The implementation of health technology assessment principles in public decisions concerning orphan drugs.

PURPOSE: Over the last few years, the share of public spending for orphan drugs (ODs) has increased in several western countries, raising concern on the exemptions granted to this sector with respect to the implementation of health technology assessment (HTA) principles. The aim of this paper is to shed light on both the HTA criteria adopted and the international agreements implemented in the OD regulation, given the new challenges imposed on western countries by a growing number of therapies for rare diseases. METHODS: We carried out a literature review to analyse the development of the international debate on the adaptability of HTA criteria for the OD assessment and regulation. The time span lies between January 1990 and May 2018, and the policies considered relate to both market authorization and reimbursement decisions within western countries. We focus specifically on HTA criteria in some of the dimensions included in the Core Model of the European net for HTA (EUnetHTA). RESULTS: OD high prices, the absence of clarity on the possible high revenues realized by the distribution of a new OD outside the national borders, the risk that - once marketed - a new OD can be used to treat common diseases, are all issues that raise concern on OD regulation and have to be carefully monitored by policymakers in the next future. CONCLUSIONS: Across western countries, the preferential track granted to ODs in the implementation of HTA principles is not homogeneous, but fragmented and differentiated. The need for common rules at an international level is underlined, with a view to assessing the sustainability of a sector which, due to this regulatory void, can lend itself to producers' strategic and opportunistic behaviours.

Evaluating Canadians' Values for Drug Coverage Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Decision makers are facing growing challenges in prioritizing drugs for reimbursement because of soaring drug costs and increasing pressures on financial resources. In addition to cost and effectiveness, payers are using other values to dictate which drugs are prioritized for funding, yet there are limited data on the Canadian public's priorities. OBJECTIVES: To measure the relative societal importance of values considered most relevant in informing drug reimbursement decisions in a representative sample of Canadians. METHODS: An online survey of 2539 Canadians aged 19 years and older was performed in which 13 values used in drug funding prioritization were ranked and then weighted using an analytic hierarchy process. RESULTS: Canadians value safe and efficacious drugs that have certainty of evidence. The values ranked in the top 5 by most of our subjects were potential effect on quality of life (65.4%), severity of the disease (62.6%), ability of drug to work (61.1%), safety (60.5%), and potential to extend life (49.4%). Values related to patient or disease characteristics such as rarity, socioeconomic status, and health and lifestyle choices held the lowest rankings and weights. CONCLUSIONS: Canadians value, above all, treatment-related factors (eg, efficacy and safety) and disease-related factors (eg, severity and equity). Decision makers are currently using additional justifications to prioritize drugs for reimbursement, such as rarity and unmet need, which were not found to be highly valued by Canadians. Decision makers should integrate the public's values into a Canadian reimbursement framework for prioritization of drugs competing for limited funds.

EU decision-making for marketing authorization of advanced therapy medicinal products: a case study.

A comparative analysis of assessment procedures for authorization of all European Union (EU) applications for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) shows that negative opinions were associated with a lack of clinical efficacy and identified severe safety risks. Unmet medical need was often considered in positive opinions and outweighed scientific uncertainties. Numerous quality issues illustrate the difficulties in this domain for ATMP development. Altogether, it suggests that setting appropriate standards for ATMP authorization in Europe, similar to elsewhere, is a learning experience. The experimental characteristics of authorized ATMPs urge regulators, industry, and clinical practice to pay accurate attention to post-marketing risk management to limit patient risk. Methodologies for ATMP development and regulatory evaluations need to be continuously evaluated for the field to flourish.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN EVALUATION OF PHARMACEUTICALS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC.

OBJECTIVES: In the Czech Republic, the health technology assessment (HTA) approaches have been implemented in evaluation of medicinal products since 2008. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the implementation of HTA and different levels thereof in the evaluation process conducted by the State Institute for Drug Control (SUKL) and to describe the impact of HTA on the entrance of new medicinal entities into out-patient healthcare system including highly innovative and orphan drugs. METHODS: Materials supporting this overview were collected using the records in the database of administrative proceedings of SUKL, in-house standard operating procedures, and the legislation in force. Based on these sources as well as the hands-on knowledge of the current practice, a brief description of the general rules of administrative proceedings involving HTA of varying complexity was elaborated. Characteristic features of the individual types of proceedings, basic differences in the complexity of HTA employed, and its most important challenges were summarized. RESULTS: In Czech Republic, HTA in the formal administrative proceedings ensures a transparent process of introduction of new medicinal products into clinical practice and leaves space for restriction of reimbursement conditions to minimize budget impact. CONCLUSIONS: As a robust as well as pragmatic HTA methodology has been implemented by SUKL, relevant stakeholders (marketing authorization holders, Health Care Funds, clinical expert groups) are now able to influence reimbursement of new technologies.

Affordable orphan drugs: a role for not-for-profit organizations.

AIMS: The success of the Regulation on Orphan Medicinal Products in the European Union is evidenced by the 127 orphan drugs that have had market authorization since 2000. However, the incentives aimed at stimulating research and development have had the unintended consequence of increasing drug cost, resulting in many orphan drugs not being cost-effective. Orphan drugs command an increasing share of the pharmaceutical market and account for a disproportionate amount of healthcare expenditure. Orphan drug ownership by socially motivated, not-for-profit organizations may facilitate access to more affordable orphan drugs, for the benefit of patients and healthcare systems alike. This study aims to describe opportunities for such organizations to become orphan drug Market Authorization Holders. METHODS: We reviewed data on the ownership of EMA designated and approved orphan drugs, identified funding opportunities and business models for not-for-profit organizations, and summarised relevant legal and policy documents concerning intellectual property rights and drug regulation. RESULTS: Using repurposed drugs as a paradigm, this narrative review navigates the regulatory hurdles, describes the legal context and identifies funding opportunities, in a bid to facilitate and encourage not-for-profit organizations to lead on the development of affordable orphan drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Although the regulatory steps required to obtain an MA for an orphan drug are numerous and challenging, they are not insurmountable and can be achieved by not-for-profit organizations that are socially motivated to reduce the costs of orphan drugs to the payers of healthcare. Opportunities for orphan drug development resulting in affordable products lie mainly with repurposed drugs.

Priorities for the Priority Review Voucher.

The U.S. Congress created the priority review voucher program in 2007 to encourage development of drugs for neglected diseases. Under the voucher program, the developer of a drug for a neglected or rare pediatric disease that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration receives a bonus priority review voucher for another drug. As of 2016, four vouchers have sold for an average price of $200 million. Recent experience with the voucher program indicates strengths and weaknesses of the program, as well as a need for legislative changes.

The correlation between HTA recommendations and reimbursement status of orphan drugs in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to review and compare types of reimbursement recommendations for orphan drugs issued by eight European health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and the reimbursement status of these drugs in the corresponding countries. Separate calculations were also performed for three sub-groups: ultra-orphan drugs, oncology orphan drugs and other (non-ultra, non-oncology) orphan drugs. RESULTS: We reviewed drugs authorized by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) between 1 November 2002 and 30 September 2015. Among these, we identified 101 orphan drugs. Seventy-nine of them were assessed by eight European HTA agencies. The average rates of positive, conditional and negative reimbursement recommendations issued by these agencies were 55.7 %, 15.3 % and 29.0 %, respectively. On average, 21.2 % of EMA-authorized orphan drugs were reimbursed in the eight European countries studied: 49.0 % of those with positive, 53.6 % of those with conditional, and 16.0 % of those with negative reimbursement recommendations. In addition, 5.4 % of orphan drugs that had not been assessed by any of the eight HTA agencies were also reimbursed. The shares of oncology, ultra, and other orphan drugs that were assessed by HTA agencies were similar, with the lowest share observed in ultra-orphan drugs (72 %) and the highest in other orphan drugs (80 %). In terms of reimbursement, 20 % of oncology orphan drugs, 25 % of ultra-orphan drugs and 21 % of other orphan drugs were reimbursed. CONCLUSIONS: Reimbursement of orphan drugs does not always correspond to the type of HTA recommendation. While the highest rate of reimbursement is observed (unsurprisingly) among drugs with positive or conditional recommendation, a high rate of reimbursement (11 %) is also observed among ultra-orphan drugs that had never been assessed by any HTA agency.

Reimbursement of Drugs for Rare Diseases through the Public Healthcare System in Canada: Where Are We Now?

INTRODUCTION: Over the past 20 years, the number of therapies developed for rare diseases has rapidly increased. Often, these therapies represent the only active treatment for debilitating and/or life-threatening conditions. However, they create significant challenges for public and private payers. Because they target small patient populations, clinical evidence of efficacy/effectiveness is typically limited, while the cost per patient is high. In Canada, each province/territory establishes its own mechanisms for determining which drugs for rare diseases (DRDs) to provide. OBJECTIVES: To compare current mechanisms across provinces and territories, and explore their impact on access. METHODS: A systematic review of relevant published and unpublished documents was performed. Electronic bibliographic databases, the internet, and government websites were scanned using structured search strategies. Information was extracted independently by two researchers, and included aspects such as program type, condition/patient/therapy eligibility criteria, role of health technology assessment (HTA), decision options, ethical assumptions, and stakeholder input. It was validated through member-checking with provincial/territorial policy experts and tabulated to facilitate qualitative analyses. Impact on access was assessed through a cross-province/territory comparison of the coverage status of all non-cancer therapies reviewed by the Common Drug Review for indications affecting <1/2,000 Canadians using the Kappa statistic. Reasons for variations were explored using qualitative techniques. RESULTS: Each province/territory has formal and informal mechanisms through which such therapies may be accessed. In most cases, formal mechanisms constitute the centralized HTA processes that also apply to common therapies. While several provinces have established dedicated processes/programs, whether they have affected access is not clear. Despite broadly comparable approaches, there is less than perfect agreement on publicly funded DRDs across jurisdictions. CONCLUSIONS: Individual jurisdictions have developed different approaches to providing access to these therapies. However, as the number increases, a more systematic approach to decision-making may be needed.

[Medication: 15 years 'EU-directive orphan drugs']. / WEESGENEESMIDDELEN: 15 Jaren "EU-directive orphan drugs".

The article describes the compounding, dispensing and reimbursement of orphan drugs in Belgium 15 years after the implementation of the EU Directive on orphan drugs. Despite the fact that they are life-threatening and free of charge, patient compliance to oral orphan medication seems to be a major problem that needs to be handled by the dispensing pharmacist. Parenteral orphan medication needs to be compounded in the hospital pharmacy following strict guidelines concerning handling and storage. For ultra-rare disorders the medication needs to be compounded using sometimes chemical grade ingredients without any pharmaceutical monograph. Cost-effectiveness will always remain a subject for debate.

[Orphan Drugs: Underrated Opportunities for The Developers in Europe]. / Les médicaments orphelins : des opportunités méconnues pour les développeurs en Europe.

In Europe, rules relating to the designation and the protection of orphan drug are derived from regulation (EC) 141/2000 of the European Parliament and Council of 16 December 1999, specified by the implementing Regulation (EC) 847/2000. According to these regulations, obtaining the status of orphan drugs implies, in particular, to demonstrate the absence of any satisfying alternative treatment, or, by default, the significant benefit offered by the concerned drug. In the same sense, medicinal product similar to an original orphan medicinal product but safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior, will benefit from a derogation to the rules on the 10 years market exclusivity usually provided for these products. This article analyses the concept of significant benefit, namely, the clinically relevant advantage or a major contribution to patient care, in particular in the case of similar drugs, as well as the elements to be provided by the sponsor in order to justify this benefit, and the options under which, where there are few or a lack of clinical data on a concerned orphan medicinal products, the demonstration of the significant benefit can rely on assumptions.

Registering medicines for low-income countries: how suitable are the stringent review procedures of the World Health Organisation, the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency?

New medicines are registered after a resource-demanding process. Unfortunately, in low-income countries (LICs), demand outweighs resources. To facilitate registration in LICs, stringent review procedures of the European Medicines Agency (EMA Article-58), Food and Drug Administration (FDA PEPFAR-linked review) and WHO Prequalification programme have been established. Only the PEPFAR-linked review gives approval, while the others make recommendations for approval. This study assessed the performance and discussed the challenges of these three stringent review procedures. Data from WHO, FDA, EMA, Medline and Internet were analysed. Over 60% of medicines reviewed by stringent review procedures are manufactured in India. Until 2012, WHO prequalified 400 medicines (211 vaccines, 130 antiretrovirals, 29 tuberculostatics, 15 antimalarials and 15 others). PEPFAR-linked review approved 156 antiretrovirals, while EMA Article 58 recommended approval of 3 antiretrovirals, 1 vaccine and 1 antimalarial. WHO Prequalification and PEPFAR-linked review are free of charge and as a result have accelerated access to antiretrovirals. They both built capacity in sub-Saharan Africa, although WHO prequalification relies technically on stringent regulatory authorities and financially on donors. Article-58 offers the largest disease coverage and strongest technical capacities, is costly and involves fewer LICs. To meet the high demand for quality medicines in LICs, these stringent review procedures need to enlarge their disease coverage. To improve registration, EMA Article 58 should actively involve LICs. Furthermore, LIC regulatory activities must not be fully resigned to stringent review procedure.

Systematic review of available evidence on 11 high-priced inpatient orphan drugs.

BACKGROUND: Attention for Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) is growing, but evidence for orphan drugs is argued to be limited and inferior. This study systematically reviews the available evidence on clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and budget impact for orphan drugs. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in PubMed, Embase, NHS EED and HTA databases for 11 inpatient orphan drugs listed on the Dutch policy rule on orphan drugs. For included studies, we determined the type of study and various study characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 338 studies met all inclusion criteria. Almost all studies (96%) focused on clinical effectiveness of the drug. Of these studies, most studies were case studies (41%) or observational studies (39%). However, for all orphan diseases at least one experimental or quasi-experimental study was found, and a randomized clinical trial was available for 60% of the orphan drugs. Eight studies described the cost-effectiveness of an orphan drug; an equal number described an orphan drug's budget impact. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the often heard claim that RCTs are not feasible for orphan drugs, we found that an RCT was available in 60% of orphan drugs investigated. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses for orphan drugs are seldom published.

[Orphan drugs: availability, reliability and reimbursement]. / Weesgeneesmiddelen: beschikbaarheid, betrouwbaarheid en bekostiging.

Orphan drugs are drugs used in the treatment of life-threatening or chronic diseases that affect fewer than 1 out of 2000 persons in the European Union. Since the implementation of the European Regulation on Orphan Medicinal Products in 2000, 61 orphan drugs have been brought to market. One-third of these were granted their marketing authorisations based on non-comparative clinical research. Certain orphan drugs for extramural use will be transferred to the performance-based hospital financing system within the next few years. Unapproved orphan drugs are generally not reimbursed. In so-called compassionate use programmes, unauthorised orphan drugs can still become available to patients who do not participate in clinical trials. Compassionate use drugs are made available by the manufacturer.