Documents

OD Considerations in HTA in 8 EU Countries

Categories
Published
of 15
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Description
Considerations for orphan drug HTAs in 8 EU countries
Transcript
  RARE DISEASES AND ORPHAN DRUGS   An International Journal of Public Health page 83July 2014, Volume 1, Number 3 CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Panos Kanavose-mail: p.g.kanavos@lse.ac.uktel. +44 (0)20 7955 6802LSE HealthCowdray HouseLondon School of EconomicsHoughton StreetLondon WC2A 2AEUKDate published online: 27 July 2014 Copyright © 2014 David Tordrup et al.; licensee Istituto Superiore di Sanità. This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons license Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported, which permits to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and remix, transform, and build upon the material for non commercial use and provided that the srcinal work is properly cited. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ The Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs Journal has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement n° 305690: RARE-Bestpractices project: www.rarebestpractices.eu. Sole responsibility lies with the authors and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. WWW.RAREBESTPRACTICES.EU Orphan drug considerations in Health Technology Assessment in eight European countries David Tordrup 1 , Victoria Tzouma 1 , Panos Kanavos 1, 2 1 LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK; 2 Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK ABSTRACT ealth Technology Assessment (HTA) is used to assess the value of new technologies and by producing coverage recom-mendations it indirectly controls the uptake of new technologies in many European countries. While HTA generally relies on a robust assessment of the clinical cost-effectiveness of a new technology, the clinical and economic evidence required for this purpose is often not available for Orphan Drugs (ODs), partly because of challenges related to the recruitment of patients to participate in clinical trials. A number of European HTA agencies have started to implement specic policies to address the challenges related to evidence requirements for the case of ODs. In this study, we map out the policies currently in place in eight European countries regarding HTA and its application to the case of ODs and explore the implications these poli-cies have for coverage decisions.  KEYWORDS Health Technology Assessment, rare diseases, orphan drugs, health systems, comparative health policy, risk sharing H  RARE DISEASES AND ORPHAN DRUGS   An International Journal of Public Health page 84July 2014, Volume 1, Number 3www.rarejournal.org Orphan Drug considerations in Health Technology Assessment in eight European countries  David Tordrup et al. INTRODUCTION  Across many European Union (EU) health systems, well-dened processes are in place to determine expected value for money when new health care technologies, among them pharmaceuticals, come to market. These processes, collectively referred to as Health Technology Assessment (HTA), differ between countries in their methodological basis, and in the way value is de- termined, implying that the outcome of assessments can differ signicantly [1] with consequences for access to medicines across member states (MS) [2].Orphan drugs (ODs) treat conditions recognised as “rare” by generally accepted thresholds, with a prevalence of less than 5 cases per 10,000 population in the EU [3]. Because markets for ODs by denition are small, a variety of incentives exist to stimulate research and development into these disease areas both at national and EU level. In order to incentivise the process of drug approval, all new ODs seeking marketing authorisation (MA) are assessed at EU level by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). This ensures homogeneity in the assessment process. However, such homogeneity does not exist at the point where newly authorised ODs seek reimbursement by health systems in individual MS. This is because processes assessing reimbursement and value for money of new drugs, including orphans, differ quite signicantly across EU MS. As part of this variability in value as -sessment processes, including the way HTA is implemented, it is not uncommon for two health systems to arrive at different con- clusions about the value of a new product [4]. Indeed, recent evidence suggests that there is signicant variation in the outcomes of HTA processes for ODs across some MS, suggesting access to these drugs could be different across different health systems [5]. This is supported by a survey showing that 90% of a sample of 60 ODs was found to be available in France, the Nether-lands and Denmark, whereas only one third were available in Spain, Greece and Romania [6]. Financial considerations often inuence access to medicines in many countries. A recent survey reported that nearly a quarter of the 22 European countries surveyed (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania) restricted access to ODs due to budgetary constraints. Based on the same survey, only 5 countries always granted access to ODs, while several authorised access but with possible restrictions, such as prior authorisation [7]. In many cases, it is the outcome of the HTA process that determines on which grounds ODs should be made available or not. The conduct of HTA appraisals for ODs is associated with its own challenges, one of which is the recruitment of adequate numbers of patients into clinical trials due to the small overall patient population for a given indication [8]. Consequently, the extent of clinical evidence available at marketing authorisation (MA) and the level of statistical condence authorities can place in this evidence may fall short of what HTA agencies normally consider to be adequate [9]. This is particularly relevant for rare diseases (RDs), because the higher prices may not be commensurate to the expected level of evidence regarding benet. As a consequence, ODs are often not considered a cost-effective use of resources under stan -dard criteria; this has led to a number of exceptions in the way ODs are appraised, such as taking into account the severity of disease or the availability of therapeutic alternatives [10]. The relatively small budget impact of ODs in some cases has often facilitated their market entry, for example with Germany or France reimbursing ODs if the total budget for a particular indication is under a certain ceiling [11]. However, the overall budget impact of ODs has been increasing in recent years, raising questions for policy makers about the value for money they offer relative to other health interventions. In particular the European system of orphan drug designation has been criticised as a mechanism whereby pharmaceutical manufacturers “game” the system, achieving higher prices for their products across multiple indications [4]. There are also examples of ODs being approved for wider use, and of older molecules (e.g. thalidomide) being re-branded under an orphan indication with a mani-fold price increase [12]. The aim of special European legislation to encourage research and development in ODs was to make new treatments avail-able to patients, but it has been argued that high prices often associated with ODs are having the opposite effect. Additionally, the practices of international price referencing and parallel trade ensure that these high prices are similar across all EU countries. With the dominant position of an orphan MA, which in most cases will face no competition, it has even been suggested that it may be necessary to invoke EU competition law (Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) to scrutinise the fairness of these prices [13]. Such observations underline the need for a comprehensive understanding of value assessment mechanisms of ODs, so that prices may be understood and debated in their proper context. The European Commission has promoted the creation of a mecha-nism for the exchange of knowledge between the EU MS and European Authorities on Clinical Added Value for Orphan Drugs (CAVOD), whereby a mechanism has been proposed to facilitate MS in the scientic assessment of the clinical effectiveness of ODs and develop a bridge between pre-market authorisation phases (clinical development) at EU level and post-marketing au-and post-marketing au-nd post-marketing au-thorisation phases at MS level [14]. More recently, the Mechanism of Coordinated Access to Orphan Medicinal Products (MOCA) led by the European Commission aimed to enhance patient access to ODs based on programmes between manufacturers and groups of competent authorities [15].Many aspects need to be considered in the context of national OD reimbursement: The lack of existing treatment options due to rarity of the condition and equity of access to treatment among different population segments, as well as providing fair returns on investment for research-based entities, while facing the reality of budget constraints. The objective of this study is to outline the existing national policies for ODs with particular emphasis on special considerations made in the HTA process in  RARE DISEASES AND ORPHAN DRUGS   An International Journal of Public Health page 85July 2014, Volume 1, Number 3www.rarejournal.org Orphan Drug considerations in Health Technology Assessment in eight European countries  David Tordrup et al. order to understand the explicit criteria in place for OD reimbursement. The study goes beyond HTA to encompass aspects of policy such as risk-sharing agreements at MS level and explores the implications for access. METHODS The study relies on primary and secondary evidence drawn from eight EU Member States. The study countries are England, France, Germa-ny, Italy, Poland, Scotland, Spain and Sweden and were selected because of the variety in their health system nancing (tax and social insurance-based), organisation (central and regional organisation and delivery of services) and HTA processes they use. For example, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England implements a health system perspective, while Sweden follows a societal approach to value assessment; France, on the other hand, implements a clinical approach to value assessment rather than relying on cost-effec-tiveness (until the end of 2013), for prescription medicines licensed for the rst time, whereas in Spain HTA may be used at regional level to inform decision-making in some technologies, although this is not routine practice across all health tech-nologies and, in particular, pharmaceutical prod-ucts. Formal processes within each country for the appraisal of ODs were identied and reviewed by searching the relevant government agency websites for “rare diseases” in the local language, supplemented by searches of the peer review literature. The search strategy for the identication of OD assessment processes is presented in detail in Table 1 . To ensure consistency of the search algorithm, Google (http://www.google.com ) was used to perform the search using the “site” modier, and the rst 20 results were screened for relevance for each country. The ndings were conrmed and supplemented by 15 national key informants (KIs) by conducting semi-structured inter -views, which took place from May 2013 to August 2013. KIs were presented with results from the grey literature search and were invited to add any additional information or clarications. The questions shown on Table 2  have guided these discussions. The difference in the number of individuals contacted and interviewed reects differences in the input provided by each informant and the structure of the health system in each of the study countries: England (1), France (3), Germany (2), Italy (3), Poland (1), Table 1. Search strategy for the identification of Orphan Drugs assessment processes COUNTRYSEARCH TERM EnglandSite: nice.org.uk rare diseasesScotlandSite: scottishmedicines.org.uk rare diseasesSwedenSite: tlv.se sällsynta diagnoserFranceSite: has-sante.fr maladies raresGermanySite: iqwig.de seltene ErkrankungenSpainSite: aemps.gob.es enfermedades rarasSite: isciii.es enfermedades rarasItalySite: agenziafarmaco.gov.it malattie rareSite: sihta.it malattie rareSite: agenas.it malattie rarePolandSite: aotm.gov.pl rzadkie choroby Table 2. Semi-structured interview guide to inform primary data collection from key informants on national rare disease policies (May - August 2013) QUESTION 1Please describe any processes and policies that could affect the appraisal of medicines for rare diseases in your country. This does not have to be explicit “rare disease” policies/processes, but any aspects that could be relevant (for example, whether there are special criteria for unmet clinical need, fast-track procedures for innovative medicines, among others).2 If there are specic processes/policies for rare diseases:What are the ofcial documents/sources describing these? How do HTA processes for orphan drugs deviate from standard HTA processes, if at all?  Are there different criteria used in the nal decision (e.g. unmet need, disease severity, lower statistical thresholds for evidence used, among others)?In what way(s) are relevant stakeholders (e.g. patients, clinicians, etc) involved in orphan drug ap-praisal? Is this involvement different for orphan drug assessment than it is for non-orphan drugs?Is there a different (explicit or implicit) willingness to pay threshold for rare disease drugs?3If there are no  specic processes/policies for rare diseases:  Are there any technical barriers hindering this? (for example, lack of evidence, lack of funds, lack of technical expertise) Are there political barriers?  RARE DISEASES AND ORPHAN DRUGS   An International Journal of Public Health page 86July 2014, Volume 1, Number 3www.rarejournal.org Orphan Drug considerations in Health Technology Assessment in eight European countries  David Tordrup et al. Table 3. Summary of HTA criteria directly and indirectly relevant to orphan drugs, 2013 Specic OD criteria for HTAOther policies and HTA criteria that are not specic to ODs but can also apply to ODs PolicyPolicy [criteria]Responsible au-thorityEngland NICE HST 1  section for appraising ultra-orphan drugs; no explicit remit for ODs unless it is for cancer indicationsIFR 2  for medicines not routinely reimbursed, but must consider “exceptionality rule”PCTs 3  (prior to ongoing NHS reforms)France Benet considered proven at MA if bud -get impact is less than  € 30m per annum for a particular indication ATU 4  if condition is life-threatening or/and there is no therapeutic alternative; Temporary Treat-ment Protocols ANSM 5 Fast track HTA in place if: (a) new therapeutic modality, (b) high unmet need, (c) demonstrated efcacy/tolerability Transparency CommissionGermany Lower accepted signicance levels for p-values (e.g. 10% signicance levels) for small sample sizes such as RD popula-tions; acceptance of evidence from sur-rogate endpoints rather than only ‘hard’ endpoints; Additional benet is consid -ered proven at MA 6  if budget impact is less than  € 50m per annumn/an/aItaly n/aReimbursement procedure considers, among other things, clinical need, existing therapies and budget impact. AIFA 7 National Health Care Plan for Rare Diseases for the period 2013-16 is under development, including a section on access to ODs.Ministry of HealthIn the event an OD is not reimbursed centrally, it can be purchased or imported directly by Local Health Authorities.Local Health  Authorities Fast-track mechanism for ODs to enter pricing/reimbursement negotiation before MA AIFA Access to innovative treatments for disorders where no alternative therapy is available is pro-vided by law (No. 648/96). The law applies 1) to (innovative) medicines already approved in other countries but not yet in Italy, 2) to products, which have demonstrated clear benet while “under clinical investigation” and 3) for off-label use. AIFA CTS 8 “Fondo AIFA 5%” (established under Law No. 326/2003). Half of the fund should be devoted to providing access to medicines for rare diseases before MA.AIFA Single patient access to specic drugs (law n. 94/1998 and ministerial decree n. 8 May 2003)

Report

Jul 23, 2017
Search
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks