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

13.04.2020 | Original Research

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

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

Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Ausgabe 9/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

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.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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
Metadaten
Titel
Orphan Drugs Offer Larger Health Gains but Less Favorable Cost-effectiveness than Non-orphan Drugs
verfasst von
James D. Chambers, PhD
Madison C. Silver, BA
Flora C. Berklein, MPH
Joshua T. Cohen, PhD
Peter J. Neumann, ScD
Publikationsdatum
13.04.2020
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Ausgabe 9/2020
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Elektronische ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05805-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2020

Journal of General Internal Medicine 9/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.