Quantifying emerging drugs for very rare conditions

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.

Ethical imperatives of timely access to orphan drugs: is possible to reconcile economic incentives and patients' health needs?

BACKGROUND

More than 6,800 rare diseases and conditions have been identified in the US, which affect 25-30 million Americans. In 1983, the US Congress enacted the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) to encourage the development and marketing of drugs to treat rare diseases and conditions. This study analyzed all orphan designations and FDA approvals since 1983 through 2015, discussed the effectiveness of incentives for the development of treatments for rare diseases, and reflected on the ethical imperatives for timely access to orphan drugs.

METHODS

Study data were derived from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Orange Book and the Office of Orphan Drugs Development. A search was conducted to assess literature on the ethical principles and economic incentives for the development of orphan drugs.

RESULTS

In the period 1983-2015, the FDA granted 3,647 orphan drug designations and 554 orphan drug approvals. The orphan drug approvals corresponded to 438 different brand names. Cancer was the therapeutic area with the highest number of approvals. The increased number of patients with rare diseases and the growth in the cost of orphan drugs pose a significant economic burden for patients, public programs and private third party payers. Regulatory differences to qualify for orphan designation and various population thresholds employed by the FDA and the European Medicines Agency lead to further unmet health needs for patients with rare diseases and aggravate health inequities. There is no societal consensus on the population and economic thresholds, the drug effectiveness indicator(s), or the societal value to be placed for the approval and reimbursement of orphan drugs.

CONCLUSION

Orphan drug development and marketing in the US concentrate in few therapeutic areas. Despite the increase in the number of FDA approved orphan drugs, the unmet needs of patients with rare diseases evidence that the current incentives are not efficiently stimulating orphan drug development. There is need to balance economic incentives to stimulate the development and marketing of orphan drugs without jeopardizing patients' access to treatment. Thus, aligning pharmaceutical companies' incentives with societal budgetary constraints is necessary and the ethical imperatives of timely access to orphan drugs need to be agreed upon.

Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence

AIM

We analysed the Belgian reimbursement decisions of orphan drugs as compared with those of innovative drugs for more common but equally severe diseases, with special emphasis on the quality of clinical evidence.

METHODS

Using the National Health Insurance Agency administrative database, we evaluated all submitted orphan drug files between 2002 and 2007. A quality analysis of the clinical evidence in the orphan reimbursement files was performed. The evaluation reports of the French 'Haute Autorité de Santé', including the five-point scale parameter 'Service Médical Rendu (SMR), were examined to compare disease severity. Chi-squared tests (at P < 0.05 significance level) were used to compare the outcome of the reimbursement decisions between orphan and non-orphan innovative medicines.

RESULTS

Twenty-five files of orphan drugs and 117 files of non-orphan drugs were evaluated. Twenty-two of 25 (88%) submissions of orphan drugs were granted reimbursement as opposed to 74 of the 117 (63%) non-orphan innovative medicines (P= 0.02). Only 52% of the 25 orphan drug files included a randomized controlled trial as opposed to 84% in a random control sample of 25 non-orphan innovative submissions (P < 0.01). The duration of drug exposure was in most cases far too short in relation to the natural history of the disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Orphan drug designation predicts reimbursement despite poor quality of clinical evidence. The evidence gap at market authorization should be reduced by post-marketing programmes, in which the centralized regulatory and the local reimbursement authorities collaborate in an efficient way across the European Union member states.

Economic considerations in the provision of treatments for rare diseases

Orphan Drug legislation in the USA, Europe and elsewhere has been incredibly successful in promoting the development of new treatments for rare diseases. Historically, payers have constructed special schemes that have facilitated patient access given the small total budget impact of these treatments. However, whilst each disease is rare, the number of licensed orphan drugs is growing rapidly. This, in conjunction with the high prices claimed for these treatments, has increased the total budget impact of orphan drugs. In the medium term, the feasibility of omitting orphan drugs from value for money type assessments is doubtful. The arguments for a special status for orphan drugs in reimbursement processes are reviewed in this article, and it is concluded that these arguments do not generally stand up to critical assessment. A new paradigm for the development and purchase of orphan drugs may be required. Given the strong parallels between the challenges of neglected diseases in developing countries and orphan diseases in developed countries, policy tools developed for neglected diseases; such as Public Private Partnerships and Advance Market Commitments, might be fruitfully applied in the orphan drug arena.

Global spending on orphan drugs in France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain during 2007

BACKGROUND

Orphan drugs are indicated for the treatment of rare diseases which, in the EU, are defined as those with a prevalence of <5 per 10000 inhabitants. Characteristically, these diseases negatively affect health-related quality of life and may be life threatening. The EU has passed legislation to encourage pharmaceutical companies to invest in research programmes into rare diseases, with the aim of developing new, safe and effective orphan drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the status of orphan drugs in five countries in the EU (France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain), estimate the mean annual cost per patient and indication of these orphan drugs, and determine the associated cost of these drugs in comparison with overall spending on drugs in each country (year 2007 values).

METHODS

The analysis was limited solely to costs of orphan drugs with sales data available for 2007. The mean annual cost per patient was estimated using recommended regimens for maintenance dose and duration from the summary of product characteristics. Likewise, the ratio between annual costs per patient for treatment of each disease and its prevalence was calculated. Sales data were available for at least one of the countries studied for 38 of the 44 orphan drugs authorized by the European Medicines Agency. Only 21 products had data available for all five countries studied.

RESULTS

Germany was the country with access to the largest number of orphan drugs (36), followed by the UK (34), Spain (28), France (27) and Italy (25). The mean annual cost per patient and indication of the 38 orphan drugs on the market ranged widely from €331 to €337,501. It appears that orphan drugs indicated to treat diseases with a prevalence of <2 per 10000 inhabitants have higher annual per-patient costs than those indicated to treat diseases with a higher prevalence. The percentage of total drug spending accounted for by orphan drugs in 2007 was 1.7% in France, 2.1% in Germany, 1.0% in the UK, 1.5% in Italy and 2.0% in Spain, with an average overall percentage of 1.7% for these five countries.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2007, spending on orphan drugs in five European countries was acceptable in terms of the percentage of these countries' overall drug expenditure. Mean annual costs per patient of orphan drugs varied widely, with costs being related to the prevalence of the disease for which the product is indicated.