Dataset Information

Influencing Factors of Health Technology Assessment to Orphan Drugs: Empirical Evidence in England, Scotland, Canada, and Australia.

ABSTRACT: This study summarizes the intrinsic criteria for the recommendation of orphan drugs in England, Scotland, Canada, and Australia with the aim of understanding the rationale for the variability in decision-making and to provide a reference for the establishment of criteria in the process of access to health insurance for orphan drugs in different countries and the construction of national uniform criteria. A comparative analysis of 60 health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines of 15 drug-indication pairs appraised by four countries (England, Scotland, Canada, and Australia) from 2017 to 2018 was done, including an in-depth analysis of a case study. Agreement levels were measured using kappa scores. Associations were explored through correspondence analysis. The four countries possess some homogeneity in the assessment, but each has its own preferences. Poor agreement exists between England, Scotland, and Canada (-0.41 < kappa score < 0.192). In the correspondence analysis, England placed more emphasis on treatment methods in terms of control type when making recommendations. Canada and Scotland focused more on trial type with Canada placing more emphasis on phase III and open-label trials and on cost-utility analysis, while Australia was less studied in terms of economic models. Different countries have different goals when establishing HTA decisions for orphan drugs due to their different degrees of orphan drug coverage. Different countries should not only combine their unique values of clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness in the assessment of orphan drugs but also give different weights during the HTA process, after considering account the development of the country itself.

SUBMITTER: Zhou N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9247336 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeOncology drugs are often approved for multiple indications, for which their clinical benefit varies. Aligning a single price to this differing value remains a challenge. This study examines the clinical and economic value, price, and reimbursement of multi-indication cancer drugs across seven countries, representing different approaches to value assessment, pricing, and coverage decisions: the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland.MethodsTwenty-five multi-indication cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval between 2009 and 2019. For each indication data on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) recommendations, disease prevalence, and drug prices were obtained. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, disease prevalence, list prices, and HTA outcomes were then compared across indications and regions.ResultsFirst approved indications provide a higher clinical benefit whilst targeting a smaller patient group than indication extensions. Quality-adjusted life year gains were higher for first (0.99, 95% CI 0.05-3.25) compared to second (0.51, 95% CI 0.02-1.63, p < 0.001) and third (0.58, 95% CI 0.05-2.07, p < 0.01) approved indications. Disease prevalence per 100,000 inhabitants was 20.7 (95% CI 0.2-63.3) for first compared to 27.1 (95% CI 1.5-109.6, p = 0.907) for second and 128.3 (95% CI 3.1-720.1, p < 0.001) for third approved indications. With each approved indication drug prices declined in Germany and France, remained constant in the UK, Canada, and Australia, whilst they increased in the USA. Negative HTA outcomes, clinical restrictions, and managed entry agreements (MEAs) were more frequently observed for indication extensions.ConclusionsResults suggest that indication development is prioritised according to clinical value and disease prevalence. Countries employ different mechanisms to account for each indication's differential benefit, e.g., weighted-average prices (Germany, France, Australia), differential discounts (England, Scotland), clinical restrictions, and MEAs (England, Scotland, Australia, Canada). Value-based indication-specific pricing can help to align the benefit and price for multi-indication cancer drugs.

Project description:According to global annual estimates hunger/malnutrition is the major cause of death (36 of 62 million). Cardiovascular diseases and cancer (5.44 of 13.43 million) are the major causes of death in developed countries, while lower respiratory tract infections, human immunodeficiency virus infection/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, diarrhoeal disease, malaria and tuberculosis (10.88 of 27.12 million) are the major causes of death in developing countries with more than 70% of deaths occurring in children. The majority of approximately 800 million people with other rare diseases, including 100000 children born with thalassaemia annually receive no treatment. There are major ethical dilemmas in dealing with global health issues such as poverty and the treatment of orphan and rare diseases. Of approximately 50000 drugs about 10% are orphan drugs, with annual sales of the latter approaching 100 billion USD. In comparison, the annual revenue in 2009 from the top 12 pharmaceutical companies in Western countries was 445 billion USD and the top drug, atorvastatin, reached 100 billion USD. In the same year, the total government expenditure for health in the developing countries was 410 billion USD with only 6%-7% having been received as aid from developed countries. Drugs cost the National Health Service in the United Kingdom more than 20 billion USD or 10% of the annual health budget. Uncontrollable drug prices and marketing policies affect global health budgets, clinical practice, patient safety and survival. Fines of 5.3 billion USD were imposed on two pharmaceutical companies in the United States, the regulatory authority in France was replaced and clinicians were charged with bribery in order to overcome recent illegal practises affecting patient care. High expenditure for drug development is mainly related to marketing costs. However, only 2 million USD was spent developing the drug deferiprone (L1) for thalassaemia up to the stage of multicentre clinical trials. The criteria for drug development, price levels and use needs to be readdressed to improve drug safety and minimise costs. New global health policies based on cheaper drugs can help the treatment of many categories of orphan and rare diseases and millions of orphan patients in developing and developed countries.

Dataset Information

Influencing Factors of Health Technology Assessment to Orphan Drugs: Empirical Evidence in England, Scotland, Canada, and Australia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets