Adkins Elizabeth M, Nicholson Lindsay, Floyd David, Ratcliffe Mark, Chevrou-Severac Helene
PHMR, London, UK.
Takeda Pharmaceuticals AG, Zurich, Switzerland.
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2017 Jun 10;9:327-342. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S134230. eCollection 2017.
Orphan drugs (ODs) are intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of rare diseases. Many cancer subtypes, including all childhood cancers, are defined as rare diseases, and over one-third of ODs are now intended to treat oncology indications. However, market access for oncology ODs is becoming increasingly challenging; ODs are prone to significant uncertainty around their cost-effectiveness, while payers must balance the need for these vital innovations with growing sensitivity to rising costs. The objective of this review was to evaluate different mechanisms that have been introduced to facilitate patient access to oncology ODs in five different countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, and Sweden), using eight oncology ODs and non-orphan oncology drugs as examples of their application. A targeted literature review of health technology assessment (HTA) agency websites was undertaken to identify country-specific guidance and HTA documentation for recently evaluated oncology ODs and non-orphan oncology drugs. None of these countries were found to have explicit HTA criteria for the assessment of ODs, and therefore, oncology ODs are assessed through the usual HTA process. However, distinct and additional processes are adopted to facilitate access to oncology ODs. Review of eight case-study drugs showed that these additional assessment processes were rarely used, and decisions were largely driven by proving cost-effectiveness using standard incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds. The predominant implication arising from this study is that application of standard HTA criteria to oncology ODs in many countries fails to take into account any uncertainties around their clinical- and cost-effectiveness, resulting in disparities in HTA reimbursement decisions based on differences in addressing or accepting uncertainty. In order to address this issue, HTA agencies should adopt a more flexible approach to cost-effectiveness, as typified by the Tandvårds-och Läkemedelsförmånsverket in Sweden, which takes into account the small patient numbers involved, limited budget impact, and high unmet medical needs.
孤儿药旨在用于罕见病的诊断、预防或治疗。许多癌症亚型,包括所有儿童癌症,都被定义为罕见病,目前超过三分之一的孤儿药用于治疗肿瘤适应症。然而,肿瘤孤儿药的市场准入正变得越来越具有挑战性;孤儿药在成本效益方面往往存在很大的不确定性,而支付方必须在对这些重要创新药物的需求与对成本上升的日益敏感之间取得平衡。本综述的目的是评估五个不同国家(澳大利亚、加拿大、英国、法国和瑞典)为促进患者获得肿瘤孤儿药而引入的不同机制,以八种肿瘤孤儿药和非孤儿肿瘤药物为例说明其应用情况。针对卫生技术评估(HTA)机构网站进行了有针对性的文献综述,以确定最近评估的肿瘤孤儿药和非孤儿肿瘤药物的国家特定指南和HTA文件。发现这些国家均没有评估孤儿药的明确HTA标准,因此,肿瘤孤儿药是通过常规的HTA流程进行评估的。然而,采用了不同的额外流程来促进肿瘤孤儿药的获取。对八种案例研究药物的审查表明,这些额外的评估流程很少使用,决策主要是通过使用标准增量成本效益比(ICER)阈值来证明成本效益来驱动的。这项研究产生的主要影响是,许多国家将标准HTA标准应用于肿瘤孤儿药时,未能考虑其临床和成本效益方面的任何不确定性,导致基于处理或接受不确定性方面的差异而在HTA报销决策上存在差异。为了解决这个问题,HTA机构应该采用更灵活的成本效益方法,瑞典的卫生和医疗福利局就是一个典型例子,它考虑到了涉及的患者数量少、预算影响有限以及未满足的医疗需求高。