Should rare diseases get special treatment?

Key Issues of Economic Evaluations for Health Technology Assessment in China: A Nationwide Expert Survey

OBJECTIVES

Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly crucial in medicine price negotiations in China, yet previous appraisals revealed national discrepancies on key economic evaluation issues: willingness-to-pay threshold, pricing models for multi-indication medicines, and comparator selection principles. This study aimed to collect expert opinions on these issues for future HTA evaluations.

METHODS

A nationwide anonymous web-based survey encompassing experts across academia, HTA, consultancy/contract research organization/industry, service provider, and payer. In 2023, a generic invitation containing a web link to the questionnaire was disseminated via WeChat using convenience and snowball sampling. Agreement rates for questionnaire views were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The relationship between participants' responses and demographics was examined using appropriate logistic models.

RESULTS

A total of 303 responses were received from experts in 34 cities. Key expert views include a suggested base willingness-to-pay threshold ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 times gross domestic product (52.1% agreement); elevated thresholds for childhood diseases, rare diseases, end-of-life diseases, and first-in-class medicines (>78.0% agreement); a single pricing model for multi-indication medicines (60.4% agreement); consideration of multiple medicines as comparators (79.9% agreement); and avoiding the use of centrally procured medicines as comparators for medicines with a time to market of less than 3 years (71.0% agreement). Participants who are service provider had lower odds of selecting higher thresholds (odds ratio 0.26; P < .01) than responders from consultancy/contract research organization/industry.

CONCLUSIONS

Expert views indicate the need for substantial changes in China's current HTA methods, highlighting the need for increased investment in HTA processes and expertise cultivation.

We need to talk about values: a proposed framework for the articulation of normative reasoning in health technology assessment

It is acknowledged that health technology assessment (HTA) is an inherently value-based activity that makes use of normative reasoning alongside empirical evidence. But the language used to conceptualise and articulate HTA's normative aspects is demonstrably unnuanced, imprecise, and inconsistently employed, undermining transparency and preventing proper scrutiny of the rationales on which decisions are based. This paper - developed through a cross-disciplinary collaboration of 24 researchers with expertise in healthcare priority-setting - seeks to address this problem by offering a clear definition of key terms and distinguishing between the types of normative commitment invoked during HTA, thus providing a novel conceptual framework for the articulation of reasoning. Through application to a hypothetical case, it is illustrated how this framework can operate as a practical tool through which HTA practitioners and policymakers can enhance the transparency and coherence of their decision-making, while enabling others to hold them more easily to account. The framework is offered as a starting point for further discussion amongst those with a desire to enhance the legitimacy and fairness of HTA by facilitating practical public reasoning, in which decisions are made on behalf of the public, in public view, through a chain of reasoning that withstands ethical scrutiny.

Principles for Just Prioritization of Expensive Biological Therapies in the Danish Healthcare System

The Danish healthcare system must meet the need for easy and equal access to healthcare for every citizen. However, investigations have shown unfair prioritization of cancer patients and unfair prioritization of resources for expensive medicines over care. What is needed are principles for proper prioritization. This article investigates whether American ethicists Tom Beauchamp and James Childress's principle of justice may be helpful as a conceptual framework for reflections on prioritization of expensive biological therapies in the Danish healthcare system. We present an empirical study exploring the principles for prioritizing new expensive biological therapies. This study includes qualitative interviews with key Danish stakeholders experienced in antibody therapy and prioritizing resources for expensive medicines. Beauchamp and Childress's model only covers government-funded primary and acute healthcare. Based on the interviews, this study indicates that to be helpful in a Danish context this model should include equal access for citizens to government-funded primary and acute healthcare, costly medicine, and other scarce treatments. We conclude that slightly modified, Beauchamp and Childress's principle of justice might be useful as a conceptual framework for reflections on the prioritization of expensive biological therapies in the Danish healthcare system.

Comparison of Rare and Common Diseases in the Setting of Healthcare Priorities: Evidence of Social Preferences Based on a Systematic Review

Background

In light of the limited availability of healthcare resources, providing universal access to healthcare is a challenging task. As a result, prioritizing healthcare services has emerged as a crucial issue. This study aims to explore the preferences of the public regarding healthcare prioritization for rare and common diseases. By examining public attitudes, this study seeks to inform government decisions concerning resource allocation and distribution within healthcare.

Methods

"Social preference" and "rare disease" were searched as MeSH terms in the electronic databases of Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and Econlit for articles published since their establishment, and the information on the characteristics of the articles and the results of social preferences for rare diseases were analyzed and summarized.

Results

The public held predominantly neutral views on the setting of healthcare priorities for rare and common diseases. The results of the included studies showed that with all else being equal, no social preference for rarity was found, but when the public considered the proportional advantage of rare diseases or when the respondents were young, a social preference for rarity existed. In addition, the public weighed attributes such as the health benefits of treatments, the effectiveness of treatment options, the safety of treatment, equity, unmet needs, and disease severity in the process of setting of treatment priorities for rare diseases. Furthermore, in consideration of equity, the public showed a willingness to pay for rare diseases in spite of the high medical costs.

Conclusion

International studies on social preferences provide some evidence for the setting of healthcare priorities for rare diseases, and health policymakers should consider social preferences in an integrated manner in order to set healthcare priorities appropriately.

A comprehensive study of the rare diseases and conditions targeted by orphan drug designations and approvals over the forty years of the Orphan Drug Act

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases affect more than 30 million Americans. The passage of the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) in the United States in 1983 represented a launching point for a rare disease drug development revolution for these patients. Financial incentives provided by the ODA through its Orphan Drug Designation Program, in addition to remarkable scientific advances over the past 40 years, have led to hundreds of drug approvals for rare diseases. Our research examines the rare diseases that have been targeted by orphan drug designations and subsequent approvals since the law was enacted.

METHODS

Using an internal FDA database, we classified and analyzed all orphan drug designations and approvals from 1983 to 2022 by disease and therapeutic area.

RESULTS

Over the 40 years of the ODA, 6,340 orphan drug designations were granted, representing drug development for 1,079 rare diseases. Additionally, 882 of those designations resulted in at least one FDA approval for use in 392 rare diseases. Much of this development has been concentrated in oncology as seven of the top ten most designated and approved diseases were rare cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers have estimated that there may be 7000-10,000 rare diseases that have been identified and described. Based on our study, we can conclude that around 5% of rare diseases have an FDA-approved drug and up to 15% of rare diseases have at least one drug that has been developed and shown promise in their treatment, diagnosis or prevention. Funding of basic and translational science for rare disease drug development should continue in order to bring therapies to the millions of affected patients who remain without treatment options.

General public's understanding of rare diseases and their opinions on medical resource allocation in Japan: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases (RDs) may impose a considerable financial burden on patients and their families. Public acceptance is essential to ensure sustainable public systems supporting RDs, especially in countries with universal healthcare coverage, such as Japan. This study aimed to explore the public's understanding of RDs and identify crucial factors associated with the public acceptance of prioritizing financial support for RDs in Japan.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was sent to 131,220 Japanese residents aged 20-69 years. The items included in the questionnaire were general interest in medical science and medical care, general knowledge regarding RDs and health care systems, opinions on the cost of medical care, opinions on the research and development of RDs and common diseases, and individual characteristics.

RESULTS

The responses of 11,019 respondents were analyzed. Several respondents agreed to partially cover the medication cost of adult and pediatric RDs (59.5% and 66.8%, respectively) with public funding. The major reasons for agreeing were the huge financial burden imposed on patients and their families, limited available treatment options, effects of RDs on the life planning of patients, and difficulties caused by RDs in the patient's social life. Furthermore, the respondents ranked RDs (56.0%) higher than common diseases (44.0%) for government funding for research and development. The reasons for supporting government-funded research and development for RDs included the lack of treatment options for numerous RDs (34.9%) and difficulty of studying RDs owing to the small number of researchers (25.9%). The chief reasons for supporting government-funded research and development for common diseases were the large number of affected patients (59.7%) and the possibility of more treatment options becoming available through the promotion of research and development (22.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The general public considers burdens associated with daily living or finance more than the epidemiological characteristics of RD while making funding decisions, demonstrating that rarity was less prioritized. A gap appears to exist between the general public and RD experts regarding the understanding of the epidemiological characteristics of RD and its thresholds. This gap should be bridged to ensure that prioritization of financial support for RDs is accepted by the society.

The ethics of gene therapy for hemophilia: a narrative review

Gene therapy is expected to become a promising treatment, and potentially even a cure, for hemophilia. After several years of research, the first gene therapy product has been granted conditional market authorization by the European Union in August 2022. The recent progress in the field also has implications on the ethical aspects of hemophilia gene therapy. Reviews conducted in the 2000s mainly identified questions on the ethics of conducting early-phase clinical trials. However, since then, the knowledge on safety and efficacy has improved, and the field has moved toward clinical application, a phase that has its own ethical aspects. Therefore, we conducted a narrative review to take stock of the ethical aspects of hemophilia gene therapy. Based on our analysis of the literature, we identified 3 ethical themes. The theme Living up to expectations describes the existing hopes for gene therapy and the unlikelihood of the currently approved product becoming a permanent cure. In the theme Psychosocial impacts, we discuss the fear that gene therapy will impact the identity of people with hemophilia and their need for psychosocial support. The theme Costs and access discusses the expected cost-effectiveness of gene therapy and its implications on accessibility worldwide. We conclude that it may be necessary to change the narratives surrounding gene therapy, from describing it as a cure to describing it as one of the many treatments that temporarily relieve symptoms and that there is a need to reevaluate the desirability of gene therapy for hemophilia, given the availability of other treatments.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of gene-based therapies for patients with spinal muscular atrophy type I in Australia

Introduction

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is an inherited neuromuscular disorder and regarded as one of the most frequent genetic causes of infant mortality. The aim of this study is to develop a cost-effectiveness analysis of AVXS-101 (Onasemnogene Abeparvovec/Zolgensma^®) and nusinersen (Spinraza^®) for SMA to inform decision-making on reimbursement policies in Australia.

Methods

A Markov model was developed with five health states to evaluate the costs and effects for patients with SMA Type I from a healthcare system perspective over a time-horizon of 100 years. The model parameters were based on clinical trials, parametric distributions, published literature, and Australian registries. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to appraise the uncertainties of the parameters in the model. A threshold analysis was conducted to estimate the cost of AVXS-101 of being cost-effective.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AVXS-101 was $1,808,471 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and that of nusinersen was $2,772,798 per QALY, compared to standard of care, respectively. The ICER of AVXS-101 was $1,238,288 per QALY compared to nusinersen. The key drivers influencing on ICERs were costs of using treatments and utility values of sitting and walking independently.

Conclusion

Both nusinersen and AVXS-101 resulted in health benefits, but they were not cost-effective with a commonly used willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY. Developing high-quality clinical data and exploring appropriate WTP thresholds are critical for decision-making on reimbursement policies in the treatment of rare diseases.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00415-022-11319-0.

HTA decision-making for drugs for rare diseases: comparison of processes across countries

Introduction

Drugs for rare diseases (DRDs) offer important health benefits, but challenge traditional health technology assessment, reimbursement, and pricing processes due to limited effectiveness evidence. Recently, modified processes to address these challenges while improving patient access have been proposed in Canada. This review examined processes in 12 jurisdictions to develop recommendations for consideration during formal government-led multi-sectoral discussions currently taking place in Canada.

Methods

(i) A scoping review of DRD reimbursement processes, (ii) key informant interviews, (iii) a case study of evaluations for and the reimbursement status of a set of 7 DRDs, and (iv) a virtual, multi-stakeholder consultation retreat were conducted.

Results

Only NHS England has a process specifically for DRDs, while Italy, Scotland, and Australia have modified processes for eligible DRDs. Almost all consider economic evaluations, budget impact analyses, and patient-reported outcomes; but less than half accept surrogate measures. Disease severity, lack of alternatives, therapeutic value, quality of evidence, and value for money are factors used in all decision-making process; only NICE England uses a cost-effectiveness threshold. Budget impact is considered in all jurisdictions except Sweden. In Italy, France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom, specific factors are considered for DRDs. However, in all jurisdictions opportunities for clinician/patient input are the same as those for other drugs. Of the 7 DRDs included in the case study, the number that received a positive reimbursement recommendation was highest in Germany and France, followed by Spain and Italy. No relationship between recommendation type and specific elements of the pricing and reimbursement process was found.

Conclusions

Based on the collective findings from all components of the project, seven recommendations for possible action in Canada are proposed. These focus on defining “appropriate access”, determining when a “full” HTA may not be needed, improving coordination among stakeholder groups, developing a Canadian framework for Managed Access Plans, creating a pan-Canadian DRD/rare disease data infrastructure, genuine and continued engagement of patient groups and clinicians, and further research on different decision and financing options, including MAPs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13023-022-02397-4.