1. bookVolume 1 (2017): Issue 2 (May 2017)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2564-615X
First Published
30 Jan 2017
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Clinical and economic issues complicating cost-effectiveness evaluation of orphan diseases

Published Online: 09 May 2017
Volume & Issue: Volume 1 (2017) - Issue 2 (May 2017)
Page range: 132 - 137
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2564-615X
First Published
30 Jan 2017
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of orphan medicinal products is confronted with a large confidence interval on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), or extremely high ICERs and therefore rejection of products for uptake in the health insurance package (coverage) by health authorities in Europe. Examples from the United Kingdom (UK) and The Netherlands illustrated that straightforward application of the decision criteria might not always be possible, resulting in a large variety of coverage decisions that were neither transparent nor consistent with the criteria. This observation required more insight into what drives the high ICERs and what policies may support the appropriate use of orphan medicinal products. The most relevant clinical and economic issues that are perceived to complicate the cost-effectiveness evaluation of orphan medicinal products are discussed. Theoretically, two possible solutions are available: 1) circumvent or 2) keep the standard assessment criterion costeffectiveness. In analogy to the Europe Medicine Agency (EMA) registration approach of orphan medicinal products that are hampered by limitations in the clinical data at the time of registration, we suggest to stick to the use of standard uniform criteria, but that efforts should be directed at optimising the input to the cost-effectiveness evaluation. Subsequently potential policy approaches are developed.

1. Zicht op zinnige en duurzame zorg. Zoetermeer: Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Zorg, 2006.Search in Google Scholar

2. College voor zorgverzekeringen (since 2014 Zorginstituut Nederland). Diemen 2012. Report assessment health outcomes research alglucosidase alfa (Myozyme®) for Pompe disease. Diemen: CVZ; 2012. http://www.cvz.nl/binaries/live/%20cvzinternet/hst_content/nl/documenten/rapporten/2012/rpt211-ziekte-van-pompe.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

3. College voor zorgverzekeringen (since 2014 Zorginstituut Nederland). Diemen 2012. Report assessment health outcomes research agalsidase alfa (Replagal®) and agalsidase bèta (Fabrazyme®) for Fabry disease. Diemen: CVZ; 2012. http://www.cvz.nl/binaries/live/cvzinternet/hst_content/nl/documenten/rapporten/2012/rpt1211-ziekte-van-fabry.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

4. Letter of Ministry of Health 29 January 2013. The Netherlands. Search in Google Scholar

5. Letter of Ministry of Health 3 October 2013. The Netherlands.Search in Google Scholar

6. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Appraising Orphan Drugs. Last updated: 14 April 2008. www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/whoweare/seniormanagementteam/meetings/2005/12july2005/appraising_orphan_drugs.jsp; www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/smt/120705item4.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

7. Hutton J, Rutten FFH, Hasselt van P, Oosterwijk C, Dubois D, Nuijten MJC. Economic relevance and validation procedure. Orphan Medicinal Products. Munich, 28 February 2014, ISBN: 978-94-91526-04-6.Search in Google Scholar

8. Rabinovich, M., Greenberg, D. and Shemer, J.(2007). Threshold values for cost-effectiveness ratio and public funding of medical technologies. Harefuah 146, 453-458, 500.Search in Google Scholar

9. Nuijten MJ, Dubois DJ. Cost-utility analysis: current methodological issues and future perspectives. Front Pharmacol 2011. Jun 8;2:29. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2011.00029. eCollection 2011.Search in Google Scholar

10. http://www.emea.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000029.jsp&mid=WC0b01aSearch in Google Scholar

11. European Medicines Agency. EPAR Myozyme. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_Scientific_Discussion/human/000636/WC500032128.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

12. Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D. Incorporating the Patient’s Perspective into Drug Development and Communication: An Ad Hoc Task Force Report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group Meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value in Health. Volume 6, Number 5, 2003, 522-531.10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.65309.x14627058Search in Google Scholar

13. EUnetHTA JA1 WP5 methodology guidelines Endpoints used for relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals HEALTHRELATED QUALITY OF LIFE and UTILITY MEASURES. February 2013.Search in Google Scholar

14. Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M et al. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Value Orphan Medicines. Research Paper 13/03. OHE. May 2013.10.2139/ssrn.2631463Search in Google Scholar

15. Deverka PA et al. Economic Opportunities and Challenges for Pharmacogenomics; Annual Revue of Pharmacology and Toxicology 50: 423-37, 2010.10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.010909.10580520055709Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo