Dataset Information

A comparative study of orphan drug prices in Europe.

ABSTRACT: Background and Objective: This study assessed price differences by comparing annual treatment costs of similarly available orphan drugs in France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and UK. Methods: Annual treatment costs per drug were calculated using ex-factory prices from IHS POLI and country price databases. The treatment cost in the comparator country was compared to the UK and ratios were analysed. Subanalyses were done on disease areas and UK cost quartiles. Results: 120 orphan drugs were included. Compared to the UK, the average costs were more expensive in France (1.13), Germany (1.11), Italy (1.08), Spain (1.07), and were cheaper in Sweden (0.99) and Norway (0.88). The average ratios offered a restrictive view as ratios were greatly heterogeneous (0.26 to 1.92) which was also seen in the different disease areas. The averaged ratios varied minimally among the cost quartiles which shows that cost differences were similar for the most expensive and least expensive orphan drugs in the UK. Conclusions: Individual orphan drug prices can vary widely across European countries, although on average these differences are relatively minor. This study suggests that in Europe, we may not be able predict which country may have higher or lower prices for orphan drugs.

SUBMITTER: Young KE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5405561 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparative study of orphan drug prices in Europe.

Young Katherine Eve KE Soussi Imen I Hemels Michiel M Toumi Mondher M

Journal of market access & health policy 20170329 1

Background and Objective: This study assessed price differences by comparing annual treatment costs of similarly available orphan drugs in France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and UK. Methods: Annual treatment costs per drug were calculated using ex-factory prices from IHS POLI and country price databases. The treatment cost in the comparator country was compared to the UK and ratios were analysed. Subanalyses were done on disease areas and UK cost quartiles. Results</ ...[more]

PMID: 28473887

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe primary objective of this study was to compare the availability and access of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) in the devolved nations in the United Kingdom (UK), France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Availability is defined as the possibility to prescribe OMPs. Access refers to their full or partial reimbursement by the public health service.MethodsData were collated on: marketing authorisations, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) decisions, commissioning, and reimbursement decisions, and respective dates of these events for all the OMPs centrally authorised. Indicators of availability of and access to OMPs were calculated in each country and compared.ResultsWe found that since the implementation of the OMPs Regulation in 2000 to end of May 2016, 143 OMPs obtained a marketing authorisation in the European Union. These OMPs are most widely accessible in Germany and France. In the other countries between 30 and 60% of OMPs are reimbursed. In particular in England, less than 50% of centrally authorised OMPs are routinely funded by the NHS, with one-third of these recommended by NICE. In Germany reimbursement is automatically granted to all medicines which receive a marketing authorisation, immediately after authorisation - but since 2011, there is an evaluation and potentially a pricing negotiation between companies and sickness funds (third party payers). In the other countries, the shortest time from authorisation to a reimbursement decision is observed in Italy and France where it takes 18.6 and 19.5 months respectively on average.ConclusionsMarketing authorisation granted to OMPs is only the first step, as medicines reach patients when reimbursement decisions are implemented by national health systems (this applies to non-OMPs too). We found that more than a half of centrally authorised OMPs were available in the five selected countries, but that access to patients was further restricted by different national reimbursement policies, especially in the UK, Italy and Spain.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether the prices of new anticancer drugs correlated with their relative benefit despite negotiation.DesignRetrospective cross-sectional study correlating new anticancer drugs prices with clinical outcomes.SettingWe did a retrospective cross-sectional study including all new anticancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (2010-2016) and reimbursed in Italy.Main outcomes and measuresInformation on clinical outcomes-in terms of median overall survival (OS), median progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR)-was extracted from pivotal trials as reported in the European Public Assessment Reports available on the EMA website. Cost of a full course treatment was estimated on negotiated official and discounted prices. Regression coefficients β, their levels of significance p and the coefficients of determination R2 were estimated adjusting by tumour type.ResultsOverall, 30 new anticancer drugs (with 35 indications) were available for analysis. Where data on OS were available, we observed no correlation between the improvement in median OS (in weeks) and negotiated price (R2=0.067, n=16 drugs for 17 indications). When the clinical outcomes were expressed as improvements in the median PFS or ORR, 25 drugs (29 indications) were available for the analysis, and again, there was no correlation with prices (R2=0.004 and 0.006, respectively).Conclusions and relevanceOur results suggest that the prices of anticancer drugs in Italy do not reflect their therapeutic benefit. Drug price negotiations, which is mandatory by law in Italy, do not seem to ensure that prices correlate with clinical benefits provided by the cancer drugs. These results call for further efforts to establish the standard determinants of drug prices available at the time of negotiation. These findings need to be confirmed in other countries where price negotiations are in place. Moreover, further investigations may verify whether outcome data obtained after drug marketing would improve the correlation between prices and therapeutic benefit.

Project description:In recent years, prices for veterinary care have received considerable attention in mainstream media, yet scientific literature has not delved into actual figures. This study aims to elucidate veterinary care costs for dogs, cats, and horses across five countries [Sweden (SE), Norway (NO), Denmark (DK), United Kingdom (UK), and Ireland (IR, with limited data)] through web searches. Utilising online business directories, we located URLs featuring veterinary care prices in autumn 2022, and repeated tri-monthly five times. Vetpris.se (VP), a price comparison site for SE, NO, and DK, emerged from the search. Additionally, we sought to compare price data from veterinary clinics (ranging from animal hospitals to small private clinics) using a similar approach to VP. We targeted elective procedures (e.g., gonadectomy, GDY) and common procedures (e.g., pyometra surgery in dogs). Comparing data from the same clinics' websites and from VP within extraction from autumn 2022 to winter 2023/2024, median prices for dog and cat GDY were largely consistent. By October 2023, median prices for male cat GDY ranged from €72 (SE) to €230 (DK), and €130 (SE) to €361 (DK) for females; for dog GDY from €390 (SE) to €599 (DK) for males, and €461 (UK) to €1015 (DK) for females. Across sources, median prices for cat and dog GDY increased by 2-24% over a year for procedures with at least 10 clinics per extraction. Equine GDY (per sedation and local analgaesia) in SE saw a 64% increase by year-end, with a median price of €492. Emergency surgeries during regular-hours (e.g., pyometra and caesarean section) in SE were approximately €2,300 at the last extraction, marking a 27% increase for pyometra surgery during regular-hours and 15% after-hours compared to the previous year. Variability existed within and across countries and diagnoses/procedures. Cross-validation suggested VP generally provided reliable information, though data points for emergencies were limited. Our web searching tool necessitated extensive manual verification, indicating room for further development. We recommend enhancing price transparency for animal owners to become better informed about the cost of veterinary care and be able to make informed choices.

Dataset Information

A comparative study of orphan drug prices in Europe.

Publications

A comparative study of orphan drug prices in Europe.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets