What is known about the cost-effectiveness of orphan drugs? Evidence from cost-utility analyses.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: In times of financial and economic hardship, governments are looking to contain pharmaceutical expenditure by focusing on cost-effective drugs. Because of their high prices and difficulties in demonstrating effectiveness in small patient populations, orphan drugs are often perceived as not able to meet traditional reimbursement threshold value for money. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of orphan drugs. METHODS: All orphan drugs listed as authorized on the website of the European Medicines Agency on 21 November 2013 were included in the analysis. Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) were identified by searching the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and Embase. For each CUA, a number of variables were collected. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The search identified 23 articles on the Tufts registry and 167 articles on Embase. The final analysis included 45 CUAs and 61 incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) for 19 orphan drugs. Of all ICURS, 16·3% were related to dominant drugs (i.e. more effective and less expensive than the comparator), 70·5% were related to drugs that are more effective, but at a higher cost, and 13·1% were related to dominated drugs (i.e. less effective and more expensive than the comparator). The median overall ICUR was €40 242 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) with a minimum ICUR of €6311/QALY and a maximum ICUR of €974,917/QALY. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that orphan drugs can meet traditional reimbursement thresholds. Considering a threshold of £30,000/QALY, in this study, ten (52·6%) of a total of 19 orphan drugs for which data were available meet the threshold. As much as fifteen orphan drugs (78·9%) are eligible for reimbursement if a threshold of €80,000/QALY is considered.

Market uptake of orphan drugs--a European analysis.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Variations in market uptake of an orphan drug have important implications with respect to access to care and inequality of treatment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to quantify both the sales and volume uptake of orphan drugs in Europe and to assess whether a country's gross domestic product (GDP) and/or health technology assessment (HTA) influences the orphan drugs' market uptake. METHODS: We analysed the numbers of orphan drugs launched and the sales and volume uptake for 17 orphan drugs in 23 European countries from 2001 until the beginning of 2010 using the IMS Health database. Countries were clustered based on GDP and the availability of a formal HTA-organization. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The uptake of orphan drugs varied across European countries. The highest volumes and contributions of orphan drugs in the first year occurred in countries with a high GDP (and implicitly, a higher budget for healthcare), independently of the existence of an HTA-organization. In contrast, in countries with a low GDP, orphan drugs were less available when there was a formal HTA-organization. There, budgetary restrictions can cause the exclusion of less cost-effective orphan drugs. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: We observed substantial variation in the market uptake of orphan drugs. Such variation may have important implications with respect to access to care and inequality of treatment. The uptake of orphan drugs could be promoted through the clinical added value of orphan drugs (CAVOD) project and various conditional pricing and reimbursement mechanisms.