Budgetary Impact and Cost Drivers of Drugs for Rare and Ultrarare Diseases

Issues, Challenges and Opportunities for Economic Evaluations of Orphan Drugs in Rare Diseases: An Umbrella Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There are significant challenges when obtaining clinical and economic evidence for health technology assessments of rare diseases. Many of them have been highlighted in previous systematic reviews but they have not been summarised in a comprehensive manner. For all stakeholders working with rare diseases, it is important to be aware and understand these issues. The objective of this review is to identify the main challenges for the economic evaluation of orphan drugs in rare diseases.

METHODS

An umbrella review of systematic reviews of economic studies concerned with orphan and ultra-orphan drugs was conducted. Studies that were not systematic reviews, or on advanced therapeutic medicinal products, personalised medicines or other interventions that were not considered orphan drugs were excluded. The database searches included publications from 2010 to 2023, and were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library using filters for systematic reviews, and economic evaluations and models. These filters were combined with search terms for rare diseases and orphan drugs. A hand search supplemented the literature searches. The findings were reported by a compliant Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighty-two records were identified from the literature searches, of which 64 were duplicates, whereas five reviews were identified from the hand search. A total of 36 reviews were included after screening against inclusion/exclusion criteria, 35 from literature searches and one from hand searching. Of those studies 1, 27 and 8 were low, moderate and high quality, respectively. The reviews highlight the scarcity of evidence for health economic parameters, for example, clinical effectiveness, costs, quality of life and the natural history of disease. Health economic evaluations such as cost-effectiveness and budget-impact analyses were scarce, and generally low-to-moderate quality. The causes were limited health economic parameters, together with publications bias, especially for cost-effectiveness analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlighted issues around a considerable paucity of evidence for economic evaluations and few cost-effectiveness analyses, supporting the notion that a paucity of evidence makes economic evaluations of rare diseases more challenging compared with more prevalent diseases. Furthermore, we provide recommendations for more sustainable approaches in economic evaluations of rare diseases.

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.

Establishing cost-effectiveness threshold in China: a community survey of willingness to pay for a healthylife year

INTRODUCTION

The willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained (WTP/Q) is commonly used to determine whether an intervention is cost-effective in health technology assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the WTP/Q for different disease scenarios in a Chinese population.

METHODS

The study employed a quadruple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation method to estimate the WTP/Q in the general public. The estimation was conducted across chronic, terminal and rare disease scenarios. Face-to-face interviews were conducted in a Chinese general population recruited from Jiangsu province using a convenience sampling method. Interval regression analysis was performed to determine the relationship between respondents' demographic and socioeconomic conditions and WTP/Q. Sensitivity analyses of removing protest responses and open question analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 896 individuals participated in the study. The WTP/Q thresholds were 128 000 Chinese renminbi (RMB) ($36 364) for chronic diseases, 149 500 RMB ($42 472) for rare diseases and 140 800 RMB ($40 000) for terminal diseases, equivalent to 1.76, 2.06 and 1.94 times the gross domestic product per capita in China, respectively. The starting bid value had a positive influence on participants' WTP/Q. Additionally, residing in an urban area (p<0.01), and higher household expenditure (p<0.01), educational attainment (p<0.02) and quality of life (p<0.02) were significantly associated with higher WTP/Q. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSION

This study implies that tailored or varied rather than a single cost-effectiveness threshold could better reflect community preferences for the value of a healthy year. Our estimates hold significance in informing reimbursement decision-making in health technology assessment in China.

Integrated budget impact model to estimate the impact of introducing selpercatinib as a tumor-agnostic treatment option for patients with RET-altered solid tumors in the US

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the potential budget impact on US third party payers (commercial or Medicare) associated with addition of selpercatinib as a tumor-agnostic treatment for patients with Rearranged during Transfection (RET)-altered solid tumors.

METHODS

An integrated budget impact model (iBIM) with 3-year (Y) time horizon was developed for 19 RET-altered tumors. It is referred to as an integrated model because it is a single model that integrated results across multiple tumor types (as opposed to tumor-specific models developed traditionally). The model estimated eligible patient populations and included tumor-specific comparator treatments for each tumor type. Estimated annual total costs (2022USD, $) included costs of drug, administration, supportive care, and toxicity. For a one-million-member plan, the number of patients with RET-altered tumors eligible for treatment, incremental total costs, and incremental per-member per-month (PMPM) costs associated with introduction of selpercatinib treatment were estimated. Uncertainty associated with model parameters was assessed using various sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Commercial perspective estimated 11.68 patients/million with RET-altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 7.59 (Y1), 8.17 (Y2), and 8.76 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated (based on forecasted market share). The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (commercial) were estimated to be: $873,099 and $0.073 (Y1), $2,160,525 and $0.180 (Y2), and $2,561,281 and $0.213 (Y3), respectively. The Medicare perspective estimated 55.82 patients/million with RET-altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 36.29 (Y1), 39.08 (Y2), and 41.87 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated. The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (Medicare) were estimated to be: $4,447,832 and $0.371 (Y1), $11,076,422 and $0.923 (Y2), and $12,637,458 and $1.053 (Y3), respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses across both perspectives identified drug costs, selpercatinib market share, incidence of RET, and treatment duration as significant drivers of incremental costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-year incremental PMPM cost estimates suggest a modest impact on payer-budgets associated with introduction of tumor-agnostic selpercatinib treatment.

A narrative review of the socioeconomic burden associated with generalised pustular psoriasis

Generalised pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare, chronic and life-threatening inflammatory skin disease characterised by widespread eruption of sterile pustules. With the approval of a GPP flare treatment in several countries occurring only recently, the socioeconomic burden associated with GPP is not well established. To highlight current evidence for patient burden, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with GPP. Patient burden results from serious complications including sepsis and cardiorespiratory failure causing hospitalization and death. HCRU is driven by high hospitalization rates and treatment costs. The mean duration of a GPP hospital stay ranges from 10 to 16 days. A quarter of patients require intensive care, and the mean intensive care stay is 18 days. In comparison to patients with plaque psoriasis (PsO), patients with GPP have: a 64% higher score on the Charlson Comorbidity Index; higher hospitalization rates (≤36.3% vs. ≤23.3%); lower overall quality of life, and higher symptom scores for pain, itch, fatigue, anxiety and depression; direct costs associated with treatment 1.3- to 4.5-fold higher; higher rates of disabled work status (20.0% vs. 7.6%); and increased presenteeism (i.e. worse impairment at work), impaired daily activities, and medically related absenteeism. Current medical management and drug treatment utilising non-GPP-specific therapies impose a significant patient and direct economic burden. GPP also imposes an indirect economic burden by increasing work productivity impairment and medically related absenteeism. This high level of socioeconomic burden reinforces the need for new therapies with proven efficacy in the treatment of GPP.

Health Technology Assessment-Informed Decision Making by the Federal Joint Committee/Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in Germany and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England: The Role of Budget Impact

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to test (official) evaluation criteria including the potential role of budget impact (BI) on health technology assessment (HTA) outcomes published by the Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss [GBA]) and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen [IQWiG]) in Germany as well as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England.

METHODS

Data were extracted from all publicly available GBA decisions and IQWiG assessments as well as NICE single technology appraisals between January 2011 and June 2018, and information with regard to evaluation criteria used by these agencies was collected. Data were analyzed using logistic regression to estimate the effect of the BI on the HTA outcomes while controlling for criteria used by GBA/IQWiG and NICE.

RESULTS

NICE recommendations are largely driven by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and, if applicable, by end-of-life criteria (P < .01). While IQWiG assessments are significantly affected by the availability of randomized controlled trials and patient-relevant endpoints (P < .01), GBA appraisals primarily focus on endpoints (P < .01). The BI correlated with NICE single technology appraisals (inverted-U relationship, P < .1) and IQWiG recommendations (increasing linear relationship, P < .05), but not with GBA decisions (P > .1). Nevertheless, given that IQWiG assessments seem to be more rigorous than GBA appraisals regarding the consideration of evidence-based evaluation criteria, decisions by GBA might be negatively associated with the BI.

CONCLUSIONS

Results reveal that GBA/IQWiG and NICE follow their official evaluation criteria consistently. After controlling for all significant variables, the BI seems to have an (independent) effect on HTA outcomes as well.

Literature Review on Health Emigration in Rare Diseases-A Machine Learning Perspective

The article deals with one of the effects of health inequalities and gaps in access to treatments for rare diseases, namely health-driven emigration. The purpose of the paper is to systematize knowledge about the phenomenon of health emigration observed among families affected by rare diseases, for which reimbursed treatment is available, but only in selected countries. The topic proved to be niche; the issue of "health emigration in rare diseases" is an area for exploration. Therefore, the further analysis used text mining and machine learning methods based on a database selected based on keywords related to this issue. The results made it possible to systematize the guesses made by researchers in management and economic fields, to identify the most common keywords and thematic clusters around the perspective of the patient, drug manufacturer and treatment reimbursement decision-maker, and the perspective integrating all the others. Since the topic of health emigration was not directly addressed in the selected sources, the authors attempted to define the related concepts and discussed the importance of this phenomenon in managing the support system in rare diseases. Thus, they indicated directions for further research in this area.

The actual status of drug prices and adjustment factors for drug price calculation: an analysis of ultra-orphan drug development in Japan

BACKGROUND

Extremely high prices facilitate drug development for ultra-rare diseases (ultra-orphan drugs). However, various problems arise in terms of healthcare financing and fairness, and the status of ultra-orphan drug pricing remains ambiguous. In this study, we investigated ultra-orphan drug prices in Japan relative to that of other drugs. We examined the relationship between annual expected drug prices and expected sales, and the expected number of patients, for 393 drugs containing new active ingredients for therapeutic use that were listed on the National Health Insurance drug price list in Japan between April 16, 2010 and August 26, 2020. In addition, we compared prices, the drug price calculation method, and price calculation adjustment factors for ultra-orphan and other drugs.

RESULTS

Drug prices tended to increase as the expected number of patients to whom the drug was administered decreased; however, this trend diminished when the expected number of patients was less than 1000. On the other hand, the expected sales tended to decrease as the number of expected patients decreased, and this tendency was reinforced when the expected number of patients was less than 1000. The cost accounting method tended to be used for the price calculation of ultra-orphan drugs, but there were no price differences based on the drug price calculation method. Regarding the price calculation adjustment factors, the premium for usefulness tended to be higher for ultra-orphan drugs. The premium for marketability was higher for non-orphan drugs but did not differ from that for orphan drugs, except for ultra-orphan drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

The status of drug prices and expected sales differed beyond a threshold of 1000 expected patients, indicating that recovering the development cost for ultra-orphan drugs is difficult. In addition, the higher premium for usefulness for ultra-orphan drugs reflects the largely unmet need of the associated diseases. Scarcity among orphan drugs is not considered for marketability, highlighting the need for a new framework to promote the development of ultra-orphan drugs.

Assessing the value of orphan drugs using conventional cost-effectiveness analysis: Is it fit for purpose?

Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis—i.e., assessing pharmaceuticals through a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) framework—originated from a societal commitment to maximize population health given limited resources. This "extra-welfarist" approach has produced pricing and reimbursement systems that are not well- aligned with the unique considerations of orphan drugs. This framework has been slow to evolve along with our increased understanding of the impact of rare diseases, which in turn has complicated the assessment of orphan drugs meant to treat rare diseases. Herein, we (i) discuss the limitations of conventional cost-effectiveness analysis as applied to assessing access to, as well as the pricing and reimbursement of, orphan drugs, (ii) critically appraise alternative and supplemental approaches, and (iii) offer insights on plausible steps forward.

Orphan Medicine Incentives: How to Address the Unmet Needs of Rare Disease Patients by Optimizing the European Orphan Medicinal Product Landscape Guiding Principles and Policy Proposals by the European Expert Group for Orphan Drug Incentives (OD Expert Group)

Today policy makers face the challenge to devise a policy framework that improves orphan medicinal product (OMP) development by creating incentives to deliver treatments where there are none and to authorize innovative and transformative treatments where treatments already exist. The European Expert Group on Orphan Drug Incentives (hereafter, OD Expert Group) came together in 2020 to develop policy proposals to facilitate EU policy makers to meet this challenge. The group brings together representatives of the broad rare disease community, including researchers, academia, patient representatives, members of the investor community, rare disease companies and trade associations. The group’s work builds on the recognition that only an ambitious policy agenda developed in a multi-stakeholder setting can bring about the quantum leap needed to address unmet needs of rare disease patients today. Along the OMP development path, the OD Expert Group has identified four main needs that a policy revision should address: 1) Need to improve the R&D ecosystem for basic research and company take-up of development. 2) Need to improve the system of financial incentives and rewards. 3) Need to improve the flexibility, predictability and speed of the regulatory pathway. 4) Need to improve the coherence and predictability of demand and pricing for OMPs. This article presents the results of the OD Expert Group work as a set of guiding principles that the revision of the policy framework should follow and a set of 14 policy proposals that address the main needs of OMP development in Europe today.

Evaluating Discrete Choice Experiment Willingness to Pay [DCE-WTP] analysis, and Relative Social Willingness to Pay [RS-WTP] analysis in a Health Technology Assessment of a treatment for an ultra-rare childhood disease [CLN2]

BACKGROUND

: Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis [CEA] using cost per QALY thresholds may counteract other incentives introduced to foster development of treatments for rare and ultra-rare diseases. Therefore, alternative economic evaluation methods were explored, namely Discrete Choice Experiment Willingness to Pay (DCE-WTP) and Relative Social Willingness to Pay (RS-WTP), to value interventions for an ultra-rare childhood disease, Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis type 2 (CLN2).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Treatment for CLN2 was valued from a citizen's ("social") perspective using DCE-WTP and RS-WTP in a survey of 4,009 United Kingdom [UK] adults. Three attributes (initial quality of life, treatment effect, and life expectancy) were used in both analyses. For DCE-WTP a cost attribute (marginal income tax increase) was also included. Optimal econometric models were identified.

RESULTS

DCE-WTP indicated that UK adults are willing to pay incremental increases through taxation for improvements in CLN2 attributes. RS-WTP identified a willingness to allocate >40% of a pre-assigned healthcare budget to prevent child mortality and approximately 15% for improved health status.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques illustrated substantive social WTP for CLN2 interventions, despite the small number of children benefitting. This highlights a gap between UK citizens' willingness to spend on rare disease interventions and current funding policies.

Drug Repurposing in Rare Diseases: An Integrative Study of Drug Screening and Transcriptomic Analysis in Nephropathic Cystinosis

Diagnosis and cure for rare diseases represent a great challenge for the scientific community who often comes up against the complexity and heterogeneity of clinical picture associated to a high cost and time-consuming drug development processes. Here we show a drug repurposing strategy applied to nephropathic cystinosis, a rare inherited disorder belonging to the lysosomal storage diseases. This approach consists in combining mechanism-based and cell-based screenings, coupled with an affordable computational analysis, which could result very useful to predict therapeutic responses at both molecular and system levels. Then, we identified potential drugs and metabolic pathways relevant for the pathophysiology of nephropathic cystinosis by comparing gene-expression signature of drugs that share common mechanisms of action or that involve similar pathways with the disease gene-expression signature achieved with RNA-seq.

Moving somatic gene editing to the clinic: routes to market access and reimbursement in Europe

Somatic gene editing (SGE) holds great promise for making genetic therapy possible for many monogenic conditions very soon. Is our current system of European market authorization and reimbursement ready for the expected tsunami of gene therapies? At a recent workshop of the Netherlands ZonMw consortium on ethical, legal, and social implications of personalized medicine, we discussed the current possibilities for bringing new gene therapies to the clinic. In Europe, it is not yet clear whether the route via the European medicines agency as an advanced therapy medicinal product is the most appropriate for evaluation of highly personalized SGE applications, although this may optimally guarantee safety and effectiveness. Compassionate use may ensure faster access than the centralized procedure but does not stimulate the commercial development of products. Prescription to named patients may only provide adequate access for single patients. Temporary authorization of use may allow access to medication half a year before formal market authorization has been granted, but may also have large budget impacts. Magistral compounding under a hospital exemption may be an attractive solution for rare, tailor-made applications at an acceptable price. To approve local experimental use of a therapy on a case-by-case basis may be fast, but does not guarantee optimal safety, effectiveness, and broad implementation. We argue that alternative routes should be considered for products developed for a market of large groups of patients versus unique personalized treatments. A balance between scientific evidence for safety and effectiveness, affordability, and fast access may demand a range of alternative solutions.

Methodological Quality Assessment of Budget Impact Analyses for Orphan Drugs: A Systematic Review

Objectives: This research aims to evaluate the methodological quality of budget impact analyses for orphan drugs and to provide suggestions for future analyses. Methods: Conference abstracts and peer-reviewed literature on budget impact analyses were collected through searches of Pubmed and Embase. ISPOR good practice guidelines were used as a methodological standard for budget impact analyses. Examined parameters encompassed: perspective, target population, data sources, intervention and comparator(s), time horizon, scope of costs, discounting, validation, assumptions and sensitivity analysis. Results: Seventy studies on individual orphan drugs and 21 studies on a combination of orphan drugs analyzing budget impact were identified. Overall, analyses considered a third-party payer perspective, reported periodic budget impacts over a one-to-five-year time horizon, and did not apply discounting. A dynamically fluctuating population and costs beyond drug costs were accounted for in 18.7% and 51.7% of studies, respectively. Input data were retrieved from published literature, clinical trials, registries, claims databases, expert opinions, historical data and market research. Assumptions were mostly made about population size and intervention/comparator(s) market uptake, but these assumptions were rarely justified and their impact was insufficiently explored through sensitivity analyses. Budget impact results were rarely validated. Conclusion: Existing budget impact analyses for orphan drugs are concise, vary greatly and are of substandard methodological quality. To eliminate possible bias in future budget impact analyses, future studies should adhere to national or ISPOR good practice guidelines on budget impact analysis.

Understanding the evolution of coverage policies for prophylaxis treatments of hemophilia A without inhibitors: a payer Delphi panel

BACKGROUND: The landscape for hemophilia A prophylaxis is rapidly expanding from factor VIII replacement therapy to include novel treatments such as nonfactor replacement therapies that may enhance coagulation (e.g., emicizumab) or inhibit anticoagulant pathways (e.g., fitusiran and concizumab). For payers, this expansion presents challenges in balancing well-established treatments with new options that cost more and have lesser known real-world safety and efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate likely coverage practices for hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies among U.S. payers given evolving real-world data on safety and efficacy. METHODS: A 3-round modified Delphi process was conducted with representatives of U.S. commercial health plans who had considerable expertise in managing populations of patients with hemophilia. Round 1 consisted of an online questionnaire; round 2 involved an online discussion about the aggregated results from round 1; and round 3 allowed participants to revise their responses from round 1 based on insights gained during round 2. Questions elicited ratings, rankings, and estimates on access restrictions based on given safety and efficacy information for hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies. Consensus was reached if ≥ 74% of panelists (14 of 19) were within 1 SD of the median group estimate during round 3. RESULTS: 19 Payers participated in the research. Among them, 94% dealt with commercial insurance, 94% with Medicare, and 81% with Medicaid; 79% had spent ≥ 5 years in their current role. Panelists reported limited access restrictions on hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies; the most common restrictions were prior authorization (n = 16, 84%) and quantity level limits (n = 13, 67%). Tiering and step therapy were reported by 7 respondents (39%). Respondents agreed that there was an 80% median likelihood that ≥ 9 additional patients with any safety event (e.g., thrombotic event, death) per year would trigger access restrictions, with the median likelihood of restrictions increasing to 95% for another ≥ 10 patients with safety events per year. Respondents also agreed that > 5 thrombotic events requiring treatment per patient per year would have a 98% median likelihood of leading to access restrictions and that ≥ 5 years of real-world safety and efficacy data would be highly likely (95% median likelihood) to affect coverage decisions. Noncoverage was highly unlikely (ranked fifth or sixth of 6 by 14 respondents), as was no restriction-coverage parity (ranked sixth of 6 by 10 respondents). All else being equal, cost continues to affect access policies, with respondents agreeing that a 13%-30% difference in net cost may lead to preferred formulary treatment for a drug with superior efficacy and noninferior safety, inferior efficacy and noninferior safety, or noninferior efficacy and inferior safety. CONCLUSIONS: Payers prefer treatments with well-understood efficacy, safety, and cost over newer treatments with uncertain long-term effects. Relatively unrestricted access to legacy and new hemophilia A prophylaxis will likely continue unless additional real-world safety concerns or major cost differences emerge. DISCLOSURES: Financial support for this study was provided by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, which was involved in study concept and design. Graf, Tuly, Harley, and Pednekar are employees of PRECISIONheor, a research consultancy to the health and life sciences industries that was contracted by Takeda to conduct this study and write the manuscript. Batt served as a consultant on this project through PRECISIONheor.

Reflections on the Importance of Cost of Illness Analysis in Rare Diseases: A Proposal

In the field of rare diseases (RDs), the evidence standard is often lower than that required by health technology assessment (HTA) and payer authorities. In this commentary, we propose that appropriate economic evaluation for rare disease treatments should be initially informed by cost-of-illness (COI) studies conducted using a societal perspective. Such an approach contributes to improving countries' understanding of RDs in their entirety as societal and not merely clinical, or product-specific issues. In order to exemplify how the disease burden's distribution has changed over the last fifteen years, key COI studies for Hemophilia, Fragile X Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, and Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis are examined. Evidence shows that, besides methodological variability and cross-country differences, the disease burden's share represented by direct costs generally grows over time as novel treatments become available. Hence, to support effective decision-making processes, it seems necessary to assess the re-allocation of the burden produced by new medicinal products, and this approach requires identifying cost drivers through COI studies with robust design and standardized methodology.

Limitations and Challenges of Conducting Budget Impact Analyses in Rare Diseases: A Case Study of Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency

OBJECTIVES

There are challenges in conducting a budget impact analysis (BIA) for rare disorders. Through this case study, we present some challenges and limitations of a BIA of managing patients affected with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD). We explored a conceptual basis and barriers for health services researchers interested in quantifying budget impacts of rare disease management program (DMP).

METHODS

We developed a static budget impact cost calculator model in Microsoft Excel, obtaining the clinical impact of a DMP from the literature and translating it into costs using OLDW. Cost inputs and resource use was obtained from 2010 to 2015 claims data using the OLDW. Insurers' payments were calculated and categorized into the following cost buckets: physician visits, emergency room visits, inpatients stays, augmentation therapy, other prescription drugs costs, and other costs.

RESULTS

Data were based on 6832 patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency identified among over 21 million OLDW enrollees observed between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015. The introduction of a DMP was estimated to decrease costs of the management of patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency by $13.5 million over 5 years. The savings attributed to the program over the 5-year time horizon are due to 2555 exacerbations, 5180 emergency room visits, 9342 specialist visits, and 105 358 general practitioner visits avoided.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive DMP for a rare condition might provide cost savings to a health plan. BIAs for rare disease may be more informative if they focus on DMPs rather than on individual drugs.

Predictors of negotiated prices for new drugs in Germany

INTRODUCTION

In Germany, all new, innovative medicines are subject to an early benefit assessment by the German Federal Joint Committee with subsequent price negotiation and optional arbitration. The purpose of this study was to identify drivers of negotiated (including arbitrated) prices of new, non-orphan innovative medicines in Germany.

METHODS

The analysis considered all non-orphan drugs that underwent a benefit appraisal between January 2011 and June 2016, and displayed a reimbursement price in the German Drug Directory (Lauer-Taxe^®) in November 2017. Negotiated annual treatment costs were analyzed with respect to 11 explanatory variables in regression models.

RESULTS

The total sample included 106 non-orphan drugs. The analysis showed a significant and positive association of log-transformed negotiated annual treatment cost of new medicines with log-transformed annual treatment cost of its comparator(s), extent of added benefit, and log-transformed size of the target population. Analyzing the effects of specific endpoints instead of the overall added benefit revealed that the single endpoint with the largest impact on price is adverse events (AEs). Surprisingly, an increase in AEs significantly increased the price. Various subgroup and sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results. The adjusted R squared for all models was above 80%.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis was able to confirm that variables whose consideration is mandated by law are, in fact, the key drivers of negotiated prices. Somewhat puzzling, the analysis also found an increase in AEs to move prices significantly upward.

Assessing the Preferences for Criteria in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Treatments for Rare Diseases

Background: Increasingly, multi-criteria decision analysis has gained importance as a method by which to assess the value of orphan drugs. However, very little attention has been given to the weight (relative preferences) of the individual criteria used in a framework. Aims: This study sought to gain an understanding of the preferential weights that should be allocated in a multi-criteria decision analysis framework for orphan drugs, from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Method: Using key MCDA criteria for orphan drugs reported in the literature, we developed an interactive web-based survey tool to capture preferences for different criteria from a general stakeholder sample who were requested to assign weights from a reimbursement perspective. Each criterion could be assigned a weight on a sliding scale from 0 to 100% as long as the sum of all the criteria was 100%. We subsequently used the interactive tool with an expert focus group, followed up with a group discussion regarding each criterion and their perspectives on the weight that each criterion should be allocated when assessing an orphan drug. The expert focus group participants were then able to adjust their weights, if the group discussion had changed their perspectives. Results: The interactive tool was completed by 120 general stakeholder sample from a wide range of countries and professional backgrounds and an expert focus group of ten members. The results showed the differences in perspectives on the importance of criteria. Both groups considered Treatment efficacy to be the most important criterion. The general stakeholder sample weighted Treatment safety at 12.03% compared to the expert focus group's average of 20%. The results also demonstrated the value of the group discussion, which provided additional insights into the perspectives on the importance of criteria in assessing orphan drugs. Conclusion: This study aimed to contribute to the important aspect of preferences for different criteria in MCDA. This study sheds light on the important aspect of the preferences of the different criteria. All respondents agreed on the relative importance of Treatment efficacy and Treatment safety, criteria that are captured in conventional cost-effectiveness studies, but they also expressed the view that in addition to those, several disease-related and drug-related criteria should be included in MCDA frameworks for assessing orphan drugs.

Determinants of Orphan Drug Prices in Germany

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Legislation introduced in 2011 in Germany has instituted an early benefit assessment of newly licensed pharmaceuticals with a subsequent price negotiation. For orphan drugs (ODs) a special legal framework applies, which accounts for the fact that ODs do not have to prove an added benefit over an appropriate comparative therapy previously determined by the decision maker. As, in addition, the content of negotiations between pharmaceutical companies and the payer is confidential, the aim of this study was to identify factors influencing the negotiated prices of ODs.

METHODS

Twelve hypotheses on factors influencing the negotiated OD price were derived based on the existing literature and framework agreement between payers and pharmaceutical unions according to German social legislation. Univariate analyses were applied to detect statistically significant correlations between annual therapeutic costs of ODs and the hypothesized factors. Bivariate analyses were used to determine confounding factors. In addition, a multiple ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with backward selection was conducted. Finally, sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Thirty-five ODs were included in the analysis. The univariate analyses and subsequent sensitivity analyses validated five of the 12 hypotheses formulated. Univariate analyses suggest a statistically significant association between the OD price and the (i) therapeutic area; (ii) approval for pediatric care; (iii) treatment population size; (iv) cost of comparative therapies; and (v) European prices. The OLS regression identified European prices as the variable with the strongest association with the negotiated prices.

CONCLUSION

We show that German OD pricing is a multivariate phenomenon. However, due to interdependencies, these results must be treated with caution.

The impact of additive or substitutive clinical study design on the negotiated reimbursement for oncology pharmaceuticals after early benefit assessment in Germany

BACKGROUND

We analysed the impact of clinical study design for oncological pharmaceuticals on the subsequent price negotiations after early benefit assessment between pharmaceutical companies and the German National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds. The analysis was conducted for all oncology pharmaceuticals that underwent the early benefit assessment in Germany since its introduction in 2011 up to September 2016.

METHODS

It was differentiated between additive (new therapy in addition to baseline therapy) and substitutive study designs (baseline therapy to be replaced). The study design was derived from the dossiers of the pharmaceutical companies submitted to the Federal Joint Committee. Subgroup specific costs in case of granted added benefit were calculated as annual therapy costs and compared with the costs of the appropriate comparators to quantify price premiums. Further price influencing factors were analysed in univariate and multivariate regression analysis considering the budget impact for the statutory health insurance as well.

RESULTS

The mean and the median of the additive premiums for substitutive designs (€50,477.68 and €49,841.24) were higher than for additive designs, if the comparator was different to best supportive care (€48,750.00 and €42,820.44). The mean multiplicative premium for the substitutive designs was 15.07 versus 2.29 for the additive designs. EU-Prices and target population size had a significant effect on the reimbursement. The adjusted R-square in the log Premium OLS-regressions reached 0.708 when including all explanatory variables and considering interaction between target population and annual costs of the comparator.

CONCLUSIONS

Study design as an additional important influencing factor of the negotiations next to those stated in the framework agreement was identified and verified. Therefore, study design should be considered by pharmaceutical companies and by decision makers and payers within strategic price planning as a potential predictor. For some specific categories the number of cases was small. Further analyses should be performed when more oncology pharmaceuticals have passed the early benefit assessment.

Availability, accessibility and delivery to patients of the 28 orphan medicines approved by the European Medicine Agency for hereditary metabolic diseases in the MetabERN network

Background

The European Medicine Agency granted marketing approval to 164 orphan medicinal products for rare diseases, among which 28 products intended for the treatment of hereditary metabolic diseases. Taking advantage of its privileged connection with 69 healthcare centres of excellence in this field, MetabERN, the European Reference Network for hereditary metabolic diseases, performed a survey asking health care providers from 18 European countries whether these products are available on the market, reimbursed and therefore accessible for prescription, and actually delivered in their centre.

Results

Responses received from 52 centres (75%) concerned the design of treatment plans, the access to marketed products, and the barriers to delivery. Treatment options are always discussed with patients, who are often involved in their treatment plan. Most products (26/28) are available in most countries (15/18). Among the 15 broadly accessible products (88.5% of the centres), 9 are delivered to most patients (mean 70.1%), and the others to only few (16.5%). Among the 10 less accessible products (40.2% of the centres), 6 are delivered to many patients (66.7%), and 4 are rarely used (6.3%). Information was missing for 3 products. Delay between prescription and delivery is on average one month. Beside the lack of availability or accessibility, the most frequent reasons for not prescribing a treatment are patients’ clinical status, characteristic, and personal choice.

Conclusions

Data collected from health care providers in the MetabERN network indicate that two-third of the orphan medicines approved by EMA for the treatment of hereditary metabolic diseases are accessible to treating patients, although often less than one-half of the patients with the relevant conditions actually received the approved product to treat their disease. Thus, in spite of the remarkable achievement of many products, patients concerned by EMA-approved orphan medicinal products have persistent unmet needs, which deserve consideration. The enormous investments made by the companies to develop products, and the high financial burden for the Member States to purchase these products emphasize the importance of a scrupulous appreciation of treatment value involving all stakeholders at early stage of development, before marketing authorization, and during follow up.

Patient-reported data informing early benefit assessment of rare diseases in Germany: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Since the implementation of the Regulation on Patient Integration (2003), the Act on the Reorganization of the Pharmaceutical Market (2011), and the Patient Rights Law (2013), the inclusion of patient perspectives has been further anchored in the German early benefit assessment process. During the assessment of rare disease interventions, patient perspectives are particularly important, as clinical studies are often designed acknowledging small samples and patients suffering from severe symptoms and the chronic course of the disease. Therefore, our research question is whether patient perspectives are considered as part of early benefit assessments for rare diseases. We also strive to examine how patient perspectives are methodologically elicited and presented.

METHODS

Our empirical evidence comes from a systematic review of orphan drug value dossiers submitted to the German Federal Joint Committee as well as the corresponding evaluations conducted between January 1, 2011 and March 1, 2019 (n = 81). Data on patient perspective integration were extracted using the following patient-reported outcome subcategories: clinical patient-reported outcomes, health-related quality of life, patient preferences, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

The analysis demonstrates the specific relevance of patient-reported outcomes raised as part of the medical data set and presented during the early benefit assessment process. They are predominantly presented in the form of health-related quality of life data (n = 75%) and clinical outcomes (n = 49%). Preferences (n = 2%) and satisfaction (n = 1%) are still rarely presented, although the heated methodological discussion in Germany would suggest otherwise. While various methodologies for the integration of clinical outcomes and quality of life data were found, presenting data on satisfaction and preferences still lacks methodological rigor. The German Federal Joint Committee has not yet integrated these data in their decision text. Clinical outcomes and quality of life have been included in 46% and 73% of the cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The underlying analysis demonstrates that there is still a relative high potential for the regular and systematic inclusion of patient perspectives within the early benefit assessment process for rare diseases. In particular, patient preferences and patient satisfaction are still rarely included suggesting the need for a clear-cut methodological foundation and incentives.

An analysis of orphan medicine expenditure in Europe: is it sustainable?

Background

Orphan medicinal product (OMP) prices are considered by some to be a challenge to the sustainability of healthcare expenditure. These concerns are compounded by the increasing number of OMPs receiving marketing authorisation (MA) annually. The aim of this study was to explore the sustainability of OMP expenditure within the context of total European pharmaceutical expenditure.

Methods

Using historical IQVIA data, an analysis was conducted on total pharmaceutical and OMP expenditure in eight countries (using values / volumes) in the branded, non-branded and overall pharmaceutical market. Country level and aggregated data was considered for EU5 countries, Austria, Belgium and Ireland.

Three key analyses were conducted:

The OMP share of total pharmaceutical expenditure was calculated from 2000 to 2017, to assess its evolution over time.

The results of this analysis were compared with a 2011 forecast of OMP budget impact.

The evolution of the total pharmaceutical market and its different segments (branded OMPs, non-OMP branded and unbranded) were assessed by estimating the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and percentage of pharmaceutical expenditure for each market segment from 2010 to 2017.

Results

Across countries, OMP share of total pharmaceutical expenditure has increased each year since 2000, rising to 7.2% of total pharmaceutical expenditure in 2017. OMP expenditure has increased at a CAGR of 16% since 2010. The number of OMPs receiving MA each year showed a CAGR of 11% since 2001, four percentage points greater than the CAGR for all medicines receiving MA over the same period. OMP share of total pharmaceutical expenditure is higher than forecasted in 2011 due to slower than expected growth in the non-OMP market. OMP growth has been offset by reduced expenditure in the general market and increased use of generics and biosimilars.

Conclusions

Relative spending on OMPs has increased over the last 20 years, but this has been largely compensated for within the current allocation of total pharmaceutical spending by flat expenditure for non-OMPs and increased volumes of (lower-priced) generics/biosimilars, reflecting a shift towards expenditure in higher cost, lower volume patient populations and a shift in drug development towards more specialised targeting of diseases.

Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study

Background: The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decision-making towards legitimacy. Rare disease and regenerative therapies (RDRTs) pose special decision-making challenges and offer therefore a useful case study.

Methods: Features operationalizing each A4R condition as well as three different approaches to address these features (cost-per-QALY-focused and multicriteria-based) were defined and organized into a matrix. Seven experts explored these features during a panel run under the Chatham House Rule and provided general and RDRT-specific recommendations. Responses were analyzed to identify converging and diverging recommendations.

Results: Regarding Relevance, recommendations included supporting deliberation, stakeholder participation and grounding coverage decision criteria in normative and societal objectives. Thirteen of 17 proposed decision criteria were recommended by a majority of panelists. The usefulness of universal cost-effectiveness thresholds to inform allocative efficiency was challenged, particularly in the RDRT context. RDRTs raise specific issues that need to be considered; however, rarity should be viewed in relation to other aspects, such as disease severity and budget impact. Regarding Publicity, panelists recommended transparency about the values underlying a decision and value judgements used in selecting evidence. For Appeals, recommendations included a life-cycle approach with clear provisions for re-evaluations. For Enforcement, external quality reviews of decisions were recommended.

Conclusion: Moving coverage decision-making processes towards enhanced legitimacy in general and in the RDRT context involves designing and refining approaches to support participation and deliberation, enhancing transparency, and allowing explicit consideration of multiple decision criteria that reflect normative and societal objectives.

[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.

Determining Value in Health Technology Assessment: Stay the Course or Tack Away?

The economic evaluation of new health technologies to assess whether the value of the expected health benefits warrants the proposed additional costs has become an essential step in making novel interventions available to patients. This assessment of value is problematic because there exists no natural means to measure it. One approach is to assume that society wishes to maximize aggregate health, measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Commonly, a single 'cost-effectiveness' threshold is used to gauge whether the intervention is sufficiently efficient in doing so. This approach has come under fire for failing to account for societal values that favor treating more severe illness and ensuring equal access to resources, regardless of pre-existing conditions or capacity to benefit. Alternatives involving expansion of the measure of benefit or adjusting the threshold have been proposed and some have advocated tacking away from the cost per QALY entirely to implement therapeutic area-specific efficiency frontiers, multicriteria decision analysis or other approaches that keep the dimensions of benefit distinct and value them separately. In this paper, each of these alternative courses is considered, based on the experiences of the authors, with a view to clarifying their implications.

Projecting Pharmaceutical Expenditure in EU5 to 2021: Adjusting for the Impact of Discounts and Rebates

BACKGROUND

Within (European) healthcare systems, the predominant goal for pharmaceutical expenditure is cost containment. This is due to a general belief among healthcare policy makers that pharmaceutical expenditure-driven by high prices-will be unsustainable unless further reforms are enacted.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to provide more realistic expectations of pharmaceutical expenditure for all key stakeholder groups by estimating pharmaceutical expenditure at 'net' prices. We also aim to estimate any gaps developing between list and net pharmaceutical expenditure for the EU5 countries (i.e. France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK).

METHODS

We adjusted an established forecast of pharmaceutical expenditure for the EU5 countries, from 2017 to 2021, by reflecting discounts and rebates not previously considered, i.e. we moved from 'list' to 'net' prices, as far as data were available.

RESULTS

We found an increasing divergence between expenditure measured at list and net prices. When the forecasts for the five countries were aggregated, the EU5 (unweighted) average historical growth (2010-2016) rate fell from 3.4% compound annual growth rate at list to 2.5% at net. For the forecast, the net growth rate was estimated at 1.5 versus 2.9% at list.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that future growth in pharmaceutical expenditure in Europe is likely to be (1) lower than previously understood from forecasts based on list prices and (2) below predicted healthcare expenditure growth in Europe and in line with long-term economic growth rates. For policy makers concerned about the sustainability of pharmaceutical expenditure, this study may provide some comfort, in that the perceived problem is not as large as expected.