| Summary: | Despite enormous progress in defining, diagnosing and treating mental disorders, EU health systems face a mounting challenge in responding to ‘unmet need’. Mental illnesses produce a societal burden that exceeds that for either cancers or cardiovascular conditions. Leveraging advances in science and medicine to make available new innovative medicines is a key component in responding to this challenge. The dominant paradigm has been, is and will continue to be, one of incremental progress. Better medicines for depression, anxiety and psychoses in the working age population would add great value to patients and improve labour productivity. But psychotropic medicines face exceptional challenges in demonstrating their added value, due to uncertainty in patient diagnosis, selecting treatments and ensuring adherence. Also, there are major difficulties in estimating costs.Advances in understanding brain processes, identifying biomarkers and neuro-imaging techniques promise far more effective ‘diagnostic-therapeutic’ treatments and improved patient outcomes in the future. Currently there are valuable incremental innovations in late development, which may well fail to recover their R&D costs, because of very low reimbursed prices. This will send a signal to innovators not to persist with product development in this area.Recently several leading companies have withdrawn from R&D in these mental disorders. This is a worrying development since building the capabilities to succeed in any disease sector takes many years and, once dismantled, they cannot easily be re-established.Three policy interventions could improve innovation incentives: i) Invest more money in research ii) Streamline development processes to reduce costs and risks iii) Restrain the current trend towards severely limiting market rewards for incremental advances.Further ‘push’ incentives under i) and streamlining under ii) alone will not reverse the decline in investment incentives. An EU consensus, based upon an innovation model which encompasses the Research, Development and Market phases as a single cyclical process, which addresses the weak ‘market pull incentives’ under iii) is needed. There is a very real risk that without such an integrated approach to policy reforms, innovation in psychotropic medicines will become a ‘desert’ in the same way that it did for antibiotics in the 1990's.
|
|---|
