Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jan;58(1):76-88.
doi: 10.1002/bimj.201300256. Epub 2015 Sep 1.

Implementation of AMNOG: An industry perspective

Affiliations

Implementation of AMNOG: An industry perspective

Friedhelm Leverkus et al. Biom J. 2016 Jan.

Abstract

In 2010, the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) of Germany passed a new law (Arzneimittelmarktneuordnungsgesetz, AMNOG) on the regulation of medicinal products that applies to all pharmaceutical products with active ingredients that are launched beginning January 1, 2011. The law describes the process to determine the price at which an approved new product will be reimbursed by the statutory health insurance system. The process consists of two phases. The first phase assesses the additional benefit of the new product versus an appropriate comparator (zweckmäßige Vergleichstherapie, zVT). The second phase involves price negotiation. Focusing on the first phase, this paper investigates requirements of benefit assessment of a new product under this law with special attention on the methods applied by the German authorities on issues such as the choice of the comparator, patient relevant endpoints, subgroup analyses, extent of benefit, determination of net benefit, primary and secondary endpoints, and uncertainty of the additional benefit. We propose alternative approaches to address the requirements in some cases and invite other researchers to help develop solutions in other cases.

Keywords: AMNOG; Additional benefit; Comparator; Early benefit assessment; Endpoint; Net benefit; Subgroup.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The AMNOG process, effective as of 1 January 2011 (vfa, 2012).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Antman, E. M. , Wiviott, S. D. , Murphy, S. A. , Voitk, J. , Hasin, Y. , Widimsky, P. , Chandna, H. , Macias, W. , McCabe, C. H. , Brauwald, E. (2008). Early and late benefits of prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 52, 2028–2033. - PubMed
    1. Atkins, D. , Best, D. , Briss, P. A. , Eccles, M. P. , Falck‐Ytter, Y. , Flottorp, S. , Guyatt, G. H. , Harbour, R. T. , Haugh, M. C. , Henry, D. , Hill, S. , Jaeschke, R. , Leng, G. , Liberati, A. , Magrini, N. , Mason, J. , Middleton, P. , Mrukowicz, J. , O'Connell, D. , Oxman, A. D. , Phillips, B. , Schünemann, H. J. , Edejer, T. , Varonen, H. , Vist, G. E. , Williams, J. W. Jr ., Zaza, S. ; GRADE Working Group (2004). Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal 328, 1490. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bender, R. , Lange, S. (2001). Adjusting for multiple testing—when and how? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 54, 343–349. - PubMed
    1. Beresniak, A. , Auray, J. , Duru, G. , Medina‐Lara, A. , Tarricone, R. , Sambuc, R. , Torbica, A. , Lamure, M. ; Echoutcome Study Group (2012). PRM14 European assessment of the validity of the QALY outcome measure: results from the experiment conducted by the Echoutcome project. Value in Health 15, A462.
    1. Bucher, H. C. , Guyatt, G. H. , Griffith, L. E. , Walter, S. D. (1997). The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 50:683‐91. - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources