Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Basking Ridge, NJ, USA.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2022 Feb;40(2):225-232. doi: 10.1007/s40273-021-01096-5. Epub 2021 Oct 26.
Orphan drugs' high prices raise questions about whether their costs are worth their benefits. We examined the association between an orphan drug's cost-effectiveness and health plan coverage restrictiveness.
We analyzed a dataset of US commercial health plan coverage decisions (information current as of 2019) for orphan drugs (n = 3298). We used multi-level random-effect logistic regression to examine the association between orphan drug cost-effectiveness and coverage restrictiveness. We identified cost-effectiveness estimates from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's value assessments. We included only cost-effectiveness studies not funded by product manufacturers. We included the following independent variables: cancer indication, availability of alternatives, pediatric population, number of years since US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, disease prevalence, annual cost, additional non-orphan indication, safety, and inclusion in a FDA expedited review program.
Plans restricted drug coverage in 29.7% (n = 981) of decisions. Plans were more likely to restrict drugs with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $50,000-$175,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] (odds ratio = 1.855, p < 0.05), $175,000-$500,000 per QALY (odds ratio = 1.859, p < 0.05), and >$500,000 per QALY/dominated (odds ratio = 2.032, p < 0.01), compared to drugs with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$50,000 per QALY. Plans more often restricted drugs with non-cancer indications, having available alternatives, with more recent approval, in an FDA expedited review program, and for which the FDA additionally issued approval for a non-orphan disease. Plans more often restricted drugs with higher annual costs, and drugs indicated for higher prevalence diseases. All findings p < 0.05.
Among other factors, an orphan drug's cost-effectiveness was associated with health plan drug coverage restrictiveness.
孤儿药的高价引发了人们对其成本效益是否值得的质疑。我们研究了孤儿药的成本效益与其健康计划覆盖范围限制之间的关系。
我们分析了美国商业健康计划覆盖决策(截至 2019 年的信息)的数据集,其中包括 3298 种孤儿药。我们使用多层次随机效应逻辑回归来检验孤儿药成本效益与覆盖范围限制之间的关系。我们从塔夫茨医疗中心成本效益分析登记处和临床与经济审查研究所的价值评估中确定了成本效益估计。我们仅包括不受产品制造商资助的成本效益研究。我们包括了以下独立变量:癌症指征、替代品的可用性、儿科人群、美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)批准后的年数、疾病流行率、年度成本、非孤儿适应证、安全性以及纳入 FDA 加速审查计划。
在 29.7%(n=981)的决策中,计划限制了药物的覆盖范围。计划更有可能限制增量成本效益比为每质量调整生命年(QALY)50000-175000 美元的药物(优势比=1.855,p<0.05)、175000-500000 美元/QALY(优势比=1.859,p<0.05)和>500000 美元/QALY/占优(优势比=2.032,p<0.01),与增量成本效益比<50000 美元/QALY 的药物相比。计划更经常限制非癌症适应证、有替代品、最近批准、纳入 FDA 加速审查计划且 FDA 额外批准非孤儿疾病适应证的药物。计划更经常限制年度成本较高的药物,以及用于高流行疾病的药物。所有发现 p<0.05。
在其他因素中,孤儿药的成本效益与其健康计划药物覆盖范围限制有关。