Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding?

Towards ethical drug pricing: the European Orphan Genomic Therapies Fund

An increasing number of novel genomic therapies are expected to become available for patients with rare or ultra-rare diseases. However, the primary obstacle to equal patient access to these orphan genomic therapies are currently very high prices charged by manufacturers in the context of limited healthcare budgets. Taking into account ethical pricing theories, the paper proposes the implementation of a pricing infrastructure covering all European member states, which has the potential to promote distributive justice while maintaining the attractiveness of genomic therapy development.

Healthcare costs for patients with rare diseases: Evidence from China

OBJECTIVE

Rare diseases cause a huge financial burden to countless patients and families. It is an important public health issue that requires widespread attention. This study analyzes medical expenses composition and the change in trends of out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses for patients with Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and explores the factors influencing these changes.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Chinese Medical Insurance Department database from 2018 to 2020, including 857 patients with ALS in 60 cities across 30 provinces. We used descriptive methods to analyse the baseline characteristics and medical expenses of outpatients and inpatients with ALS. And we used quantile regression to analyse the differences in patient OOP ratio and the factors influencing them.

RESULTS

In China, 80.3% of ALS patients chose tertiary hospitals, with an annual direct medical cost of 11,339.7 RMB per patient and an OOP ratio of 41.6%. The annual medical cost for outpatients was 345.1 RMB per patient, with an OOP ratio of 36.7%. The annual medical cost for inpatients was 28,139.8 RMB per patient, with an OOP ratio of 41.7%. Compared to outpatients, inpatients had higher medical costs but lower actual reimbursement rates. The OOP ratio of ALS patients decreased, then increased over time. And the OOP ratio was influenced by medical institution, medical insurance, and age (p < 0.05). Patients who chose tertiary hospitals, those who were covered by the urban resident basic medical insurance and younger patients had relatively higher OOP ratio.

CONCLUSION

In recent years, although China has begun to pay attention to the rights and interests of patients with rare diseases, the government has provided some healthcare security to patients with rare diseases. However, the level of medical insurance coverage was still low, the equity of protection was still insufficient and the financial burden on patients was high. Therefore, the government should further improve the healthcare system to provide full life-cycle and affordable healthcare services to patients with rare diseases.

Exploring Pro-Inflammatory Immunological Mediators: Unraveling the Mechanisms of Neuroinflammation in Lysosomal Storage Diseases

Lysosomal storage diseases are a group of rare and ultra-rare genetic disorders caused by defects in specific genes that result in the accumulation of toxic substances in the lysosome. This excess accumulation of such cellular materials stimulates the activation of immune and neurological cells, leading to neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration in the central and peripheral nervous systems. Examples of lysosomal storage diseases include Gaucher, Fabry, Tay–Sachs, Sandhoff, and Wolman diseases. These diseases are characterized by the accumulation of various substrates, such as glucosylceramide, globotriaosylceramide, ganglioside GM2, sphingomyelin, ceramide, and triglycerides, in the affected cells. The resulting pro-inflammatory environment leads to the generation of pro-inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, growth factors, and several components of complement cascades, which contribute to the progressive neurodegeneration seen in these diseases. In this study, we provide an overview of the genetic defects associated with lysosomal storage diseases and their impact on the induction of neuro-immune inflammation. By understanding the underlying mechanisms behind these diseases, we aim to provide new insights into potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets for monitoring and managing the severity of these diseases. In conclusion, lysosomal storage diseases present a complex challenge for patients and clinicians, but this study offers a comprehensive overview of the impact of these diseases on the central and peripheral nervous systems and provides a foundation for further research into potential treatments.

Real-world disparities and ethical considerations with access to CFTR modulator drugs: Mind the gap!

The third Sustainable Development Goal (SDG), to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages, has particular relevance and implementation challenges amongst people living with rare diseases such as cystic fibrosis (CF). Although the treatment and projected outcome of CF has significantly improved with the advent of CF transmembrane conductance regulator protein modulator (CFTRm) therapy, there remains significant global inequality with regards to access to these life-saving and life-altering drugs. Elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor (ETI) triple combination therapy, first licensed in the United States in 2019, has rapidly become the standard of care for children aged 6 years and older in most high-income countries for individuals with CFTR variants responsive to ETI. Negotiated agreements for access to ETI are currently in place in North America,Europe, Israel ,Australia and New Zealand. However, less priority has been given to negotiate agreements for access to CFTRm in low-middle income countries(LMIC) with significant CF populations such as Central and South America, India, the Middle East, and Southern Africa. These countries and individuals living with CF are therefore effectively being left behind, in direct conflict with the stated principle of the 2030 SDGs. In this review, we highlight the current global inequity in access to CFTRm drugs and its impact on widening disparities between high-income countries and LMIC in CF outcomes and survival. We further discuss the reasons for this inequity and explore the ethical- and human rights-based principles and dilemmas that clinicians, families, governments, and healthcare funders must consider when prioritizing fair and affordable access to expensive CFTRm drugs. Lastly, we propose possible solutions to overcoming the barriers to accessing affordable CFTRm drugs in LMIC and illustrate with examples how access to drug therapies for other conditions have been successfully negotiated in LMIC through innovative partnerships between governments and pharmaceutical industries.

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence in the Odyssey of Rare Diseases

Emerging machine learning (ML) technologies have the potential to significantly improve the research and treatment of rare diseases, which constitute a vast set of diseases that affect a small proportion of the total population. Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms can help to quickly identify patterns and associations that would be difficult or impossible for human analysts to detect. Predictive modeling techniques, such as deep learning, have been used to forecast the progression of rare diseases, enabling the development of more targeted treatments. Moreover, AI has also shown promise in the field of drug development for rare diseases with the identification of subpopulations of patients who may be most likely to respond to a particular drug. This review aims to highlight the achievements of AI algorithms in the study of rare diseases in the past decade and advise researchers on which methods have proven to be most effective. The review will focus on specific rare diseases, as defined by a prevalence rate that does not exceed 1-9/100,000 on Orphanet, and will examine which AI methods have been most successful in their study. We believe this review can guide clinicians and researchers in the successful application of ML in rare diseases.

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.

Druggable gene alterations in Japanese patients with rare malignancy

Without a current standard of care, patients with rare malignancy are subjected to precision oncology with next-generation sequencing to identify a course of treatment. We sought to establish the clinical relevance of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) among patients with rare malignancy. Rare malignancy was defined using the Rare Cancers in Europe definition (<6 cases per 100,000 individuals). We analyzed gene mutations, fusions, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI) status. Level A gene alterations, categorized using Clinical Interpretations of Variants in Cancer and MD Anderson Knowledge Base for Precision Oncology, were considered druggable. Rare malignancy accounted for 149 (45%) cases, with female genital cancers (32%) most common. Among the rare malignancy cases, we identified a lower frequency of mutation in TP53 (41% vs. 60%, P<0.001), KRAS (13% vs. 43%, P<0.001) and APC (3% vs. 25%, P<0.001), and a higher frequency of ARID1A mutation (14% vs. 6%, P=0.03), as compared with common malignancies. TMB-high and MSI-high cases were found in 8% and 2% of cases, respectively. Druggable alterations were detected in 37 patients with rare malignancy; this percentage tended to be higher than that for patients with common malignancies (25% vs. 17%, P=0.08). Common druggable alterations were BRAF V600E, ERBB2 amplification, PIK3CA E542K, and BRCA1/2 variant. Five of the 37 patients with druggable alterations received genome-driven treatment. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the rare and common malignancy groups. Our results provide clues for future clinical development and treatment success among Japanese patients with rare cancers.

Rare disease emerging as a global public health priority

The genomics revolution over the past three decades has led to great strides in rare disease (RD) research, which presents a major shift in global policy landscape. While RDs are individually rare, there are common challenges and unmet medical and social needs experienced by the RD population globally. The various disabilities arising from RDs as well as diagnostic and treatment uncertainty were demonstrated to have detrimental influence on the health, psychosocial, and economic aspects of RD families. Despite the collective large number of patients and families affected by RDs internationally, the general lack of public awareness and expertise constraints have neglected and marginalized the RD population in health systems and in health- and social-care policies. The current Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed the long-standing and fundamental challenges of the RD population, and has reminded us of the critical need of addressing the systemic inequalities and widespread disparities across populations and jurisdictions. Owing to the commonality in goals between RD movements and universal health coverage targets, the United Nations (UN) has highlighted the importance of recognizing RDs in policies, and has recently adopted the UN Resolution to promote greater integration of RDs in the UN agenda, advancing UN's commitment in achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals of "leav[ing] no one behind." Governments have also started to launch Genome Projects in their respective jurisdictions, aiming to integrate genomic medicine into mainstream healthcare. In this paper, we review the challenges experienced by the RD population, the establishment and adoption of RD policies, and the state of evidence in addressing these challenges from a global perspective. The Hong Kong Genome Project was illustrated as a case study to highlight the role of Genome Projects in enhancing clinical application of genomic medicine for personalized medicine and in improving equity of access and return in global genomics. Through reviewing what has been achieved to date, this paper will provide future directions as RD emerges as a global public health priority, in hopes of moving a step toward a more equitable and inclusive community for the RD population in times of pandemics and beyond.

Rare diseases in healthcare priority setting: should rarity matter?

Rare diseases pose a particular priority setting problem. The UK gives rare diseases special priority in healthcare priority setting. Effectively, the National Health Service is willing to pay much more to gain a quality-adjusted life-year related to a very rare disease than one related to a more common condition. But should rare diseases receive priority in the allocation of scarce healthcare resources? This article develops and evaluates four arguments in favour of such a priority. These pertain to public values, luck egalitarian distributive justice the epistemic difficulties of obtaining knowledge about rare diseases and the incentives created by a higher willingness to pay. The first is at odds with our knowledge regarding popular opinion. The three other arguments may provide a reason to fund rare diseases generously. However, they are either overinclusive because they would also justify funding for many non-rare diseases or underinclusive in the sense of justifying priority for only some rare diseases. The arguments thus fail to provide a justification that tracks rareness as such.

How Can We Optimize the Value Assessment and Appraisal of Orphan Drugs for Reimbursement Purposes? A Qualitative Interview Study Across European Countries

Introduction: The expansion of orphan drug treatment at increasing prices, together with uncertainties regarding their (cost-)effectiveness raises difficulties for decision-makers to assess these drugs for reimbursement. The present qualitative study aims to gain better insight into current value assessment and appraisal frameworks for orphan drugs, and provides guidance for improvement.

Methods: 22 European experts from 19 different countries were included in a qualitative survey, followed by in-depth semi-structured interviews. These experts were academics, members of reimbursement agencies or health authorities, or members of regulatory or health/social insurance institutions. Adopting a Grounded Theory approach, transcripts were analysed according to the QUAGOL method, supported by the qualitative data analysis software Nvivo.

Results: Although participants indicated several good practices (e.g., the involvement of patients and the presence of structure and consistency), several barriers (e.g., the lack of transparency) lead to questions regarding the efficiency of the overall reimbursement process. In addition, the study identified a number of “contextual” determinants (e.g., bias, perverse effects of the orphan drug legislation, and an inadequate consideration of the opportunity cost), which may undermine the legitimacy of orphan drug reimbursement decisions.

Conclusion: The present study provides guidance for decision-makers to improve the efficiency of orphan drug reimbursement. In particular, decision-makers can generate quick wins by limiting the impact of contextual determinants rather than improving the methods included in the HTA. When implemented into a framework that promotes “Accountability for Reasonableness” (A4R), this allows decision-makers to improve the legitimacy of reimbursement decisions concerning future orphan drugs.

Estimating the number of diseases – the concept of rare, ultra-rare and hyper-rare

At the dawn of the personalized medicine era, the number of rare diseases has been estimated at 10,000. By considering the influence of environmental factors together with genetic variations and our improved diagnostic capabilities, an assessment suggests a considerably larger number. The majority would be extremely rare, and hence, we introduce the term “hyper-rare,” defined as affecting <1/10⁸ individuals. Such disorders would potentially outnumber all currently known rare diseases. Because autosomal recessive disorders are likely concentrated in consanguineous populations, and rare toxicities in rural areas, establishing their existence necessitates a greater reach than is currently viable. Moreover, the randomness of X-linked and gain-of-function mutations greatly compound this challenge. However, whether concurrent diseases actually cause a distinct illness will depend on if their pathological mechanisms interact (phenotype conversion) or not (phenotype maintenance). The hyper-rare disease concept will be important in precision medicine with improved diagnosis and treatment of rare disease patients.

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.

Should rare diseases get special treatment?

Orphan drug policy often gives 'special treatment' to rare diseases, by giving additional priority or making exceptions to specific drugs, based on the rarity of the conditions they aim to treat. This essay argues that the goal of orphan drug policy should be to make prevalence irrelevant to funding decisions. It aims to demonstrate that it is severity, not prevalence, which drives our judgments that important claims are being overlooked when treatments for severe rare diseases are not funded. It shows that prioritising severity avoids problems caused by prioritising rarity, and that it is compatible with a range of normative frameworks. The implications of a severity-based view for drug development are then derived. The severity-based view also accounts for what is wrong with how the current system of drug development unfairly neglects common diseases that burden the developing world. Lastly, the implications of a severity-based view for current orphan drug policies are discussed.

Glycogen Storage Disease Type Ia: Current Management Options, Burden and Unmet Needs

Glycogen storage disease type Ia (GSDIa) is caused by defective glucose-6-phosphatase, a key enzyme in carbohydrate metabolism. Affected individuals cannot release glucose during fasting and accumulate excess glycogen and fat in the liver and kidney, putting them at risk of severe hypoglycaemia and secondary metabolic perturbations. Good glycaemic/metabolic control through strict dietary treatment and regular doses of uncooked cornstarch (UCCS) is essential for preventing hypoglycaemia and long-term complications. Dietary treatment has improved the prognosis for patients with GSDIa; however, the disease itself, its management and monitoring have significant physical, psychological and psychosocial burden on individuals and parents/caregivers. Hypoglycaemia risk persists if a single dose of UCCS is delayed/missed or in cases of gastrointestinal intolerance. UCCS therapy is imprecise, does not treat the cause of disease, may trigger secondary metabolic manifestations and may not prevent long-term complications. We review the importance of and challenges associated with achieving good glycaemic/metabolic control in individuals with GSDIa and how this should be balanced with age-specific psychosocial development towards independence, management of anxiety and preservation of quality of life (QoL). The unmet need for treatment strategies that address the cause of disease, restore glucose homeostasis, reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia/secondary metabolic perturbations and improve QoL is also discussed.

A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement

BACKGROUND

The number of market approvals of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) has been increasing steadily in the last 3 decades. While OMPs can offer a unique chance for patients suffering from rare diseases, they are usually very expensive. The growing number of approved OMPs increases their budget impact despite their low prevalence, making it pressing to find solutions to ethical challenges on how to fairly allocate scarce healthcare resources under this context. One potential solution could be to grant OMPs special status when considering them for reimbursement, meaning that they are subject to different, and less stringent criteria than other drugs. This study aims to provide a systematic analysis of moral reasons for and against such a special status for the reimbursement of OMPs in publicly funded healthcare systems from a multidisciplinary perspective.

RESULTS

With a systematic review of reasons, we identified 39 reasons represented in 243 articles (scientific and grey literature) for and against special status for the reimbursement of OMPs, then categorized them into nine topics. Taking a multidisciplinary perspective, we found that most articles came from health policy (n = 103) and health economics (n = 49). More articles took the position for a special status of OMPs (n = 97) than those against it (n = 31) and there was a larger number of reasons identified in favour (29 reasons) than against (10 reasons) this special status.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that OMP reimbursement issues should be assessed and analysed from a multidisciplinary perspective. Despite the higher occurrence of reasons and articles in favour of a special status, there is no clear-cut solution for this ethical challenge. The binary perspective of whether or not OMPs should be granted special status oversimplifies the issue: both OMPs and rare diseases are too heterogeneous in their characteristics for such a binary perspective. Thus, the scientific debate should focus less on the question of disease prevalence but rather on how the important variability of different OMPs concerning e.g. target population, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence or mechanism of action could be meaningfully addressed and implemented in Health Technology Assessments.

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.

Research and Management of Rare Diseases in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era: Challenges and Countermeasures

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted every aspect of our life. The need to provide high-level care for an enormous number of patients with COVID-19 infection during this pandemic has impacted resourcing for and restricted the routine care of all non-COVID-19 conditions. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the people living with rare disorders, who represent a marginalized group of the population even in a normal world, have not received enough attention that they deserve. Due to the pandemic situation, they have experienced (and experiencing) an extreme inadequacy of regular clinical services, counseling, and therapies they need, which have made their life more vulnerable and feel more marginalized. Besides, the clinicians, researchers, and scientists working on rare genetic diseases face extra challenges due to the pandemic. Many ongoing research projects and clinical trials for rare and genetic diseases were stalled to avoid patients' and research staff's transmission to COVID-19. Still, with all the odds, telehealth and virtual consultations for rare disease patients have shown hope. The clinical, organizational, and economic challenges faced by institutions, patients, their families, and the caregivers during the pandemic indicate the importance of ensuring continuity of care in managing rare diseases, including adequate diagnostics and priority management strategies for emergencies. In this review, we endeavored to shed light on the issues the rare disease community faces during the pandemic and the adaptations that could help the rare disease community to better sustain in the coming days.

The estimation of health state utility values in rare diseases: overview of existing techniques

There are several techniques for estimating health state utility values, each of which presents pros and cons in the context of rare diseases (RDs). Direct approaches (e.g. standard gamble and time trade-off) may be too demanding for patients with RDs, since most of them affect young children or cause cognitive impairment. The alternatives are using "vignettes" that describe hypothetical health states for the general public, which may not reflect the heterogeneous manifestations of RDs, or multi-attribute utility instruments (i.e. indirect techniques), such as EQ-5D, which may be less sensitive in capturing the specificities of RDs. The "rule of rescue" approach is a promising alternative in RDs, since it prioritizes identifiable patients with life-threatening or disabling conditions. However, it raises measurement challenges and ethical issues. Furthermore, the literature reports on relevant implications of choosing a technique over others for health technology assessment, which should be considered in relation to individual RDs.

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.

Impact of rarity on Canadian oncology health technology assessment and funding

OBJECTIVES

The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) evaluates new cancer drugs for public funding recommendations. While pCODR's deliberative framework evaluates overall clinical benefit and includes considerations for exceptional circumstances, rarity of indication is not explicitly addressed. Given the high unmet need that typically accompanies these indications, we explored the impact of rarity on oncology HTA recommendations and funding decisions.

METHODS

We examined pCODR submissions with final recommendations from 2012 to 2017. Incidence rates were calculated using pCODR recommendation reports and statistics from the Canadian Cancer Society. Indications were classified as rare if the incidence rate was lower than 1/100,000 diagnoses, a definition referenced by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Each pCODR final report was examined for the funding recommendation/justification, level of supporting evidence (presence of a randomized control trial [RCT]), and time to funding (if applicable).

RESULTS

Of the ninety-six pCODR reviews examined, 16.6 percent were classified as rare indications per above criteria. While the frequency of positive funding recommendations were similar between rare and nonrare indication (78.6 vs. 75 percent), rare indications were less likely to be presented with evidence from RCT (50 vs. 90 percent). The average time to funding did not differ significantly across provinces.

CONCLUSION

Rare indications appear to be associated with weaker clinical evidence. There appears to be no association between rarity, positive funding recommendations, and time to funding. Further work will evaluate factors associated with positive recommendations and the real-world utilization of funded treatments for rare indications.

Ultra-rare disease: an European perspective

In the past few years, interest in rare diseases has grown, as demonstrated by the agendas of politicians and health authorities, but too little attention is still paid to ultra-rare diseases. Although no legal definition of an “ultra-rare” disease has yet been established, this subcategory was informally introduced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for drugs with indications for diseases that have a prevalence <1 per 50 000 persons [1–3].

Too little attention is still paid to ultra-rare diseases. It is important to disseminate the best information on less common diseases in order to improve the clinical managment and improve care.https://bit.ly/2NougE5

Will the US$5 million onasemnogene abeparvosec treatment for spinal muscular atrophy represent 'value for money' for the NHS? A rapid inquiry into suggestions that it may be cost-effective

OBJECTIVES

Nusinersen (Spinraza®, Biogen) and onasemnogene abeparvosec (Zolgensma®, Novartis) are novel gene-based therapies for the orphan disease Spinal Muscular Atrophy. Onasemnogene abeparvosec has been allocated an acquisition cost of up to US$5 million per patient. We undertook a rapid inquiry to evaluate if onasemnogene abeparvosec is likely to be cost-effective for the UK NHS.

METHODS

We used publicly available cost-effectiveness data and recommended methodology to perform cost-utility evaluation of onasemnogene abeparvosec versus best supportive care and nusinersen.

RESULTS

Our evaluations highlight wide variations in cost and benefit estimates of nusinersen and indicate that onasemnogene abeparvosec is unlikely to represent value for money according to current standards of reimbursement. Results are discussed in the context of reimbursement decisions for orphan diseases.

CONCLUSION

Commonly implemented commercial confidentiality practices combined with uncertain data obscure scrutiny and justification of past and present reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. Future cutting edge expensive therapies will be numerous, they will entail very substantial economic strains. We conclude that there is an urgent and increasing need for the development of improved procedures that can lead to equitable, consistent, and transparent decision-making.

Review: Understanding Rare Genetic Diseases in Low Resource Regions Like Jammu and Kashmir - India

Rare diseases (RDs) are the clinical conditions affecting a few percentage of individuals in a general population compared to other diseases. Limited clinical information and a lack of reliable epidemiological data make their timely diagnosis and therapeutic management difficult. Emerging Next-Generation DNA Sequencing technologies have enhanced our horizons on patho-physiological understanding of many of the RDs and ushered us into an era of diagnostic and therapeutic research related to this ignored health challenge. Unfortunately, relevant research is meager in developing countries which lack a reliable estimate of the exact burden of most of the RDs. India is to be considered as the "Pandora's Box of genetic disorders." Owing to its huge population heterogeneity and high inbreeding or endogamy rates, a higher burden of rare recessive genetic diseases is expected and supported by the literature findings that endogamy is highly detrimental to health as it enhances the degree of homozygosity of recessive alleles in the general population. The population of a low resource region Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) - India, is highly inbred. Some of its population groups variably practice consanguinity. In context with the region's typical geographical topography, highly inbred population structure and unique but heterogeneous gene pool, a huge burden of known and uncharacterized genetic disorders is expected. Unfortunately, many suspected cases of genetic disorders remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed due to lack of appropriate clinical as well as diagnostic resources in the region, causing patients to face a huge psycho-socio-economic crisis and many a time suffer life-long with their ailment. In this review, the major challenges associated with RDs are highlighted in general and an account on the methods that can be adopted for conducting fruitful molecular genetic studies in genetically vulnerable and low resource regions is also provided, with an example of a region like J&K - India.

The combination of tezacaftor and ivacaftor in the treatment of patients with cystic fibrosis: clinical evidence and future prospects in cystic fibrosis therapy

Years of tremendous study have dawned a new era for the treatment of cystic fibrosis (CF). For years CF care was rooted in the management of organ dysfunction resulting from the mal-effects of absent anion transport through the CF transmembrane regulator (CFTR) protein. CFTR, an adenosine triphosphate binding anion channel, has multiple functions, but primarily regulates the movement of chloride anions, thiocyanate and bicarbonate across luminal cell membranes. Additional roles include effects on other electrolyte channels such as the epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) and on pulmonary innate immunity.

Inappropriate luminal anion movement leads to elevated sweat chloride concentrations, dehydrated airway surface liquid, overall viscous mucous production, and inspissated bile and pancreatic secretions. As a result, patients develop the well-known CF symptoms and disease-defining complications such as chronic cough, oily stools, recurrent pulmonary infections, bronchiectasis, chronic sinusitis and malnutrition.

Traditionally, CF has been symptomatically managed, but over the past 6 years those with CF have been offered a new mode of therapy; CFTR protein modulation. These medications affect the basic defect in CF: abnormal CFTR function. Ivacaftor, approved for use in the United States in 2012, is the first medication in CF history to improve CFTR function at the molecular level. Its study and approval were followed by two additional CFTR modulators, lumacaftor/ivacaftor and tezacaftor/ivacaftor.

To effectively use currently available CF therapies, clinicians should be familiar with the side effects of the drugs and their impacts on patient outcomes. As many new modulators are on the horizon, this information will equip providers to discuss the benefits and shortcomings of modulator therapy especially in the context of limited healthcare resources.

Factors associated with positive and negative recommendations for cancer and non-cancer drugs for rare diseases in Canada

BACKGROUND

In Canada, reimbursement recommendations on drugs for common and rare diseases are overseen by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) and made through the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) and the Common Drug Review (CDR). While the agency specifies information requirements for the review of drug submissions, how that information is used by each process to formulate final reimbursement recommendations, particularly on drugs for rare diseases (DRDs) in which per patient treatment costs are often high, is unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine which factors contribute to recommendation type for DRDs.

METHODS

Information was extracted from CDR and pCODR recommendations on drugs for diseases with a prevalence < 1 in 2000 from January 2012 to April 2018. Data were tabulated and multiple logistic regression was applied to explore the association between recommendation type and the following factors: condition/review process (cancer vs non-cancer), year, prevalence, clinical effectiveness (improvements in surrogate, clinical and patient reported outcomes), safety, quality of evidence (availability of comparative data, consistency between population in trial and indication, and bias), clinical need, treatment cost, and incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER). Two-way interactions were also explored.

RESULTS

A total of 103 recommendations were included. Eleven were resubmissions, all of which received a positive recommendation. Among new submissions (n = 92), DRDs that were safe or offered improvements in clinical or patient reported outcomes were more likely to receive positive reimbursement recommendations. No associations between recommendation type and daily treatment cost, cost-effectiveness, or condition (cancer or non-cancer) were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical effectiveness, as opposed to economic considerations or whether the drug is indicated for cancer or non-cancer, determine the type of reimbursement recommendation.

Healthcare Resource Utilization and the Cost of Care for Mucopolysaccharidosis I Patients in Iran

BACKGROUND

Mucopolysaccharidosis I (MPS-I) is one of the most common types of MPS and lysosomal storage diseases, which impose considerable amount of economic burden on society.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the cost drivers in the treatment of MPS-I patients in Iran.

METHODS

This is a cost-analysis study. The prevalence approach was used to evaluate costs from the healthcare payer's perspective. The number of patients found to have α-L-iduronidase deficiency was identified using the national registry database of the Ministry of Health (MOH). The direct medical costs of the patients were evaluated. Prescriptions; medical interventions; inpatient, outpatient, and diagnostic services, and also their costs were extracted from the patient's profiles in Iran Food and Drug Administration (IFDA). The prices of the medical services were taken out from Iranian medical tariff book 2014-15. Data extraction was performed from January 2017 to March 2018.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were registered as MPS-I in MOH databases. The average annual healthcare cost for every patient was $87 971.99, 96.9% of which was allocated to medication therapy. Therapeutic and diagnostic services costs (2.4% and 0.7% correspondingly) were ranked second and third, respectively, but with huge differences in medication cost.

CONCLUSIONS

The average annual cost of treatment for MPS-I patients is as high as 16.2 times the GDP per capita in Iran. The highest share of the cost belongs to medication. Selecting appropriate strategies for reducing the birth of a child with MPS could support allocative efficiency of the limited resources effectively.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of second-line pharmacological treatment of acromegaly in Spain

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of second-line pharmacological treatments in patients with acromegaly resistant to first-generation somatostatin analogues (FG SSA) from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective.Methods: A Markov model was developed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of pegvisomant and pasireotide in FG SSA-resistant acromegaly, simulating a cohort of patients from the treatment beginning to death. Treatment with pegvisomant or pasireotide was compared to FG SSA retreatment. Efficacy data were obtained from clinical trials and utilities from the literature. Direct health costs were obtained from Spanish sources (€2018).Results: The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of pegvisomant vs. FG SSA was €85,869/Quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The ICER of pasireotide vs. FG SSA was €551,405/QALY. The ICER was mainly driven by the incremental efficacy (4.41 QALY for pegvisomant vs. FG SSA and 0.71 QALY for pasireotide vs. FG SSA), with a slightly lower increase in costs with pegvisomant (€378,597 vs. FG SSA) than with pasireotide (€393,151 vs. FG SSA).Conclusion: The ICER of pasireotide compared to FG SSA was six times higher than the ICER of pegvisomant vs. FG SSA. Pegvisomant is a more cost-effective alternative for the treatment of acromegaly in FG SSA-resistant patients in the Spanish NHS.

Generic Substitution of Orphan Drugs for the Treatment of Rare Diseases: Exploring the Potential Challenges

Generic drugs are important components of measures introduced by healthcare regulatory authorities to reduce treatment costs. In most patients and conditions the switch from a branded drug to its generic counterpart is performed with no major complications. However, evidence from complex diseases suggests that generic substitution requires careful evaluation in some settings and that current bioequivalence criteria may not always be adequate for establishing the interchangeability of branded and generic products. Rare diseases, also called orphan diseases, are a group of heterogeneous diseases that share important characteristics: in addition to their scarcity, most are severe, chronic, highly debilitating, and often present in early childhood. Finding a treatment for a rare disease is challenging. Thanks to incentives that encourage research and development programs in rare diseases, several orphan drugs are currently available. The elevated cost of orphan drugs is a highly debated issue and a cause of limited access to treatment for many patients. As patent protection and the exclusivity period of several orphan drugs will expire soon, generic versions of orphan drugs should reach the market shortly, with great expectations about their impact on the economic burden of rare diseases. However, consistent with other complex diseases, generic substitution may require thoughtful considerations and may be even contraindicated in some rare conditions. This article provides an overview of rare disease characteristics, reviews reports of problematic generic substitution, and discusses why generic substitution of orphan drugs may be challenging and should be undertaken carefully in rare disease patients.

From Rare to Neglected Diseases: A Sustainable and Inclusive Healthcare Perspective for Reframing the Orphan Drugs Issue

This work is about how healthcare issues can be reframed from a sustainable and inclusive development perspective. Focusing on the case of orphan drugs and rare diseases, first, a country-based review of the main regulatory approaches to orphan drugs is conducted; then, the main contributions of the literature are reviewed to identify dominant views and the way the problem is more commonly framed. The main findings reveal that the dominant regulatory approaches and theoretical interpretations of the problem are mainly based on economic considerations. However, this does not seem to have led to very satisfactory results. Reflecting upon what the sustainability perspective can highlight with reference to healthcare, substantial connections between the orphan drugs issue and that of neglected diseases are highlighted. These connections suggest reframing the orphan drugs issue as a social equality and inclusiveness problem, hence the need to adopt a sustainable and inclusive development perspective. As a key sustainable development goal (SGD) to be shared by all nations, healthcare should always be approached by putting the principles of sustainable and inclusive development at the core of policy makers’ regulatory choices. Accordingly, we think that the orphan drugs issue, like that of neglected diseases, could be better faced by adopting a social equality and inclusiveness perspective.

Patient access to orphan drugs in France

Background

Since incentives were introduced to promote orphan drugs in Europe, several dozens of drugs have been registered at the European level. However, patient access on a national level remains very heterogeneous across Europe. This can be explained by healthcare organization and drug reimbursement, which are within the purview of each Member State. We studied access to orphan drugs in France from the patients’ point of view, including marketing but also ease of supply from patients’ perspective, financial and time-based dimensions.

Results

We identified 91 registered orphan drugs in Europe, corresponding to 115 orphan drug–therapeutic indication pairs. In France, 78.3% (90/115) of these pairs were marketed: 100% were available to inpatients and 75.6% were available to outpatients. The median period between granting of the European marketing authorization and publication of the reimbursement decision was 360 days. The broadest availability—through community pharmacies—was guaranteed in only 31.1% of cases. Prescriptions were mainly restricted either to hospital-based doctors or to specialists. Inpatients were not financially responsible for these prescriptions and 72% of the orphan drug–therapeutic indication pairs available to outpatients were fully covered by national health insurance in France.

Conclusions

Patient access to orphan drugs is not universal in France. Access to reimbursement has a strong impact on patients’ effective access to orphan drugs, which may be restricted by difficulties with assessing the clinical value of these drugs and with pricing issues. Prescribing restrictions and drug delivery systems influence the ease of patients’ supply for reimbursed orphan drugs for patients. Patients do not seem to be limited by financial issues, but the growing budgetary impact of orphan drugs is worrisome from a societal point of view.

Orphan Drugs in Oncology

Rare diseases represent a group of conditions affecting a very limited number of patients. Low profitability resulting from the small size of target population coupled with difficulties in conducting the research causes the lack of interest from the pharmaceutical industry. In order to promote research and development of medicines for rare diseases, a special 'orphan' legislation was introduced in a number of regions. These measures led to a significant increase in the number of approved orphan molecules. The high per patient cost of orphan drugs, as well the rapid growth of orphan drug sector, raised concerns regarding the sustainable funding of therapies for rare diseases. Rare cancers represent the majority of the current orphan drug market and are often associated with very high revenues. This chapter provides a review of orphan legislations and health technology assessment framework, analyses the position of oncology drugs on the orphan drug market and discusses future perspectives.

Conducting an investigator-initiated randomized double-blinded intervention trial in acute decompensation of inborn errors of metabolism: Lessons from the N-Carbamylglutamate Consortium

Organic acidemias and urea cycle disorders are ultra-rare inborn errors of metabolism characterized by episodic acute decompensation, often associated with hyperammonemia, resulting in brain edema and encephalopathy. Retrospective reports and translational studies suggest that N-carbamylglutamate (NCG) may be effective in reducing ammonia levels during acute decompensation in two organic acidemias, propionic and methylmalonic acidemia (PA and MMA), and in two urea cycle disorders, carbamylphosphate synthetase 1 and ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency (CPSD and OTCD). We established the 9-site N-carbamylglutamate Consortium (NCGC) in order to conduct two randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of NCG in acute hyperammonemia of PA, MMA, CPSD and OTCD. Conducting clinical trials is challenging in any disease, but poses unique barriers and risks in the ultra-rare disorders. As the number of clinical trials in orphan diseases increases, evaluating the successes and opportunities for improvement in such trials is essential. We summarize herein the design, methods, experiences, challenges and lessons from the NCGC-conducted trials.

Using a stated preference discrete choice experiment to assess societal value from the perspective of decision-makers in Europe. Does it work for rare diseases?

OBJECTIVES

To pilot the feasibility of using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) design to investigate individual preferences from the decision-maker perspective regarding the use of public funding for orphan drugs and generate prior information for future experimental designs.

METHODS

A DCE was used on a convenience sample of participants from five European countries (England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain), exploring their preferences in distinct healthcare scenarios involving orphan drugs. A preliminary review of the empirical literature on distributive preferences informed the selection of attributes and their levels in the design. An online questionnaire was used to conduct the DCE survey.

RESULTS

A total of 199 questionnaires were completed. The five country model showed relative preference for some attributes over others: cost of treatment, improvement in health, value for money and availability of treatment alternatives received the greatest attention. However, disease severity, beginning of life, waiting times and side effects were also shown to be important social values that should not be ignored.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings presented in this study provide insight about the preferences that can influence decisions on orphan drugs in different countries. This study also provides valuable prior information that could inform future DCE designs in this area.

Manifesting heterozygotes in McArdle disease: a myth or a reality-role of statins

McArdle disease is an autosomal recessive condition caused by deficiency of the PYGM gene-encoded muscle isoform of glycogen phosphorylase. Some cases of "manifesting" heterozygotes or carriers (i.e., patients who show some McArdle-like symptoms or signs despite being carriers of only one mutated PYGM allele) have been reported in the literature but there is controversy, with misdiagnosis being a possibility. The purpose of our study was to determine if there are actually "manifesting" heterozygotes of McArdle disease and, if existing, whether statin treatment can trigger such condition. Eighty-one relatives of McArdle patients (among a total of 16 different families) were studied. We determined whether they were carriers of PYGM mutations and also collected information on exercise tests (second wind and modified Wingate anaerobic test) and statin intake. We found 50 carriers and 31 non-carriers of PYGM mutations. Although we found existence of heterozygotes manifesting some exercise-related muscle problems such as exacerbated myalgia or weakness, they only accounted for 14% of the carriers and muscle symptoms were milder than those commonly reported in patients. Further, no carrier (whether reporting symptoms or not) showed the second wind phenomenon or a flat blood lactate response to maximal-intensity exercise, both of which are hallmarks of McArdle disease. On the other hand, statin myotoxicity was not associated with muscle symptom onset.

Hemophilia Burden of Disease: A Systematic Review of the Cost-Utility Literature for Hemophilia

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis with clotting factor replacement products is recommended by the Medical and Scientific Advisory Council of the National Hemophilia Foundation as the optimal therapy for the prevention of bleeding episodes in individuals with severe hemophilia A or B (< 1 IU per dL endogenous factor VIII or factor IX activity, respectively). Prophylaxis is associated with an improved health-related quality of life and has been shown to be cost-effective compared with on-demand therapy. However, the overall cost of treatment remains high, particularly among patients with a greater propensity to bleed. The overall value of hemophilia treatments and their associated benefits, measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and dollar costs compared with other interventions can be evaluated through the use of cost-utility analyses (CUAs). Previous CUA studies in hemophilia have focused primarily on patients with more severe forms of hemophilia and on prophylaxis compared with on-demand treatment. However, to our knowledge, no studies to date have utilized QALYs as a standardized outcome measure to systematically evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of current hemophilia treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the CUA literature of hemophilia treatments and demonstrate the challenges in producing cost-utility evidence compared with other rare diseases.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review using the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database for English-language CUAs published from 2000 through 2015 with the search terms hemophilia, haemophilia, factor VIII, or factor IX. Two trained reviewers independently reviewed every study to extract relevant data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were converted to 2014 U.S. dollars using exchange rates for currency conversion and the Consumer Price Index to adjust for inflation.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 52 studies, 11 of which met our inclusion criteria. The cost-effectiveness of hemophilia treatments varied widely based on variations in the study designs, including differences in time horizon, discount rates, and medical interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

We found the cost-effectiveness of hemophilia treatments to be broadly comparable to that of other orphan drugs. Improved standardization of future CUA studies will be important for further evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of hemophilia treatments.

DISCLOSURES

This research was funded by Biogen, which provided an unrestricted research grant to the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center. Biogen and Sobi reviewed and provided feedback on the manuscript. The authors had full editorial control of the manuscript and provided final approval of all content. The authors report no conflict of interest regarding the material discussed in this article. Neumann and Chambers are employed at the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center. Thorat was an employee of Center for Evaluation Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center when the analyses were carried out. Chambers has participated on advisory boards for Sanofi and Astellas Pharma.

Societal Preferences for Funding Orphan Drugs in the United Kingdom: An Application of Person Trade-Off and Discrete Choice Experiment Methods

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether UK National Health Service (NHS) policies for orphan drugs, which permit funding of non-cost-effective treatments, reflect societal preferences.

METHODS

We conducted person trade-off (PTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) among 3950 adults selected to be representative of the UK general population. Experimental design was informed by surveys of patients affected by rare diseases, their caregivers, health care staff, and policymakers. Societal preferences were estimated in relation to treating a common disease, increases in waiting lists, or filling of vacant NHS posts. Results of the DCE were applied to recently licensed orphan drugs.

RESULTS

On the basis of equal cost, the majority of respondents to the PTO (54%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 50-59) chose to allocate funds equally between patients treated for rare diseases and those treated for common diseases, with 32% (95% CI 28-36) favoring treating rare diseases over treating common diseases (14%; 95% CI 11-17), which this reduced to 23% (95% CI 20-27) when rare disease treatments were 10 times more expensive. When framed differently, more respondents prioritized not increasing waiting list size (43%; 95% CI 39-48) than to treat rare disease patients (34%; 95% CI 30-38).

DISCUSSION

The DCE indicated a greater preference for treating a common disease over a rare disease. Respondents agreed with five of 12 positive appraisal recommendations for orphan drugs, even if their list price was higher, but preferred the NHS not to fund the remainder.

CONCLUSIONS

The general public does not value rarity as a sufficient reason to justify special consideration for additional NHS funding of orphan drugs. This has implications regarding the appropriateness of operating higher thresholds of cost-effectiveness.

Challenges in Research and Health Technology Assessment of Rare Disease Technologies: Report of the ISPOR Rare Disease Special Interest Group

BACKGROUND

Successful development of new treatments for rare diseases (RDs) and their sustainable patient access require overcoming a series of challenges related to research and health technology assessment (HTA). These impediments, which may be unique to RDs or also apply to common diseases but are particularly pertinent in RDs, are diverse and interrelated.

OBJECTIVE

To develop for the first time a catalog of primary impediments to RD research and HTA, and to describe the cause and effect of individual challenges.

METHODS

Challenges were identified by an international 22-person expert working group and qualitative outreach to colleagues with relevant expertise. A broad range of stakeholder perspectives is represented. Draft results were presented at annual European and North American International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) congresses, and written comments were received by the 385-strong ISPOR Rare Disease Review Group from two rounds of review. Findings were refined and confirmed via targeted literature search.

RESULTS

Research-related challenges linked to the low prevalence of RDs were categorized into those pertaining to disease recognition and diagnosis, evaluation of treatment effect, and patient recruitment for clinical research. HTA-related challenges were classified into issues relating to the lack of a tailored HTA method for RD treatments and uncertainty for HTA agencies and health care payers.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying and highlighting diverse, but interrelated, key challenges in RD research and HTA is an essential first step toward developing implementable and sustainable solutions. A collaborative multistakeholder effort is required to enable faster and less costly development of safe, efficacious, and appropriate new RD therapies that offer value for money.

Can Severity Outweigh Smaller Numbers? A Deliberative Perspective from Canada

OBJECTIVES

To use structured deliberation to elicit and describe the values of the public in Alberta, Canada, on the question of whether the severity of a rare condition can justify it being given priority in funding over common conditions affecting larger numbers of patients, and what aspects of a condition drive this judgment.

METHODS

Thematic analysis of transcripts of a group deliberative exercise carried out as part of two citizens' juries. The exercise was designed to elicit participants' conception of disease severity, and trade-offs between helping small groups with severe conditions and larger groups with less severe conditions.

RESULTS

In trading off severity and numbers, all groups were willing to choose a more severely ill but smaller group of patients over a less severely ill but larger group of patients, although how much of a severity differential was required varied between groups. Pain that could not be relieved by alternative means was the strongest motivator for choosing the smaller group. Other symptoms with no alternative means of relief were strong motivators as well.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that, all else being equal, the public would support giving priority to a smaller but more severely ill group of patients over a larger group when prioritizing the needs of the few is life-saving, extends life enough to give hope of future improvement, and relieves otherwise intractable symptoms, especially pain.

Evaluating and Valuing Drugs for Rare Conditions: No Easy Answers

We find ourselves in an era of unprecedented growth in the development and use of so-called "orphan" drugs to treat rare diseases, which are poised to represent more than one-fifth of pharmaceutical expenditures by 2022. This widespread use has been facilitated by legislative and regulatory incentives in both the United States and abroad, yet US payers and health systems have not yet made a concerted effort to understand whether and how rare diseases require special considerations on their part and how to adapt traditional methods of health technology assessment and economic evaluation to accommodate these situations. In this article, we explore the general ethical dilemmas that rare diseases present, steps taken by health technology assessment bodies worldwide to define the level of rarity that would necessitate special measures and the modifications to their assessment and valuation processes needed, and the contextual components for rare-disease evaluation that lie outside of the assessment framework as a guide to US decision makers on constructing a formal and relevant process stateside.

Rare Tumor Clinic: The University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center Experience with a Precision Therapy Approach

BACKGROUND

Patients with rare tumors may lack approved treatments and clinical trial access. Although each rare tumor is uncommon, cumulatively they account for approximately 25% of cancers. We recently initiated a Rare Tumor Clinic that emphasized a precision medicine strategy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We investigated the first 40 patients presenting at the Rare Tumor Clinic. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tissue and plasma-derived, circulating-tumor DNA (ctDNA), and protein markers were assessed.

RESULTS

Median age was 58 years (range, 31-78 years); 70% (28/40) were women; median number of previous systemic therapies was 2 (range 0-7). The most common diagnoses were sarcoma (n = 7) for solid tumors and Erdheim-Chester disease (n = 5) for hematologic malignancies. Twenty distinct diagnoses were seen. Examples of ultrarare tumors included ameloblastoma, yolk sac liver tumor, ampullary cancer, and Castleman's disease. Altogether, 32 of 33 patients (97%) with tissue NGS and 15 of 33 (45%) with ctDNA sequencing harbored ≥1 alteration. Overall, 92.5% of patients (37/40) had ≥1 actionable target based on either genomic (n = 32) or protein (n = 27) markers. In total, 52.5% (21/40) received matched therapy; 52.4% (11/21) achieved stable disease (SD) ≥6 months (n = 3), partial remission (PR; n = 6), or complete remission (CR; n = 2). Matched therapy resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival compared with last prior unmatched therapy (hazard ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.10-0.71, p = .008).

CONCLUSION

Identifying genomic and protein markers in patients with rare/ultrarare tumors was feasible. When therapies were matched, >50% of patients attained SD ≥6 months, PR, or CR. Further precision medicine clinical investigations focusing on rare and ultrarare tumors are urgently needed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Although rare tumors are infrequent by definition, when all subtypes of rare cancers are combined, they account for approximately 25% of adult malignancies. However, patients with rare tumors may lack approved treatments and clinical trial access. This paper describes an institutional a Rare Tumor Clinic focused on a precision medicine strategy. Performing genomics and protein analyses was feasible amongst patients with rare cancers. Over 50% of patients attained SD ≥6 months, PR, or CR when they received matched therapy (genomically targeted and/or immunotherapy). Further studies investigating the efficacy of the precision therapy approach among rare tumors are warranted.

Common drug review recommendations for orphan drugs in Canada: basis of recommendations and comparison with similar reviews in Quebec, Australia, Scotland and New Zealand

Background

Public payer reimbursement for non-oncology drugs in Canada, including orphan drugs, is based on recommendations by the Common Drug Review (CDR) (with the exception of Quebec). CDR has been criticized for negative recommendations for orphan drugs and contributing to delays in patient access to these drugs. However, it is unclear how CDR makes recommendations for orphan drugs and the role clinical and economic factors play in decision making. The objective of the present study was to analyze the basis for CDR orphan drug recommendations and to compare recommendations to those in other jurisdictions.

Methods

A list of orphan drugs reviewed by CDR (between 2004 and 2017) was compiled and final recommendations (list/do not list) assessed. The basis of each recommendation was categorized as clinical only, price only or combined clinical and price factors, based on the ranking of clinical and price parameters in recommendation summaries. The reimbursement status of the same drugs was determined in Quebec and other jurisdictions and level of agreement with CDR decisions assessed using a kappa analysis.

Results

Sixty eight orphan drug submissions were identified in the CDR database. Clinical, clinical and price and price parameters were the basis of 48.5%, 44.1% and 7.4% of the reviews, respectively, and corresponding positive recommendation rates were 45.5%, 86.7% and 40.0% (p = 0.0008); overall positive recommendation rate was 63.2%. Positive recommendation rate increased from 50.0% for drugs reviewed between 2004 and 2009 to 86.7% in 2016; however, 84.6% of the latter were conditional on a price reduction. Of the drugs reviewed by CDR, 80.9%, 88.2%, 80.9% and 58.8% were reviewed for the same indications by health technology assessment agencies in Quebec, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand, respectively, with positive listing rates ranging from 60.0% (Quebec) to 92.7% (Australia) with fair (kappa coefficient 0.3307) to poor (kappa coefficient 0.0611) agreement with CDR in listing decisions, respectively.

Conclusions

The positive CDR recommendation rate for orphan drugs was highest when clinical and price parameters supported the assessment. Over time there has been an increase in CDR positive recommendation rates for orphan drugs, although most are conditional on a price reduction. It is unclear if this change in CDR recommendations will impact equitable and timely access to orphan drugs across Canada.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13023-018-0759-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Rare disease prevention and treatment: the need for a level playing field

Pharmacogenetic tests are being used increasingly to prevent rare and potentially life-threatening adverse drug reactions. For many tests, however, cost-effectiveness is hard to demonstrate, and with the exception of a few cases, widespread implementation remains a distant prospect. Many orphan drugs for rare diseases are also not cost effective but are nonetheless normally reimbursed. In this article, we argue that the health technology assessment of pharmacogenetic tests aimed to prevent rare but severe adverse drug reactions should be on a level playing field with orphan drugs. This is supported by a number of arguments, concerning the severity, rarity and iatrogenic nature of adverse drug reactions, the distribution of benefits and costs and societal preference towards prevention over treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy with alglucosidase alfa in adult patients with Pompe disease

BACKGROUND

Pompe disease is a rare, progressive, metabolic disease, and the first treatable inheritable muscle disorder. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with alglucosidase alfa is disease specific and the only medicinal product authorized for the treatment of Pompe disease. Costs of ERT are very high as for most orphan drugs. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of ERT compared to supportive treatment in adult patients with Pompe disease.

METHODS

Survival probabilities were estimated from an international observational dataset (n = 283) using a time-dependent Cox model. Quality of life was estimated on a Dutch observational dataset using a previously developed conceptual model which links clinical factors to quality of life. Costs included costs of ERT, costs of drug administration and other healthcare costs. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using a patient-level simulation model (n = 90), synthesising the information from underlying models for survival, quality of life and costs. The cost-effectiveness model estimated the (difference in) lifetime effects and costs for both treatments. Two scenarios were modelled: (1) a worse case scenario with no extrapolation of the survival gain due to ERT beyond the observed period (i.e. from 10 years onwards); and (2) a best case scenario with lifetime extrapolation of the survival gain due to ERT. Effects were expressed in (quality adjusted) life years (QALYs). Costs were discounted at 4.0% and effects at 1.5%.

RESULTS

Substantial increases in survival were estimated - discounted incremental life years of ERT ranged from 1.9 years to 5.4 years in the scenarios without and with extrapolation of survival gains beyond the observed period. Quality of life was also significantly better for patients receiving ERT. Incremental costs were considerable and primarily consisted of the costs of ERT. Incremental costs per QALY were €3.2 million for scenario 1 and €1.8 million for scenario 2.

CONCLUSIONS

The availability of extended, prospectively collected, longitudinal observational data on the most important input parameters required to construct a cost-effectiveness model is quite exceptional for orphan diseases. The cost-effectiveness model showed substantial survival gains from ERT. Despite these substantial gains, ERT was not cost-effective in the treatment of adult Pompe disease because of the high cost of treatment.