Biological products for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis usually are cost effective for healthcare systems in Europe, but they are huge financial burden due to the high number of patients and the significant budget impact. The expected saving from introduction on the market of biosimilars are significant and are linked to better access and affordability. The aim of this study was to conduct comparative price analysis of biological products for rheumatoid arthritis therapy among seventeen EU countries. The point of view is that of the Bulgarian pricing and reimbursement system and the chosen countries are those from external reference basket for prices comparison at manufacturing level. All authorized biological products by EMA with therapeutic indication rheumatoid arthritis were selected. The access for treatment is evaluated as the availability of the product on the market and the prices level. We assessed the availability of all trade names in the price lists of the observed countries. The prices data was obtained from the official web pages of the responsible institutions up to date December 2017. The results show that four out of all six INNs have authorized biosimilars in EMA. Despite its earlier authorization biosimilar adalimumab is not present in any of the price lists of countries. From all eighteen countries only in Lithuania and Estonia there were no published prices of any of the selected medicinal products. Countries with higher number of biosimilar prices are Spain and France. Differences in manufacturers’ prices of reference biological products in selected countries in comparison with the lowest manufacturer price are higher with 22 to 69% while the retail prices between 62 and 95%. Differences are mostly notable for rituximab, and less notable for tocilizumab. Manufacturers’ and retail prices of biosimilar products were established only for three INNs (etanercept, rituximab, and infliximab). Manufacturers’ prices differ between 26 and 75%, while retail prices differ between 40 and 92% for biosimilars. Comparison of the differences between manufacturer prices of reference biological product and biosimilars shows 36% difference for etanercept, 39% for rituximab, and 31% for infliximab, while at retail level the differences are 11, 86, and 143%, respectively. The limitation of the study is that the prices are the official ones without discounts due to confidentiality and the real prices may be lower. The second limitation is that the methodology for pricing differs in the countries and this could also influence the prices on both levels (manufacturer and retail). Introduction of biosimilars on the national markets led to significant decrease in reimbursed prices paid by public funds and thus might benefit the patients’ access to biological therapy. The decrease of prices after biosimilars entrance on the market is not as notable as for commodity generics.

Funding of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) is an increasing challenge in the European Union (EU). To identify the different methods for public funding of OMPs in order to map the availability for rare disease patients, as well as to compare the public expenditures on OMPs in 8 EU member states. Information on the reimbursement status of 83 OMPs was collected in 8 countries by distinguishing standard and special reimbursements. In two consecutive years, the total public expenditures on OMPs were calculated by using annual EUR exchange rates. Annual total public expenditures were calculated per capita, and as a proportion of GDP, total public pharmaceutical and healthcare budgets. Differences between countries were compared by calculating the deviations from the average spending of countries. In 2015 29.4–92.8% of the 83 OMPs were available with any kind of public reimbursement in participant countries including special reimbursement on an individual basis. In Austria, Belgium and France more OMPs were accessible for patients with public reimbursement than in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Standard reimbursement through retail pharmacies and/or hospitals was applied from 0 to 41% of OMPs. The average annual total public expenditure ranged between 1.4–23.5 €/capita in 2013 and 2014. Higher income countries spent more OMPs in absolute terms. Participant countries spent 0.018–0.066% of their GDPs on funding OMPs. Average expenditures on OMPs were ranged between 2.25–6.51% of the public pharmaceutical budget, and 0.44–0.96% of public healthcare expenditures. Standard and special reimbursement techniques play different roles in participant countries. The number of accessible OMPs indicated an equity gap between Eastern and Western Europe. The spending on OMPs as a proportion of GDP, public pharmaceutical and healthcare expenditure was not higher in lower income countries, which indicates substantial differences in patient access to OMPs in favour of higher-income countries. Equity in access for patients with rare diseases is an important policy objective in each member state of the EU; however, equity in access should be harmonized at the European level.

Introduction: In January 2018 the European Commission published a Proposal for a Regulation on Health Technology Assessment (HTA): ‘Proposal for a Regulation on health technology assessment and amending Directive 2011/24/EU’. A number of stakeholders, including some Member States, welcomed this initiative as it was considered to improve collaboration, reduce duplication and improve efficiency; there were however a number of concerns including its legal basis, the establishment of a single managing authority, the preservation of national jurisdiction over HTA decision making and the voluntary/mandatory uptake of joint assessments by Member States. Areas covered: This paper presents the consolidated views and considerations on the original Proposal as set by the European Commission of a number of policy makers, payers, experts from pricing and reimbursement authorities and academics from across Europe. Expert commentary: The Proposal has since been extensively discussed at Council and while good progress has been achieved, there are still divergent positions. The European Parliament gave a number of recommendations for amendments. If the Proposal is approved, it is important that balanced, improved outcome is achieved for all stakeholders. If not approved, the extensive contribution and progress attained should be sustained and preserved, and the best alternative solutions found.

Aims: While medication adherence (MA) is a key prerequisite for achieving optimal clinical and economic outcomes, nonadherence is highly prevalent. Assessing how healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Europe manage MA, focusing on measurement, reporting and interventions, is the subject of this study.Methods: A cross‐sectional study was conducted among 40 European countries and quantitative analysis was conducted via an online survey. The multi‐language online survey was created using Webropol 3.0 survey and reporting tool. Descriptive statistics and chi‐squared tests were applied.Results: In total, 2875 HCPs (pharmacists: 39.9%; physicians: 36.7%; nurses: 16.4%) from 37 European countries participated. The most used methods for MA assessment were direct communication with patients (86.4%) and referring to personal patient records (56.7%) (P < 0.0001). Physicians (74.9%) and nurses (58.8%) were more aware of problems related to MA in contrast to pharmacists (48.6%) (P < 0.001). Almost all HCPs (92.6%) indicated that MA‐enhancing interventions involved mainly direct communication with nonadherent patients (93.3%) and their caregivers (55.7%). Medication review and related optimization of therapy were mainly performed in Western European countries (46.8%). Technological solutions were ranked as one of the less applied approaches (10–15%) (P < 0.001).Conclusions: HCPs in all European regions recognize MA management as an integral element of overall patient‐centred care. More efforts are needed to ensure timely, adequate and relevant MA assessment, reporting and improvement and involvement of all HCPs, especially among pharmacists who were generally less aware of MA issues. Promotion and use of digital technological solutions should be the focus of current and future clinical practice to optimize MA management processes.

Objective: The current article is aimed at identifying the best practice for counseling around depression in community and outpatient pharmacies, resulting in a draft guideline, proposing key steps and an algorithm for integration of community pharmacists into care for patients with depression. Methods: A literature review was performed followed by a detailed analysis, for the purpose of creation a short draft document used as a basis for creation of a guideline for pharmaceutical care for patients with depression. The technological scheme PRISMA flow diagram was applied. The paper is based on current knowledge, taking into consideration already published articles, guidelines, and recommendations about pharmaceutical care for patients with depression, giving a basis for further studies. Results: This paper includes two main sections: 1) depression – a short description of the main symptoms, risk factors and pharmacotherapy guidelines available in Bulgaria important for the purposes of ensuring qualitative community-based pharmaceutical care; and 2) the pharmacists’ role in providing high-quality care – the main aspects of pharmaceutical care for patients with depression with specific examples. Conclusion: The involvement of pharmacists in supporting depressive patients is crucial taking into account the specific characteristics of the pharmacological treatment: delayed onset of clinical results, risks in case of sudden pharmacotherapy abruption without physician consultation, multiple adverse drug reactions and drug–drug, drug–food and drug–alcohol interactions, etc. The current article could also be used as an initial document for creating a methodological guideline for providing pharmaceutical care services for patients with depression.

Biological medicines are considered as a cornerstone in the therapy of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They change the course of the disease and improve the quality of life of patients. To this date there has been no study comparing the quality of life of and cost of RA therapy in Bulgaria. This fact is what provoked our interest toward this research. The aim of this study is to analyse the cost and quality of life of patients with RA threated with biological medicines in Bulgaria. This is an observational, real life study of 124 patients treated with biological medicines during 2012–2016 at the University hospital “St. Ivan Riskli” in Sofia, specialized in rheumatology disease therapy. Patients were recruited after their consecutive transfer from non-biological to biological medicines. The yearly pharmacotherapy cost was calculated with tocilizumab (n = 30), cetrolizmab (n = 16), golimumab (n = 22), etanercept (n = 20), adalimumab (n = 20), rituximab (n = 16). Three measurements of the quality of life (QoL) were performed with EQ5D—at the beginning of the therapy, after 6 months and after 1 year of therapy. Both section of EQ5D were used—VAS and EQ5D questionnaire. Cost—effectiveness was calculated for unit of improvement in EQ5D score for a one year period and decision model was built with TreeAgePro software. The observed cost of therapy varied between 12 thousand Euros for tocilizumab to 6 thousand Euros for rituximab. All biological medicines let to substantial increase in the quality of life of the patients. Patients on tocilizumab increased their QoL from 0.43 to 0.63 after 1 year; on cetrolizumab from 0.32 to 0.56; on golimumab from 0.41 to 0.67; on etanercept from 0.45 to 0.62; on adalimumab from 0.43 to 0.57; on rhituximab from 0.46 to 0.66. The cost-effectiveness estimates of different biological therapies also varied between 66 to 30 thousand Euros for unit of improvement in the EQ5D during one the course of the year. Therapy with biological medicines improves statistically significant the quality of life of patients, measured through VAS and EQ5D scales. Despite the improvement in the quality of life all biological medicines appears not to be note cost-effective due to their high incremental cost-effectiveness ration (ICER). Rituximab's incremental ratio has (ICER) falls closer to the three times gross domestic product per capita threshold and should be considered as preferred alternatives for RA therapy. In general we can conclude that the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologicals improves quality of life significantly. Only rituximab was cost-effective.