International differences in patient access to ultra-orphan drugs

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.

HTA decision-making for drugs for rare diseases: comparison of processes across countries

Introduction

Drugs for rare diseases (DRDs) offer important health benefits, but challenge traditional health technology assessment, reimbursement, and pricing processes due to limited effectiveness evidence. Recently, modified processes to address these challenges while improving patient access have been proposed in Canada. This review examined processes in 12 jurisdictions to develop recommendations for consideration during formal government-led multi-sectoral discussions currently taking place in Canada.

Methods

(i) A scoping review of DRD reimbursement processes, (ii) key informant interviews, (iii) a case study of evaluations for and the reimbursement status of a set of 7 DRDs, and (iv) a virtual, multi-stakeholder consultation retreat were conducted.

Results

Only NHS England has a process specifically for DRDs, while Italy, Scotland, and Australia have modified processes for eligible DRDs. Almost all consider economic evaluations, budget impact analyses, and patient-reported outcomes; but less than half accept surrogate measures. Disease severity, lack of alternatives, therapeutic value, quality of evidence, and value for money are factors used in all decision-making process; only NICE England uses a cost-effectiveness threshold. Budget impact is considered in all jurisdictions except Sweden. In Italy, France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom, specific factors are considered for DRDs. However, in all jurisdictions opportunities for clinician/patient input are the same as those for other drugs. Of the 7 DRDs included in the case study, the number that received a positive reimbursement recommendation was highest in Germany and France, followed by Spain and Italy. No relationship between recommendation type and specific elements of the pricing and reimbursement process was found.

Conclusions

Based on the collective findings from all components of the project, seven recommendations for possible action in Canada are proposed. These focus on defining “appropriate access”, determining when a “full” HTA may not be needed, improving coordination among stakeholder groups, developing a Canadian framework for Managed Access Plans, creating a pan-Canadian DRD/rare disease data infrastructure, genuine and continued engagement of patient groups and clinicians, and further research on different decision and financing options, including MAPs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13023-022-02397-4.

The usage of enzyme replacement treatments, economic burden, and quality of life of patients with four lysosomal storage diseases in Shanghai, China

Lysosomal storage diseases (LSDs) are a group of rare diseases that cause progressive physical dysfunction and organ failure, which significantly affected patients' quality of life. The objective of this study was to explore the characteristics and usage of Enzyme Replacement Treatments (ERTs), which is the only specific therapy for LSDs, of patients with the four different LSDs (Gaucher, Fabry, Pompe disease and Mucopolysaccharidosis) in Shanghai, and then evaluate the economic burden and quality of life of these patients. A total of 31patients, involving 5, 14, 4 and 8 patients with Gaucher, Fabry, Pompe disease and Mucopolysaccharidosis, respectively, were included in analysis. The result showed that only five Gaucher disease (GD) patients in Shanghai used Imiglucerase in 2019, while the other 26 patients with the other three LSDs did not receive ERTs. The total health expenditure of GD patients was 2,273,000CNY on average mainly resulted by the high cost of Imiglucerase. The total health expenditure of the other 26 patients was 37,765CNY on average. Though the cost-sharing mechanism between basic medical insurance, charity fund and patients had been explored for Gaucher disease in Shanghai, the out-of-pocket part, which was 164,301 CNY, still laid a heavy economic burden on the patients and their families. The mean EQ-VAS score of GD patients was 76.4 ± 15.5, which was higher than that of the other three LSDs. It is recommended that the scope of drug reimbursement list and the reimbursement level should be further expanded and raised to help improve the living conditions of patients with LSDs.

Pharmacotherapeutic Patterns and Patients' Access to Pharmacotherapy for Some Rare Diseases in Bulgaria - A Pilot Comparative Study

Provision of the latest innovative and advanced therapies for rare diseases (RDs) patients, following the international therapeutic recommendations, is crucial and necessary for both practitioners and patients. The goal is to assess the access of Bulgarian patients with the most cost-consuming RDs to medicines and to compare the pharmacotherapeutic patterns in Bulgaria and the relevant European professional associations. Pharmaco-therapeutic guidelines for treating the most cost-consuming RDs in Bulgaria were analyzed to assess their compliance with the European ones. Market entrance was evaluated through analysis of the availability of medicines in the Positive Drug List (PDL) and their date of inclusion since marketing authorization. Guidelines’ compliance index was calculated and patient access was analyzed through evaluation of the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) standards, which provide additional criteria for treatment initiation. The analyzed guidelines follow the adopted recommendations by the relevant European professional associations. NHIF have exclusion and inclusion criteria for initiating treatment with medicines for rare diseases and for continuation. The average time-lag between centralized procedure approval and inclusion in the Bulgarian PDL for orphan medicinal products (MPs) is 6.75 years (SD = 4.96) with the longest time observed for eptacog alfa (20 years) and the shortest for rurioctocog alfa pegol, octocog alfa and simoctocog alfa (1 year). Bulgarian patients with cystic fibrosis with pulmonary manifestation had a wait time of only 1.6 years to get access to innovative, centrally authorized medicines, whereas the period for access to acromegaly treatment was 8.2 years. The main factors influencing market entrance and patient access are the time to inclusion in the PDL and the NHIF criteria.

The current state of patient access to new drugs in South Korea under the positive list system: evaluation of the changes since the new review pathways

Objective: This study aims to provide an up-to-date analysis of the current state of patient access to new drugs in South Korea, focusing on the effect of new review pathways for reimbursement. Methods: We analyzed patients' access to new drugs, listing rate and lead time until listing from marketing authorization. New pathways were defined as 'price negotiation waiver,' 'risk-sharing agreements,' and 'pharmacoeconomic evaluation exemption.' Results: The listing rate for drugs increased after the introduction of the new pathways (93.7% vs. 77.9%, p < 0.001). Before the new pathways, the median lead time for listing was 21.0 months (95% CI: 16.9-25.0), while afterward it was shortened to 10.9 months (95% CI: 10.2-11.7) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Although it has strengthened national health insurance coverage by positively impacting the rate and lead time, the lead time for the oncology and orphan drugs is substantially longer as compared to other drugs. Expanding the eligibility criteria to include non-life-threatening but rare or intractable diseases, and resolving the system's operational issues are still necessary.

[Analysis of the evolution in the access to orphan medicines in Spain]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the access to orphan medicines in Spain, focusing on those with an active "orphan" designation, as of 31^st December 2017; and for those orphan medicines in the Spanish market, estimate the time between being assigned a National Code (NC) by the Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios (AEMPS) and being approved for launch.

METHOD

We used the European Commission's Public Register of orphan medicines to identify the orphan medicines authorised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), as of 31 December 2017, while we sourced expired orphan indications from the EMA's website. Dates when NCs were assigned were sourced from the AEMPS, and commercialisation dates from Bot PLUS. A descriptive analysis of the study variables was done. The quantitative variables were described using means and medians, as well as standard deviations and ranges. The qualitative variables were described according to absolute and relative frequencies. The comparison of results was performed by parametric and non-parametric contrasts according to the applicability, at a 5% significance level.

RESULTS

The EMA has approved 100 orphan medicines (with designation as of 31/12/2017) between 2002-2017. Eighty-six have a NC assigned by the AEMPS. Fifty-four have been launched in Spain (representing 54% of the full sample; 63% with NC). For the 53 orphan drugs with launch date in Spain, the median time between receiving its NC and its launch is 13.4 months (standard deviation: 17.0; minimum: 2.1; maximum: 91,7). The median time is 12.4 months and 14.0 months for those medicines launched in Spain between 2002-2013 and 2014-2017 respectively (p = 0.46). This difference is not statistically significant, which is what could be expected given the low numbers of orphan medicines in the "population".

CONCLUSION

Complex factors determine the access to orphan drugs in Europe. The centralised procedure to obtain marketing authorisation at European level is a success. However, access is more limited, given the complexities of the evaluation of the available evidence for pricing and reimbursement decisions. It is therefore necessary to implement new policies that reduce inequalities in access and help achieve sustainable healthcare systems. To achieve this, they will need to offer the possibility of allowing earlier access, and using payment by results when there is high uncertainty.