[Post-authorization research, registries, and drug development]

In the last decade regulators, payers and health care providers tried to react to three major problems in drug development and drug use in clinical practice: the pharmaceutical R&D productivity crisis, the immaturity of benefit-risk profile for several newly approved drugs and the overall impact on economic sustainability of reimbursing new high cost drugs in their systems. The potentiality of create a continuum between the evidence requirements relevant for registration, for reimbursement and for post authorization research is clear. All different parties involved, like regulators, HTA agencies, scientific communities and manufacturers, are working to improve the knowledge profile of new drugs in order to anticipate the patient access to innovation, limiting or preventing the clinical and economical risks deriving from an incomplete safety and effectiveness profile. The Italian example of "New Drugs AIFA Registries", with or without the application of risk sharing schemes (cost sharing, pay for performance, etc.), introduced a new process and increased the sensitivity on this topic. However this might probably represents only a partial answer to the problem of how to set up the governance of coverage with evidence, drug utilization monitoring, comparative effectiveness research, outcome research programs and may be how to link them to access, pricing and reimbursement. The step change in post authorization research could be to "integrate" different sources and stakeholders in a wider and continuous approach, in a well designed and inclusive "second generation" HTA approach, where all resources (competencies, data, funding) will concur to increase the evidence profile and reduce the risks, and where any "evidence generation approach" is really compliant with the standard and rules of best research practices.