Systematic review of available evidence on 11 high-priced inpatient orphan drugs

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

Leona Hakkaart¹  W Ken Redekop¹  Caroline de Sonneville-Koedoot¹  Tim A Kanters¹ 

[1] Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Department of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, P.O. Box 1738, 3000DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands

关键词: Budget impact;    Cost-effectiveness;    Clinical effectiveness;    Evidence based medicine;    Orphan drugs;    Rare diseases;   

Others  :  863604
DOI  :  10.1186/1750-1172-8-124

 received in 2013-05-16, accepted in 2013-08-09,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Attention for Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) is growing, but evidence for orphan drugs is argued to be limited and inferior. This study systematically reviews the available evidence on clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and budget impact for orphan drugs.

Methods

A systematic review was performed in PubMed, Embase, NHS EED and HTA databases for 11 inpatient orphan drugs listed on the Dutch policy rule on orphan drugs. For included studies, we determined the type of study and various study characteristics.

Results

A total of 338 studies met all inclusion criteria. Almost all studies (96%) focused on clinical effectiveness of the drug. Of these studies, most studies were case studies (41%) or observational studies (39%). However, for all orphan diseases at least one experimental or quasi-experimental study was found, and a randomized clinical trial was available for 60% of the orphan drugs. Eight studies described the cost-effectiveness of an orphan drug; an equal number described an orphan drug’s budget impact.

Conclusions

Despite the often heard claim that RCTs are not feasible for orphan drugs, we found that an RCT was available in 60% of orphan drugs investigated. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses for orphan drugs are seldom published.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Kanters et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray J, Haynes RB, Richardson WS: Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996, 312:71-72.
• [2]Buckley BM: Clinical trials of orphan medicines. Lancet 2008, 371:2051-2055.
• [3]Luisetti M, Balfour-Lynn IM, Johnson SR, Miravitlles M, Strange C, Trapnell BC, Van Bronswijk H, Vogelmeier C: Perspectives for improving the evaluation and access of therapies for rare lung diseases in Europe. Respir Med 2012, 106:759-768.
• [4]Hughes DA, Tunnage B, Yeo ST: Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM 2005, 98:829-836.
• [5]Wilcken B: Rare diseases and the assessment of intervention: what sorts of clinical trials can we use? J Inherit Metab Dis 2001, 24:291-298.
• [6]Dupont AG, Van Wilder PB: Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2011, 71:488-496.
• [7]Cheng MM, Ramsey SD, Devine EB, Garrison LP, Bresnahan BW, Veenstra DL: Systematic review of comparative effectiveness data for oncology orphan drugs. Am J Manag Care 2012, 18:47-62.
• [8]Orphanet: Prevalence of rare diseases. Paris: Bibliographic data; 2011.
• [9]Toker O, Hashkes PJ: Critical appraisal of canakinumab in the treatment of adults and children with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). Biologics 2010, 4:131-138.
• [10]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009, 151:264-269.
• [11]Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI: Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000, 342:1887-1892.
• [12]Joppi R, Bertele’ V, Garattini S: Orphan drugs, orphan diseases. The first decade of orphan drug legislation in the EU. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2012, 69:1006-1024.
• [13]Putzeist M, Heemstra HE, Garcia JL, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Gispen-De Wied CC, Hoes AW, Leufkens HG: Determinants for successful marketing authorisation of orphan medicinal products in the EU. Drug Discov Today 2012, 17:352-358.
• [14]Kesselheim AS, Myers JA, Avorn J: Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs nonorphan drugs for cancer. JAMA 2011, 305:2320-2326.
• [15]Mitsumoto J, Dorsey ER, Beck CA, Kieburtz K, Griggs RC: Pivotal studies of orphan drugs approved for neurological diseases. Ann Neurol 2009, 66:184-190.
• [16]Orfali M, Feldman L, Bhattacharjee V, Harkins P, Kadam S, Lo C, Ravi M, Shringarpure D, Mardekian J, Cassino C, Coté T: Raising orphans: how clinical development programs of drugs for rare and common diseases are different. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012, 92:262-264.
• [17]Halpern SD, Karlawish JH, Berlin JA: The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA 2002, 288:358-362.
• [18]Rothman KJ, Michels KB: The continuing unethical use of placebo controls. N Engl J Med 1994, 331:394-398.
• [19]Kishnani PS, Corzo D, Nicolino M, Byrne B, Mandel H, Hwu WL, Leslie N, Levine J, Spencer C, McDonald M: Recombinant human acid α-glucosidase: major clinical benefits in infantile-onset Pompe disease. Neurology 2007, 68:99-109.
• [20]Benson K, Hartz AJ: A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 2000, 342:1878-1886.
• [21]Black N: Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 1996, 312:1215-1218.
• [22]Luisetti M, Campo I, Scabini R, Zorzetto M, Kadija Z, Mariani F, Ferrarotti I: The problems of clinical trials and registries in rare diseases. Respir Med 2010, 104:S42-S44.
• [23]Stolk P, Willemen MJC, Leufkens HGM: Rare essentials: drugs for rare diseases as essential medicines. Bull World Health Organ 2006, 84:745-751.
• [24]Rinaldi A: Adopting an orphan. EMBO Rep 2005, 6:507-510.
• [25]Clarke LA, Wraith JE, Beck M, Kolodny EH, Pastores GM, Muenzer J, Rapoport DM, Berger KI, Sidman M, Kakkis ED: Long-term efficacy and safety of laronidase in the treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis I. Pediatrics 2009, 123:229-240.
• [26]Banikazemi M, Bultas J, Waldek S, Wilcox WR, Whitley CB, McDonald M, Finkel R, Packman S, Bichet DG, Warnock DG: Agalsidase-beta therapy for advanced Fabry disease. Ann Intern Med 2007, 146:77-86.
• [27]Van den Hout JMP, Kamphoven JHJ, Winkel LPF, Arts WFM, De Klerk JBC, Loonen MCB, Vulto AG, Cromme-Dijkhuis A, Weisglas-Kuperus N, Hop W, Van Hirtum H, Van Diggelen OP, Boer M, Kroos MA, Van Doorn PA, Sibbles B, Van Corven EJJM, Brakenhoff JPJ, Van Hove J, Smeitink JAM, De Jong G, Reuser AJJ, Van der Ploeg AT: Long-term intravenous treatment of Pompe disease with recombinant human α-glucosidase from milk. Pediatrics 2004, 113:e448-e457.
• [28]Wraith JE, Scarpa M, Beck M, Bodamer OA, De Meirleir L, Guffon N, Meldgaard Lund A, Malm G, Van der Ploeg AT, Zeman J: Mucopolysaccharidosis type II (Hunter syndrome): a clinical review and recommendations for treatment in the era of enzyme replacement therapy. Eur J Pediatr 2008, 167:267-277.
• [29]Drummond MF, Wilson DA, Kanavos P, Ubel P, Rovira J: Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007, 23:36-42.
• [30]Schey C, Milanova T, Hutchings A: Estimating the budget impact of orphan medicines in Europe: 2010-2020. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2011, 6:62. BioMed Central Full Text