Cargando…

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 reimburs...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blonda, Alessandra, Denier, Yvonne, Huys, Isabelle, Simoens, Steven
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8150002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34054519
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.631527
_version_ 1783698070887727104
author Blonda, Alessandra
Denier, Yvonne
Huys, Isabelle
Simoens, Steven
author_facet Blonda, Alessandra
Denier, Yvonne
Huys, Isabelle
Simoens, Steven
author_sort Blonda, Alessandra
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8150002
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81500022021-05-27 How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks Blonda, Alessandra Denier, Yvonne Huys, Isabelle Simoens, Steven Front Pharmacol Pharmacology 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-05-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8150002/ /pubmed/34054519 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.631527 Text en Copyright © 2021 Blonda, Denier, Huys and Simoens. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Pharmacology
Blonda, Alessandra
Denier, Yvonne
Huys, Isabelle
Simoens, Steven
How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks
title How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks
title_full How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks
title_fullStr How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks
title_full_unstemmed How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks
title_short How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks
title_sort how to value orphan drugs? a review of european value assessment frameworks
topic Pharmacology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8150002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34054519
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.631527
work_keys_str_mv AT blondaalessandra howtovalueorphandrugsareviewofeuropeanvalueassessmentframeworks
AT denieryvonne howtovalueorphandrugsareviewofeuropeanvalueassessmentframeworks
AT huysisabelle howtovalueorphandrugsareviewofeuropeanvalueassessmentframeworks
AT simoenssteven howtovalueorphandrugsareviewofeuropeanvalueassessmentframeworks