Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 May 12:12:631527.
doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.631527. eCollection 2021.

How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks

Affiliations
Review

How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks

Alessandra Blonda et al. Front Pharmacol. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: decision-making; economic evaluation; fairness; health technology assessment (HTA); multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA); orphan drug; rare disease; value assessment framework.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

SS has previously conducted research about market access of orphan drugs sponsored by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre and by Genzyme (now Sanofi), and he has participated in an orphan drug roundtable sponsored by Celgene. SS is a member of the ISPOR Rare Disease Special Interest Group's Challenges in Research and Health Technology Assessment of Rare Disease Technologies Working Group, the International Working Group on Orphan Drugs, and the Innoval Working Group on Ultra-Rare Disorders. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
PRISMA flow diagram of search strategy results.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Adunlin G., Diaby V., Montero A. J., Xiao H. (2015). Multicriteria decision analysis in oncology. Health Expect. 18 (6), 1812–1826. 10.1111/hex.12178 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aho E., Johansson P., Uddén A., Zhao de Gosson de Varennes Y., Rasmuson S., Rönholm G. (2017). The development of pharmaceutical expenditure in Sweden. Stockholm, Sweden: Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency.
    1. Angelis A., Kanavos P. (2016). Value-based assessment of new medical technologies: towards a robust methodological framework for the application of multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 34 (5), 435–446. 10.1007/s40273-015-0370-z - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Annemans L., Aymé S., Le Cam Y., Facey K., Gunther P., Nicod E., et al. (2017). Recommendations from the European working group for value assessment and funding processes in rare diseases (ORPH-VAL). Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 12 (1), 50. 10.1186/s13023-017-0601-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Augustine E. F., Adams H. R., Mink J. W. (2013). Clinical trials in rare disease. J. Child. Neurol. 28 (9), 1142–1150. 10.1177/0883073813495959 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources