Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement

Evaluating the benefit of early patient and public involvement for product development and testing with small companies

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing understanding of the benefits of patient and public involvement (PPI), and its evaluation, in research. An online version of the CUBE PPI evaluation framework has been developed. We sought to use the CUBE to evaluate the value of early PPI with two small healthcare companies during product development.

METHODS

Contributors were recruited online and had lived experience of either type 1 diabetes or obesity. Two 1-h sessions were run with a company developing a smartphone application to manage diabetes (DEE-EM): one with young people (YP; n = 5) and one with parents (n = 7). Two 1-h sessions were run with a company developing a weight-loss product, both with adults (n = 7 in each session). Sessions were facilitated by an independent University researcher and attended by company representatives, who presented their product. One facilitator led the evaluation of the session by giving a demonstration of the CUBE and asking simple questions in the YP session.

RESULTS

A high proportion of contributors completed the CUBE (80.5% DEE-EM; 93% Oxford Medical Products). Responses were positive to all four CUBE dimensions (in italics). Contributors felt there were diverse ways to contribute to the sessions, and that they had a strong voice to add to the discussion. Balance was achieved regarding whose concerns (public or company) led the agenda, and contributors felt that both companies would make changes based on the discussion. The supportive attitude of both companies resulted in most contributors feeling comfortable participating in PPI sessions with the industry, while recognising the profit-making aspect of their work.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI with small healthcare companies is both feasible and worthwhile. The CUBE framework facilitated the evaluation of the interaction between experts in different knowledge spaces. We provide recommendations for future projects, including considerations of who should participate and the level of implicit endorsement of the product that participation implies.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

People with lived experience of type 1 diabetes or obesity were invited to contribute to one of four PPI sessions, which they then evaluated. One contributor agreed to contribute to the analysis of the evaluation data and interpretation and preparation of the manuscript.

HTA challenges for appraising rare disease interventions viewed through the lens of an institutional multidimensional value framework

INTRODUCTION

Evaluating rare disease interventions poses challenges for HTA agencies, including uncertainties and ethical issues and tensions. INESSS has recently adopted a Statement of Principles and Ethical Foundations which proposes a multidimensional approach to value appraisal as well as five principles to frame the evaluation process.

AREAS COVERED

Our aim was to identify and analyze HTA challenges for appraising interventions for rare diseases, using the Statement's approach to value appraisal as an analytical framework, and outline how the Statement's principles can help address these challenges. Challenges, covering a diversity of aspects, were identified by leveraging institutional experience in diverse domains of expertise and consolidated through narrative literature review. Challenges were categorized by value dimension (clinical, populational, economic, organizational, and sociocultural), which allowed to pinpoint how each challenge affects the ability to appraise the value of an intervention. Key ethical tensions across dimensions were also identified. Specific approaches to addressing these challenges - related to knowledge mobilization and integration, deliberation, and recommendation-making - were outlined on the basis of the principles promulgated in the Statement.

EXPERT OPINION

A multidimensional approach can be fruitful for analyzing challenges for appraising the value of rare disease interventions and help guide approaches to tackle them.

Moving beyond the Court of Public Opinion: A Citizens' Jury Exploring the Public's Values around Funding Decisions for Ultra-Orphan Drugs

Health system decision-makers need to understand the value of new technology to make "value for money" decisions. Typically, narrow definitions of value are used. This paper reports on a Canadian Citizens' Jury which was convened to elicit those aspects of value that are important to the public. The criteria used by the public to determine value included those related to the patient, those directly related to caregivers and those directly created for society. Their choices were not binary (e.g., cost vs. health gained), but rather involved multiple factors (e.g., with respect to patient factors: disease severity, health gained with the drug, existence of alternatives, life expectancy, patient age and affordability). Overall, Jurors prioritized funding treatments for ultra-rare disease populations when the treatment offered significant improvements in health and quality of life, and when the pre-treatment health state was considered extremely poor. The prevalence of the disease by itself was not a factor in the choices. Some of the findings differ from previous work, which use survey methods. In our Citizens' Jury, Jurors were able to become more familiar with the question at hand and were exposed to a broad and balanced collection of viewpoints before and throughout engaging in the exercises. This deliberative approach allows for a more nuanced approach to understanding value.

The challenge of institutionalised complicity: Researching the pharmaceutical industry in the era of impact and engagement

The pharmaceutical industry plays a central role in the production of the drugs we use to treat most illnesses. It is immensely powerful and has received sustained attention from sociologists of health and illness, who have provided a critique of its influence and sometimes unethical behaviour. However, in recent years, funders are increasingly expecting researchers to engage and collaborate with stakeholders, including industry. This raises important questions about the institutionalisation of complicity and the different forms this might take. This article asks: How can sociologists engage with the pharmaceutical industry in a positive and constructive manner, whilst remaining independent, principled and critical? It will draw on my experience of establishing a major project on high-priced drugs for rare diseases and the literature on collaboration, stakeholder engagement and responsible research to propose a methodological framework to address this challenge. This is based on six PRIMES: (normative) Principles, Reflection and Independence, (field) Mapping, (careful) Engagement and Strategic intervention that have broad applications to many other areas of contemporary social science research.

Historical and projected public spending on drugs for rare diseases in Canada between 2010 and 2025

Objective

Rare diseases are life-threatening, debilitating, or serious chronic conditions that affect < 50/100,000 people. Canadians can only access approximately 60% of drugs for rare diseases (DRDs), which is partially related to high per-patient costs and payers’ affordability concerns. However, limiting access to DRDs can reduce survival and quality of life among patients and caregivers. Therefore, we projected Canadian non-oncology DRD spending relative to total public drug spending to provide perspective for decision makers.

Methods

Candidate historical (2010–2020) and pipeline (2021–2025) Canadian-marketed non-oncology DRDs were identified using definitions from the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify eligible DRDs. Public payer claims data, prevalence rates, regulatory, and health technology assessment factors were used to project DRD spending in relation to total Canadian public drug spending.

Results

We included 42 historical DRDs and 122 pipeline DRDs. Public spending on DRDs grew from $14.8 million in 2010 (11 DRDs) to $380.9 million in 2020, then a projected $527.6 million in 2021 (59 potential DRDs) and $1.6 billion in 2025 (164 potential DRDs). Projected DRD spending increased from 3.2% of $16.5 billion public drug spending in 2021 to 8.3% of $19.4 billion in 2025. These projections do not include confidential manufacturer discounts, health outcome-related offsets, or additional safety-related costs.

Conclusions

Projected DRD spending shows robust growth but remains a fraction of total public drug spending. Limiting DRD access because of this growth is not aligned with Canadian patient or societal values. Given the renewed interest in a Canadian DRD framework, our results may help guide discussions that aim to balance control of public drug spending with the well-being of patients with rare diseases.

Social pharmaceutical innovation and alternative forms of research, development and deployment for drugs for rare diseases

Rare diseases are associated with difficulties in addressing unmet medical needs, lack of access to treatment, high prices, evidentiary mismatch, equity, etc. While challenges facing the development of drugs for rare diseases are experienced differently globally (i.e., higher vs. lower and middle income countries), many are also expressed transnationally, which suggests systemic issues. Pharmaceutical innovation is highly regulated and institutionalized, leading to firmly established innovation pathways. While deviating from these innovation pathways is difficult, we take the position that doing so is of critical importance. The reason is that the current model of pharmaceutical innovation alone will not deliver the quantity of products needed to address the unmet needs faced by rare disease patients, nor at a price point that is sustainable for healthcare systems. In light of the problems in rare diseases, we hold that re-thinking innovation is crucial and more room should be provided for alternative innovation pathways. We already observe a significant number and variety of new types of initiatives in the rare diseases field that propose or use alternative pharmaceutical innovation pathways which have in common that they involve a diverse set of societal stakeholders, explicitly address a higher societal goal, or both. Our position is that principles of social innovation can be drawn on in the framing and articulation of such alternative pathways, which we term here social pharmaceutical innovation (SPIN), and that it should be given more room for development. As an interdisciplinary research team in the social sciences, public health and law, the cases of SPIN we investigate are spread transnationally, and include higher income as well as middle income countries. We do this to develop a better understanding of the social pharmaceutical innovation field's breadth and to advance changes ranging from the bedside to system levels. We seek collaborations with those working in such projects (e.g., patients and patient organisations, researchers in rare diseases, industry, and policy makers). We aim to add comparative and evaluative value to social pharmaceutical innovation, and we seek to ignite further interest in these initiatives, thereby actively contributing to them as a part of our work.

How Can We Optimize the Value Assessment and Appraisal of Orphan Drugs for Reimbursement Purposes? A Qualitative Interview Study Across European Countries

Introduction: The expansion of orphan drug treatment at increasing prices, together with uncertainties regarding their (cost-)effectiveness raises difficulties for decision-makers to assess these drugs for reimbursement. The present qualitative study aims to gain better insight into current value assessment and appraisal frameworks for orphan drugs, and provides guidance for improvement.

Methods: 22 European experts from 19 different countries were included in a qualitative survey, followed by in-depth semi-structured interviews. These experts were academics, members of reimbursement agencies or health authorities, or members of regulatory or health/social insurance institutions. Adopting a Grounded Theory approach, transcripts were analysed according to the QUAGOL method, supported by the qualitative data analysis software Nvivo.

Results: Although participants indicated several good practices (e.g., the involvement of patients and the presence of structure and consistency), several barriers (e.g., the lack of transparency) lead to questions regarding the efficiency of the overall reimbursement process. In addition, the study identified a number of “contextual” determinants (e.g., bias, perverse effects of the orphan drug legislation, and an inadequate consideration of the opportunity cost), which may undermine the legitimacy of orphan drug reimbursement decisions.

Conclusion: The present study provides guidance for decision-makers to improve the efficiency of orphan drug reimbursement. In particular, decision-makers can generate quick wins by limiting the impact of contextual determinants rather than improving the methods included in the HTA. When implemented into a framework that promotes “Accountability for Reasonableness” (A4R), this allows decision-makers to improve the legitimacy of reimbursement decisions concerning future orphan drugs.

A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement

BACKGROUND

The number of market approvals of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) has been increasing steadily in the last 3 decades. While OMPs can offer a unique chance for patients suffering from rare diseases, they are usually very expensive. The growing number of approved OMPs increases their budget impact despite their low prevalence, making it pressing to find solutions to ethical challenges on how to fairly allocate scarce healthcare resources under this context. One potential solution could be to grant OMPs special status when considering them for reimbursement, meaning that they are subject to different, and less stringent criteria than other drugs. This study aims to provide a systematic analysis of moral reasons for and against such a special status for the reimbursement of OMPs in publicly funded healthcare systems from a multidisciplinary perspective.

RESULTS

With a systematic review of reasons, we identified 39 reasons represented in 243 articles (scientific and grey literature) for and against special status for the reimbursement of OMPs, then categorized them into nine topics. Taking a multidisciplinary perspective, we found that most articles came from health policy (n = 103) and health economics (n = 49). More articles took the position for a special status of OMPs (n = 97) than those against it (n = 31) and there was a larger number of reasons identified in favour (29 reasons) than against (10 reasons) this special status.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that OMP reimbursement issues should be assessed and analysed from a multidisciplinary perspective. Despite the higher occurrence of reasons and articles in favour of a special status, there is no clear-cut solution for this ethical challenge. The binary perspective of whether or not OMPs should be granted special status oversimplifies the issue: both OMPs and rare diseases are too heterogeneous in their characteristics for such a binary perspective. Thus, the scientific debate should focus less on the question of disease prevalence but rather on how the important variability of different OMPs concerning e.g. target population, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence or mechanism of action could be meaningfully addressed and implemented in Health Technology Assessments.

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 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.

The implementation of health technology assessment principles in public decisions concerning orphan drugs

PURPOSE

Over the last few years, the share of public spending for orphan drugs (ODs) has increased in several western countries, raising concern on the exemptions granted to this sector with respect to the implementation of health technology assessment (HTA) principles. The aim of this paper is to shed light on both the HTA criteria adopted and the international agreements implemented in the OD regulation, given the new challenges imposed on western countries by a growing number of therapies for rare diseases.

METHODS

We carried out a literature review to analyse the development of the international debate on the adaptability of HTA criteria for the OD assessment and regulation. The time span lies between January 1990 and May 2018, and the policies considered relate to both market authorization and reimbursement decisions within western countries. We focus specifically on HTA criteria in some of the dimensions included in the Core Model of the European net for HTA (EUnetHTA).

RESULTS

OD high prices, the absence of clarity on the possible high revenues realized by the distribution of a new OD outside the national borders, the risk that - once marketed - a new OD can be used to treat common diseases, are all issues that raise concern on OD regulation and have to be carefully monitored by policymakers in the next future.

CONCLUSIONS

Across western countries, the preferential track granted to ODs in the implementation of HTA principles is not homogeneous, but fragmented and differentiated. The need for common rules at an international level is underlined, with a view to assessing the sustainability of a sector which, due to this regulatory void, can lend itself to producers' strategic and opportunistic behaviours.

What Is Next for Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment? A Systematic Review of the Challenges

BACKGROUND

Integrating patient preferences in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is argued to improve uptake, adherence, and patient satisfaction. However, how to elicit and incorporate these preferences in HTA in a systematic and scientifically valid manner is subject to debate.

OBJECTIVE

This article provides a systematic review of the challenges to integrating patient preferences in HTA that have been raised in the literature about patient preferences in HTA.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles published between 2013 and 2017 addressing challenges to the integration of patient preferences in HTA was conducted in 7 databases. All issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA were extracted and divided into 5 categories: conceptual, normative, procedural, methodological, and practical issues. The issues were ranked according to how often they were mentioned.

RESULTS

Of 2147 retrieved articles, 67 were included in the analysis. Thirty-seven unique research issues were identified. In the majority of the articles, methodological issues were posed (82%), followed by procedural (73%), normative (51%), practical (24%), and conceptual (9%) issues. Frequently posed methodological issues concerned preference heterogeneity and choice of method. Common procedural issues concerned how to evaluate the impact of preference studies and their degree of being evidence based.

CONCLUSIONS

This article provides an overview of issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA procedures. Most issues were of a methodological or procedural nature; yet, the large number of different issues points to the overall importance of further researching the different aspects concerned with patient preferences in HTA. Through its ranking of how many articles mention particular issues, this article proposes an implicit research agenda.

Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study

Background: The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decision-making towards legitimacy. Rare disease and regenerative therapies (RDRTs) pose special decision-making challenges and offer therefore a useful case study.

Methods: Features operationalizing each A4R condition as well as three different approaches to address these features (cost-per-QALY-focused and multicriteria-based) were defined and organized into a matrix. Seven experts explored these features during a panel run under the Chatham House Rule and provided general and RDRT-specific recommendations. Responses were analyzed to identify converging and diverging recommendations.

Results: Regarding Relevance, recommendations included supporting deliberation, stakeholder participation and grounding coverage decision criteria in normative and societal objectives. Thirteen of 17 proposed decision criteria were recommended by a majority of panelists. The usefulness of universal cost-effectiveness thresholds to inform allocative efficiency was challenged, particularly in the RDRT context. RDRTs raise specific issues that need to be considered; however, rarity should be viewed in relation to other aspects, such as disease severity and budget impact. Regarding Publicity, panelists recommended transparency about the values underlying a decision and value judgements used in selecting evidence. For Appeals, recommendations included a life-cycle approach with clear provisions for re-evaluations. For Enforcement, external quality reviews of decisions were recommended.

Conclusion: Moving coverage decision-making processes towards enhanced legitimacy in general and in the RDRT context involves designing and refining approaches to support participation and deliberation, enhancing transparency, and allowing explicit consideration of multiple decision criteria that reflect normative and societal objectives.

The Case for the Use of Patient and Caregiver Perception of Change Assessments in Rare Disease Clinical Trials: A Methodologic Overview

INTRODUCTION

The traditional model of evaluating treatments based primarily on primary outcome measures has stumbled in its application to rare disease. Rare disease clinical trials face the methodological challenges of small, heterogeneous patient populations and relatively few validated, disease-specific outcome measures. Incorporating qualitative research into rare disease clinical trials may help sponsors, regulators, payers, and prescribers to better understand the real-world and patient-specific impact of a potential therapy. This paper provides a methodologic overview of the use of Patient and Caregiver Perception of Change (PPC and CPC) Assessments utilizing patient and caregiver video interviews to complement the data captured by traditional endpoints in rare disease clinical trials.

METHODS

Incorporating qualitative patient and caregiver video interviews into clinical trials allows for the rigorous capture of patient experiences and caregiver observations. Interview guides informed by input from key stakeholders provide the opportunity to solicit structured feedback on experiences before, during, and after the clinical trial. Patients and caregivers can complete their video interviews in a study mobile application, and interview transcripts are analyzed by independent coders. Themes are summarized by the treatment group and individual patient, which adds context to the clinical outcome measures of how patients feel and function, as well as elucidates the degree of change that is meaningful to patients and caregivers. The qualitative results can be compared to the data captured in clinical trials to assess data concordance.

CONCLUSION

Capturing patient experience data with sufficient rigor allows it to contribute to the body of evidence utilized in regulatory, payer, and prescriber decision-making. Adding PPC and CPC Assessments to rare disease clinical trials offers an innovative and powerful way to tap into the unique insights of patients and their families to develop a fuller picture of the patient experience in the clinical trial.

FUNDING

Stealth BioTherapeutics Inc.

From Rare to Neglected Diseases: A Sustainable and Inclusive Healthcare Perspective for Reframing the Orphan Drugs Issue

This work is about how healthcare issues can be reframed from a sustainable and inclusive development perspective. Focusing on the case of orphan drugs and rare diseases, first, a country-based review of the main regulatory approaches to orphan drugs is conducted; then, the main contributions of the literature are reviewed to identify dominant views and the way the problem is more commonly framed. The main findings reveal that the dominant regulatory approaches and theoretical interpretations of the problem are mainly based on economic considerations. However, this does not seem to have led to very satisfactory results. Reflecting upon what the sustainability perspective can highlight with reference to healthcare, substantial connections between the orphan drugs issue and that of neglected diseases are highlighted. These connections suggest reframing the orphan drugs issue as a social equality and inclusiveness problem, hence the need to adopt a sustainable and inclusive development perspective. As a key sustainable development goal (SGD) to be shared by all nations, healthcare should always be approached by putting the principles of sustainable and inclusive development at the core of policy makers’ regulatory choices. Accordingly, we think that the orphan drugs issue, like that of neglected diseases, could be better faced by adopting a social equality and inclusiveness perspective.

Engagement of Canadian Patients with Rare Diseases and Their Families in the Lifecycle of Therapy: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Patient involvement is increasingly recognized as critical to the development, introduction and use (i.e. the lifecycle) of new and effective therapies, particularly those for rare diseases, where natural histories and the impact on patients and families are less well-understood than for common diseases. However, little is known about how patients and families would like to be involved during the lifecycle.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore ways in which Canadian patients with rare diseases and their families would like to be involved in the lifecycle of therapies and identify their priorities for involvement.

METHODS

Patients with rare diseases and their families were recruited to participate in two deliberative sessions, during which concepts related to decision-making uncertainty and the technology lifecycle were introduced before eliciting input around ways in which they could be involved. This was followed by a webinar, which was used to further identify opportunities for involvement. The data were then analyzed qualitatively using eclectic coding.

RESULTS

Patients and families identified opportunities that fell into three goals: (1) incorporation of their 'lived experience' in coverage decision making (i.e. decisions by governments on funding new therapies); (2) improved care for patients; and (3) greater awareness of rare diseases, with the first being a priority.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunities for patients and families to contribute their 'lived experience' are needed throughout the orphan drug lifecycle, but the ideal mechanisms for providing this input have yet to be determined.

Using multi-criteria decision analysis to appraise orphan drugs: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) could potentially solve current methodological difficulties in the appraisal of orphan drugs.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an overview of the existing evidence regarding the use of MCDA in the appraisal of orphan drugs worldwide. Three databases (Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science) were searched for English, French and German literature published between January 2000 and April 2017. Full-text articles were supplemented with conference abstracts. A total of seven articles and six abstracts were identified.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

The literature suggests that MCDA is increasingly being used in the context of appraising orphan drugs. It has shown itself to be a flexible approach with the potential to assist in decision-making regarding reimbursement for orphan drugs. However, further research regarding its application must be conducted.

Exploring patient and family involvement in the lifecycle of an orphan drug: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patients and their families have become more active in healthcare systems and research. The value of patient involvement is particularly relevant in the area of rare diseases, where patients face delayed diagnoses and limited access to effective therapies due to the high level of uncertainty in market approval and reimbursement decisions. It has been suggested that patient involvement may help to reduce some of these uncertainties. This review explored existing and proposed roles for patients, families, and patient organizations at each stage of the lifecycle of therapies for rare diseases (i.e., orphan drug lifecycle).

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using methods outlined by Arksey and O'Malley. To validate the findings from the literature and identify any additional opportunities that were missed, a consultative webinar was conducted with members of the Patient and Caregiver Liaison Group of a Canadian research network.

RESULTS

Existing and proposed opportunities for involving patients, families, and patient organizations were reported throughout the orphan drug lifecycle and fell into 12 themes: research outside of clinical trials; clinical trials; patient reported outcomes measures; patient registries and biorepositories; education; advocacy and awareness; conferences and workshops; patient care and support; patient organization development; regulatory decision-making; and reimbursement decision-making. Existing opportunities were not described in sufficient detail to allow for the level of involvement to be assessed. Additionally, no information on the impact of involvement within specific opportunities was found. Based on feedback from patients and families, documentation of existing opportunities within Canada is poor.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunities for patient, family, and patient organization involvement exist throughout the orphan drug lifecycle. However, based on the information found, it is not possible to determine which opportunities would be most effective at each stage.

Appraising the holistic value of Lenvatinib for radio-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: A multi-country study applying pragmatic MCDA

BACKGROUND

The objective of the study was to reveal through pragmatic MCDA (EVIDEM) the contribution of a broad range of criteria to the value of the orphan drug lenvatinib for radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) in country-specific contexts.

METHODS

The study was designed to enable comprehensive appraisal (12 quantitative, 7 qualitative criteria) in the current disease context (watchful waiting, sorafenib) of France, Italy and Spain. Data on the value of lenvatinib was collected from diverse stakeholders during country-specific panels and included: criteria weights (individual and social values); performance scores (judgments on evidence-collected through MCDA systematic review); qualitative impacts of contextual criteria; and verbal and written insights structured by criteria. The value contribution of each criterion was calculated and uncertainty explored.

RESULTS

Comparative effectiveness, Quality of evidence (Spain and Italy) and Disease severity (France) received the greatest weights. Four criteria contributed most to the value of lenvatinib, reflecting its superior Comparative effectiveness (16-22% of value), the severity of RR-DTC (16-22%), significant unmet needs (14-21%) and robust evidence (14-20%). Contributions varied by comparator, country and individuals, highlighting the importance of context and consultation. Results were reproducible at the group level. Impacts of contextual criteria varied across countries reflecting different health systems and cultural backgrounds. The MCDA process promoted sharing stakeholders' knowledge on lenvatinib and insights on context.

CONCLUSIONS

The value of lenvatinib was consistently positive across diverse therapeutic contexts. MCDA identified the aspects contributing most to value, revealed rich contextual insights, and helped participants express and explicitly tackle ethical trade-offs inherent to balanced appraisal and decisionmaking.

HTA programme response to the challenges of dealing with orphan medicinal products: Process evaluation in selected European countries

BACKGROUND

Challenges commonly encountered in HTA of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) were identified in Advance-HTA. Since then, new initiatives have been developed to specifically address issues related to HTA of OMPs.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

This study aimed to understand why these new HTA initiatives in England, Scotland and at European-level were established and whether they resolve the challenges of OMPs. The work of Advance-HTA was updated with a literature review and a conceptual framework of clinical, regulatory and economic challenges for OMPs was developed. The new HTA programmes were critiqued against the conceptual framework and outstanding challenges identified.

RESULTS

The new programmes in England and Scotland recognise the challenges identified in demonstrating the value of ultra-OMPs (and OMPs) and that they require a different process to standard HTA approaches. Wider considerations of disease and treatment experiences from a multi-stakeholder standpoint are needed, combined with other measures to deal with uncertainty (e.g. managed entry agreements). While approaches to assessing this new view of value of OMPs, extending beyond cost/QALY frameworks, differ, their criteria are similar. These are complemented by a European initiative that fosters multi-stakeholder dialogue and consensus about value determinants throughout the life-cycle of an OMP.

CONCLUSION

New HTA programmes specific to OMPs have been developed but questions remain about whether they sufficiently capture value and manage uncertainty in clinical practice.

Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL)

Rare diseases are an important public health issue with high unmet need. The introduction of the EU Regulation on orphan medicinal products (OMP) has been successful in stimulating investment in the research and development of OMPs. Despite this advancement, patients do not have universal access to these new medicines. There are many factors that affect OMP uptake, but one of the most important is the difficulty of making pricing and reimbursement (P&R) decisions in rare diseases. Until now, there has been little consensus on the most appropriate assessment criteria, perspective or appraisal process. This paper proposes nine principles to help improve the consistency of OMP P&R assessment in Europe and ensure that value assessment, pricing and funding processes reflect the specificities of rare diseases and contribute to both the sustainability of healthcare systems and the sustainability of innovation in this field. These recommendations are the output of the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL), a collaboration between rare disease experts, patient representatives, academics, health technology assessment (HTA) practitioners, politicians and industry representatives. ORPH-VAL reached its recommendations through careful consideration of existing OMP P&R literature and through a wide consultation with expert stakeholders, including payers, regulators and patients. The principles cover four areas: OMP decision criteria, OMP decision process, OMP sustainable funding systems and European co-ordination. This paper also presents a guide to the core elements of value relevant to OMPs that should be consistently considered in all OMP appraisals. The principles outlined in this paper may be helpful in drawing together an emerging consensus on this topic and identifying areas where consistency in payer approach could be achievable and beneficial. All stakeholders have an obligation to work together to ensure that the promise of OMP's is realised.

Community views and perspectives on public engagement in health technology assessment decision making

Objectives The aim of the present study was to describe community views and perspectives on public engagement processes in Australian health technology assessment (HTA) decision making. Methods Six focus groups were held in Sydney (NSW, Australia) as part of a broad program of work on public engagement and HTA. Eligible participants were aged ≥18 years and spoke English. Participants were asked about their views and perspectives of public engagement in the HTA decision-making process, with responses analysed using a public participation framework. Results Fifty-eight participants aged 19–71 years attended the focus groups. Responses from the public indicated that they wanted public engagement in HTA to include a diversity of individuals, be independent and transparent, involve individuals early in the process and ensure that public input is meaningful and useful to the process. This was consistent with the public participation framework. Perceived shortcomings of the current public engagement process were also identified, namely the lack of awareness of the HTA system in the general population and the need to acknowledge the role different groups of stakeholders or ‘publics’ can have in the process. Conclusions The public do see a role for themselves in the HTA decision-making process. This is distinct to the involvement of patients and carers. It is important that any future public engagement strategy in this field distinguishes between stakeholder groups and outline approaches that will involve members of the public in the decision-making process, especially if public expectations of involvement in healthcare decision-making continue to increase. What is known about this topic? The views and perspectives of patients and consumers are important in the HTA decision-making process. There is a move to involve the broader community, particularly as decisions become increasingly complex and resources more scarce. What does this paper add? It not been known to what extent, or at what points, the community would like to be engaged with the HTA decision-making process. The present study adds to the evidence base on this topic by identifying features of engagement that may be important in determining the extent of wider public involvement. It is clear that the community expects the system to be transparent, for patients to be involved early in specific processes and the wider community to be able to contribute to the broader vision of the healthcare system. What are the implications for practitioners? A formalised strategy is needed to include the public voice into health technology decisions. With the current level of reform in the healthcare sector and the focus on creating a sustainable healthcare system, there is a real opportunity to implement an approach that not only informs patients and the community of the challenges, but includes and incorporates their views into these decisions. This will assist in developing and adapting policy that is relevant and meets the needs of the population.

Pharmaceutical expenditure on drugs for rare diseases in Canada: a historical (2007-13) and prospective (2014-18) MIDAS sales data analysis

BACKGROUND

Health Canada has defined rare diseases as life-threatening, seriously debilitating, or serious chronic conditions affecting a very small number of patients (~1 in 2,000 persons). An estimated 9 % of Canadians suffer from a rare disease. Drugs treating rare diseases (DRDs) are also known as orphan drugs. While Canada is currently developing an orphan drug framework, in the United States (US), the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) of 1983 established incentives for the development of orphan drugs. This study measured total annual expenditure of orphan drugs in Canada (2007-13) and estimated future (2014-18) orphan drug expenditure.

METHODS

Orphan drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US were used as a proxy for the orphan drug landscape in Canada. Branded, orphan drugs approved by the FDA between 1983 through 2013 were identified (N = 356 unique products). Only US orphan drugs with the same orphan indication(s) approved in Canada were included in the analysis. Adjustment via an indication factoring was applied to products with both orphan and non-orphan indications using available data sources to isolate orphan-indication sales. The IMS Health MIDAS database of audited biopharmaceutical sales was utilized to measure total orphan drug expenditure, calculated annually from 2007-2013 and evaluated as a proportion of total annual pharmaceutical drug expenditure (adjusted to 2014 CAD).

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2013, expenditure was measured for a final N = 147 orphan drugs. Orphan drug expenditure totaled $610.2 million (M) in 2007 and $1,100.0 M in 2013, representing 3.3- 5.6 % of total Canadian pharmaceutical drug expenditure in 2007-2013, respectively. Future trend analysis suggests orphan drug expenditure will remain under 6 % of total expenditure in 2014-18.

CONCLUSIONS

While the number of available orphan drugs and associated expenditure increased over time, access remains an issue, and from the perspectives of society and equity, overall spending on orphan drugs is lower relative to the number of patients affected with an orphan disease in Canada. The overall budget impact of orphan drugs is small and fairly stable relative to total pharmaceutical expenditure. Concerns that growth in orphan drug expenditure may lead to unsustainable drug expenditure do not appear to be justified.