Characteristics of drugs for ultra-rare diseases versus drugs for other rare diseases in HTA submissions made to the CADTH CDR

Application of the Face2Gene tool in an Italian dysmorphological pediatric clinic: Retrospective validation and future perspectives

Neurodevelopmental disorders exhibit recurrent facial features that can suggest the genetic diagnosis at a glance, but recognizing subtle dysmorphisms is a specialized skill that requires very long training. Face2Gene (FDNA Inc) is an innovative computer-aided phenotyping tool that analyses patient's portraits and suggests 30 candidate syndromes with similar morphology in a prioritized list. We hypothesized that the software could support even expert physicians in the diagnostic workup of genetic conditions. In this study, we assessed the performance of Face2Gene in an Italian dysmorphological pediatrics clinic. We uploaded two-dimensional face pictures of 145 children affected by genetic conditions with typical phenotypic traits. All diagnoses were previously confirmed by cytogenetic or molecular tests. Overall, the software's differential included the correct syndrome in most cases (98%). We evaluated the efficiency of the algorithm even considering the rareness of the genetic conditions. All "common" diagnoses were correctly identified, most of them with high diagnostic accuracy (93% in top-3 matches). Finally, the performance for the most common pediatric syndromes was calculated. Face2Gene performed well even for ultra-rare genetic conditions (75% within top-3 matches and 83% within top-10 matches). Expert geneticists maybe do not need computer support to recognize common syndromes, but our results prove that the tool can be useful not only for general pediatricians but also in dysmorphological clinics for ultra-rare genetic conditions.

FDA approval, clinical trial evidence, efficacy, epidemiology, and price for non-orphan and ultra-rare, rare, and common orphan cancer drug indications: cross sectional analysis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, trials, unmet needs, benefit, and pricing of ultra-rare (<6600 affected US citizens), rare (6600-200 000 citizens), and common (>200 000 citizens) orphan cancer drug indications and non-orphan cancer drug indications.

DESIGN

Cross sectional analysis.

SETTING

Data from Drugs@FDA, FDA labels, Global Burden of Disease study, and Medicare and Medicaid.

POPULATION

170 FDA approved drugs across 455 cancer indications between 2000 and 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparison of non-orphan and ultra-rare, rare, and common orphan indications regarding regulatory approval, trials, epidemiology, and price. Hazard ratios for overall survival and progression-free survival were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

161 non-orphan and 294 orphan cancer drug indications were identified, of which 25 were approved for ultra-rare diseases, 205 for rare diseases, and 64 for common diseases. Drugs for ultra-rare orphan indications were more frequently first in class (76% v 48% v 38% v 42%; P<0.001), monotherapies (88% v 69% v 72% v 55%; P=0.001), for hematologic cancers (76% v 66% v 0% v 0%; P<0.001), and supported by smaller trials (median 85 v 199 v 286 v 521 patients; P<0.001), of single arm (84% v 44% v 28% v 21%; P<0.001) phase 1/2 design (88% v 45% v 45% v 27%; P<0.001) compared with rare and common orphan indications and non-orphan indications. Drugs for common orphan indications were more often biomarker directed (69% v 26% v 12%; P<0.001), first line (77% v 39% v 20%; P<0.001), small molecules (80% v 62% v 48%; P<0.001) benefiting from quicker time to first FDA approval (median 5.7 v 7.1 v 8.9 years; P=0.02) than those for rare and ultra-rare orphan indications. Drugs for ultra-rare, rare, and common orphan indications offered a significantly greater progression-free survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.53 v 0.51 v 0.49 v 0.64; P<0.001), but not overall survival benefit (0.50 v 0.73 v 0.71 v 0.74; P=0.06), than non-orphans. In single arm trials, tumor response rates were greater for drugs for ultra-rare orphan indications than for rare or common orphan indications and non-orphan indications (objective response rate 57% v 48% v 55% v 33%; P<0.001). Disease incidence/prevalence, five year survival, and the number of available treatments were lower, whereas disability adjusted life years per patient were higher, for ultra-rare orphan indications compared with rare or common indications and non-orphan indications. For 147 on-patent drugs with available data in 2023, monthly prices were higher for ultra-rare orphan indications than for rare or common orphan indications and non-orphan indications ($70 128 (£55 971; €63 370) v $33 313 v $16 484 v $14 508; P<0.001). For 48 on-patent drugs with available longitudinal data from 2005 to 2023, prices increased by 94% for drugs for orphan indications and 50% for drugs for non-orphan indications on average.

CONCLUSIONS

The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 incentivizes development of drugs not only for rare diseases but also for ultra-rare diseases and subsets of common diseases. These orphan indications fill significant unmet needs, yet their approval is based on small, non-robust trials that could overestimate efficacy outcomes. A distinct ultra-orphan designation with greater financial incentives could encourage and expedite drug development for ultra-rare diseases.

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.

Literature Review on Health Emigration in Rare Diseases-A Machine Learning Perspective

The article deals with one of the effects of health inequalities and gaps in access to treatments for rare diseases, namely health-driven emigration. The purpose of the paper is to systematize knowledge about the phenomenon of health emigration observed among families affected by rare diseases, for which reimbursed treatment is available, but only in selected countries. The topic proved to be niche; the issue of "health emigration in rare diseases" is an area for exploration. Therefore, the further analysis used text mining and machine learning methods based on a database selected based on keywords related to this issue. The results made it possible to systematize the guesses made by researchers in management and economic fields, to identify the most common keywords and thematic clusters around the perspective of the patient, drug manufacturer and treatment reimbursement decision-maker, and the perspective integrating all the others. Since the topic of health emigration was not directly addressed in the selected sources, the authors attempted to define the related concepts and discussed the importance of this phenomenon in managing the support system in rare diseases. Thus, they indicated directions for further research in this area.

Undiagnosed diseases: Needs and opportunities in 20 countries participating in the Undiagnosed Diseases Network International

Introduction

Rare diseases (RD) are a health priority worldwide, overall affecting hundreds of millions of people globally. Early and accurate diagnosis is essential to support clinical care but remains challenging in many countries, especially the low- and medium-income ones. Hence, undiagnosed RD (URD) account for a significant portion of the overall RD burden.

Methods

In October 2020, the Developing Nations Working Group of the Undiagnosed Diseases Network International (DNWG-UDNI) launched a survey among its members, belonging to 20 countries across all continents, to map unmet needs and opportunities for patients with URD. The survey was based on questions with open answers and included eight different domains. Conflicting interpretations were resolved in contact with the partners involved.

Results

All members responded to the survey. The results indicated that the scientific and medical centers make substantial efforts to respond to the unmet needs of patients. In most countries, there is a high awareness of RD issues. Scarcity of resources was highlighted as a major problem, leading to reduced availability of diagnostic expertise and research. Serious equity in accessibility to services were highlighted both within and between participating countries. Regulatory problems, including securing informed consent, difficulties in sending DNA to foreign laboratories, protection of intellectual property, and conflicts of interest on the part of service providers, remain issues of concern. Finally, most respondents stressed the need to strengthen international cooperation in terms of data sharing, clinical research, and diagnostic expertise for URD patients in low and medium income countries.

Discussion

The survey highlighted that many countries experienced a discrepancy between the growing expertise and scientific value, the level of awareness and commitment on the part of relevant parties, and funding bodies. Country-tailored public health actions, including general syllabus of medical schools and of the education of other health professionals, are needed to reduce such gaps.

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.

An international comparative analysis of public reimbursement of orphan drugs in Canadian provinces compared to European countries

BACKGROUND

The Canadian government has committed to developing a national strategy for drugs for rare diseases starting in 2022. Considering this announcement, we conducted a comparative analysis to examine patient access to therapies for rare disease in Canada relative to Europe and the U.S.

METHODS

Given its similarity to the Canadian health care system, we used Europe as the reference point to analyze all of the therapies with an orphan drug designation approved by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) from 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2020. We then contrasted access to these drugs in Canada (Health Canada) and the U.S. (Food and Drug Administration, FDA). We focused on: (1) the number of therapies for rare diseases entering the Canadian market; (2) the percentage of these therapies that are publicly available to Canadians; and (3) the timelines for patients to access these therapies in Canada.

RESULTS

Sixty-three approved therapies with an orphan drug designation from the EMA were identified. Fifty-three (84%) of these drugs had also been submitted to the FDA for approval, and 41 (65%) were submitted to Health Canada for approval. In Europe, Germany, Denmark, and the U.K. had the highest percentage of publicly reimbursed orphan drugs (84%, 70%, 68%, respectively). In comparison, Ontario (32%), Quebec (25%), and Alberta (25%) had the highest percentage of drugs reimbursed among the Canadian provinces. The shortest median duration (in months) from EMA approval to jurisdictional decision on reimbursement was in Austria (3.2), followed by Germany (4.1), and Finland (6.0). In Canada, the shortest median duration (in months) from regulatory approval to reimbursement was in British Columbia (17.3), Quebec (19.6) and Manitoba (19.6), while the longest duration was in P.E.I (38.5), followed by Nova Scotia (25.9), and Newfoundland (25.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Our comparative analysis found that relative to the EU Canadians had less frequent and timely access to therapies for rare diseases. This highlights the need for a rare disease strategy in Canada that allows for clear identification and transparent tracking of the pathway for rare disease drugs, and ultimately optimizes the number of patients with access to these therapies.

Treatment Guidelines for Rare, Early-Onset, Treatment-Resistant Epileptic Conditions: A Literature Review on Dravet Syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome and CDKL5 Deficiency Disorder

Background: Dravet syndrome (DS), Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) and CDKL5 deficiency disorder (CDD) are rare epileptic conditions, characterised by drug-resistant seizures. Seizure management in these patients requires careful therapy selection. This targeted literature review (TLR) aimed to collate and synthesise information from country-specific and international treatment guidelines for DS, LGS and CDD. Methods: A TLR was performed between 25th January and 11th March 2021. Online rare diseases and guideline databases were manually searched in addition to websites of national health technology assessment bodies for the following countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Spain, Switzerland, UK and US, as defined by pre-specified eligibility criteria. Search terms, developed for each condition, were translated into local languages where appropriate. Descriptive analyses were performed to examine the geographical distribution of included guidelines; methodologies used to develop guidelines; cross-referencing of treatment recommendations made within other guidelines; patterns of treatment recommendations. An author map was created using R version 3.5.1, to visualise the extent of collaboration between authors. Results: Forty total guidelines were included, of which 29, 34 and 0 contained recommendations for DS, LGS and CDD, respectively (some provided recommendations for ≥1 condition). Most were country-specific, with guideline authors predominantly publishing in regional groups. Five guidelines were classified as "International" and displayed connections between author groups in the US, UK, France and Italy. Reported guideline development processes were lacking [43% (17 guidelines) had unclear/absent literature review methodologies] and those reported were variable, including both systematic and targeted literature reviews. Use of expert consultation was also variable. A high degree of heterogeneity was observed in the availability of treatment recommendations across disorders, with 271 and 190 recommendations for LGS and DS, respectively, and contradictory positive and negative treatment recommendations for several drugs in each indication [35% (11/31) and 22% (6/27) in LGS and DS, respectively]. Conclusions: This review highlights the need for further high-quality international consensus-based treatment guidelines for LGS, DS, and particularly for CDD (for which no treatment guidelines were identified). Supra-national consensus guidance based on findings from a wider geographical range may improve resource allocation and establish an improved world-wide standard of care.

Chemotherapy for ovarian cancer during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case reports and series

AIM

This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of chemotherapy in ovarian cancer patients in pregnancy.

METHODS

In this study, eligible studies were searched on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to December 31, 2020. Data were calculated and presented by frequency and percentage, mean ± standard deviation (SD), and median (range), respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Finally, 34 studies including 40 ovarian cancer cases receiving chemotherapy during pregnancy were included. All 40 patients received chemotherapy during pregnancy. During the follow-up, seven of 37 (18.9%) women had a relapse and four of them (4/7, 57.1%) died of recurrence. Survival analysis failed to reach median OS and PFS within the follow-up (range 3-72 months). Better OS and PFS after chemotherapy in pregnancy were obtained in women with early-stage ovarian cancer (I) compared with those with advanced stage (III-IV). Neither OS nor FS differed between women treated with multi-drugs and those with monotherapy. Forty-one newborns were delivered from 40 pregnant women. Thirty-four (34/41, 82.9%) were completely healthy at birth and the end of follow-up (range 0.18-160 months). However, one newborn died 5 days after birth due to multiple congenital malformations, and another one developed Tourette's syndrome, aphasia, Asperger's syndrome as well as speech delay.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis first reveals the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy for ovarian cancer during pregnancy, especially for early-stage patients. Cisplatin or carboplatin is suggested to be used as monotherapy to reduce adverse effects.

Associations between uncertainties identified by the European Medicines Agency and national decision making on reimbursement by HTA agencies

We aimed to determine whether uncertainties identified by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were associated with negative relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and negative overall reimbursement recommendations by national health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Therefore, we identified all HTA reports from Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS; France), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE; England/Wales), Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC; Scotland), and Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN; The Netherlands) for a cohort of innovative medicines that the EMA had approved in 2009 to 2010 (excluding vaccines). Uncertainty regarding pivotal trial methodology, clinical outcomes, and their clinical relevance were combined to reflect a low, medium, or high level of uncertainty. We assessed associations by calculating risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and agreement between REA and overall reimbursement recommendation outcomes. We identified 36 medicines for which 121 reimbursement recommendations had been issued by the HTA agencies between September 2009 and July 2018. High versus low uncertainty was associated with an increased risk for negative REAs and negative overall reimbursement recommendations: RRs 1.9 (95% CI 0.9-3.9) and 1.6 (95% CI 0.7-3.5), respectively, which was supported by further sensitivity analyses. We identified a lack of agreement between 33 (27%) REA and overall reimbursement recommendation outcomes, which were mostly restricted recommendations that followed on negative REAs in case of low or medium uncertainty. In conclusion, high uncertainty identified by the EMA was associated with negative REAs and negative overall reimbursement recommendations. To reduce uncertainty and ultimately facilitate efficient patient access, regulators, HTA agencies, and other stakeholders should discuss how uncertainties should be weighed and addressed early in the drug life cycle of innovative treatments.

Dynamics of patents, orphan drug designation, licensing, and revenues from drugs for rare diseases: The market expansion of eculizumab

BACKGROUND

This study examines the dynamics of the eculizumab patenting, orphan designation, and marketing authorization process in different countries and regulatory systems and analyzes drug revenues since its first marketing authorization.

METHODS

A retrospective case study was conducted. Multiple information sources were used to: determine the status of eculizumab patents; examine the designation of orphan drug status by US, European, Japanese, and Brazilian regulatory authorities to determine registration status and approved clinical indications; estimate the prevalence of associated clinical conditions; investigate the history of the drug manufacturer, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and its financialized business model; and examine global eculizumab sales revenues since its first marketing authorization.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 32 patent families divided into 98 applications. The first patent granted was filed in 1995 by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the US. Eculizumab has always been as an orphan drug, except in the Brazilian regulatory agency. All clinical indications approved thus far refer to rare diseases (e.g., paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria syndrome, atypical hemolytic-uremic syndrome, refractory and generalized myasthenia gravis, and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder). Alexion's revenues amounted to more than US$25 billion between 2007 and 2019, showing a growing trend. Eculizumab led sales from the beginning, being the only product in the company's portfolio until 2015. In 2019, the drug accounted for 79.1% of all revenues.

DISCUSSION

Our findings show that a strategy focused on obtaining orphan drug designation, expanding therapeutic indications and the geographic range of marketing approvals, extending monopoly periods, and prioritizing public procurement niches has enhanced revenues and helped the company achieve leadership in a highly specific and profitable market.

The point-of-care use of a facial phenotyping tool in the genetics clinic: Enhancing diagnosis and education with machine learning

Computer-assisted pattern recognition platforms, such as Face2Gene® (F2G), can facilitate the diagnosis of children with rare genetic syndromes by comparing a patient's features to known genetic diagnoses. Our work designed, implemented, and evaluated an innovative model of care in clinical genetics in a heterogeneous and multicultural patient population that utilized this facial phenotyping software at the point-of-care. We assessed the performance of F2G by comparing the suggested diagnoses to the patient's confirmed molecular diagnosis. Providers' overall experiences with the technology and trainees' educational experiences were assessed with questionnaires. We achieved an overall diagnostic yield of 57%. This increased to 82% when cases diagnosed with syndromes not recognized by F2G were removed. The mean rank of a confirmed diagnosis in the top 10 was 2.3 (CI 1.5-3.2) and the mean gestalt score 37.6%. The most commonly suggested diagnoses were Noonan syndrome, mucopolysaccharidosis, and 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Our qualitative assessment revealed that clinicians and trainees saw value using the tool in practice. Overall, this work helped to implement an innovative patient care delivery model in clinical genetics that utilizes a facial phenotyping tool at the point-of-care. Our data suggest that F2G has utility in the genetics clinic as a clinical decision support tool in diverse populations, with a majority of patients having their eventual diagnosis listed in the top 10 suggested syndromes based on a photograph alone. It shows promise for further integration into clinical care and medical education, and we advocate for its continued use, adoption and refinement along with transparent and accountable industrial partnerships.

A master protocol to investigate a novel therapy acetyl-L-leucine for three ultra-rare neurodegenerative diseases: Niemann-Pick type C, the GM2 gangliosidoses, and ataxia telangiectasia

BACKGROUND

The lack of approved treatments for the majority of rare diseases is reflective of the unique challenges of orphan drug development. Novel methodologies, including new functionally relevant endpoints, are needed to render the development process more feasible and appropriate for these rare populations and thereby expedite the approval of promising treatments to address patients' high unmet medical need. Here, we describe the development of an innovative master protocol and primary outcome assessment to investigate the modified amino acid N-acetyl-L-leucine (Sponsor Code: IB1001) in three separate, multinational, phase II trials for three ultra-rare, autosomal-recessive, neurodegenerative disorders: Niemann-Pick disease type C (NPC), GM2 gangliosidoses (Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff disease; "GM2"), and ataxia telangiectasia (A-T).

METHODS/DESIGN

The innovative IB1001 master protocol and novel CI-CS primary endpoints were developed through a close collaboration between the Industry Sponsor, Key Opinion Leaders, representatives of the Patient Communities, and National Regulatory Authorities. As a result, the open-label, rater-blinded study design is considerate of the practical limitations of recruitment and retention of subjects in these ultra-orphan populations. The novel primary endpoint, the Clinical Impression of Change in Severity© (CI-CS), accommodates the heterogenous clinical presentation of NPC, GM2, and A-T: at screening, the principal investigator appoints for each patient a primary anchor test (either the 8-m walk test (8MWT) or 9-hole peg test of the dominant hand (9HPT-D)) based on his/her unique clinical symptoms. The anchor tests are videoed in a standardized manner at each visit to capture all aspects related to the patient's functional performance. The CI-CS assessment is ultimately performed by independent, blinded raters who compare videos of the primary anchor test from three periods: baseline, the end of treatment, and the end of a post-treatment washout. Blinded to the time point of each video, the raters make an objective comparison scored on a 7-point Likert scale of the change in the severity of the patient's neurological signs and symptoms from video A to video B. To investigate both the symptomatic and disease-modifying effects of treatment, N-acetyl-L-leucine is assessed during two treatment sequences: a 6-week parent study and 1-year extension phase.

DISCUSSION

The novel CI-CS assessment, developed through a collaboration of all stakeholders, is advantageous in that it better ensures the primary endpoint is functionally relevant for each patient, is able to capture small but meaningful clinical changes critical to the patients' quality of life (fine-motor skills; gait), and blinds the primary outcome assessment. The results of these three trials will inform whether N-acetyl-L-leucine is an effective treatment for NPC, GM2, and A-T and can also serve as a new therapeutic paradigm for the development of future treatments for other orphan diseases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The three trials (IB1001-201 for Niemann-Pick disease type C (NPC), IB1001-202 for GM2 gangliosidoses (Tay-Sachs and Sandhoff), IB1001-203 for ataxia telangiectasia (A-T)) have been registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03759639; NCT03759665; NCT03759678), www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu (EudraCT: 2018-004331-71; 2018-004406-25; 2018-004407-39), and https://www.germanctr.de (DR KS-ID: DRKS00016567; DRKS00017539; DRKS00020511).

Development and Use of Gene Therapy Orphan Drugs-Ethical Needs for a Broader Cooperation Between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Society

Gene therapy orphan medicinal products constitute a unique group of new drugs which in case of hereditary diseases are usually administered only once at an early age, in the hope to provide sufficient gene product to last for the entire life of the patients. The combination of an exceptionally large single payment and the life-long clinical follow-up needed for understanding the long-term benefits and safety of gene therapy, represent new types of scientific, financial, social and ethical challenges for the pharmaceutical industry, regulators and society. With special consideration of the uniqueness and importance of gene therapy, the authors propose a three points plan for a close cooperation between the pharmaceutical industry and society to develop orphan gene therapy. (1) In fully transparent health technology negotiations a close and long-lasting, contractually fixed cooperation should be established between the manufacturers and local health-care stakeholders for sharing the medical and scientific benefits, the financial risks as well as the burdens of the post-authorization clinical and regulatory development. (2) The parties should agree on a fair, locally affordable drug price without the usually very high premium price calculated to compensate for the low number of patients. In case of high manufacturing costs, the companies should offer prolonged, 15–20 years long payment by installment with risk-sharing, especially considering that the late outcome of the treatment is unknown. Society should assist scientifically and financially organizing a specific patient registry, treatment in specialized hospitals and adequate long-term follow-up of patients, the coordinated management of financial transactions related to the risk sharing program. (3) The post-authorization treatment and prolonged observation of additional new cases coordinated by society should provide real world data needed for the modern complex regulatory evaluation of gene therapy products by the competent authorities. We assume that fair sharing of the benefits and risks as well as a well-organized cooperation of society with the industry in collecting real world evidence might result in better drug evaluation and improved accessibility due to lower prices. The outlined concept might support gene therapy more efficiently than the presently requested outstandingly high prices.

National Pharmacare in Canada: Equality or Equity, Accessibility or Affordability Comment on "Universal Pharmacare in Canada: A Prescription for Equity in Healthcare"

Canada's federal government intends to take steps to implement national pharmacare so that all Canadians have prescription drug coverage they need at an affordable price. Relatively limited funds have so far been pledged to support national pharmacare, which raises the question: what kind of program is envisioned? Since the government has already introduced regulations intended to reduce new drug prices drastically, national pharmacare seems likely to be a basic system designed to assist low-income Canadians with accessing primary care medicines. What Canadians actually need is a system that provides access to the medicine considered appropriate by the patient and their healthcare provider for the patient's specific condition. Equitable national pharmacare will not be achieved if patients are denied access to new high-cost specialized medicines that can improve or extend their lives, any more than if patients who cannot afford basic drugs are not helped.

The Value of Case Reports in Systematic Reviews from Rare Diseases. The Example of Enzyme Replacement Therapy (ERT) in Patients with Mucopolysaccharidosis Type II (MPS-II)

BACKGROUND

Case reports are usually excluded from systematic reviews. Patients with rare diseases are more dependent on novel individualized strategies than patients with common diseases. We reviewed and summarized the novelties reported by case reports in mucopolysaccharidosis type II (MPS-II) patients treated with enzyme replacement therapy (ERT).

METHODS

We selected the case reports included in a previous meta-analysis of patients with MPS-II treated with ERT. Later clinical studies evaluating the same topic of those case reports were reported. Our primary aim was to summarize novelties reported in previous case reports. Secondary objectives analyzed the number of novelties evaluated in subsequent clinical studies and the time elapsed between the publication of the case report to the publication of the clinical study.

RESULTS

We identified 11 innovative proposals in case reports that had not been previously considered in clinical studies. Only two (18.2%) were analyzed in subsequent nonrandomized cohort studies. The other nine novelties (81.8%) were analyzed in later case reports (five) or were not included in ulterior studies (four) after more than five years from their first publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Case reports should be included in systematic reviews of rare disease to obtain a comprehensive summary of the state of research and offer valuable information for healthcare practitioners.

Can Standard Health Technology Assessment Approaches Help Guide the Price of Orphan Drugs in Canada? A Review of Submissions to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Common Drug Review

Orphan drugs have high acquisition costs and when standard health technology assessment (HTA) approaches are used to assess their cost-effectiveness, they often appear not cost-effective. The Canadian Patented Medicine Review Board (PMPRB), through new regulations, will apply HTA assessment results from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) and Institut national d’excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS) when setting the maximum price that can be charged for Category I patented medicines (treatments with an annual cost exceeding 150% of GDP per capita of Canada or with expected annual market size >$50M). Through these regulations, PMPRB has also established a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD$200,000 or CAD$150,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) for medications with a prevalence of no more than 1 in 2000 across all approved indications. We reviewed the orphan drug submissions made to CADTH’s Common Drug Review (CDR) January 2015–May 2020 to understand how the methodology of assessing cost-effectiveness of orphan drugs has guided pricing in Canada. A total of 35 orphan drug submissions were assessed by CDR in this period, none of which met the willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD$50,000 per QALY. Only one drug met the CAD$200,000 per QALY for Therapeutic Criteria Level I, and two drugs met CAD$150,000 per QALY for other Therapeutic Criteria Levels proposed by PMPRB. Price reductions of 32–99% were recommended for treatments that were approved in order to be listed for reimbursement. This review showed that the new PMPRB regulations could be creating challenges for manufacturers of rare disease treatments to meet Canadian pricing regulations. These regulations may jeopardize the launch of new medicines and limit opportunities to add to the development of real-world evidence of orphan drugs, which can be used in reimbursement approaches such as pay-for-performance.

Are supplemental appraisal/reimbursement processes needed for rare disease treatments? An international comparison of country approaches

Background

There is increasing recognition that conventional appraisal approaches may be unsuitable for assessing the value rare disease treatments (RDTs). This research examines what supplemental appraisal/reimbursement processes for RDTs are used internationally and how they can be characterised. A qualitative research design was used that included (1) documentation of country appraisal/reimbursement processes for RDTs via questionnaires, desk research and iterative interactions with country experts to produce country vignettes, and (2) a cross-country analysis of these processes to identify and characterise features in supplemental processes for RDTs, and compare them to countries without supplemental processes.

Results

Thirty-two of the 37 invited countries participated in this research. Forty-one percent (13/32) use supplemental processes for RDTs. Their level of integration within standard processes ranged from low to high, characterised by whether they are separate or partially separate from the standard process, adapted or accelerated standard processes, or standard processes that may be applied to RDTs. They are characterised by features implemented throughout the appraisal process. These features are mechanisms that allow application of different standards to assess the value of the medicine, support to the appraisal/decision-making process, overcome the issues of lack of cost-effectiveness, or exempt from part of/the full appraisal/reimbursement process. They increase the likelihood of reimbursement by adjusting and/or foregoing part of the assessment process, or accepting to pay more for the same added benefit as for common conditions. A large proportion of countries with standard processes include one or more of these features (formally or informally) or are discussing potential changes in their systems.

Conclusions

Results suggest revealed preferences to treat RDTs differently than conventional medicines. Some of the challenges around uncertainty and high price remain, but supplemental process features can support decision-making that is more flexible and consistent. Many of these processes are new and countries continue to adjust as they gain experience.

Alignment of health technology assessments and price negotiations for new drugs for rare disorders in Canada: Does it lead to improved patient access?

A previous assessment of submissions for rare disorder drugs made to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) found that, from 2012, all positive recommendations included criteria advocating a price reduction. Since 2016, CADTH and the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA), which conducts drug price negotiations with manufacturers for all public drug programs, have aligned their processes. This analysis examined drugs for rare and ultra-rare disorders (DRDs and DURDs)-prevalence of ≤20 to >2 and ≤2 per 100,000, respectively-with a completed pCPA negotiation or no negotiation between 2014 and 2018, together with their reimbursement recommendations and listings in public drug programs. A positive recommendation led to a successful price negotiation for 81.8% and 78.6% of the DRD and DURD submissions and a negative recommendation to no negotiation for 100.0% and 66.7%. Less than half the recommendations for DURDs reported before 2016 mentioned the need for a substantial price reduction, but this increased to 80% in those reported from 2016 onwards. A successful price negotiation led to listing in the majority of the public drug programs and a negative recommendation usually led to no listing. The CADTH-pCPA alignment is working for the governments who own and fund public drug programs but has yet to lead to coverage for all appropriate patients in all provinces. There is still a way to go to ensure that patients with unmet needs can access high-cost innovative medicines that alleviate suffering, prevent premature death, and/or significantly improve their quality of life.

Using a meta-narrative literature review and focus groups with key stakeholders to identify perceived challenges and solutions for generating robust evidence on the effectiveness of treatments for rare diseases

INTRODUCTION

For many rare diseases, strong analytic study designs for evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions are challenging to implement because of small, geographically dispersed patient populations and underlying clinical heterogeneity. The objective of this study was to integrate perspectives from published literature and key rare disease stakeholders to better understand the perceived challenges and proposed methodological approaches to research on clinical interventions for rare diseases.

METHODS

We used a meta-narrative literature review and focus group interviews with key rare disease stakeholders to better understand the perceived challenges in generating and synthesizing treatment effectiveness evidence, and to describe various research methods for mitigating these identified challenges. Data from both components of this study were synthesized narratively according to research paradigms that emerged from our data.

RESULTS

Results from our meta-narrative literature review and focus group interviews revealed three fundamental challenges in generating robust treatment effectiveness evidence for rare diseases: i) limitations in recruiting a sufficient sample size to achieve planned statistical power; ii) inability to account for clinical heterogeneity and assess treatment effects across a clinical spectrum; and iii) reliance on short-term, surrogate outcomes whose clinical relevance is often unclear. We mapped these challenges and associated solutions to three interrelated research paradigms: i) explanatory evidence generation; ii) comparative effectiveness/pragmatic evidence generation; and iii) patient-oriented evidence generation. Within each research paradigm, numerous criticisms and potential solutions have been described with respect to overcoming these challenges from a research study design perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Over time, discussions about clinical research for interventions for rare diseases have moved beyond methodological approaches to overcome challenges related to explanatory evidence generation, with increased recognition of the importance of pragmatic and patient-oriented evidence. Future directions for our work include developing a framework to expand current evidence synthesis practices to take into consideration many of the concepts discussed in this paper.

Challenges in Research and Health Technology Assessment of Rare Disease Technologies: Report of the ISPOR Rare Disease Special Interest Group

BACKGROUND

Successful development of new treatments for rare diseases (RDs) and their sustainable patient access require overcoming a series of challenges related to research and health technology assessment (HTA). These impediments, which may be unique to RDs or also apply to common diseases but are particularly pertinent in RDs, are diverse and interrelated.

OBJECTIVE

To develop for the first time a catalog of primary impediments to RD research and HTA, and to describe the cause and effect of individual challenges.

METHODS

Challenges were identified by an international 22-person expert working group and qualitative outreach to colleagues with relevant expertise. A broad range of stakeholder perspectives is represented. Draft results were presented at annual European and North American International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) congresses, and written comments were received by the 385-strong ISPOR Rare Disease Review Group from two rounds of review. Findings were refined and confirmed via targeted literature search.

RESULTS

Research-related challenges linked to the low prevalence of RDs were categorized into those pertaining to disease recognition and diagnosis, evaluation of treatment effect, and patient recruitment for clinical research. HTA-related challenges were classified into issues relating to the lack of a tailored HTA method for RD treatments and uncertainty for HTA agencies and health care payers.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying and highlighting diverse, but interrelated, key challenges in RD research and HTA is an essential first step toward developing implementable and sustainable solutions. A collaborative multistakeholder effort is required to enable faster and less costly development of safe, efficacious, and appropriate new RD therapies that offer value for money.