No CrossRef data available.
Methods and criteria for the assessment of orphan drugs: a scoping review
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 June 2022
Abstract
Objectives
This study aimed to identify different criteria for priority setting of rare diseases to help policy makers in making evidence-informed decisions.
Methods
A scoping review was conducted to comprehensively examine the existing various methods and criteria for prioritizing orphan drugs and rare diseases. We performed searching in Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and websites of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, 2000–21, and data were extracted.
Results
From the 1,580 identified publications, eleven articles were included. Multicriteria decision analysis was the most frequent method (seven out of eleven studies) used for priority setting. The extracted criteria for priority setting of orphan products were analyzed based on six main categories as follows: health outcomes and clinical implications (six subsets which showed clinical implications), economic aspects (four subsets that indicated the economic effects of orphan drugs and rare diseases), disease and population characteristics (six subsets that included the characteristics of the rare diseases), therapeutic alternatives and uniqueness of orphan technologies (two subsets which discussed the alternatives and uniqueness of orphan technologies), evidence (three subsets which regarded the quality and availability of evidence), and other criteria (three subsets dealing with social and organizational criteria). Cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and disease severity were the most frequent criteria in the studies.
Conclusions
Because of the high price of orphan drugs and limitations of using HTA for reimbursement of them, it is critical to explore them by precise technical methods like multiple criteria decision making in priority setting.
- Type
- Policy
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Richter, T, Nestler-Parr, S, Babela, R, et al (2015) Rare disease terminology and definitions—A systematic global review: Report of the ISPOR rare disease special interest group. Value Health 18, 906–914.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson, I, Rothwell, B, Olaye, A, Knight, C (2018) Economic modeling considerations for rare diseases. Value Health 21, 515–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gammie, T, Lu, CY, Babar, ZU-D (2015) Access to orphan drugs: A comprehensive review of legislations, regulations and policies in 35 countries. PLoS One 10, e0140002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ollendorf, DA, Chapman, RH, Pearson, SD (2018) Evaluating and valuing drugs for rare conditions: No easy answers. Value Health 21, 547–552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopez-Bastida, J, Ramos-Goni, J, Aranda-Reneo, I, et al (2019) Using a stated preference discrete choice experiment to assess societal value from the perspective of decision-makers in Europe. Does it work for rare diseases? Health Policy 123, 152–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lasalvia, P, Prieto-Pinto, L, Moreno, M, et al (2019) International experiences in multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for evaluating orphan drugs: A scoping review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 19, 409–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arksey, H, O’Malley, L (2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, H-F, Shannon, SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15, 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tricco, AC, Lillie, E, Zarin, W, et al (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 7, 467–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicod, E (2017) Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries. Eur J Health Econ 18, 715–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Short, H, Stafinski, T, Menon, D (2015) A national approach to reimbursement decision-making on drugs for rare diseases in Canada? Insights from across the ponds. Health Policy 10, 24.Google ScholarPubMed
Friedmann, C, Levy, P, Hensel, P, Hiligsmann, M (2018) Using multi-criteria decision analysis to appraise orphan drugs: A systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 18, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolasa, K, Zwolinski, KM, Zah, V, Kaló, Z, Lewandowski, T (2018) Revealed preferences towards the appraisal of orphan drugs in Poland-multi criteria decision analysis. Orphanet J Rare Dis 13, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolasa, K, Zwolinski, KM, Kalo, Z, Hermanowski, T (2016) Potential impact of the implementation of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) on the polish pricing and reimbursement process of orphan drugs. Orphanet J Rare Dis 11, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guarga, L, Badia, X, Obach, M, et al (2019) Implementing reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to assess orphan drugs value in the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut). Orphanet J Rare Dis 14, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltussen, R, Marsh, K, Thokala, P, et al (2019) Multicriteria decision analysis to support health technology assessment agencies: Benefits, limitations, and the way forward. Value Health 22, 1283–1288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schey, C, Krabbe, P, Postma, M, Connolly, M (2017) Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): Testing a proposed MCDA framework for orphan drugs. Orphanet J Rare Dis 12, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelei, T, Molnár, MJ, Szegedi, M, Kaló, Z (2016) Systematic review on the evaluation criteria of orphan medicines in Central and Eastern European countries. Orphanet J Rare Dis 11, 72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onakpoya, IJ, Spencer, EA, Thompson, MJ, Heneghan, CJ (2015) Effectiveness, safety and costs of orphan drugs: An evidence-based review. BMJ Open 5, e007199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, N (2018) Combining A4R and MCDA in priority setting for health. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 16, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-018-0124-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohammadshahi et al. supplementary material
Table S1
File
16.2 KB