Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 3/2016

Open Access 01-03-2016 | Original Research Article

Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation

Authors: Monika Wagner, Hanane Khoury, Jacob Willet, Donna Rindress, Mireille Goetghebeur

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 3/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The multiplicity of issues, including uncertainty and ethical dilemmas, and policies involved in appraising interventions for rare diseases suggests that multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) based on a holistic definition of value is uniquely suited for this purpose. The objective of this study was to analyze and further develop a comprehensive MCDA framework (EVIDEM) to address rare disease issues and policies, while maintaining its applicability across disease areas.

Methods

Specific issues and policies for rare diseases were identified through literature review. Ethical and methodological foundations of the EVIDEM framework v3.0 were systematically analyzed from the perspective of these issues, and policies and modifications of the framework were performed accordingly to ensure their integration.

Results

Analysis showed that the framework integrates ethical dilemmas and issues inherent to appraising interventions for rare diseases but required further integration of specific aspects. Modification thus included the addition of subcriteria to further differentiate disease severity, disease-specific treatment outcomes, and economic consequences of interventions for rare diseases. Scoring scales were further developed to include negative scales for all comparative criteria. A methodology was established to incorporate context-specific population priorities and policies, such as those for rare diseases, into the quantitative part of the framework. This design allows making more explicit trade-offs between competing ethical positions of fairness (prioritization of those who are worst off), the goal of benefiting as many people as possible, the imperative to help, and wise use of knowledge and resources. It also allows addressing variability in institutional policies regarding prioritization of specific disease areas, in addition to existing uncertainty analysis available from EVIDEM.

Conclusion

The adapted framework measures value in its widest sense, while being responsive to rare disease issues and policies. It provides an operationalizable platform to integrate values, competing ethical dilemmas, and uncertainty in appraising healthcare interventions.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Kole A, Faurisson F. Rare diseases social epidemiology: analysis of inequalities. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:223–50.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Beutler E. Lysosomal storage diseases: natural history and ethical and economic aspects. Mol Genet Metab. 2006;88(3):208–15.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Gomez-Rubio V, Lopez-Quilez A. Statistical methods for the geographical analysis of rare diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:151–71.CrossRefPubMed
6.
de la Paz MP, Villaverde-Hueso A, Alonso V, Janos S, Zurriaga O, Pollan M, et al. Rare diseases epidemiology research. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:17–39.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Groft SC, de la Paz MP. Rare diseases—avoiding misperceptions and establishing realities: the need for reliable epidemiological data. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:3–14.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Fuller M, Meikle PJ, Hopwood JJ. Epidemiology of lysosomal storage diseases: an overview. In: Mehta A, Beck M, Sunder-Plassmann G, editors. Fabry disease: perspectives from 5 years of FOS. Oxford: Oxford PharmaGenesis; 2006.
9.
Hughes DA, Tunnage B, Yeo ST. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM. 2005;98(11):829–36.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Kanters TA, de Sonneville-Koedoot C, Redekop WK, Hakkaart L. Systematic review of available evidence on 11 high-priced inpatient orphan drugs. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8(1):124.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
11.
Liu BC, He L, He G, He Y. A cross-national comparative study of orphan drug policies in the United States, the European Union, and Japan: towards a made-in-China orphan drug policy. J Public Health Policy. 2010;31(4):407–20.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Loorand-Stiver L. Drugs for rare diseases: evolving trends in regulatory and health technology assessment perspectives. Environ Scan. 2013;2013(42):1–40.
13.
Roll K, Stargardt T, Schreyogg J. Authorization and reimbursement of orphan drugs in an international comparison [in German]. Gesundheitswesen. 2011;73(8–9):504–14.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Tambuyzer E. Rare diseases, orphan drugs and their regulation: questions and misconceptions. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(12):921–9.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Herder M. When everyone is an orphan: against adopting a U.S.-styled orphan drug policy in Canada. Acc Res. 2013;20(4):227–69.CrossRef
16.
17.
Winquist E, Bell CM, Clarke JT, Evans G, Martin J, Sabharwal M, et al. An evaluation framework for funding drugs for rare diseases. Value Health. 2012;15(6):982–6.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Hughes-Wilson W, Palma A, Schuurman A, Simoens S. Paying for the Orphan Drug System: break or bend? Is it time for a new evaluation system for payers in Europe to take account of new rare disease treatments? Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7:74.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
19.
Paulden M, Stafinski T, Menon D, McCabe C. Value-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs: a scoping review and decision framework. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;33(3):255–69.PubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A. A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value Health. 2013;16(8):1163–9.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Clark S, Weale A. Social values in health priority setting: a conceptual framework. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):293–316.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Biron L, Rumbold B, Faden R. Social value judgments in healthcare: a philosophical critique. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):317–30.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff. 1997;26(4):303–50.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Goetghebeur M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and value: impact on DEcisionMaking: the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8(1):270.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
26.
Goetghebeur M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Gregoire JP, Deal C. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010;8(1):4.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
27.
Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(2):376–88.CrossRef
28.
Tanios N, Wagner M, Tony M, Baltussen R, van Til J, Rindress D, et al. Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):456–65.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Guindo LA, Wagner M, Baltussen R, Rindress D, van Til J, Kind P, et al. From efficacy to equity: review of decision criteria used in resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10(1):9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
30.
van Til J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Lieferink M, Dolan J, Goetghebeur M. Does technique matter: a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12:22.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Miot J, Wagner M, Khoury H, Anderson AN, Rindress D, Goetghebeur MM. Field testing of a framework for coverage of a diagnostic test for cervical cancer in South Africa. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2011;10(1):2.CrossRef
33.
Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Papastavros T, Oh P, et al. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:329.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
34.
Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Masella C, Merlino L, Strada A, Tringali M. Implementation of EUnetHTA Core Model(R) in Lombardia: the VTS framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(1):105–12.CrossRefPubMed
35.
MCDA for HTA in action: leveraging experience from Europe and Latin America. Panel presented at the Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) 12th Annual Conference, 15–17 June 2015: Oslo; 2015.
36.
Goetghebeur M, Wagner M. Defining value: the ethical foundations of MCDA in healthcare decision making. Manuscript in preparation. In: Marsh K, Thokala P, Goetghebeur M, Baltussen R, editors. Healthcare decisions supported by multi-criteria decision analysis. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG; 2015.
37.
38.
39.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
40.
Beauchamp TL. The ‘four principles’ approach. Principles of health care ethics. Chichester: Wiley; 1994. p. 3–12.
41.
Lawrence DJ. The four principles of biomedical ethics: a foundation for current bioethical debate. J Chiropr Humanit. 2007;14:34–40.CrossRef
42.
43.
44.
Hoedemaekers R, Dekkers W. Justice and solidarity in priority setting in health care. Health Care Anal. 2003;11(4):325–43.CrossRefPubMed
45.
46.
Department for Communities and Local Government. Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. London: Department for Communities and Local Government; 2009.
47.
Black AP, Baker M. The impact of parent advocacy groups, the Internet, and social networking on rare diseases: the IDEA League and IDEA League United Kingdom example. Epilepsia. 2011;52(Suppl 2):102–4.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Boon W, Broekgaarden R. The role of patient advocacy organisations in neuromuscular disease R&D: the case of the Dutch neuromuscular disease association VSN. Neuromuscul Disord. 2010;20(2):148–51.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Cornu C, Kassai B, Fisch R, Chiron C, Alberti C, Guerrini R, et al. Experimental designs for small randomised clinical trials: an algorithm for choice. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:48.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
50.
Denis A, Mergaert L, Fostier C, Cleemput I, Simoens S. Budget impact analysis of orphan drugs in Belgium: estimates from 2008 to 2013. J Med Econ. 2010;13(2):295–301.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Desser AS, Gyrd-Hansen D, Olsen JA, Grepperud S, Kristiansen IS. Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67. BMJ. 2010;341:c4715.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
52.
Desser AS. Prioritizing treatment of rare diseases: a survey of preferences of Norwegian doctors. Soc Sci Med. 2013;94:56–62.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Dimichele DM, Blanchette V, Berntorp E. Clinical trial design in haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2012;18(Suppl. 4):18–23.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Dunkle M, Pines W, Saltonstall PL. Advocacy groups and their role in rare diseases research. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:515–25.CrossRefPubMed
55.
56.
57.
Henderson SL, Packman W, Packman S. Psychosocial aspects of patients with Niemann-Pick disease, type B. Am J Med Genet A. 2009;149A(11):2430–6.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Hollak CE, Aerts JM, Ayme S, Manuel J. Limitations of drug registries to evaluate orphan medicinal products for the treatment of lysosomal storage disorders. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6:16.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
59.
Joppi R, Bertele’ V, Garattini S. Orphan drugs, orphan diseases. The first decade of orphan drug legislation in the EU. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69(4):1009–24.CrossRefPubMed
60.
61.
Kesselheim AS, Myers JA, Avorn J. Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs nonorphan drugs for cancer. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2320–6.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Lavery C. Role of patient support groups in lysosomal storage diseases. In: Mehta A, Beck M, Sunder-Plassmann G, editors. Fabry disease: perspectives from 5 years of FOS. Oxford: Oxford PharmaGenesis; 2006.
63.
Linley WG, Hughes DA. Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ. 2013;22(8):948–64.CrossRefPubMed
64.
MacLeod S. Optimal therapy for rare disorders and genetic diseases: ethical and political challenges. Proc West Pharmacol Soc. 2007;50:21–3.PubMed
65.
Mavris M, Le CY. Involvement of patient organisations in research and development of orphan drugs for rare diseases in europe. Mol Syndromol. 2012;3(5):237–43.PubMedCentralPubMed
66.
Mentzakis E, Stefanowska P, Hurley J. A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011;6(3):405–33.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Orofino J, Soto J, Casado MA, Oyaguez I. Global spending on orphan drugs in France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain during 2007. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8(5):301–15.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Pinxten W, Denier Y, Dooms M, Cassiman JJ, Dierickx K. A fair share for the orphans: ethical guidelines for a fair distribution of resources within the bounds of the 10-year-old European Orphan Drug Regulation. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(3):148–53.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Rajmil L, Perestelo-Perez L, Herdman M. Quality of life and rare diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:251–72.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Rosselli D, Rueda JD, Solano M. Ethical and economic considerations of rare diseases in ethnic minorities: the case of mucopolysaccharidosis VI in Colombia. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(11):699–700.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
71.
72.
van der Kloot WA, Hamdy NA, Hafkemeijer LC, den Dulk FM, Chotkan SA, van Emmerik AA, et al. The psychological burden of an initially unexplained illness: patients with sternocostoclavicular hyperostosis before and after delayed diagnosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:97.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
73.
Wyatt K, Henley W, Anderson L, Anderson R, Nikolaou V, Stein K, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enzyme and substrate replacement therapies: a longitudinal cohort study of people with lysosomal storage disorders. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(39):1–543.CrossRefPubMed
74.
Drummond M, Towse A. Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(4):335–40.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support. A primer on the use of multiple-criteria decision-making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–248.
76.
77.
Golan OG, Hansen P. Which health technologies should be funded? A prioritization framework based explicitly on value for money. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2012;1(1):44.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
78.
Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010;182(18):E839–42.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
79.
80.
81.
Taruscio D, Vittozzi L, Stefanov R. National plans and strategies on rare diseases in Europe. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:475–91.CrossRefPubMed
82.
83.
Molster C, Youngs L, Hammond E, Dawkins H. Key outcomes from stakeholder workshops at a symposium to inform the development of an Australian national plan for rare diseases. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7:50.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
84.
85.
Goetghebeur M, Wagner M, Bec M, Nikodem M, Zyla A, Micaleff A et al. IMI work package 6: report. Benefit-risk balance re-evaluation case study Raptiva® (efalizumab). European Medicines Agency. 2015. v.2.6:1–99.http://​www.​imi-protect.​eu/​. Accessed 23 Oct 2015.
86.
Cox R, Sanchez J, Revie CW. Multi-criteria decision analysis tools for prioritising emerging or re-emerging infectious diseases associated with climate change in Canada. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e68338.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
87.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–8.CrossRefPubMed
88.
Denis A, Mergaert L, Fostier C, Cleemput I, Hulstaert F, Simoens S. Critical assessment of Belgian reimbursement dossiers of orphan drugs. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(10):883–93.CrossRefPubMed
89.
Drummond M, Evans B, LeLorier J, Karakiewicz P, Martin D, Tugwell P, et al. Evidence and values: requirements for public reimbursement of drugs for rare diseases: a case study in oncology. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;16(2):e273–81.PubMed
90.
Bettinger TL, Shuler G, Jones DR, Wilson JP. Schizophrenia: multi-attribute utility theory approach to selection of atypical antipsychotics. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(2):201–7.CrossRefPubMed
91.
92.
Aenishaenslin C, Hongoh V, Cisse HD, Hoen AG, Samoura K, Michel P, et al. Multi-criteria decision analysis as an innovative approach to managing zoonoses: results from a study on Lyme disease in Canada. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):897.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
93.
Tromp N, Baltussen R. Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:454.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
94.
95.
96.
Metadata
Title
Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation
Authors
Monika Wagner
Hanane Khoury
Jacob Willet
Donna Rindress
Mireille Goetghebeur
Publication date
01-03-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0340-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

PharmacoEconomics 3/2016 Go to the issue

Review Article

Cost-Effectiveness Models in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Issues and Challenges

Editorial

PCSK9 Inhibitors: A Technology Worth Paying For?

Commentary

Economic Evidence of Pneumococcal Vaccination in Older Adults: Uncertain Modelling or Competitive Tendering?

Review Article

Vedolizumab for the Treatment of Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Active Ulcerative Colitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Original Research Article

Use of Value of Information in Healthcare Decision Making: Exploring Multiple Perspectives

Book Review

Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar (ed): Pharmaceutical Prices in the 21st Century