS)

AEMPS; Regional authorities (in special occasions for expensive drugs)

MHRA

Payers of medicines

Hospitals (after receiving an internal permit) But companies could provide medicine for free

648 List: Regions

5% Fund: AIFA through 5% Fund fed by the pharma industry

Hospitals via Regions/industries (most compassionate use cases)

Industries (for this reason is not an EAP as we intend)

Selection criteria

    

Target diseases

Severe, rare or disabling diseases, no alternatives,

648 List: Different types of disease

5% Fund: rare diseases and particular/severe diseases

Severe diseases, no alternatives

Severe and disabling disease, high unmet need

Medicines

New drugs/ indications in development, off-label drugs, foreign medicines

648 List: No valid alternatives; cheaper than valid alternatives

5% Fund: Orphans drug/drugs in development not approved yet, which represent "a hope of therapy"

Off-label medicines, Foreign medicines

New Drugs, products already marketed in the UK for other indications (off-label), foreign medicines

Evidence

Safety, efficacy (based on the results of clinical trials) and presumed to be innovative

648 List: Phase II/Data that may support their use (pure 'off-label')

5% Fund: Clinical report

Safety and efficacy

Safety and efficacy and presumed to be innovative

Data collection

Yes (well structured). PUT -RD (patient characteristics, medicine usage, efficacy, quality of life (PROMs etc.…), adverse events

648 List: in principle data on efficacy and safety profile (from the regions to AIFA) Data are not available

5% Fund: No

Yes. Physicians have to collect data on adverse events/ AEMPS has no obbligation to collect data, but may collect them

No evidence on data availability

Data on economic impact

No

Yes (but only for the 5% Fund)

No

No

Dedicated Fund

No

Only for 5% Fund

No

No

MEA

Financial-based agreements (volumes caps/payback if the awarded price < price charged through early access programs)

No, except in 648 List where they are rarely applied

No

No

Impact on P&R

Data collection influences ASMR’ evaluation and, therefore, the price of the drug

648 List (revenue from 648 are considered in the P&R negotiation)

No

No

Fee

No

No

No

Yes

Limited duration time and, if any, renewal rules

Duration of early access cannot exceed 1 year. It can be renewed with updated product information. If the HAS opinion is negative, the company is obliged to provide patients with treatment for 1 year before stopping supply

No

No

Scientific opinion could be renewed at least 2 months before expiry