Access to orphan drugs - comparison across Balkan countries

Beyond Reimbursement Status: Availability of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products Across the European Union

BACKGROUND

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) represent an innovative therapeutic approach with the potential to impact the treatment of rare diseases significantly. Although authorised centrally in the European Union, their market launch differs across Member States (MS). This study aimed to describe the ATMP market availability in MS and explore potential influencing factors, providing insights into specific barriers beyond pricing and reimbursement policies.

METHODS

ATMP availability was defined as the product launch in each MS. Data was collected through open governmental sources, databases, and communication with national competent authorities. Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the relationship between ATMP availability and their characteristics (time since granting marketing authorisation, target patient population size, and cost).

RESULTS

We collected the availability data on 18 ATMPs from 23 EU MS. Market uptake varied significantly, with Germany (89%), France and Italy (61%) leading. Estonia and Latvia confirmed that no ATMP has been launched on their markets yet. Six ATMPs were available in more than one-third of the analysed MS. No significant correlation was observed between ATMP availability and analysed product characteristics except for time dependency for CAR T-cell therapies.

CONCLUSION

Beyond pricing and reimbursement processes, the ATMP commercialisation in particular MS is influenced by the marketing authorisation holder's decision and capacity. ATMPs face product-specific challenges in achieving EU-wide availability, including complex manufacturing, distribution, and administration processes. To increase the accessibility of innovative ATMP-based treatments, implementing the cross-border access framework or individual ATMP production under the hospital exemption is essential, especially in underserved MS.

Systematic Literature Review of Access Pathways to Drugs for Patients with Rare Diseases

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the assessment pathways that have been implemented worldwide to facilitate access to drugs for patients with rare diseases.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to conduct a systematic literature review. The Ovid (Embase/MEDLINE), Cochrane, Web of Science, Econlit, National Institute of Health Research, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts; one reviewer did the full-text review and data extraction. Data were extracted on study general characteristics, general aspects of rare diseases, source of funding, allocation of public resources (e.g., use of health technology assessment), and pricing strategies. Assessment pathways were classified as: (1) separate processes; (2) exception to standard process; (3) standard process with no change; and (4) alternative process. Each assessment pathway was characterized based on its unique characteristics specific to rare diseases focusing on whether they targeted specific aspects of the process, utilized particular methodologies during the evaluation of the evidence, or considered specific attributes in the recommendation.

RESULTS

A total of 5604 unique citations were screened and 158 were included for data extraction. Sixty-one assessment pathways were identified in 43 countries, categorized as separate processes (37%), exceptions to standard processes (32%), standard processes with no changes (26%), and alternative processes (5%). Some countries (10/43; 23%) have more than one assessment pathway available. Assessment pathways varied in their inclusion of a health technology assessment, source of funding, consideration of uncertainty, and pricing strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

The diversity of assessment pathways reflects the complexity of addressing access to treatments for rare diseases. Furthermore, most assessment pathways are from high-income countries; therefore, there is less clarity on what is happening in low- and middle-income countries.

Experiences of quality of life and access to health services among rare disease caregivers: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Research on rare diseases focuses less on caregivers, who play an important role in meeting the medical and social needs of the people they care for. Caregivers of people with rare diseases face negative outcomes due to problems with diagnosis, caring for complex conditions and expensive treatments. However, the factors that affect their quality of life are poorly understood. Poor mental and physical health of caregivers has a direct impact on the person they are caring for.

METHODS

To explore the literature on this topic, we conducted a scoping review in which we identified and analysed relevant studies to find out how extensively this topic has been researched. The articles were retrieved from the bibliographic databases PubMed, Ovid Medline and Ebsco Cinahl.

RESULTS

We initially identified 299 references and then included thirty-four articles. The included articles address three main topics, namely caregiver quality of life, health care accessibility, and the impact of health care accessibility on caregiver QOL.

CONCLUSION

This study provides information that is important to multiple providers of services as it can help to better understand caregivers and people with rare diseases and improve the quality of services offered. It highlights areas with the greatest need for change and offers insight into the complexity of caring for people with rare diseases, assisting policymakers in developing policies to support informal caregivers.

Availability and Access to Orphan Drugs for Rare Cancers in Bulgaria: Analysis of Delays and Public Expenditures

Rare cancers are defined by an annual incidence of fewer than 6 per 100,000. Bearing similarities to rare diseases, they are associated with substantial health inequalities due to diagnostic complexity and delayed access to innovative therapies. This situation is further aggravated in Southeastern European countries like Bulgaria, where limited public resources and expertise underscore the need for additional policy and translational research on rare cancers. This study aimed to explore the availability and access to orphan drugs for rare cancers in Bulgaria for the period of 2020-2023. We cross-compared data from both the European Union and national public sources to evaluate the number of available and accessible orphan drugs for rare cancers, the delay from market authorization to reimbursement, the dynamics of public expenditures, and regional disparities in access across the country. We juxtaposed the main characteristics of oncological and non-oncological orphan drugs as well. Only 15 out of 50 oncological orphan drugs that were authorized by the European Medicine Agency were accessible for rare cancer patients in Bulgaria. The median delay between market authorization and inclusion in the Bulgarian Positive Drug List was 760 days. The total expenditures for all orphan drugs for rare cancers amounted to EUR 74,353,493 from 2020 to 2023. The budgetary impact of this group rose from 0.24% to 3.77% of total public medicinal product expenditures for the study period. Rare cancer patients represent a vulnerable population that often faces limited to no access to treatment. We call for targeted European and national policies to address this major inequality.

Navigating Gene Therapy Access: The Case of Bulgaria in the Context of the EU Regulatory Landscape

Gene therapies (GTs) have recently emerged as revolutionary personalized therapeutic options. Despite their promising potential, challenges such as uncertainty regarding long-term health benefits and safety, along with extreme price tags, pose significant obstacles to patient access. Within the EU, the European Medicines Agency plays a pivotal role with regards to GT market authorization. However, national authorities are responsible for pricing and reimbursement, which results in fragment patient access within the EU. This study aimed to provide an overview of the complex landscape of post-market authorization accessibility for GT products in Bulgaria, comparing it with neighboring EU countries. We applied a mixed-methods approach, including desk research, public data requests, and list price comparisons. As of 1 April 2023, 14 GTs had a valid market authorization at the EU level. In Bulgaria, Kymriah® was the only GT included in the Positive Drug List (PDL), with an official list price of EUR 335,636.94. Similar results were found in Romania, whereas five GTs were included in Greece's PDL. Additionally, Zolgensma® was found accessible in Bulgaria through an alternative individual access scheme at an estimated price of EUR 1,945,000.00. In conclusion, this study emphasized targeted policy interventions to address health inequalities and to ensure timely access to GTs within the EU.

Outcome-based reimbursement in Central-Eastern Europe and Middle-East

Outcome-based reimbursement models can effectively reduce the financial risk to health care payers in cases when there is important uncertainty or heterogeneity regarding the clinical value of health technologies. Still, health care payers in lower income countries rely mainly on financial based agreements to manage uncertainties associated with new therapies. We performed a survey, an exploratory literature review and an iterative brainstorming in parallel about potential barriers and solutions to outcome-based agreements in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and in the Middle East (ME). A draft list of recommendations deriving from these steps was validated in a follow-up workshop with payer experts from these regions. 20 different barriers were identified in five groups, including transaction costs and administrative burden, measurement issues, information technology and data infrastructure, governance, and perverse policy outcomes. Though implementing outcome-based reimbursement models is challenging, especially in lower income countries, those challenges can be mitigated by conducting pilot agreements and preparing for predictable barriers. Our guidance paper provides an initial step in this process. The generalizability of our recommendations can be improved by monitoring experiences from pilot reimbursement models in CEE and ME countries and continuing the multistakeholder dialogue at national levels.

Evaluating the national system for rare diseases in China from the point of drug access: progress and challenges

Background

There are about 7000 rare diseases worldwide, of which only 5% of the diseases can be treated with medicines, showing that it’s important to improve patient access to orphan drugs. Recently, China has actively worked to set up a national system for rare diseases to improve the diagnosis and treatment capabilities and ensure the accessibility of drugs. However, the benefits of the system have yet not to be measured. This study aimed to provide an overview of orphan drug access based on the Compendium of China’s First List of Rare Diseases and National Network to Collaborate on Diagnosis and Treatment of Rare Diseases, expecting to map a blueprint for orphan drug access in China.

Methods

Framework of China’s national system for rare diseases was summarized. We surveyed the availability and affordability of 79 approved orphan drugs based on the Compendium of China’s First List of Rare Diseases in 30 leading provincial institutions from 2017 to 2020. The availability was measured annually at 3 levels (market, hospital and drug), and affordability was reflected by comparing costs of daily defined dose with per capita income of urban and rural residents, with the National Basic Medical Insurance considered.

Results

The market availability of orphan drugs in China showed an upward trend. As of 2020, the median hospital-level availability was 41.1% (increased by 1.5 times), highly available drugs increased by 16.5%. There were 64/74 orphan drugs that were affordable to rural/urban residents with the National Basic Medical Insurance considered (an increase of 14.1%), and the urban–rural gap of affordability ratio was narrowed (down by 6.0%). Comprehensive analysis showed the proportions of drugs with better availability and affordability in urban and rural areas by 2020 were 39.4% and 32.3%, respectively, which had increased but were still at a low level.

Conclusions

China’s national system for rare diseases has made great progress in orphan drug access, indicating that it’s been functioning under the joint reformation of medical treatment, medical insurance and medicines supply. The list of rare diseases will be updated and collaboration in networks will be enhanced to further improve the system.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13023-022-02507-2.

Availability and Accessibility of Orphan Medicinal Products to Patients in Slovakia in the Years 2010-2019

Objective: Information about the access of Slovak patients to orphan medicinal products (OMPs) in the literature is rather scarce. The main aim of the study was to analyze the accessibility and availability of OMPs to Slovak patients in the years 2010-2019. Methods: The analyzed OMPs were strictly defined according to the European definition. The date of marketing authorization together with its first appearance in the positive drug list was used to count the time to reach the national market. The data from the National Health Information Centre, the Ministry of Health, and health insurance companies were used as data sources of drug usage, expenditure, consumption, reimbursement of OMPs, as well as the total number of treated patients. Results: Out of the 167 OMPs on the European market, we identified 52% (87) OMPs which had any kind of costs recorded in Slovakia. Out of them, 62% (54) OMPs were directly present on the positive drug list. The remaining 33 OMPs were available on exception. The trend in accessibility and availability of OMPs in Slovakia between the years 2010 and 2019 was decreasing (57% OMPs in 2010 vs. 47% OMPs in 2019). The average time for an orphan medicinal product to reach the Slovak market was almost 4 years, 43.5 months [6-202 months]. Together, 10.4% (8 815 patients) out of the theoretical patients' estimation according to the prevalence in the orphan designation were treated with OMPs available in Slovakia. Conclusion: Presented data clearly show insufficient accessibility and availability of OMPs in Slovakia. Importance of clearly defined criteria for OMPs supporting patients and healthcare professionals' involvement in the final decision together with other measures such as social impact, improvement of patients' quality of life, society wide meaning, or no alternative treatment in the final decision is crucial for transparent and sustainable access to OMPs and innovative treatments in Slovakia.

Access and pricing of medicines for patients with rare diseases in the European Union: an industry perspective

INTRODUCTION

The EU Orphan Regulation has successfully stimulated R&D of medicines for rare diseases, resulting in substantial increase of orphan designations and authorized orphan medicinal products in the EU during the last decade. Despite such important advances, access to treatment across the 27 EU Member States is still highly variable.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an overview of the current situation of patient access to orphan drugs in the EU. We discuss the EU policy landscape regarding joint assessment and pricing & reimbursement negotiations of medicinal products, price and sustainability of orphan drugs for health care systems and the importance of Real-World Data and registry infrastructures for rare diseases. Additionally, we provide recommendations for areas of improvement throughout the lifecycle of orphan drugs, aiming to preserve a positive R&D climate for rare diseases in the EU and accelerate patient access.

EXPERT OPINION

The EU needs to maintain a strong patient-centric pharmaceutical ecosystem that encourages long-term investments and rewards innovation in areas of high unmet medical need. Areas of potential improvement range from enhanced alignment of regulatory and HTA evidence requirements and use of specific value frameworks for the assessment of orphan drugs to the development of registry infrastructures and innovative performance-based pricing agreements.

How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks

Background: Decision-makers have implemented a variety of value assessment frameworks (VAFs) for orphan drugs in European jurisdictions, which has contributed to variations in access for rare disease patients. This review provides an overview of the strengths and limitations of VAFs for the reimbursement of orphan drugs in Europe, and may serve as a guide for decision-makers.

Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted using the databases Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science. Only publications in English were included. Publications known to the authors were added, as well as conference or research papers, or information published on the website of reimbursement and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Additionally, publications were included through snowballing or focused searches.

Results: Although a VAF that applies a standard economic evaluation treats both orphan drugs and non-orphan drugs equally, its focus on cost-effectiveness discards the impact of disease rarity on data uncertainty, which influences an accurate estimation of an orphan drug’s health benefit in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A VAF that weighs QALYs or applies a variable incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) threshold, allows the inclusion of value factors beyond the QALY, although their methodologies are flawed. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) incorporates a flexible set of value factors and involves multiple stakeholders’ perspectives. Nevertheless, its successful implementation relies on decision-makers’ openness toward transparency and a pragmatic approach, while allowing the flexibility for continuous improvement.

Conclusion: The frameworks listed above each have multiple strengths and weaknesses. We advocate that decision-makers apply the concept of accountability for reasonableness (A4R) to justify their choice for a specific VAF for orphan drugs and to strive for maximum transparency concerning the decision-making process. Also, in order to manage uncertainty and feasibility of funding, decision-makers may consider using managed-entry agreements rather than implementing a separate VAF for orphan drugs.

The transferability of health technology assessment: the European perspective with focus on central and Eastern European countries

INTRODUCTION

Lower-income European countries have a worse health status and less funds for health care compared to Western Europe. Despite their limited human and financial capacities for conducting Health Technology Assessment (HTA), the need for evidence-based decision-making is growing. Two main approaches emerged as potential solutions: joint clinical assessments on the European level, and simplified procedures relying on the judgments of well-established HTA agencies of Western countries.

AREAS COVERED

Based on considerations of transferability, the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) was built up to harmonize HTA methodologies across the European Union, and to develop an HTA Core Model by focusing on joint production of relative effectiveness assessment, which can be used as a basis for national value assessments. The second approach has been suggested in various forms without considering transferability issues.

EXPERT OPINION

Joint clinical assessments reduce duplication of efforts based on appropriate scientific rationale. On the other hand, recent examples show that relying on judgments of HTA agencies from wealthier countries with potentially different health-care priorities can lead to suboptimal allocation decisions. In the short term, some stakeholders may benefit from ignoring transferability, but it will ultimately lead to limited access in other disease areas.

A Review of Rare Disease Policies and Orphan Drug Reimbursement Systems in 12 Eurasian Countries

Background: Despite international initiatives on collaboration within the field of rare diseases, patient access to orphan medicinal products (OMPs) and healthcare services differ greatly between countries. This study aimed to create a comprehensive and in-depth overview of rare diseases policies and reimbursement of OMPs in a selection of 12 countries in the Western Eurasian region: Armenia, France, Germany, Kazakhstan, Latvia, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed and an analysis of publicly available legislative and rare disease health policy data was undertaken in five focus areas: rare disease definition, newborn screening, registries, national plans, access to/reimbursement of OMPs. Results: Screening programs are broadly implemented but the number of screened diseases differs significantly (2-35 diseases), either between EU and non-EU countries, between EU member states and sometimes even within a single country. In most countries rare disease registries are operating with regional, national, European or worldwide coverage. The number of rare disease registries is growing, as a result of the National Plans (EU) and increased international scientific cooperation. France, Russia, and Poland have a centrally acting registry. National plans are present in all EU countries but implementation varies and is ongoing. The number of reimbursed OMPs in the selected countries ranges from nearly all available OMPs in the Netherlands, Germany, and France to zero in Armenia. Reimbursement rules differ considerably regionally and a trend is observed of reimbursement conditions getting stricter for expensive (orphan) drugs. Discussion: Inequality in patient access to new OMPs still exists due to variations in national policies, healthcare budgets, health insurance, and reimbursement systems. The observed differences are challenging for rare disease patients, health authorities and manufacturers alike. Progress can be seen, however, and international cooperation and harmonization is slowly but steadily expanding in the rare disease arena.

Reimbursement Status and Recommendations Related to Orphan Drugs in European Countries

Objective: To review the reimbursement recommendations issued by selected European health technology assessment agencies for orphan drugs and the reimbursement status of these drugs; to assess the relationship between the type of recommendation and reimbursement status.

Methods: The list of orphan drugs to be included in the analysis was obtained from the European Medicines Agency and Orphanet. Seven European states were included in the analysis: Belgium, England, France, Germany, Poland, Scotland, and Spain. For all identified orphan drugs, relevant data on the reimbursement status and type of recommendation were collected for each country. The relationship between the type of recommendation and reimbursement status was evaluated separately for each considered country, using Cohen’s kappa coefficient for the measurement of agreement; sub-analyses for oncology and metabolic drugs were performed.

Results: Most reimbursement recommendations for orphan drugs were positive (71%), while approximately 17% were negative and almost 13% were conditional. The highest percentage of positive reimbursement recommendations was observed in Spain (97%) and France (95%) and the highest percentage of negative reimbursement recommendations was revealed for Poland (49%). On average, 65% of the 163 analyzed orphan drugs were reimbursed from public funds. The highest number of reimbursed orphan drugs was observed in Germany (n = 148), while the lowest, in Poland (n = 41). Considering all analyzed drugs, the highest agreement between recommendations and reimbursement status was observed for Spain (value of 1), and the lowest, for Germany (κ = -0.03).

Conclusions: On average, more than 60% of identified orphan drugs were reimbursed from public funds in the included countries, and the majority of reimbursement recommendations were found to be positive. The agreement between reimbursement recommendations and reimbursement status differed between the countries, but overall, it did not show any patterns, as it ranged from -0.03 to 1 (κ coefficient).

Reimbursement of Orphan Drugs in Europe in Relation to the Type of Authorization by the European Medicines Agency and the Decision Making Based on Health Technology Assessment

Objective: To assess shares of reimbursed orphan drugs and agreement in reimbursement decision-making in different European Union member states as well as to define odds for reimbursement influenced by the presence of conditional approval or exceptional circumstances granted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or by type of the disease. Methods: The list of authorized drugs with current orphan designations was collected from the website of the EMA. For each drug, the information regarding conditional approval or approval under exceptional circumstances was collected. The reimbursement statuses were available on national reimbursement or HTA agencies websites. The agreement for reimbursement decisions between selected countries was assessed using the κ coefficient for the measurement of agreement. The impact of the EMA's conditional approval as well as approval under exceptional circumstances was assessed using the logistic regression and presented as odds ratio. Results: The percentage of reimbursed orphan drugs varied significantly from 27% in Poland to 88% in Denmark, with an average value of 51% (p < 0.0001). Regarding the reimbursement status, the highest, substantial agreement was observed between Spain and Italy, and the lowest agreement was observed between Germany and England, with κ of 0.64 and 0.01, respectively. Conditional approval status significantly decreased the chance for reimbursement in France, Italy, and Spain by 77-80%; however, approval granted under exceptional circumstances had significant impact only in Germany with 85% decrease in chances for reimbursement. The type of the disease (oncology or metabolic) was significantly associated with both conditional approval (p of 0.03-oncology drugs were more likely to be conditionally approved then the rest of analyzed drugs) and exceptional circumstances (p of 0.02-drugs for metabolic diseases were more likely to be approved under exceptional circumstances). Conclusions: Access to reimbursed orphan drugs varies significantly across EU countries. The highest, substantial agreement in reimbursement decisions was observed between Italy and Spain and the lowest between Germany and England. Conditional approval and approval under exceptional circumstances were significant negative predictors of reimbursement in some countries and they were significantly associated with the type of the disease (oncology or metabolic).