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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

Potential impact of the implementation of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) on the Polish pricing and reimbursement process of orphan drugs

Authors: Katarzyna Kolasa, Krzysztof M. Zwolinski, Zoltan Kalo, Tomasz Hermanowski

Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The objective of this study was to assess the potential impact of the implementation of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) on the Polish pricing and reimbursement (P&R) process with regard to orphan drugs.

Methods

A four step approach was designed. Firstly, a systematic literature review was conducted to select the MCDA criteria. Secondly, a database of orphan drugs was established. Thirdly, health technology appraisals (HTA recommendations) were categorized and an MCDA appraisal was conducted. Finally, a comparison of HTA and MCDA outcomes was carried out. An MCDA outcome was considered positive if more than 50 % of the maximum number of points was reached (base case). In the sensitivity analysis, 25 % and 75 % thresholds were tested as well.

Results

Out of 2242 publications, 23 full-text articles were included. The final MCDA tool consisted of ten criteria. In total, 27 distinctive drug-indication pairs regarding 21 drugs were used for the study. Six negative and 21 positive HTA recommendations were issued. In the base case, there were 19 positive MCDA outcomes. Of the 27 cases, there were 12 disagreements between the HTA and MCDA outcomes, the majority of which related to positive HTA guidance for negative MCDA outcomes. All drug-indication pairs with negative HTA recommendations were appraised positively in the MCDA framework. Economic details were available for 12 cases, of which there were 9 positive MCDA outcomes. Amongst the 12 drug-indication pairs, two were negatively appraised in the HTA process, with positive MCDA guidance, and two were appraised in the opposite direction.

Conclusions

An MCDA approach may lead to different P&R outcomes compared to a standard HTA process. On the one hand, enrichment of the list of decision making criteria means further scrutiny of a given health technology and as such increases the odds of a negative P&R outcome. On the other hand, it may uncover additional values and as such increase the odds of positive P&R outcomes.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Culyer T. Where are the Limits of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Health Technology Assessment? J Med Assoc Thai. 2014;97 Suppl 5:S1–2.PubMed
3.
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):229–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
5.
Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M. Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. In: Series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, Vol. 78. New York, USA: Springer Science + Business Media; 2005.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Kolasa K. Are pricing and reimbursement decision-making criteria aligned with public preferences regarding allocation principles in the Polish healthcare sector? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(5):751–62.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Kolasa K, Dohnalik J, Borek E, Siemiatkowski M, Scibiorski C. The paradox of public participation in the healthcare in Poland - what citizens want, and what they think. Health Policy. 2014;118(2):159–65.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Kolasa K, Annemans L, Lees M. Assessment of the attitudes of the general public towards supplementary criteria to be used in P&R decision making process in Poland. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):443–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Tordrup D, Tzouma V, Kanavos P. Orphan drug considerations in Health Technology Assessment in eight European countries. Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs. An Int J Public Health. 2014;1(3):83–97.
18.
19.
Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.CrossRef
20.
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;69:1009–24.CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
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;16:1163–9.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
25.
Sullivan SD. The promise of specialty pharmaceuticals: Are they worth the price? J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14(suppl S):S3–6.PubMed
26.
Hyry HI, Stern AD, Cox TM, Roos JCP. Limits on use of health economic assessments for rare diseases. Q J Med. 2014;107(3):241–5.CrossRef
27.
Green C, Gerard K. Exploring the social value of health care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2009;18:951–76.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Mentzakis M, 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;6:405–33.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
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
35.
36.
37.
Drummond MF. Challenges in the economic evaluation of orphan drugs, Pharmaceutical policy. Eurohealth. 2007;14(2):16–7.
38.
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(1):36–42.CrossRefPubMed
39.
George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision-making: evidences from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:1103–9.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Simoens S. Health technologies for rare diseases: does conventional HTA still apply? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(3):315–7.CrossRefPubMed
41.
42.
Sussex J, Rollet PM, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A. Multi-criteria decision analysis to value orphan medicines. London: Office of Health Economics; 2013.
43.
44.
45.
Largent EA, Pearson SD. Which orphans will find a home? The rule of rescue in resource allocation for rare diseases. Hastings Cent Rep. 2012; 42(1):27–34.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Simoens S, Picavet E, Dooms M, Cassiman D, Morel T. Cost-Effectiveness Assessment of Orphan Drugs. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:1–3.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Iskrov GG, Raycheva RD, Stefanov RS. Insight into reimbursement decision-making criteria in Bulgaria: implications for orphan drugs. Folia Med (Plovdiv). 2013;55(3–4):80–6.
48.
Rosenberg-Yunger ZRS, Daar AS, Thorsteinsdottir H, Martin DK. Priority setting for orphan drugs: an international comparision. Health Policy. 2011;100:25–34.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Winquist E, Coyle D, Clarke JTR, Evans GA, Seager C, Chan W. Application of a policy framework for the public funding of drugs for rare diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29 Suppl 3:S774–9.CrossRefPubMed
50.
51.
52.
53.
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
Metadata
Title
Potential impact of the implementation of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) on the Polish pricing and reimbursement process of orphan drugs
Authors
Katarzyna Kolasa
Krzysztof M. Zwolinski
Zoltan Kalo
Tomasz Hermanowski
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1750-1172
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-016-0388-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2016 Go to the issue

Review

Ataxia telangiectasia: a review

Research

Disease burden of spinal muscular atrophy in Germany

Position statement

Orphan devices: yesterday is history; tomorrow is mystery: towards a European orphan device directive?

Review

Aspartylglycosaminuria: a review

Research

MYH7-related myopathies: clinical, histopathological and imaging findings in a cohort of Italian patients

Research

POEMS syndrome and calciphylaxis: an unrecognized cause of abnormal small vessel calcification