BackgroundThe pricing mechanism of orphan drugs appears arbitrary and has been referred to as a “black box”. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate how drug- and disease-specific variables relate to orphan drug prices. Additionally, we aim to explore if certain country-specific pricing and reimbursement policies affect the price level of orphan drugs.MethodsAnnual treatment costs per indication per patient were calculated for 59 orphan drugs with a publicly available price in Belgium, the Netherlands, Czech Republic, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. A multiple linear regression model was built with 14 drug- and disease-specific variables. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to explore whether there is a correlation between annual treatment costs of orphan drugs across countries with different pricing and reimbursement policies.ResultsRepurposed orphan drugs, orally administered orphan drugs or orphan drugs for which an alternative treatment is available are associated with lower annual treatment costs. Orphan drugs with multiple orphan indications, for chronic treatments or for which an improvement in overall survival or quality-of-life has been demonstrated, are associated with higher annual treatment costs. No association was found between annual treatments cost of orphan drugs across countries and the different pricing and reimbursement systems.ConclusionsThis study has shown that prices of orphan drugs are influenced by factors such as the availability of an alternative drug treatment, repurposing, etc. Current debate about the affordability of orphan drugs highlights the need for more transparency in orphan drug price setting.

Orphan drugs are intended for diseases with a very low prevalence, and many countries have implemented legislation to support market access of orphan drugs. We argue that it is time to revisit the special market access status of orphan drugs. Indeed, evidence suggests that there is no societal preference for treating rare diseases. Although society appears to assign a greater value to severity of disease, this criterion is equally relevant to many common diseases. Furthermore, the criterion of equity in access to treatment, which underpins orphan drug legislation, puts more value on health improvement in rare diseases than in common diseases and implies that population health is not maximized. Finally, incentives for the development, pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs have created market failures, including monopolistic prices and the artificial creation of rare diseases. We argue that, instead of awarding special market access status to orphan drugs, there is scope to optimize research and development (R&D) of orphan drugs and to control prices of orphan drugs by means of, for example, patent auctions, advance purchase commitments, pay-as-you-go schemes and dose-modification studies. Governments should consider carefully the right incentive strategy for R&D of orphan drugs in rare diseases.

No abstract

BackgroundThe difficulties associated with organising clinical studies for orphan medicinal products (OMPs) are plentiful. Recent debate on the long-term effectiveness of some OMPs, led us to question whether the initial standards for clinical evidence for OMPs, set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) at the time of marketing authorization, are too low. Therefore, the aim of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the characteristics and quality of clinical evidence that is presented for OMPs to obtain marketing authorization in Europe, using the new and validated COMPASS tool.MethodsWe quantitatively assessed the characteristics and quality of clinical evidence of the pivotal studies of 64 OMPs as described in the European Public Assessment Report and/or the Scientific Discussion document prepared by the Committee for Human Medicinal Products of the EMA.ResultsThe 64 OMPs were altogether authorized for 78 orphan indications, for which 117 studies were identified as 'pivotal’ or 'main’ studies. In approximately two thirds of the studies, the allocation was randomized (64.8%) and a control arm was used (68.5%). Half of the studies applied some type of blinding. Only a minority (26.9%) of the studies included a Quality-of-Life (QoL) related endpoint, of which a third claim an improvement in QoL. Upon analyzing the quality of reporting, we found that some aspects (i.e. the endpoints, the sampling criteria, and the interventions) are well described, whereas other items (i.e. a description of the patients and of potential biases) are not reported for all studies.ConclusionsIn conclusion, the pivotal studies that are the basis for marketing authorization of OMPs are a cause for concern, as they exhibit methodological flaws i.e. the lack of QoL-related endpoints as outcome, lack of blinding in the study design and the use of surrogate endpoints. Additionally, there are shortcomings in the reporting of those studies that complicate the interpretation. A more demanding regulatory process for OMPs is needed to guide evidence-based clinical decision-making.

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.