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

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.

Trends in orphan drug use and spending among children and adolescents during 2010–2020 in Korea

Background: Since 2014 in Korea, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety has designated orphan drugs (ODs) for the treatment of rare diseases. This study investigated the market share and 20 most frequently prescribed therapeutic subgroups of ODs among children and adolescents in Korea.

Methods: This study referenced the Korean national health insurance database from January 2010 through December 2020. The outcome measures were the number of prescriptions and expenditures on ODs.

Results: Among children aged 0–12 years, the number of patients using ODs increased from 11,264 in 2010 to 14,017 in 2020. Expenditures on ODs and their proportion of total pharmaceutical expenditures also tripled from 13.3 million USD (1.2%) in 2010 to 46.4 million USD (6.2%) in 2020. Among the overall population and adolescents aged 13–17 years, the percentage of total pharmaceutical expenditures for ODs increased from 0.4% in 2010 to 3.2% in 2020 and from 2.1% in 2010 to 11.2% in 2020, respectively. The highest numbers and drug costs of child patients were for H01 (pituitary and hypothalamic hormones and analogues, 44,839) and A16 (other alimentary tract and metabolism products, 160 million USD). The individual ODs with the highest drug costs were A16AB09 (idursulfase, 82.4 million USD) and M09AX07 (nusinersen, 36.2 million USD).

Conclusion: Although the market size of ODs remained small in Korea, both the number of approved ODs and the proportion of total pharmaceutical expenditures for ODs have increased. Additional policies related to designation and reimbursement should be put in place to ensure timely access to ODs.

Methodological Quality Assessment of Budget Impact Analyses for Orphan Drugs: A Systematic Review

Objectives: This research aims to evaluate the methodological quality of budget impact analyses for orphan drugs and to provide suggestions for future analyses. Methods: Conference abstracts and peer-reviewed literature on budget impact analyses were collected through searches of Pubmed and Embase. ISPOR good practice guidelines were used as a methodological standard for budget impact analyses. Examined parameters encompassed: perspective, target population, data sources, intervention and comparator(s), time horizon, scope of costs, discounting, validation, assumptions and sensitivity analysis. Results: Seventy studies on individual orphan drugs and 21 studies on a combination of orphan drugs analyzing budget impact were identified. Overall, analyses considered a third-party payer perspective, reported periodic budget impacts over a one-to-five-year time horizon, and did not apply discounting. A dynamically fluctuating population and costs beyond drug costs were accounted for in 18.7% and 51.7% of studies, respectively. Input data were retrieved from published literature, clinical trials, registries, claims databases, expert opinions, historical data and market research. Assumptions were mostly made about population size and intervention/comparator(s) market uptake, but these assumptions were rarely justified and their impact was insufficiently explored through sensitivity analyses. Budget impact results were rarely validated. Conclusion: Existing budget impact analyses for orphan drugs are concise, vary greatly and are of substandard methodological quality. To eliminate possible bias in future budget impact analyses, future studies should adhere to national or ISPOR good practice guidelines on budget impact analysis.

Public spending on orphan medicines: a review of the literature

Background and objective

Little is known about how much public payers spend on orphan medicines. This study aimed at identifying information on orphan medicine expenditure incurred by public payers that was published in literature globally and at possibly synthesising their shares as portion of the total pharmaceutical expenditure.

Methods

A literature review was undertaken using Medline, the Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases and Google Scholar. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full texts of potentially qualifying studies were reviewed for inclusion. Included articles were analysed, and bibliometric parameters as well as public expenditure data on orphan medicines were retrieved.

Results

Six hundred forty three articles excluding duplicates were identified. After screening of the abstracts and a review of the full texts, 13 articles qualified for in-depth analysis.The 13 selected articles on orphan pharmaceutical expenditure were published between 2010 and 2018. Survey periods varied between 1 year and 12 years. One publication included 22 countries but the majority of the studies were related to a single country. Expenditure data was available in five of the 13 articles, and eight articles used 'expenditure proxies' such as sales data. Spending data had been sourced from public institutions (4 studies), private providers (5 studies) and a combination of both (3 studies, no information on data source in 1 study). In all included studies, secondary data were analysed. Reported expenditure shares for orphan medicines in relation to total pharmaceutical spend was frequently below 3%. Countries with higher shares included the USA, Canada, the Netherlands and Bulgaria-the latter reporting spending on orphan medicines as high as 9%.

Conclusions

A low number of studies that informed about pharmaceutical spending on orphan medicines was published, thereof only a few explicitly analysed expenditure data of public payers. A conclusive synthesis of public spending on orphan medicines is a challenge given to the diversity in methodologies to measure expenditure. There is a need for further research to survey primary data of public spending for orphan medicines, based on a sound methodology to measure these data and to compare them internationally.

Patient Accessibility and Budget Impact of Orphan Drugs in South Korea: Long-Term and Real-World Data Analysis (2007-2019)

This study aimed to identify orphan drug accessibility and impact on pharmaceutical budgets in South Korea by analyzing the status of orphan drug designation, approval, reimbursement, and pharmaceutical expenditure. We analyzed the dataset on orphan drugs designated, approved, and reimbursed from 2007 to 2019 based on long-term real-world data. The designated and approved orphan drugs were 165 and 156, respectively, and 88 out of 156 approved products were reimbursed. Total expenditure on orphan drugs increased annually to account for about 1.44% of total pharmaceutical expenditure in 2018. Orphan drug expenditure per patient increased on average by 8.7% per year. The average annual cost of orphan drugs was USD 27,000–USD 47,000, with the maximum value of USD 260,000–USD 560,000. As there are a number of orphan drugs that have not yet been reimbursable after approval, a reimbursement policy should be established that considers the characteristics of orphan drugs. Since the rapid increase in orphan drug expenditure can be a potential threat to the insurance budget, budget management should also be considered. In conclusion, it is necessary to take preemptive measures to manage the health insurance budget efficiently while improving patient accessibility to orphan drugs.

Objectivity in rare disease research: A philosophical approach

Individuals living with rare conditions are faced with important challenges derived from the rarity of their conditions and aggravated by the low priority given to rare disease research. However, current realities of rare disease research require consideration of the relationship between subjectivity and 'traditional' objectivity. Objectivity in research has traditionally been associated with processes and descriptions that are independent of the investigator. The need for researchers to provide unbiased knowledge and achieve a balance between objectivity and the underlying values in nursing and scientific research requires an examination of how objectivity is conceptualized within the context of rare disease research. The aim of this paper is to examine scientific objectivity in rare disease research from a philosophical viewpoint and, in doing so, demonstrate the need to redefine it to reflect the current scientific environment. As such, healthcare providers working on this field need to redefine objectivity around ethical and moral obligation to advance science in an equitable manner with the end goal to produce knowledge that is trustworthy and beneficial to our patients.

Generic Substitution of Orphan Drugs for the Treatment of Rare Diseases: Exploring the Potential Challenges

Generic drugs are important components of measures introduced by healthcare regulatory authorities to reduce treatment costs. In most patients and conditions the switch from a branded drug to its generic counterpart is performed with no major complications. However, evidence from complex diseases suggests that generic substitution requires careful evaluation in some settings and that current bioequivalence criteria may not always be adequate for establishing the interchangeability of branded and generic products. Rare diseases, also called orphan diseases, are a group of heterogeneous diseases that share important characteristics: in addition to their scarcity, most are severe, chronic, highly debilitating, and often present in early childhood. Finding a treatment for a rare disease is challenging. Thanks to incentives that encourage research and development programs in rare diseases, several orphan drugs are currently available. The elevated cost of orphan drugs is a highly debated issue and a cause of limited access to treatment for many patients. As patent protection and the exclusivity period of several orphan drugs will expire soon, generic versions of orphan drugs should reach the market shortly, with great expectations about their impact on the economic burden of rare diseases. However, consistent with other complex diseases, generic substitution may require thoughtful considerations and may be even contraindicated in some rare conditions. This article provides an overview of rare disease characteristics, reviews reports of problematic generic substitution, and discusses why generic substitution of orphan drugs may be challenging and should be undertaken carefully in rare disease patients.

Essential Medicines List Implementation Dynamics: A Case Study Using Brazilian Federal Medicines Expenditures

The aim was to analyse the implementation dynamics of the essential medicines list (EML). We used the government expenditures on medicines and Brazil as a case study. Drug purchases were considered as a proxy for utilization. The essential medicines (EMs) expenditures were followed over time by Brazilian National EMLs life-time and defined by broad therapeutic categories and by specific medicines. Brazil increased the number of the medicines during the last four editions of Brazilian National EMLs and the federal government expenditures on them. The EML implementation dynamics changed the distribution of expenditures on EMs. We identified a common set of 404 EMs present in all four editions of the Brazilian National EMLs. There was a proportional decrease in expenditures on anti-infectives for systemic use, blood and blood-forming organs and alimentary tract and metabolism, and increase in expenditures on antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents. The expenditures distribution per specific medicines revealed that a small set of EMs was responsible for 50% or more of expenditures considering Brazilian National EML life-time for all four periods. The increase in expenditures on EMs in Brazil was a consequence of the newer medicines incorporated over time in the Brazilian National EMLs. The use of the medicines expenditures as a source of data and the definition of an EML life-time permitted follow-up of the implementation dynamics of different versions of the Brazilian National EMLs. Our results have implications for policymakers and stakeholders to gain a better understanding of the role EMLs play in health system sustainability and in the provision of the most beneficial heath care.