Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 9/2020

01-09-2020 | Care | Original Research

Orphan Drugs Offer Larger Health Gains but Less Favorable Cost-effectiveness than Non-orphan Drugs

Authors: James D. Chambers, PhD, Madison C. Silver, BA, Flora C. Berklein, MPH, Joshua T. Cohen, PhD, Peter J. Neumann, ScD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 9/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Orphan drugs offer important therapeutic options to patients suffering from rare conditions, but are typically considerably more expensive than non-orphan drugs, leading to questions about their cost-effectiveness.

Objective

To compare the value of orphan and non-orphan drugs approved by the FDA from 1999 through 2015.

Design

We searched the PubMed database to identify estimates of incremental health gains (measured in quality-adjusted life-years, or QALYs) and incremental costs that were associated with orphan and non-orphan drugs compared with preexisting care. We excluded pharmaceutical industry-funded studies from the dataset. When a drug was approved for multiple indications, we considered each drug-indication pair separately. We then compared incremental QALY gains, incremental costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for orphan and non-orphan drugs using the Mann-Whitney U (MWU) test (to compare median values of the different distributions) and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test (to compare the shape of different distributions).

Results

We identified estimates for 49 orphan drug-indication pairs, and for 169 non-orphan drug-indication pairs. We found that orphan drug-indication pairs offered larger median incremental health gains than non-orphan drug-indication pairs (0.25 vs. 0.05 QALYs; MWU p = 0.0093, KS p = 0.02), but were associated with substantially higher costs ($47,652 vs. $2870; MWU p < 0.001, KS p < 0.001) and less favorable cost-effectiveness ($276,288 vs. $100,360 per QALY gained; MWU p = 0.0068, KS p = 0.009).

Conclusions

Our study suggests that orphan drugs often offer larger health gains than non-orphan drugs, but due to their substantially higher costs they tend to be less cost-effective than non-orphan drugs. Our findings highlight the challenge faced by health care payers to provide patients appropriate access to orphan drugs while achieving value from drug spending.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Sarpatwari A, Beall RF, Abdurrob A, He M, Kesselheim AS. Evaluating The Impact Of The Orphan Drug Act’s Seven-Year Market Exclusivity Period. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37(5):732–737.CrossRef Sarpatwari A, Beall RF, Abdurrob A, He M, Kesselheim AS. Evaluating The Impact Of The Orphan Drug Act’s Seven-Year Market Exclusivity Period. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37(5):732–737.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Handfield R, Feldstein J. Insurance companies’ perspectives on the orphan drug pipeline. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2013;6(9):589–598.PubMedPubMedCentral Handfield R, Feldstein J. Insurance companies’ perspectives on the orphan drug pipeline. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2013;6(9):589–598.PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Chua KP, Conti RM. Out-of-pocket Spending on Orphan Drug Prescriptions Among Commercially Insured Adults in 2014. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(3):338–340.CrossRef Chua KP, Conti RM. Out-of-pocket Spending on Orphan Drug Prescriptions Among Commercially Insured Adults in 2014. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(3):338–340.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Chambers JD, Thorat T, Pyo J, Chenoweth M, Neumann PJ. Despite high costs, specialty drugs may offer value for money comparable to that of traditional drugs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(10):1751–60.CrossRef Chambers JD, Thorat T, Pyo J, Chenoweth M, Neumann PJ. Despite high costs, specialty drugs may offer value for money comparable to that of traditional drugs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(10):1751–60.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Chambers JD, Thorat T, Wilkinson CL, Neumann PJ. Drugs cleared through the FDA’s expedited review offer greater gains than drugs approved by conventional process. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(8):1408–1415.CrossRef Chambers JD, Thorat T, Wilkinson CL, Neumann PJ. Drugs cleared through the FDA’s expedited review offer greater gains than drugs approved by conventional process. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(8):1408–1415.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Williams A. QALYS and ethics: a health economist’s perspective. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43(12):1795–804.CrossRef Williams A. QALYS and ethics: a health economist’s perspective. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43(12):1795–804.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Garattini L, Koleva D, Casadei G. Modeling in pharmacoeconomic studies: funding sources and outcomes. Int J Technol Assess HealthCare. 2010;26(3):330–3.CrossRef Garattini L, Koleva D, Casadei G. Modeling in pharmacoeconomic studies: funding sources and outcomes. Int J Technol Assess HealthCare. 2010;26(3):330–3.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, Bayoumi A, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332(7543):699–703.CrossRef Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, Bayoumi A, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332(7543):699–703.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Tang DH, Armstrong EP, Lee JK. Cost-utility analysis of biologic treatments for moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. Pharmacotherapy. 2012;32(6):515–26.CrossRef Tang DH, Armstrong EP, Lee JK. Cost-utility analysis of biologic treatments for moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease. Pharmacotherapy. 2012;32(6):515–26.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference When calculating median values of cost-effectiveness, we excluded estimates for which the drug was both less effective and less costly than the comparator (n=27). We did this because such values are interpreted differently than cost-effectiveness estimates for which the drug is more effect and more costly than the comparator. When calculating median values of cost-effectiveness, we excluded estimates for which the drug was both less effective and less costly than the comparator (n=27). We did this because such values are interpreted differently than cost-effectiveness estimates for which the drug is more effect and more costly than the comparator.
21.
go back to reference Tordrup DTV, Kanavos P. Orphan drug considerations in Health Technology Assessment in eight European countries. Rare Dis Orphan Drugs. 2014;1 (3):83–95. Tordrup DTV, Kanavos P. Orphan drug considerations in Health Technology Assessment in eight European countries. Rare Dis Orphan Drugs. 2014;1 (3):83–95.
22.
go back to reference Ollendorf DA, Chapman RH, Pearson SD. Evaluating and valuing drugs for rare conditions: no easy answers. Value Health. 2018;21 (15):547–552.CrossRef Ollendorf DA, Chapman RH, Pearson SD. Evaluating and valuing drugs for rare conditions: no easy answers. Value Health. 2018;21 (15):547–552.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Winquist E, Coyle D, Clarke JT, Evans GA, Seager C, Chan W, Martin J. Application of a policy framework for the public funding of drugs for rare diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Aug;29 Suppl 3:S774-9.CrossRef Winquist E, Coyle D, Clarke JT, Evans GA, Seager C, Chan W, Martin J. Application of a policy framework for the public funding of drugs for rare diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Aug;29 Suppl 3:S774-9.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference McCabe C, Claxton K, Tsuchiya A. Orphan drugs and the NHS. Br Med J. 2005;331:1016–19.CrossRef McCabe C, Claxton K, Tsuchiya A. Orphan drugs and the NHS. Br Med J. 2005;331:1016–19.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Drummond MF, Wilson DA, Kanovos P, Ubel P, Rovira J. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23 (1):36–42.CrossRef Drummond MF, Wilson DA, Kanovos P, Ubel P, Rovira J. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23 (1):36–42.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Chambers JD, Thorat T, Pyo J, Neumann PJ. The lag from FDA approval to published cost-utility evidence. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15 (3):399–402.CrossRef Chambers JD, Thorat T, Pyo J, Neumann PJ. The lag from FDA approval to published cost-utility evidence. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15 (3):399–402.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Kesselheim AS, Myers JA, Avorn J. Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs nonorphan drugs for cancer. JAMA. 2011 Jun 8;305(22):2320–2326. Kesselheim AS, Myers JA, Avorn J. Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs nonorphan drugs for cancer. JAMA. 2011 Jun 8;305(22):2320–2326.
30.
go back to reference Mitsumoto J, Dorsey ER, Beck CA, Kieburtz K, Griggs RC. Pivotal studies of orphan drugs approved for neurological diseases. Ann Neurol. 2009;66 (2):184–90.CrossRef Mitsumoto J, Dorsey ER, Beck CA, Kieburtz K, Griggs RC. Pivotal studies of orphan drugs approved for neurological diseases. Ann Neurol. 2009;66 (2):184–90.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Thomas S, Caplan A. The Orphan Drug Act Revisited. JAMA. 2019;321 (9):833–834.CrossRef Thomas S, Caplan A. The Orphan Drug Act Revisited. JAMA. 2019;321 (9):833–834.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Chambers JD, Kim DD, Pope EF, Graff JS, Wilkinson CL, Neumann PJ. Specialty drug coverage varies across US commercial health plans. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018; 37 (17): 1041–1047.CrossRef Chambers JD, Kim DD, Pope EF, Graff JS, Wilkinson CL, Neumann PJ. Specialty drug coverage varies across US commercial health plans. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018; 37 (17): 1041–1047.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Cohen JP, Awatin JW. Patient access to orphan drugs. Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs. 2017 5 (12):923–932.CrossRef Cohen JP, Awatin JW. Patient access to orphan drugs. Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs. 2017 5 (12):923–932.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Chambers JD, Panzer AD, Kim DD, Margaretos NM, Neumann PJ. Variation in US private health plans’ coverage of orphan drugs. Am J Manag Care. 2019;25 (10):508–512.PubMed Chambers JD, Panzer AD, Kim DD, Margaretos NM, Neumann PJ. Variation in US private health plans’ coverage of orphan drugs. Am J Manag Care. 2019;25 (10):508–512.PubMed
37.
go back to reference Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Veenstra DL. Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy. 2010;96 (3):179–90.CrossRef Carlson JJ, Sullivan SD, Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Veenstra DL. Linking payment to health outcomes: a taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers. Health Policy. 2010;96 (3):179–90.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Neumann PJ, Chambers JD, Simon F, Meckley LM. Risk-sharing arrangements that link payment for drugs to health outcomes are proving hard to implement. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30 (12):2329–37.CrossRef Neumann PJ, Chambers JD, Simon F, Meckley LM. Risk-sharing arrangements that link payment for drugs to health outcomes are proving hard to implement. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30 (12):2329–37.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Ali F, Slocomb T, Werver M. Curative regenerative medicines: preparing health care systems for the coming wave. In Vivo. 2016;34 (10):26–33. Ali F, Slocomb T, Werver M. Curative regenerative medicines: preparing health care systems for the coming wave. In Vivo. 2016;34 (10):26–33.
41.
go back to reference Salzman R, Cook F, Hunt T, Malech HL, Reilly P, Foss-Campbell B, Barrett D. Addressing the Value of Gene Therapy and Enhancing Patient Access to Transformative Treatments. Mol Ther. 2018;26 (12):2717–2726.CrossRef Salzman R, Cook F, Hunt T, Malech HL, Reilly P, Foss-Campbell B, Barrett D. Addressing the Value of Gene Therapy and Enhancing Patient Access to Transformative Treatments. Mol Ther. 2018;26 (12):2717–2726.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Orphan Drugs Offer Larger Health Gains but Less Favorable Cost-effectiveness than Non-orphan Drugs
Authors
James D. Chambers, PhD
Madison C. Silver, BA
Flora C. Berklein, MPH
Joshua T. Cohen, PhD
Peter J. Neumann, ScD
Publication date
01-09-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Keyword
Care
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 9/2020
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05805-2

Other articles of this Issue 9/2020

Journal of General Internal Medicine 9/2020 Go to the issue