2023 in review: FDA approvals of new medicines.

An analysis of all new entities approved by both the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) identified the approval of 69 new entities in the year 2023, 50 % more than in the previous year. Oncology drugs tied with congenital and infectious diseases drugs for the most approvals. Although orphan and priority approvals continued at a high pace, the rate of fast-track approvals continued to decline. The rate of industry consolidation also picked up again after decreasing slightly in 2022.

Prescription Drug Prices: An AAN Position Statement.

This position statement serves to establish the AAN's stance on the methods to address the cost of prescription drugs being considered by state and federal policymakers so that the AAN can continue to advocate effectively for its members. Neurologists seek to provide high-value care for patients with neurologic diseases at the lowest cost possible. However, many therapies for neurologic diseases are among the most expensive in the United States. The 3 major cost challenges include (1) unjustified increases in the pricing for drugs used to treat neurologic disorders, (2) the high cost of medications used to treat rare diseases where there are limited or no therapeutic options available, and (3) the high cost of noninnovative (already FDA-approved) therapies that used accelerated FDA approval pathways or Orphan Drug Act designated to expedite approvals in neurologic disorders. In each of these cases, AAN is concerned that the high cost does not deliver sufficient value to patients or society. The AAN's position is that action must be taken to ensure that effective prescription medications are accessible for patients with complex, chronic neurologic conditions. Potential solutions should be affordable, simple, and transparent. Cost-containment efforts must also address the burden on the entire healthcare system because high prescription drug prices may be shifted and absorbed in ways that negatively affect patient and prescriber access to important medications. AAN supports price negotiations, the cost saving potential of generics and biosimilars, development of novel therapeutics, price transparency, and importation.

A Step Toward the Development of the First National Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework to Support Healthcare Decision Making in Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of implementing multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and to select the criteria for preparing a national MCDA framework for health technology assessment of orphan drugs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). METHODS: The study was conducted in 3 phases. In phase I, a targeted literature review was performed to gather relevant information on the implementation of MCDA in healthcare decision making. Phase II was a cross-sectional survey, conducted to obtain insights from different stakeholders and key opinion leaders on specific topics from the KSA perspective. Phase III included a round-table discussion involving experts to validate the results obtained in the phase II survey and further elaborate on specific requirements that may be critical for developing the first national MCDA framework in the KSA. RESULTS: All the key opinion leaders involved in the study acknowledged the importance of implementing MCDA in the KSA. The Ministry of Health was assigned the responsibility of chairing the MCDA decision process. The experts selected the quantitative, qualitative, and economic criteria to be considered for the MCDA framework. The stakeholders decided to initiate a pilot phase using the deliberative MCDA methodology for the assessment of orphan drugs based on the selected criteria for a period of 1 year and then reevaluate the need to adapt the pragmatic MCDA model. CONCLUSION: This article describes the novel initiative that examined the feasibility and process required for the development of the first MCDA framework in the KSA to support healthcare decision making.

Partial Orphan Cancer Drugs: US Food and Drug Administration Approval, Clinical Benefit, Trials, Epidemiology, Price, Beneficiaries, and Spending.

OBJECTIVES: The Orphan Drug Act (ODA) incentivizes drug development for rare diseases with limited sales potential. Partial orphans-drugs used to treat rare and common diseases-frequently turn into multi-billion dollar blockbusters. This study analyzes partial orphan cancer drugs' development, approval, and economics. METHODS: 170 drugs with US Food and Drug Administration approval for 455 cancer indications were identified (2000-2021). 110 full, 22 partial, and 38 non-orphan drugs were compared regarding their approval, benefits, trials, epidemiology, price, beneficiaries, and spending with data from regulatory documents, Global Burden of Disease study, and Medicare and Medicaid. RESULTS: Full orphans, relative to partial and non-orphans, were more frequently monotherapies for hematologic cancers supported by smaller single-arm trials treating diseases with a lower incidence and higher severity. The time from first to second indication approval was 1 year shorter for partial than full orphans. Full orphans offered a greater overall survival (median: 4.0 vs 2.8 vs 2.8 months, P < .001) and progression-free survival benefit (median: 5.1 vs 2.5 vs 3.6 months, P < .001). Monthly prices were higher for full and partial than non-orphan drugs (median: $17 177 vs $13 284 vs $12 457, P < .001). Beneficiaries (8790 vs 4390 vs 1730) and spending ($570 vs $305 vs $156 million) per drug were greater for partial than non-and full orphans. CONCLUSIONS: Although partial orphans' benefits, trials, and economics are more similar to non-than full orphans, they receive all of the ODA's benefits and are swiftly extended to new indications; resulting in greater spending. A maximum ODA revenue/patient threshold could limit expenditure on partial orphans.

High-cost drugs for rare diseases: their expenditure and value based on a regional area-based study.

Background: in the field of rare diseases (RDs) most of the European studies on budget impact analysis of drugs that have been conducted often lay on theoretical assumptions and focus only on Orphan drugs (ODs). Objectives: we aimed to estimate the budget impact of specific drugs for non-oncological RDs, both ODs and non-ODs, using real-world data about patients residing in Veneto Region (Italy) and to describe its expenditure structure and dynamics. Methods: a population-based multi-source observational study was conducted using data from Regional administrative databases; an ad-hoc drugs' list specific for RDs including both ODs and non-ODs and classifying them by ATC codes has been created. Results: In 2019, the total expenditure for drugs specific for RDs was EUR 97.2 million (6.6% of the total Regional budget). The RD drug list included 58 ATC codes, of which 15 ATC had an annual budget impact over EUR 1 million ("blockbuster drugs"). The most expensive treatment was a non-OD drug (Coagulation factor VIII). The two most represented therapeutical areas were the metabolic and the hematological ones. Conclusions: Cost analyses on RD high-cost drugs expenditure should consider any specific RD drug, not only ODs. Expenditure dynamics for RD drugs are peculiar showing "blockbuster drugs". Some therapeutical areas seem to be lacking in the drug research field.

Cost of Exempting Sole Orphan Drugs From Medicare Negotiation.

Importance: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) requires Medicare to negotiate prices for some high-spending drugs but exempts drugs approved solely for the treatment of a single rare disease. Objective: To estimate Medicare spending and global revenues for drugs that might have been exempt from negotiation from 2012 to 2021. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed drugs that met the IRA threshold for price negotiation (Medicare spending >$200 million/y) in any year from 2012 to 2021 and had an Orphan Drug Act designation. We stratified drugs into 4 mutually exclusive categories: approved for a single rare disease (sole orphan), approved for multiple rare diseases (multiorphan), initially approved for a rare disease and subsequently approved for a nonrare disease (orphan first), and initially approved for a nonrare disease and subsequently approved for a rare disease (non-orphan first). Outcomes: The primary outcomes were the number of sole orphan drugs, estimated Medicare spending on those drugs from 2012 to 2021, and global revenue since launch. Results: Among 282 drugs, 95 (34%) were approved to treat at least 1 rare disease, including 25 sole orphan drugs (26%), 20 multiorphan drugs (21%), 13 orphan first drugs (14%), and 37 non-orphan first drugs (39%). From 2012 to 2021, Medicare spending on sole orphan drugs increased from $3.4 billion to $10.0 billion. Each year, a median (IQR) of $2.5 ($1.9-$2.6) billion in Medicare spending would have been excluded from price negotiation because of the sole orphan exemption. The cumulative global revenue of the median (IQR) sole orphan drug was $11 ($6.6-$19.2) billion. Conclusions and Relevance: The sole orphan exemption will exclude billions of dollars of Medicare drug spending from price negotiation. The high level of global revenues achieved by these drugs, however, suggests that special exemption is unnecessary for them to achieve financial success. Congress could consider removing the sole orphan exemption to obtain additional savings for patients and taxpayers and to eliminate any potential disincentive for developing additional indications for these drugs.

Costs of orphan medicinal products: longitudinal analysis of expenditure in Wales.

BACKGROUND: The Orphan Regulation ((EC) No 141/2000) has successfully redirected private and public investment towards previously neglected areas through incentives, regulatory obligations and rewards. However, the growth in the number of licensed orphan medicinal products (OMPs) has led to concerns about increased costs. The aims were to investigate the trend in the costs of OMPs to the National Health Service in Wales, to attribute costs of medicines within and outside periods of marketing exclusivity, and estimate the contribution of individual medicines to the overall costs of OMPs. METHODS: Expenditure on OMPs in Wales was analysed between the 2014/15 and 2019/20 financial years using data on prescriptions dispensed in primary care, secondary care, and specialised commissioned services. OMP spend was calculated as a proportion of total medicines expenditure, whether it was incurred during, or outside the marketing exclusivity period (MEP), and by therapeutic area and medicine. RESULTS: Overall spend on OMPs and all medicines increased from £32 m to £82 m, and from £1,030 m to £1,198 m, respectively, with the proportion of spend on OMPs more than doubling from 3.1% to 6.9% per annum. Average year-on-year growth in the costs of OMPs was 21%, compared to 2% for other medicines. Costs following MEP expiry contributed significantly to overall OMP costs, increasing from £8 m to £30 m, corresponding to an increase from 24% to 37%. Treatments for 'malignant disease and immunosuppression', 'nutrition and blood' and the 'respiratory system' accounted for 90% of all OMP spend. Half of total OMP annual expenditure was on just 4 medicines in 2014/15, increasing to 8 in 2019/20. CONCLUSIONS: Both the number of OMPs and the amount spent on OMPs in Wales has increased over time, possibly as a consequence of favourable licensing conditions, permissive health technology assessment policies and dedicated funding.

Impacts of adjustment of National Reimbursement Drug List on orphan drugs volume and spending in China: an interrupted time series analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impacts of the 2017 adjustment of National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) on orphan drugs hospital procurement volumes and spending in China. DESIGN: We used an interrupted time series design covering the period from 2016 to 2018 to analyse changes in hospital procurement volumes and spending of orphan drugs for which were included in the 2017 NRDL. SETTING AND DATA: The study was conducted in China. Orphan drug procurement data of 789 public hospitals (594 tertiary hospitals and 195 secondary hospitals) were derived from the Chinese Medical Economic Information (CMEI). OUTCOME MEASURES: Monthly orphan drugs hospital procurement volumes and spending. RESULTS: Nine orphan drugs were included in the 2017 NRDL (seven were directly included, and two were included after price negotiation). Comparing to orphan drugs not included in the NRDL, hospital procurement volumes ([Formula: see text] =43 312, p<0.001) and spending ([Formula: see text] =6 48 927, p<0.001) of the nine included drugs showed significant upward trends after implementation of the 2017 NRDL adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the 2017 adjustment of NRDL significantly changed the usage and spending on certain orphan drugs. The increase in orphan drug hospital procurement volumes should improve rare disease patients' access to these orphan drugs.

Evaluating the impact of the FDA's orphan drug designation on share prices of biotechnology companies.

This analysis explores the impact of the FDA's orphan drug designation (ODD) on biotechnology companies' share prices in the short and long term. Our analysis reveals that there is a significant immediate increase in share prices following an ODD announcement, which underscores its potential as a robust indicator of short-term investor returns. However, the long-term findings present a more complex picture, with a sustained impact within the biotech industry but a significant depreciation against the broader market over time. These findings elucidate the nuanced effects of regulatory milestones on the financial performance of pharmaceutical companies and highlight the need for more comprehensive studies to further unravel these complex dynamics.

Prices of Orphan Drugs in Four Western European Countries Before and After Market Exclusivity Expiry: A Cross-Country Comparison of List Prices and Purchase Prices.

BACKGROUND: Increasing pharmaceutical expenditure challenges the sustainability and accessibility of healthcare systems across Europe. Confidentiality restraints hinder assessment of actual prices of Orphan Medicinal Products (OMPs). Hence, we assessed the real prices of brand-name OMPs around market exclusivity expiry (MEE). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore developments in published list prices (LPs) and confidential hospital purchase prices (PPs) of brand-name OMPs relative to their market exclusivity status in Western European countries with similar GDPs. METHODS: We analyzed LPs and PPs of 13 selected OMPs purchased by university hospitals in Western European countries between 2000 and 2020. For confidentially reasons, proportions were used, with the Dutch LPs of the selected OMPs at the year of MEE serving as reference values. PPs included pre-purchase discounts. Rebates were not considered. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from hospitals in Denmark (DK) (n = 1), France (FR) (n = 1), Germany (DE) (n = 2), and the Netherlands (NL) (n = 1). Average LPs and PPs of included OMPs dropped gradually but limited over time, with no explicit price drop after MEE. LP levels differed more per country than PP levels: LP range before MEE was 164% (DE)-101% (FR) and after MEE was 135% (DE)-82% (FR); PP range before MEE was 150% (DE)-102% (FR) and after MEE was 107% (DE)-80% (FR). Overall differences between LPs and PPs were < 3% in all countries, except for Denmark. CONCLUSION: No evident price drops of included brand-name OMPs were observed around MEE and differences in purchase prices are modest in the selected Western European countries. Results were not subject to significance testing. More robust data are needed to strengthen negotiations with suppliers.

Evaluating high-cost technologies - no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence generation for the health technology assessment (HTA) of a new technology is a long and expensive process with no guarantees that the health technology will be adopted and implemented into a health-care system. This would suggest that there is a greater risk of failure for a company developing a high-cost technology and therefore incentives (such as increasing the funding available for research or additional market exclusivity) may be needed to encourage development of such technologies as has been seen with many high-cost orphan drugs. AREAS COVERED: This paper discusses some of the key issues relating to the evaluation of high-cost technologies through the use of existing HTA processes and what the challenges will be going forward. EXPERT OPINION: We propose that while the current HTA process is robust, its evolution into accommodating the incorporation of real-world data and evidence alongside a life-cycle HTA approach should better enable developers to produce the evidence required on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This should lead to reduced decision uncertainty for HTA agencies to make adoption decisions in a more timely and efficient manner. Furthermore, budget impact analysis remains important in understanding the actual financial impact on health-care systems and budgets outside of the cost-effectiveness framework used to aid decision-making.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of an orphan drug tebentafusp in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and a call for value-based pricing.

The normative regimens recommendations for treating metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) are absent in the US. Recently, a phase III randomized clinical trial revealed that tebentafusp yielded a conspicuously longer overall survival than the control group. Based on the prominent efficacy, this study aimed to assess whether tebentafusp is cost-effective compared to the control group in patients with untreated mUM. A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of US payers. Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the conclusion uncertainty. Compared with control group, tebentafusp therapy yielded an additional 0.47 QALYs (1.19 vs. 0.72 QALYs) and an incremental cost of $444 280 ($633 822 vs. $189 542). The resultant ICER of $953 230/QALY far outweighed the willingness-to-pay threshold of $200 000/QALY. The ICER was always more than $750 000/QALY in all the univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Scenario analyses indicated that reducing the unit price of tebentafusp to $33.768/µg was associated with a favorable result of tebentafusp being cost-effective. For treatment-naive patients with mUM, the cost of tebentafusp therapy was not worth the improvement in survival benefits at the current price compared to the investigator's choice of therapy. The cost-effectiveness of tebentafusp could be promoted using value-based pricing.

Estratégias de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (ATS) para medicamentos para doenças raras: uma revisão rápida de escopo / Health Technology Assessment (HTA) strategies for drugs in rare diseases: a rapid scope review

A Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (ATS) considera os domínios de benefícios clínicos, perfil epidemiológico, inovação, custo-efetividade, ética e de equidade no processo de decisão dos gestores em saúde. No contexto dos medicamentos para doenças raras, é desafiador o trabalho da ATS, dada a baixa disponibilidade de evidências robustas e o alto custo unitário das tecnologias. O objetivo da revisão foi analisar as estratégias disponíveis de avaliação das demandas de incorporação de medicamentos para o tratamento de doenças raras em sistemas de saúde. Foi realizada uma revisão rápida com busca estruturada na base de dados MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library e Health Systems Evidence. Incluíram-se estudos sobre estratégias de avaliação de medicamentos utilizados para tratamento de doenças raras. Adicionalmente, foram realizadas buscas nas Agências de ATS do Brasil, Austrália, Nova Zelândia, Canadá, Reino Unido, França, Estados Unidos e Alemanha. A síntese dos resultados foi qualitativa com o agrupamento dos achados nos seguintes eixos temáticos: Segurança e efetividade, Custo-efetividade, Impacto orçamentário e Perspectiva da sociedade. Foram identificadas 267 publicações, sendo selecionadas 16 das bases de dados indexadas e 7 da literatura cinzenta. Com a análise dos documentos, pode-se concluir que a adoção de critérios específicos harmonizada com o atual modelo de ATS é um possível caminho a ser seguido no contexto dos medicamentos para doenças raras. Concomitante a isso, abordagens no sentido de incentivo a pesquisa e produção de dados de mundo real e a criação de comitês específicos para tratativa do tema nas agências de ATS apresentam-se como alternativa para lidar com as fragilidades no contexto de doenças raras.

The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) considers evidence regarding clinical benefits, epidemiological profile, innovation, cost-effectiveness, ethics and equity in its assessment process to support managers' decisions. In the context of drugs in rare diseases, the work of the ATS is challenging given the low availability of evidence and the high cost of technologies. The objective of the review was to analyze the available strategies for evaluating the demands for incorporating drugs for the treatment of rare diseases in health systems. A rapid review was performed with a structured search in the MEDLINE database (via PubMed), the Cochrane Library and Health Systems Evidence. Studies on strategies for evaluating drugs used to treat rare diseases were included and, additionally, searches were carried out in ATS Agencies in Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom, France, United States and Germany. The synthesis of the results was qualitative, grouping the major ones into thematic axes: Safety and effectiveness, Cost-effectiveness, Budgetary impact and Society's perspective. 267 publications were identified, 16 selected from indexed databases and 7 from gray literature. With the analysis of the documents, it can be concluded that the adoption of specific criteria harmonized with the current ATS model is a possible path to be followed in the context of drugs for rare diseases. At the same time, approaches to encourage research and the creation of specific committees to deal with the issue in HTA agencies would complement actions towards the consolidation of this work.

Five-Year Sales for Newly Marketed Prescription Drugs With and Without Initial Orphan Drug Act Designation.

This study evaluates sales revenue earned in the first 5 years for newly marketed brand-name drugs with and without an initial orphan drug designation.

FDA approval, clinical trial evidence, efficacy, epidemiology, and price for non-orphan and ultra-rare, rare, and common orphan cancer drug indications: cross sectional analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, trials, unmet needs, benefit, and pricing of ultra-rare (<6600 affected US citizens), rare (6600-200 000 citizens), and common (>200 000 citizens) orphan cancer drug indications and non-orphan cancer drug indications. DESIGN: Cross sectional analysis. SETTING: Data from Drugs@FDA, FDA labels, Global Burden of Disease study, and Medicare and Medicaid. POPULATION: 170 FDA approved drugs across 455 cancer indications between 2000 and 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of non-orphan and ultra-rare, rare, and common orphan indications regarding regulatory approval, trials, epidemiology, and price. Hazard ratios for overall survival and progression-free survival were meta-analyzed. RESULTS: 161 non-orphan and 294 orphan cancer drug indications were identified, of which 25 were approved for ultra-rare diseases, 205 for rare diseases, and 64 for common diseases. Drugs for ultra-rare orphan indications were more frequently first in class (76% v 48% v 38% v 42%; P<0.001), monotherapies (88% v 69% v 72% v 55%; P=0.001), for hematologic cancers (76% v 66% v 0% v 0%; P<0.001), and supported by smaller trials (median 85 v 199 v 286 v 521 patients; P<0.001), of single arm (84% v 44% v 28% v 21%; P<0.001) phase 1/2 design (88% v 45% v 45% v 27%; P<0.001) compared with rare and common orphan indications and non-orphan indications. Drugs for common orphan indications were more often biomarker directed (69% v 26% v 12%; P<0.001), first line (77% v 39% v 20%; P<0.001), small molecules (80% v 62% v 48%; P<0.001) benefiting from quicker time to first FDA approval (median 5.7 v 7.1 v 8.9 years; P=0.02) than those for rare and ultra-rare orphan indications. Drugs for ultra-rare, rare, and common orphan indications offered a significantly greater progression-free survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.53 v 0.51 v 0.49 v 0.64; P<0.001), but not overall survival benefit (0.50 v 0.73 v 0.71 v 0.74; P=0.06), than non-orphans. In single arm trials, tumor response rates were greater for drugs for ultra-rare orphan indications than for rare or common orphan indications and non-orphan indications (objective response rate 57% v 48% v 55% v 33%; P<0.001). Disease incidence/prevalence, five year survival, and the number of available treatments were lower, whereas disability adjusted life years per patient were higher, for ultra-rare orphan indications compared with rare or common indications and non-orphan indications. For 147 on-patent drugs with available data in 2023, monthly prices were higher for ultra-rare orphan indications than for rare or common orphan indications and non-orphan indications ($70 128 (£55 971; €63 370) v $33 313 v $16 484 v $14 508; P<0.001). For 48 on-patent drugs with available longitudinal data from 2005 to 2023, prices increased by 94% for drugs for orphan indications and 50% for drugs for non-orphan indications on average. CONCLUSIONS: The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 incentivizes development of drugs not only for rare diseases but also for ultra-rare diseases and subsets of common diseases. These orphan indications fill significant unmet needs, yet their approval is based on small, non-robust trials that could overestimate efficacy outcomes. A distinct ultra-orphan designation with greater financial incentives could encourage and expedite drug development for ultra-rare diseases.

Patient-based evidence: its role in decision making on end-of-life, orphan, and ultra-orphan medicines.

OBJECTIVES: The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) conducts early health technology assessment (HTA) of new medicines on behalf of NHSScotland. Assessment of end-of-life (EoL), orphan, and ultra-orphan medicines includes a process to gather evidence from patients and carers during Patient and Clinician Engagement (PACE) meetings. The output of PACE meetings is a consensus statement describing the medicine's added value from the perspective of patients/carers and clinicians. The PACE statement is used by SMC committee members in decision making. This study compared how PACE participants and SMC committee members rate the importance of information in PACE statements for these medicines. METHODS: A survey was undertaken of patient group (PG) representatives and clinicians who participated in PACE meetings, and SMC committee members. RESULTS: PACE participants who responded (26 PG representatives and 14 clinicians) rated health benefits and ability to take part in normal life as important/very important. Convenience of administration and treatment choice received the lowest rating. Hope for the future received the most diverse response. PACE participants generally rated the importance of quality of life themes higher than committee members (n = 20) but the rank order was similar. Differences between the proportion of PACE participants and committee members who rated themes as important/very important were greatest for treatment choice and hope for the future. CONCLUSIONS: In general, PACE themes and subthemes that were rated highly by PACE participants were also considered important by SMC committee members, indicating that information captured during PACE meetings is relevant when making decisions on EoL, orphan, and ultra-orphan medicines.

Do Reimbursement Recommendations by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health Translate Into Coverage Decisions for Orphan Drugs in the Canadian Province of Ontario?

OBJECTIVES: Unlike other high-income countries, Canada has no national policy for drugs treating rare diseases (orphan drugs). Nevertheless, in 2022, the Canadian government committed to creating a national strategy to make access to these drugs more consistent. Our aim was to study whether recommendations made by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) translated into coverage decisions for orphan drugs in Ontario, the largest Canadian province. This study is the first to look at this question for orphan drugs, which are at the center of policy attention. METHODS: We included 155 orphan drug-indication pairs approved and marketed in Canada between October 2002 and April 2022. Cohen's kappa was used to test the agreement across health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations and coverage decisions in Ontario. Logistic regression was used to test which factors, relevant to decision-makers, might be associated with funding in Ontario. RESULTS: We found only fair agreement between CADTH's recommendations and coverage decisions in Ontario. Although a positive and statistically significant association between favorable HTA recommendations and coverage was found, more than half of the drugs with a negative HTA recommendation were available in Ontario, predominately through specialized funds. Successful pan-Canadian pricing negotiations were a strong predictor of coverage in Ontario. CONCLUSIONS: Despite efforts to harmonize access to drugs across Canada, considerable room for improvement remains. Introducing a national strategy for orphan drugs could help increase transparency, consistency, promote collaborations, and make access to orphan drugs a national priority.

Effect of the copayment reduction system on accessibility to orphan drugs in South Korea.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the effect of the copayment reduction system on accessibility to orphan drugs (ODs) in South Korea. METHODS: Data on approval and reimbursement for drugs designated as ODs for the last 10 years (2012-2021) in South Korea were extracted. Among them, with 136 approved products as of 31 December 2022, the reimbursement rates and lead time to reimbursement between drugs for rare diseases (DRDs) and nondrugs for rare diseases (non-DRDs) were analyzed. The pricing and reimbursement (P&R) pathways between drugs for only rare diseases (DORDs) and drugs for rare and cancerous diseases (DRCDs) were compared. RESULTS: The reimbursement rates for DRDs and non-DRDs were 54.8% and 33.3%, respectively, and the lead time to reimbursement for DRDs and non-DRDs were 16.1 months and 31.2 months, respectively. The P&R pathways for DORDs and DRCDs were pharmacoeconomic evaluation waivers (21.7% and 52.6%), weighted average price (52.2% and 13.2%), and risk-sharing agreement (30.4% and 81.6%). CONCLUSION: The copayment reduction system may act as a driver and also barrier for the reimbursement of ODs. To expand treatment accessibility to ODs, it is necessary to consistently grants benefits in all processes from OD designation to market access.

Novel approach to decision making for orphan drugs.

BACKGROUND: Out of 185 orphan medicinal products (OMPs) registered in 2015-2021, a mere 110 (59 percent) were available to Czech patients, and only 54 (29 percent) were officially reimbursed. Moreover, this proportion has steadily decreased over time. After years of public debate induced by this unsatisfactory OMP patient access, the national viewpoint shifted toward creating a special pathway for the reimbursement of OMP. Thus, a rigorous pricing and reimbursement procedure with strict timelines and elaborated methodology has been recently adopted in Czechia. METHODOLOGY: The innovative legislation follows the recommendations for value assessment and funding processes for rare diseases and incorporates additional elements of value, such as the societal perspective. First, the application with clinical evidence, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact analyses is submitted to the governmental health technology assessment (HTA) agency by the Marketing Authorization Holder or a Health Insurance Fund. Moreover, professional associations and patients' organizations are rightful participants in the proceeding, providing evidence and comments. Then, the HTA agency performs the assessment/appraisal of the evidence. It subsequently publishes the assessment report summarizing available information. The report is then forwarded to the Ministry of Health and its advisory body consisting of patients, clinical experts, health insurance funds, and the State. They critically evaluate the documents and issue a binding opinion following prespecified decision-making criteria. Based on this binding opinion, the decision is issued by the HTA agency. Thus, the role of the advisory body in this process is crucial. CONCLUSION: We believe that this novel approach may offer satisfactory patient access to orphan drugs. Moreover, it serves as a real-world example of "value-based" decision making.

Assessment of FDA-Approved Drugs Not Recommended for Use or Reimbursement in Other Countries, 2017-2020.

Importance: Drug expenditures in the US are higher than in any other country and are projected to continue increasing, so US health systems may benefit from evaluating international regulatory and reimbursement decision-making of new drugs. Objective: To evaluate regulatory decisions and health technology assessments (HTAs) in Australia, Canada, and the UK regarding new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017 through 2020, as well as to estimate the US cost per patient per year for drugs receiving negative recommendations. Design and Setting: In this cross-sectional study, recommendations issued by agencies in Australia, Canada, and the UK were collected for new drugs approved by the FDA in 2017 through 2020. All data were current as of May 31, 2022. Exposures: Authorizations and HTAs in selected countries. Main Outcomes and Measures: All FDA-approved drugs were matched by active ingredient to decision summary reports published by drug regulators and HTA agencies in Australia, Canada, and the UK. Regulatory approval concordance and reasons for negative recommendations were assessed using descriptive statistics. For drugs not recommended by an international agency, the annual US drug cost per patient was estimated from FDA labeling and wholesale acquisition costs. Results: The FDA approved 206 new drugs in 2017 through 2020, of which 162 (78.6%) were granted marketing authorization by at least 1 other regulatory agency at a median (IQR) delay of 12.1 (17.7) months following US approval. Conversely, 5 FDA-approved drugs were refused marketing authorization by an international regulatory agency due to unfavorable benefit-to-risk assessments. An additional 42 FDA-approved drugs received negative reimbursement recommendations from HTA agencies in Australia, Canada, or the UK due to uncertainty of clinical benefits or unacceptably high prices. The median (IQR) US cost of the 47 drugs refused authorization or not recommended for reimbursement by an international agency was $115 281 ($166 690) per patient per year. Twenty drugs were for oncology indications, and 36 were approved by the FDA through expedited regulatory pathways or the Orphan Drug Act. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study assessed reasons for which drugs recently approved by the FDA were refused marketing authorization or not recommended for public reimbursement in other countries. Drugs with limited international market presence may require close examination by US health care professionals and health systems.