Determining the value of medical technologies to treat ultra-rare disorders: a consensus statement

Fair Funding Decisions: Consistency of the Time Horizons Used in the Calculation of Quality-Adjusted Life Years for Therapies for Very Rare Diseases by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England uses quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments. A QALY is a measure that combines the size of the clinical benefit of a treatment with the time the patient benefits from it, i.e., the time horizon. We wanted to know how consistently QALY gains are calculated at NICE. Therefore, we have analysed information on the time horizons used for the QALY calculations of the concluded evaluations conducted under the Highly Specialised Technologies programme for treatments of very rare diseases at NICE. For treatments with final guidance published by December 2023 (n = 29), a time horizon of median 97.5 years (range: 35 to 125 years) was used to calculate the QALY gains. For most QALY calculations, the accepted time horizon was longer than either the expected treatment duration or the estimated life expectancy. In contrast, for the only technology with a final negative funding decision, i.e., afamelanotide for treating the lifelong chronic disease erythropoietic protoporphyria, a time horizon that was shorter than the expected treatment duration was used. The fairness and consistency of the evaluation process of treatments for very rare diseases at NICE should be reviewed.

How Does the Public Evaluate Vaccines for Low-Incidence, Severe-Outcome Diseases? A General-Population Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

Because immunizing large numbers of healthy people could be required to reduce a relatively small number of infections, disease incidence has a large impact on cost effectiveness, even if the infection is associated with very serious health outcomes. In addition to cost effectiveness, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices requires evidence of stakeholders' values and preferences to help inform vaccine recommendations. This study quantified general-population preferences for vaccine trade-offs among disease severity, disease incidence, and other vaccine features.

METHODS

We developed a best-practice discrete choice experiment survey and administered it to 1185 parents of children aged 12-23 years and 1203 young adults aged 18-25 years from a national opt-in consumer panel. The data were analyzed using exploded-logit latent-class analysis.

RESULTS

Latent-class analysis identified two classes with similar relative-importance weights in both samples. One of the two classes represented about half the samples and had preferences consistent with well-structured, logically ordered, and acceptably precise stated-preference utility. Preferences for the other half of the samples were poorly defined over the ranges of vaccine and disease attributes evaluated. Both parents and young adults in the first class evaluated protection from a disease with 1 in 100 incidence and full recovery at home as having statistically the same preference utility as a disease with 1 in 1 million incidence requiring hospitalization and resulting in permanent deafness.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that vaccines that protect against low-incidence, severe-outcome diseases, provide 'peace of mind' benefits not captured by standard health-outcome metrics. The fact that half the respondents had poorly defined vaccine preferences is a reminder of the challenges of implementing patient-centric vaccine decision making.

A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) applied to three long-term prophylactic treatments for hereditary angioedema in Spain

Introduction

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease that impairs quality of life and could be life-threatening. The aim of this study was to apply a multicriteria decision analysis to assess the value of three long-term prophylactic (LTP) therapies for HAE in Spain.

Methods

A multidisciplinary committee of 10 experts assessed the value of lanadelumab (subcutaneous use), C1-inhibitor (C1-INH; intravenous), and danazol (orally), using placebo as comparator. We followed the EVIDEM methodology that considers a set of 13 quantitative criteria. The overall estimated value of each intervention was obtained combining the weighting of each criterion with the scoring of each intervention in each criterion. We used two alternative weighting methods: hierarchical point allocation (HPA) and direct rating scale (DRS). A reevaluation of weightings and scores was performed.

Results

Lanadelumab obtained higher mean scores than C1-INH and danazol in all criteria, except for the cost of the intervention and clinical practice guidelines. Under the HPA method, the estimated values were 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.58) for lanadelumab, 0.47 (95%CI: 0.41-0.53) for C1-INH, and 0.31 (95%CI: 0.24-0.39) for danazol. Similar results were obtained with the DRS method: 0.51 (95%CI: 0.42-0.60), 0.47 (95%CI: 0.40-0.54), and 0.27 (95%CI: 0.18-0.37), respectively. The comparative cost of the intervention was the only criterion that contributed negatively to the values of lanadelumab and C1-INH. For danazol, four criteria contributed negatively, mainly comparative safety.

Conclusion

Lanadelumab was assessed as a high-value intervention, better than C1-INH and substantially better than danazol for LTP treatment of HAE.

Assessing the Value of Nusinersen for Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Comparative Analysis of Reimbursement Submission and Appraisal in European Countries

Background: Nusinersen is an orphan drug intended for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a severe genetic neuromuscular disorder. Considering the very high costs of orphan drugs and the expected market entry of cell and gene therapies, there is increased interest in the use of health technology assessment (HTA) for orphan drugs. This study explores the role of the economic evaluation and budget impact analysis on the reimbursement of nusinersen. Methods: Appraisal reports for nusinersen were retrieved from reimbursement and HTA agencies in Belgium, Canada, France, England and Wales, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United States. Detailed information was extracted on the economic evaluation, the budget impact, the overall reimbursement decision, and the managed entry agreement (MEA). Costs were adjusted for inflation and currency. Results: Overall, the reports included limited data on budget impact, excluding information on the sources of data for cost and patient estimates. Only three jurisdictions reported on total budget impact, estimated between 30 and 40 million euros per year. For early-onset SMA, the incremental cost-effectiveness threshold (ICER) ranged from €464,891 to €6,399,097 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for nusinersen versus standard of care. For later-onset SMA, the ICER varied from €493,756 to €10,611,936 per QALY. Although none of the jurisdictions found nusinersen to be cost-effective, reimbursement was granted in each jurisdiction. Remarkably, only four reports included arguments in favor of reimbursement. However, the majority of the jurisdictions set up an MEA, which may have promoted a positive reimbursement decision. Conclusion: There is a need for more transparency on the appraisal process and conditions included in the MEA. Additionally, by considering all relevant criteria explicitly during the appraisal process, decision-makers are in a better position to justify their allocation of funds among the rising number of orphan drugs that are coming to the market in the near future.

Evaluating Discrete Choice Experiment Willingness to Pay [DCE-WTP] analysis, and Relative Social Willingness to Pay [RS-WTP] analysis in a Health Technology Assessment of a treatment for an ultra-rare childhood disease [CLN2]

BACKGROUND

: Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis [CEA] using cost per QALY thresholds may counteract other incentives introduced to foster development of treatments for rare and ultra-rare diseases. Therefore, alternative economic evaluation methods were explored, namely Discrete Choice Experiment Willingness to Pay (DCE-WTP) and Relative Social Willingness to Pay (RS-WTP), to value interventions for an ultra-rare childhood disease, Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis type 2 (CLN2).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Treatment for CLN2 was valued from a citizen's ("social") perspective using DCE-WTP and RS-WTP in a survey of 4,009 United Kingdom [UK] adults. Three attributes (initial quality of life, treatment effect, and life expectancy) were used in both analyses. For DCE-WTP a cost attribute (marginal income tax increase) was also included. Optimal econometric models were identified.

RESULTS

DCE-WTP indicated that UK adults are willing to pay incremental increases through taxation for improvements in CLN2 attributes. RS-WTP identified a willingness to allocate >40% of a pre-assigned healthcare budget to prevent child mortality and approximately 15% for improved health status.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques illustrated substantive social WTP for CLN2 interventions, despite the small number of children benefitting. This highlights a gap between UK citizens' willingness to spend on rare disease interventions and current funding policies.

How Much Does It Cost to Research and Develop a New Drug? A Systematic Review and Assessment

BACKGROUND

Debate over the viability of the current commercial research and development (R&D) model is ongoing. A controversial theme is the cost of bringing a new molecular entity (NME) to market.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate the range and suitability of published R&D cost estimates as to the degree to which they represent the actual costs of industry.

METHODS

We provided a systematic literature review based on articles found in the Pubmed, Embase and EconLit electronic databases, and in a previously published review. Articles published before March 2020 that estimated the total R&D costs were included (22 articles with 45 unique cost estimates). We included only literature in which the methods used to collect the information and to estimate the R&D costs were clearly described; therefore, three reports were excluded. We extracted average pre-launch R&D costs per NME and converted the values to 2019 US dollars (US$) using the gross domestic product (GDP) price deflator. We appraised the suitability of the R&D estimated costs by using a scoring system that captures three domains: (1) how success rates and development time used for cost estimation were obtained; (2) whether the study considered potential sources contributing to the variation in R&D costs; and (3) what the components of the cost estimation were.

RESULTS

Estimates of total average capitalized pre-launch R&D costs varied widely, ranging from $161 million to $4.54 billion (2019 US$). Therapeutic area-specific estimates were highest for anticancer drugs (between $944 million and $4.54 billion). Our analysis identified a trend of increasing R&D costs per NME over time but did not reveal a relation between cost estimates and study ranking when the suitability scores were assessed. We found no evidence of an increase in suitability scores over time.

CONCLUSION

There is no universally correct answer regarding how much it costs, on average, to research and develop an NME. Future studies should explicitly address previously neglected variables, which likely explain some variability in estimates, and consider the trade-off between the transparency and public accessibility of data and their specificity. Use of our proposed suitability scoring system may assist in addressing such issues.

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.

TRUST4RD: tool for reducing uncertainties in the evidence generation for specialised treatments for rare diseases

Background

Many treatments developed for rare diseases will have an Orphan Medicinal Product (OMP) designation, indicating that they are likely to deliver benefit in an area of high unmet need. Their approval may be based on a small or uncontrolled trial, as randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of sufficient size are often difficult to conduct, or repeat, as a result of the rarity of the condition, sparsity of patients, or for ethical reasons. Furthermore, many products are given a conditional marketing authorisation, requiring additional evidence to be collected after product launch. This is even more challenging with the advent of advanced therapeutic medicinal products, which use novel scientific approaches like gene or somatic cell therapy.

Issue

Given the high unmet need associated with these products, there is pressure for Health Technology Assessment (HTA)/reimbursement bodies to enable rapid access to effective treatments. However, there is often only limited evidence available for assessment.

Methods

TRUST4RD proposes an approach to identify uncertainties of most concern for decision-makers by developing an iterative and informed dialogue amongst stakeholders (including manufacturers, clinicians, patients, regulatory- and HTA agencies and payers), so that potential approaches to resolution can be discussed. As evidence is generated, uncertainties are reviewed and prioritised, and evidence-generation plans revised or clarified accordingly. The aim is to develop – both pre- and post HTA submission – a better understanding of evidence requirements versus evidence-generation trade-offs as an evidence base grows and the potential value of a product becomes clearer.

Conclusion

TRUST4RD presents guidance on defining uncertainties and evidence gaps in the assessment of value and value for money of specialised treatments for rare diseases. It also provides guidance on the potential of Real World Evidence (RWE) to help address such uncertainties, including the typology of evidence uncertainties, the importance of different uncertainties and the data sources available to address them before and after HTA submission. In making use of the guidance, authorisation and reimbursement discussions on such treatments can be embedded in an evidence-rich context, thereby ensuring value to all parties, particularly to patients.

Health technology assessment (HTA) and economic evaluation: efficiency or fairness first

The economic evaluation which supports Health Technology Assessment (HTA) should inform policy makers of the value to society conferred by a given allocation of resources. However, neither the theory nor practise of economic evaluation satisfactorily reflect social values. Both are primarily concerned with efficiency, commonly conceptualised as the maximisation of utility or quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The focus is upon the service and the benefits obtained from it. This has resulted in an evaluation methodology which discriminates against groups and treatments which the population would like to prioritise. This includes high cost treatments for patients with rare diseases. In contrast with prevailing methods, there is increasing evidence that the public would prefer a fairness-focused framework in which the service was removed from centre stage and replaced by the patient. However methods for achieving fairness are ad hoc and under-developed. The article initially reviews the theory of economic evaluation and argues that its focus upon individual utility and efficiency as defined by the theory omits potentially important social values. Some empirical evidence relating to population values is presented and four studies by the first author are reviewed. These indicate that when people adopt the social perspective of a citizen they have a preference for sharing the health budget in a way which does not exclude patients who require services that are not cost effective, such as orphan medicinal products (OMP's) and treatments for patients with ultra-rare diseases (URD's).

Policies and availability of orphan medicines in outpatient care in 24 European countries

PURPOSE

To assess pricing and reimbursement policies specific to orphan medicines and the availability and distribution settings of ten recently authorised medicinal products suitable for outpatient care with orphan status and centralised marketing authorisation in Europe, and whether patients receive these products free of charge or have to pay some or all of the costs themselves.

METHODS

Web survey to authorities and representatives of third party payers in the Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information (PPRI) network in April 2016.

RESULTS

In most of the 24 countries, special policies were not implemented in the assessment of reimbursement status (22 countries) or in the pricing (20 countries) of orphan medicines. An average of five of the ten recently authorised products per country were available for outpatient care. Products were dispensed from community pharmacies in eight countries and from health care units in five countries. In four countries, both distribution settings were used. When products were dispensed from community pharmacies, patients typically paid some of the price themselves. Products dispensed from health care units were often free of charge for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Most European countries had not implemented pricing and reimbursement policies specific to orphan medicines. The availability of orphan products varied between countries. It is important to discuss whether orphan medicines should be considered as a separate group in the reimbursement regulations in order to secure patient access to these medicines.

DEFINING INNOVATION WITH RESPECT TO NEW MEDICINES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW FROM A PAYER PERSPECTIVE

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate how innovation is defined with respect to new medicines.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit databases were searched for articles published between January 1, 2010 and May 25, 2016 that described a relevant definition of innovation. Identified definitions were analyzed by mapping the concepts described onto a set of ten dimensions of innovation.

RESULTS

In total, thirty-six articles were included, and described a total of twenty-five different definitions of innovation. The most commonly occurring dimension was therapeutic benefit, with novelty and the availability of existing treatments the second and third most common dimensions. Overall, there was little agreement in the published literature on what characteristics of new medicines constitute rewardable innovation.

CONCLUSIONS

Alignment across countries and among regulators, health technology assessment bodies and payers would help manufacturers define research policies that can drive innovation, but may be challenging, as judgements about what aspects of innovation should be rewarded vary among stakeholders, and depend on political and societal factors.