Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Position statement

Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL)

Authors: Lieven Annemans, Ségolène Aymé, Yann Le Cam, Karen Facey, Penilla Gunther, Elena Nicod, Michele Reni, Jean-Louis Roux, Michael Schlander, David Taylor, Carlo Tomino, Josep Torrent-Farnell, Sheela Upadhyaya, Adam Hutchings, Lugdivine Le Dez

Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Rare diseases are an important public health issue with high unmet need. The introduction of the EU Regulation on orphan medicinal products (OMP) has been successful in stimulating investment in the research and development of OMPs. Despite this advancement, patients do not have universal access to these new medicines. There are many factors that affect OMP uptake, but one of the most important is the difficulty of making pricing and reimbursement (P&R) decisions in rare diseases. Until now, there has been little consensus on the most appropriate assessment criteria, perspective or appraisal process. This paper proposes nine principles to help improve the consistency of OMP P&R assessment in Europe and ensure that value assessment, pricing and funding processes reflect the specificities of rare diseases and contribute to both the sustainability of healthcare systems and the sustainability of innovation in this field. These recommendations are the output of the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL), a collaboration between rare disease experts, patient representatives, academics, health technology assessment (HTA) practitioners, politicians and industry representatives. ORPH-VAL reached its recommendations through careful consideration of existing OMP P&R literature and through a wide consultation with expert stakeholders, including payers, regulators and patients. The principles cover four areas: OMP decision criteria, OMP decision process, OMP sustainable funding systems and European co-ordination. This paper also presents a guide to the core elements of value relevant to OMPs that should be consistently considered in all OMP appraisals. The principles outlined in this paper may be helpful in drawing together an emerging consensus on this topic and identifying areas where consistency in payer approach could be achievable and beneficial. All stakeholders have an obligation to work together to ensure that the promise of OMP’s is realised.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
5.
go back to reference Gutierrez L, Patris J, Hutchings A, Cowell W. Principles for consistent value assessment and sustainable funding of orphan drugs in Europe. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10:53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gutierrez L, Patris J, Hutchings A, Cowell W. Principles for consistent value assessment and sustainable funding of orphan drugs in Europe. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10:53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Gammie T, Lu C, Babar ZD. Access to Orphan Drugs: A Comprehensive Review of Legislations, Regulations and Policies in 35 Countries. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gammie T, Lu C, Babar ZD. Access to Orphan Drugs: A Comprehensive Review of Legislations, Regulations and Policies in 35 Countries. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Morel T, Arickx F, Befrits G, Siviero P, van der Meijden C, Xoxi E, et al. Reconciling uncertainty of costs and outcomes with the need for access to orphan medicinal products: a comparative study of managed entry agreements across seven European countries. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:198.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Morel T, Arickx F, Befrits G, Siviero P, van der Meijden C, Xoxi E, et al. Reconciling uncertainty of costs and outcomes with the need for access to orphan medicinal products: a comparative study of managed entry agreements across seven European countries. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:198.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Van den Aardweg S. HTA of orphan drugs across six countries: fair, flawed or failing? Euro Observer. 2010;12(4):14–7. Van den Aardweg S. HTA of orphan drugs across six countries: fair, flawed or failing? Euro Observer. 2010;12(4):14–7.
12.
go back to reference Kesselheim A, Myers J, Avorn J. Characteristics of Clinical Trials to Support Approval of Orphan vs Nonorphan Drugs for Cancer. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2320–6.CrossRefPubMed Kesselheim A, Myers J, Avorn J. Characteristics of Clinical Trials to Support Approval of Orphan vs Nonorphan Drugs for Cancer. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2320–6.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Simoens S, Picavet E, Dooms M, Cassiman D, Morel T. Cost-effectiveness assessment of orphan drugs: a scientific and political conundrum. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:1–3.CrossRefPubMed Simoens S, Picavet E, Dooms M, Cassiman D, Morel T. Cost-effectiveness assessment of orphan drugs: a scientific and political conundrum. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:1–3.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Drummond L, Towse A. Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:335–40.CrossRefPubMed Drummond L, Towse A. Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:335–40.CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
go back to reference Tordrup D, Tzouma V, Kanavos P. Orphan drug considerations in Health Technology Assessment in eight European countries. Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs: An International Journal of Public Health. 2014;1(3):86–97. Tordrup D, Tzouma V, Kanavos P. Orphan drug considerations in Health Technology Assessment in eight European countries. Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs: An International Journal of Public Health. 2014;1(3):86–97.
20.
go back to reference Nicod E. 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. 2016 [Epub ahead of print]. Nicod E. 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. 2016 [Epub ahead of print].
24.
go back to reference Palaska C, Hutchings A. Value Assessment and Pricing Frameworks for Rare Disease Treatments: New Approaches From The Literature. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A678.CrossRefPubMed Palaska C, Hutchings A. Value Assessment and Pricing Frameworks for Rare Disease Treatments: New Approaches From The Literature. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A678.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference Fedyaeva V, Omelyanovskiy V, Rebrova O, Khan NN, Petrovskaya E. MCDA approach to ranking rare diseases in Russia: preliminary results. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A539.CrossRefPubMed Fedyaeva V, Omelyanovskiy V, Rebrova O, Khan NN, Petrovskaya E. MCDA approach to ranking rare diseases in Russia: preliminary results. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A539.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Schey C, Connolly M. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): testing a proposed MCDA framework for orphan drugs. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A556.CrossRefPubMed Schey C, Connolly M. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): testing a proposed MCDA framework for orphan drugs. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A556.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Paulden M, Stafinski T, Menon D, McCabe C. Value-Based Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:255–69.CrossRefPubMed Paulden M, Stafinski T, Menon D, McCabe C. Value-Based Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:255–69.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Wagner M, Khoury H, Willet J, Rindress D, Goetghebeur M. Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:285–301.CrossRefPubMed Wagner M, Khoury H, Willet J, Rindress D, Goetghebeur M. Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:285–301.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Endrei D, Molics B, Ágoston I. ulticriteria Decision Analysis in the Reimbursement of New Medical Technologies: Real-World Experiences from Hungary. Value Health. 2014;17(4):487–9.CrossRefPubMed Endrei D, Molics B, Ágoston I. ulticriteria Decision Analysis in the Reimbursement of New Medical Technologies: Real-World Experiences from Hungary. Value Health. 2014;17(4):487–9.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Williams P, Mauskopf J, Lebiecki J, Kilburg A. Using multicriteria decision analysis during drug development to predict reimbursement decisions. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2014. doi:10.3402/jmahp.v2.25270. Williams P, Mauskopf J, Lebiecki J, Kilburg A. Using multicriteria decision analysis during drug development to predict reimbursement decisions. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2014. doi:10.​3402/​jmahp.​v2.​25270.
34.
go back to reference Wahlster P, Goetghebeur M, Schaller S, Kriza C, Kolominsky-Rabas P, EMN' NLECMT‘V. Exploring the perspectives and preferences for HTA across German healthcare stakeholders using a multi-criteria assessment of a pulmonary heart sensor as a case study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wahlster P, Goetghebeur M, Schaller S, Kriza C, Kolominsky-Rabas P, EMN' NLECMT‘V. Exploring the perspectives and preferences for HTA across German healthcare stakeholders using a multi-criteria assessment of a pulmonary heart sensor as a case study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Cherny N, Dafni UKJ, Sobrero A, Zielinski C, de Vries E, Piccart M. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1547–73.CrossRefPubMed Cherny N, Dafni UKJ, Sobrero A, Zielinski C, de Vries E, Piccart M. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1547–73.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Schnipper L, Davidson N, Wollins D, Tyne C, Blayney D, Blum D, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: A Conceptual Framework to Assess the Value of Cancer Treatment Options. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(23):2563–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schnipper L, Davidson N, Wollins D, Tyne C, Blayney D, Blum D, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: A Conceptual Framework to Assess the Value of Cancer Treatment Options. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(23):2563–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
go back to reference Schieppati A, Henter JI, Daina E, Aperia A. Why rare diseases are an important medical and social issue. Lancet. 2008;371:2039–41.CrossRefPubMed Schieppati A, Henter JI, Daina E, Aperia A. Why rare diseases are an important medical and social issue. Lancet. 2008;371:2039–41.CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Mazzucato M, Visonà Dalla Pozza L, Manea S, Minichiello C, Facchin P. A population-based registry as a source of health indicators for rare diseases: the ten-year experience of the Veneto Region’s rare diseases registry. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mazzucato M, Visonà Dalla Pozza L, Manea S, Minichiello C, Facchin P. A population-based registry as a source of health indicators for rare diseases: the ten-year experience of the Veneto Region’s rare diseases registry. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
go back to reference Schlander M, Garattini S, Holm S, Kolominsky-Rabas P, Nord E, Persson U, et al. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained? The need for alternative methods to evaluate medical interventions for ultra-rare disorders. J Comp Eff Res. 2014;3(4):399–422.CrossRefPubMed Schlander M, Garattini S, Holm S, Kolominsky-Rabas P, Nord E, Persson U, et al. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained? The need for alternative methods to evaluate medical interventions for ultra-rare disorders. J Comp Eff Res. 2014;3(4):399–422.CrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Whitty J, Lancsar E, Rixon K, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient. 2014;7(4):365–86.CrossRefPubMed Whitty J, Lancsar E, Rixon K, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient. 2014;7(4):365–86.CrossRefPubMed
48.
go back to reference Douglas M, Wilcox E, Burgess M, Lynd L. Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement. Health Policy. 2015;119(5):588–96.CrossRefPubMed Douglas M, Wilcox E, Burgess M, Lynd L. Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement. Health Policy. 2015;119(5):588–96.CrossRefPubMed
50.
go back to reference Hughes D, Tunnage B, Yeo S. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM. 2005;98:829–36.CrossRefPubMed Hughes D, Tunnage B, Yeo S. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM. 2005;98:829–36.CrossRefPubMed
51.
go back to reference Farrugia A, O’Mahony B, Cassar J. Health technology assessment and haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2012;18:152–7.CrossRefPubMed Farrugia A, O’Mahony B, Cassar J. Health technology assessment and haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2012;18:152–7.CrossRefPubMed
54.
go back to reference Drummond M, Wilson D, Kanavos P, Ubel P, Rovira J. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):36–42.CrossRefPubMed Drummond M, Wilson D, Kanavos P, Ubel P, Rovira J. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):36–42.CrossRefPubMed
55.
go back to reference Denis A, Mergaert L, Fostier C, Cleemput I, Simoens S. A comparative study of European rare disease and orphan drug markets. Health Policy. 2010;97(2–3):173–9.CrossRefPubMed Denis A, Mergaert L, Fostier C, Cleemput I, Simoens S. A comparative study of European rare disease and orphan drug markets. Health Policy. 2010;97(2–3):173–9.CrossRefPubMed
56.
go back to reference Schlander M, Holm S, Nord E, Richardson J, Garattini S, Kolominsky-Rabas P, et al. Discussion Paper N°31. Position Paper: Towards Social Cost Value Analysis: The Need for New Approaches for Evaluating Drugs for Ultra-Rare Diseases (URDs). 2015. http://www.innoval-hc.com/discussion-papers.html. Accessed 06 Sep 2016. Schlander M, Holm S, Nord E, Richardson J, Garattini S, Kolominsky-Rabas P, et al. Discussion Paper N°31. Position Paper: Towards Social Cost Value Analysis: The Need for New Approaches for Evaluating Drugs for Ultra-Rare Diseases (URDs). 2015. http://​www.​innoval-hc.​com/​discussion-papers.​html. Accessed 06 Sep 2016.
60.
62.
go back to reference Desser A, Gyrd-Hansen D, Olsen J, Grepperud S, Kristiansen I. Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67. BMJ. 2010;341:c4715.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Desser A, Gyrd-Hansen D, Olsen J, Grepperud S, Kristiansen I. Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67. BMJ. 2010;341:c4715.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
63.
go back to reference Liney W, Hughes D. 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;8(22):948–64.CrossRef Liney W, Hughes D. 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;8(22):948–64.CrossRef
66.
go back to reference Facey K. Patient involvement in HTA: What added value? Pharmaceuticals Policy and Law. 2011;13(3–4):245–51. Facey K. Patient involvement in HTA: What added value? Pharmaceuticals Policy and Law. 2011;13(3–4):245–51.
67.
go back to reference Gasson S, Bliss J, Jamal-Hanjani M, Krebs M, Swanton C, Wilcox M. The Value of Patient and Public Involvement in Trial Design and Development. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2015;27(12):747–9.CrossRef Gasson S, Bliss J, Jamal-Hanjani M, Krebs M, Swanton C, Wilcox M. The Value of Patient and Public Involvement in Trial Design and Development. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2015;27(12):747–9.CrossRef
68.
go back to reference Berglas S, Jutai L, MacKean G, Weeks L. Patients’ perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: an exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:21.CrossRef Berglas S, Jutai L, MacKean G, Weeks L. Patients’ perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: an exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:21.CrossRef
69.
go back to reference Staley K, Doherty C. It’s not evidence, it’s insight: bringing patients’ perspectives into health technology appraisal at NICE. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:4.CrossRef Staley K, Doherty C. It’s not evidence, it’s insight: bringing patients’ perspectives into health technology appraisal at NICE. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:4.CrossRef
72.
go back to reference Griggs R, Batshaw M, Dunkle M, Gopal-Srivastava R, Kaye E, Krischer J, et al. Clinical research for rare disease: Opportunities, challenges, and solutions. Mol Genet Metab. 2009;96(1):20–6.CrossRefPubMed Griggs R, Batshaw M, Dunkle M, Gopal-Srivastava R, Kaye E, Krischer J, et al. Clinical research for rare disease: Opportunities, challenges, and solutions. Mol Genet Metab. 2009;96(1):20–6.CrossRefPubMed
75.
go back to reference Potter B, Khangura S, Tingley K, Chakraborty P, Little J. Translating rare-disease therapies into improved care for patients and families: what are the right outcomes, designs, and engagement approaches in health-systems research. Genet Med. 2016;18(2):117–23.CrossRefPubMed Potter B, Khangura S, Tingley K, Chakraborty P, Little J. Translating rare-disease therapies into improved care for patients and families: what are the right outcomes, designs, and engagement approaches in health-systems research. Genet Med. 2016;18(2):117–23.CrossRefPubMed
76.
go back to reference Facey K, Granados A, Guyatt G, Kent A, Shah N, van der Wilt G, et al. Generating health technology assessment evidence for rare diseases. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(4):416–22.CrossRefPubMed Facey K, Granados A, Guyatt G, Kent A, Shah N, van der Wilt G, et al. Generating health technology assessment evidence for rare diseases. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(4):416–22.CrossRefPubMed
87.
go back to reference Field M, Berman R. The Ethical Conduct of Clinical Research Involving Children. 1st ed. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2004. Field M, Berman R. The Ethical Conduct of Clinical Research Involving Children. 1st ed. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2004.
89.
go back to reference Jönsson B, Wilking N. New cancer drugs in Sweden: Assessment, implementation and access. J Cancer Policy. 2014;2:45–62.CrossRef Jönsson B, Wilking N. New cancer drugs in Sweden: Assessment, implementation and access. J Cancer Policy. 2014;2:45–62.CrossRef
94.
go back to reference Kleijnen S, Toenders W, de Groot F, Huic M, George E, Wieseler B, et al. European collaboration on relative effectiveness assessments: What is needed to be successful? Health Policy. 2015;119(5):569–76.CrossRefPubMed Kleijnen S, Toenders W, de Groot F, Huic M, George E, Wieseler B, et al. European collaboration on relative effectiveness assessments: What is needed to be successful? Health Policy. 2015;119(5):569–76.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL)
Authors
Lieven Annemans
Ségolène Aymé
Yann Le Cam
Karen Facey
Penilla Gunther
Elena Nicod
Michele Reni
Jean-Louis Roux
Michael Schlander
David Taylor
Carlo Tomino
Josep Torrent-Farnell
Sheela Upadhyaya
Adam Hutchings
Lugdivine Le Dez
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1750-1172
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-017-0601-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2017 Go to the issue