Reimbursement Decisions For Orphan Drugs Research Articles

Development of the Emirates Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool for Orphan Drugs.

Background The number of orphan drug approvals is currently increasing globally. This creates a significant burden on payers and healthcare systems. This study aimed to create a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool for evaluating orphan drugs within the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The intended result of the tool is to provide evidence-based guidance to decision-makers in reimbursement and procurement decisions. Methods We conducted a literature search and local expert interviews to identify relevant preliminary criteria for the MCDA tool. Then we conducted a structured consensus-building session for healthcare experts and decision-makers in the UAE to develop the Emirati MCDA tool for orphan drugs. The experts voted for the criteria to be included in the tool and their ranking according to importance, as well as the weight of each criterion and its scoring function. To improve understanding and facilitate the voting process, experts were provided with a brief illustration of similar tools conducted in other countries before the voting sessions. Finally, the tool was developed in a Microsoft Excel sheet (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States), and it was validated and tested based on real case studies, then it was fine-tuned accordingly based on the experts' discussions. The final tool was provided to the attendees to guide their decisions in the reimbursement and procurement of orphan drugs. Results The created tool provides a score for each analyzed orphan drug based on its value. Ten criteria were included in the final MCDA tool. These were cost-effectiveness (25.1% of the weight), magnitude of health gain (20.1%), availability of therapeutic alternative (14.3%), disease severity (11%), budget impact (7.9%), disease rarity (5.6%), strength of clinical evidence (5.6%), burden on households (4.5%), indication uniqueness (3.2%), and patients' age (2.6%). Conclusions Implementation of evidence-based healthcare necessitates assessing the fair value of each health technology. Addressing the high unmet medical needs and improving healthcare for patients with rare diseases are priorities within the UAE. The created Emirates MCDA tool for orphan drugs has the potential to help decision-makers implement value-based and evidence-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs.

EE394 Understanding Reasons of Negative Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs in the Spanish National Health System (APRIL 2019-MAY 2023)

EE394 Understanding Reasons of Negative Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs in the Spanish National Health System (APRIL 2019-MAY 2023)

PDG59 Does Clinical Trial Phase IMPACT Reimbursement Decisions for Breakthrough Drugs?

This research aims to evaluate the impact of the clinical trial phase on reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs with breakthrough status in the European Union 5 (EU5: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom). Clinical trial and reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs with breakthrough status were assessed by reviewing EU5 health technology assessments (HTAs) from 2015 to 2018. A total of 437 HTAs were chosen because they reported clinical trials in their clinical analyses. A comparison was drawn between clinical trial phases and reimbursement decisions. A logistic regression was performed to determine the likelihood of approval increases when the trial phases increase. Of the 437 HTAs, 84.44% (n = 369) had positive decisions. Of those positive decisions, 83.47% (n = 308) reported a phase 3 clinical trial in their clinical analysis, 15.72% (n = 58) reported a phase 2 clinical trial, and 0.81% (n = 3) reported a phase 1 clinical trial. Of the negative decisions (n = 68), 67.65% (n = 46) reported a phase 3 clinical trial in their clinical analysis, 30.88% (n = 21) reported a phase 2 clinical trial, and 1.47% (n = 1) reported a phase 1 clinical trial. The odds ratio of the regression was 2.18, indicating the odds of having a higher phase trial with a positive decision was 2.18 times that of a negative decision, and the p-value was 0.004, indicating a statistical significance. The statistical significance of the logistic regression indicates that, as the trial phase increases, there is a higher likelihood of approval in the EU5. However, further research into factors such as the specific HTA agency, disease condition, and drug in addition to the clinical trial phase should be conducted to further determine the likelihood of approval.

Impact of the therapeutic positioning report in the P&R process in Spain: analysis of orphan drugs approved by the European Commission and reimbursed in Spain from 2003 to 2019

BackgroundPricing and reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs are faced with differences access between European countries depending on each reimbursement policies, evaluation processes and timings. In 2013, the therapeutic positioning report was introduced in the pricing and reimbursement process in Spain. The present study aims to identify orphan drugs authorised in Spain and approved by the European Commission between January 2003 and December 2019, analyse the impact of the therapeutic positioning report in the pricing and reimbursement process of orphan drugs in Spain and to assess additional potential criteria that could influence pricing and reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs.ResultsNinety-four orphan drugs have been approved by the European Commission between January 2003 and December 2019 and have marketing authorisation in Spain. Out of the 94 orphan drugs, 46 (48.9%) had received pricing and reimbursement approval. Before the inclusion of the therapeutic positioning report in year 2013, the mean time from European Commission approval to pricing and reimbursement approval for orphan drugs in Spain was 25.1 ± 16.5. After 2013, timelines have been reduced by an average of 9 months. The mean regulatory time from European Commission approval to Spanish marketing authorisation has decreased nearly 4 months (from 7.5 ± 10.2 months in years 2003–2013 to 3.8 ± 7.6 months in years 2014–2019). The instauration of the therapeutic positioning report could be associated with a reduction of the mean time from the Spanish marketing authorisation to pricing and reimbursement approval by an average of 5 months (from 17.3 ± 13.1 months in years 2003–2013 to 12.3 ± 5 months in years 2014–2019). In addition, orphan drugs with a positive conclusion in the therapeutic positioning report would be more likely to be reimbursed in Spain (p < 0,0001).ConclusionsThis study shows that the therapeutic positioning report plays a key role in the pricing and reimbursement process in Spain. A positive conclusion of the therapeutic positioning report seems to favourably affect pricing and reimbursement decisions in Spain and, since its introduction, has also contributed to reduce pricing and reimbursement approval timelines in Spain.

Will the US$5 million onasemnogene abeparvosec treatment for spinal muscular atrophy represent ‘value for money’ for the NHS? A rapid inquiry into suggestions that it may be cost-effective

ABSTRACT Objectives Nusinersen (Spinraza®, Biogen) and onasemnogene abeparvosec (Zolgensma®, Novartis) are novel gene-based therapies for the orphan disease Spinal Muscular Atrophy. Onasemnogene abeparvosec has been allocated an acquisition cost of up to US$5 million per patient. We undertook a rapid inquiry to evaluate if onasemnogene abeparvosec is likely to be cost-effective for the UK NHS. Methods We used publicly available cost-effectiveness data and recommended methodology to perform cost-utility evaluation of onasemnogene abeparvosec versus best supportive care and nusinersen. Results Our evaluations highlight wide variations in cost and benefit estimates of nusinersen and indicate that onasemnogene abeparvosec is unlikely to represent value for money according to current standards of reimbursement. Results are discussed in the context of reimbursement decisions for orphan diseases. Conclusion Commonly implemented commercial confidentiality practices combined with uncertain data obscure scrutiny and justification of past and present reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. Future cutting edge expensive therapies will be numerous, they will entail very substantial economic strains. We conclude that there is an urgent and increasing need for the development of improved procedures that can lead to equitable, consistent, and transparent decision-making.

The application of multi-criteria decision analysis to inform in resource allocation

Background: There is a perception held by payers that orphan products are expensive. As a result, the current health technology assessment systems might be too restrictive for orphan drugs, therefore potentially denying patients access to life-saving medicines. While price is important, it should be considered in relation to a broader range of disease-related product attributes that are not necessarily considered by many health technology assessment agencies. To overcome these challenges, multi-criteria decision analysis has been proposed as an alternative to evaluate technologies. Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the most frequently cited attributes in multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in rare diseases. From the leading attributes identified, we developed a multi-criteria decision analysis framework with which to aggregate the orphan drug values. We subsequently reviewed and plotted the relationship between single attributes and the average annual treatment costs for 8 drugs used in the treatment of rare endocrine diseases. The annual treatment costs were based on UK list prices for the average daily dose per patient. Results: The five most frequently mentioned attributes in the literature were as follows: Disease severity, Unmet need (or availability of therapeutic alternatives), Comparative effectiveness or efficacy, Quality of evidence and Safety &amp; tolerability. Results from the multi-criteria decision analysis framework indicate a wide range of average annual per-patients costs for drugs intended for the same diseases, and likewise for diseases with a similar level of Disease severity. Conclusions: Multi-criteria decision analysis may offer a viable alternative to support discussion in reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. The analyses can be used to inform investigations on the application of MCDAs in rare diseases.

Dealing with Uncertainty and Accounting for Social Value Judgments in Assessments of Orphan Drugs: Evidence from Four European Countries.

To better understand the reasons for differences in reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs in four European countries that were not readily apparent from health technology assessment (HTA) reports and operating procedures. Semistructured interviews with representatives of HTA bodies in England, Scotland, Sweden, and France were conducted. An interview topic guide was developed on the basis of findings from a systematic comparison of HTA decisions for 10 orphan drugs. Qualitative thematic data analysis was applied to the interview transcripts using the framework approach. Eight representatives from the four HTA bodies were interviewed between March and June 2015. Evidentiary requirements and approaches to dealing with imperfect or incomplete evidence were explored, including trial design and duration, study population and subgroups, comparators, and end points. Interviewees agreed that decisions regarding orphan drugs are made in a context of lower quality evidence, and the threshold of acceptable uncertainty varied by country. Some countries imposed higher evidentiary standards for greater clinical claims, which may be more challenging for orphan diseases. The acceptability of surrogate end points was not consistent across countries nor were the validation requirements. The most common social value judgments identified related to innovation, disease severity, and unmet need. Differences were seen in the way these concepts were defined and accounted for across countries. Although agreement was seen in evidentiary requirements or preferences, there were subtle differences in the circumstances in which uncertain evidence may be considered acceptable, possibly explaining differences in HTA recommendations across countries.

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): testing a proposed MCDA framework for orphan drugs

BackgroundSince the introduction of the orphan drugs legislation in Europe, it has been suggested that the general method of assessing drugs for reimbursement is not necessarily suitable for orphan drugs. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence indicated that several criteria other than cost and efficacy could be considered in reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. This study sought to explore the multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework proposed by (Orphanet J Rare Dis 7:74, 2012) to a range of orphan drugs, with a view to comparing the aggregate scores to the average annual cost per patient for each product, and thus establishing the merit of MCDA as a tool for assessing the value of orphan drugs in relation to their pricings.MethodsAn MCDA framework was developed using the nine criteria proposed by (Orphanet J Rare Dis 7:74, 2012) for the evaluation of orphan drugs, using the suggested numerical scoring system on a scale of 1 to 3 for each criterion. Correlations between the average annual cost of the drugs and aggregate MCDA scores were tested and plotted graphically. Different weightings for each of the attributes were also tested. A further analysis was conducted to test the impact of including the drug cost as an attribute in the aggregate index scores.ResultsIn the drugs studied, the R2, that statistically measures how close the data are to the fitted regression line was 0.79 suggesting a strong correlation between the drug scores and the average annual cost per patient.ConclusionDespite several limitations of the proposed model, this quantitative study provided insight into using MCDA and its relationship to the average annual costs of the products.

Value-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs: a scoping review and decision framework.

BackgroundThe rate of development of new orphan drugs continues to grow. As a result, reimbursing orphan drugs on an exceptional basis is increasingly difficult to sustain from a health system perspective. An understanding of the value that societies attach to providing orphan drugs at the expense of other health technologies is now recognised as an important input to policy debates.ObjectivesThe aim of this work was to scope the social value arguments that have been advanced relating to the reimbursement of orphan drugs, and to locate these within a coherent decision-making framework to aid reimbursement decisions in the presence of limited healthcare resources.MethodsA scoping review of the peer reviewed and grey literature was undertaken, consisting of seven phases: (1) identifying the research question; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selecting studies; (4) charting, extracting and tabulating data; (5) analyzing data; (6) consulting relevant experts; and (7) presenting results. The points within decision processes where the identified value arguments would be incorporated were then located. This mapping was used to construct a framework characterising the distinct role of each value in informing decision making.ResultsThe scoping review identified 19 candidate decision factors, most of which can be characterised as either value-bearing or ‘opportunity cost’-determining, and also a number of value propositions and pertinent sources of preference information. We were able to synthesize these into a coherent decision-making framework.ConclusionOur framework may be used to structure policy discussions and to aid transparency about the values underlying reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. These values ought to be consistently applied to all technologies and populations affected by the decision.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0235-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PRM108 - Assessing The Relationship Between Individual Attributes Identified In Review Of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Of Rare Diseases And Annual Treatment Costs In Rare Endocrine Disorders

The three most frequently mentioned attributes were ‘disease severity’, ‘treatment impact on condition’, and ‘level of research undertaken to support use of the product’. Disease severity was not shown to influence product price. Similarly, orphan drugs are not necessarily more expensive than products without orphan drug status. There is little discernible relationship between treatment ‘convenience’ and average annual treatment cost. A trend was observed between the market size and the average annual treatment cost. Conclusion If society is concerned about equity and equal access to medicines for all patients, MCDA may offer a viable alternative to inform in reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. The analysis can be used to inform investigations on the application of MCDAs in rare diseases.

PCN224 - Current Status of Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs or Cancer Drugs and Implementation for Access Schemes in Korea

PCN224 - Current Status of Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs or Cancer Drugs and Implementation for Access Schemes in Korea

Orphan drugs expenditure in the Netherlands in the period 2006–2012

BackgroundThe relatively low budget impact of orphan drugs is often used as an argument in reimbursement decisions. However, overall, the budget impact of orphan drugs can still be substantial. In this study, we assess the uptake and budget impact of orphan drugs in the Netherlands.MethodsWe examined the number of orphan drugs, the number of patients and budget impact of orphan drugs in the Netherlands in the period 2006 to 2012, both for inpatient and outpatient orphan drugs. Budget impact was provided in absolute numbers and relative to total pharmaceutical spending.ResultsThe number of orphan drugs and patients treated increased substantially over the period studied. Overall, budget impact increased substantially over a period of six years, both in absolute terms (326% increase) as well as relative to total pharmaceutical spending (278% increase). Growth rates decreased over time. In 2012, 17% of available drugs had an individual budget impact of more than €10 million per year.ConclusionsIndividual budget impact of orphan drugs is often limited, although exceptions exist. However, in total, the budget impact of orphan drugs is considerable and has grown substantially over the years. This could potentially influence reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs in the future.

Reimbursement of orphan drugs in Belgium: what (else) matters?

BackgroundMost orphan drugs do not meet traditional standards of cost-effectiveness. Yet, most orphan drugs are reimbursed, which implies that other factors are taken into account at the time of reimbursement. To increase accountability of decision-makers, there is a need for more transparency in the factors that play a role in reimbursement decisions of orphan drugs. Therefore, the aim of this study is to use a combination of qualitative research methods to examine which official and non-official factors influence reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs in Belgium.MethodsSix semi-structured interviews with past or present members of the Drug Reimbursement Committee (DRC) were performed with a view to obtaining an overview of the potential factors influencing reimbursement. Additionally, these presence of these factors was assessed in the reimbursement dossiers of all orphan drugs (n = 64) for which an application for reimbursement was submitted to the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance in Belgium between January 2002 and July 2013.ResultsDifferent official (i.e. therapeutic value, budget impact, price and impact in clinical practice) and non-official factors (i.e. pricing and reimbursement in other countries, interference by patient organisations and experts, arguments related to quality of branded drug versus compounding, media attention, innovative character, economic importance, ethical arguments and the political climate) may have influenced past reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs in Belgium.DiscussionThe identification of factors influencing orphan drug reimbursement is a crucial step in the development of a transparent and consistent framework which will guide future decision-making for reimbursement of orphan drugs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13023-014-0139-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Limits on use of health economic assessments for rare diseases

Funding of expensive treatments for rare (orphan) diseases is contentious. These agents fare poorly on 'efficiency' or health economic measures, such as the quality-adjusted life years, because of high cost and frequently poor gains in quality of life and survival. We show that cost-effectiveness assessments are flawed, and have only a limited role to play in reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs and beyond.

Are payers treating orphan drugs differently?

BackgroundSome orphan drugs can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars annually per patient. As a result, payer sensitivity to the cost of orphan drugs is rising, particularly in light of increased numbers of new launches in recent years. In this article, we examine payer coverage in the United States, England and Wales, and the Netherlands of outpatient orphan drugs approved between 1983 and 2012, as well as the 11 most expensive orphan drugs.MethodsWe collected data from drug regulatory agencies as well as payers and drug evaluation authorities.ResultsWe found that orphan drugs have more coverage restrictions than non-orphan drugs in all three jurisdictions. From an economic perspective, the fact that a drug is an orphan product or has a high per-unit price per se should not imply a special kind of evaluation by payers, or necessarily the imposition of more coverage restrictions.ConclusionPayers should consider the same set of decision criteria that they do with respect to non-orphan drugs: disease severity, availability of treatment alternatives, level of unmet medical need, and cost-effectiveness, criteria that justifiably may be taken into account and traded off against one another in prescribing and reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs.

Which Orphans Will Find a Home? The Rule of Rescue in Resource Allocation for Rare Diseases

AbstractThe rule of rescue describes the moral impulse to save identifiable lives in immediate danger at any expense. Think of the extremes taken to rescue a small child who has fallen down a well, a woman pinned beneath the rubble of an earthquake, or a submarine crew trapped on the ocean floor. No effort is deemed too great. Yet should this same moral instinct to rescue, regardless of cost, be applied in the emergency room, the hospital, or the community clinic?In health care, the desire to save lives at any cost must be reconciled with the reality of resource scarcity. As one example, the estimated cost for prophylactic Factor VIII to treat one patient with hemophilia for one year is $300,000. Costs of this magnitude have been accepted by public and private insurers in the developed world, even though, in principle, these sums could provide greater overall health benefit if allocated to pay for the unmet health care needs of many other patients. Looking forward, however, broad application of the rule of rescue will be increasingly untenable. But the moral instinct will remain: the desire to help those weakest among us, especially when their small numbers allow us to see them as unique individuals. What, then, is the ethical framework that can guide coverage and reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs into the future?