EU legislation offers an exclusive marketing period as an incentive for companies to develop drugs for rare diseases. But pricing for orphan drugs hinders access and may warrant a competition law investigation, say Jonathan C P Roos, Hanna I Hyry, and Timothy M Cox
Funding of expensive treatments for rare (orphan) diseases is contentious. These agents fare poorly on 'efficiency' or health economic measures, such as the quality-adjusted life years, because of high cost and frequently poor gains in quality of life and survival. We show that cost-effectiveness assessments are flawed, and have only a limited role to play in reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs and beyond.
BackgroundEU regulation 726/2004 authorises manufacturers to provide drugs to patients on a temporary basis when marketing authorisation sought centrally for the entire EU is still pending. Individual Member States retain the right to approve and implement such ‘compassionate use’ programmes which companies will usually provide for free. Nevertheless some companies have opted not to partake in such programmes, in effect restricting access to drugs for patients in need. Here we survey the state of compassionate use programmes in the EU with particular reference to the rare disease field, and provide legal and ethical arguments to encourage their increased compassionate use in the EU and beyond. We contend that if enacted, these recommendations will be mutually beneficial to companies as well as patients.MethodsRequests for information from the European Medicines Agency were made under the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000. Legal, ethical and economic/pragmatic analysis identified means by which provision of therapy in compassionate use programmes might be increased.ResultsMore than 50 notifications of compassionate use programmes have been submitted to the EMA by Member States since 2006. About 40 % relate to orphan drugs. As there is a compulsory register of programmes but not of outcomes, their success is difficult to evaluate but, for example, the French programme expedited treatment for more than 20,000 (orphan and non-orphan) patients over a period of three years.ConclusionCompelling self-interested, legal and ethical arguments can be mounted to encourage manufacturers to offer therapies on a compassionate use basis and these are often equally applicable to provision on a humanitarian aid basis. The EU’s compassionate use programmes are instrumental in ensuring continuity of access to drugs until approval and reimbursement decisions are finalised. We propose the creation of a registry of drugs offered on a compassionate use basis; further transparency would allow such programmes to be evaluated and direct patients to sources of treatment.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13023-015-0306-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Danon disease causes hypertrophic cardiomyopathy - here we propose a common pathophysiological basis for the metabolic and structural effects of this descriptive class of heart disorders. We also contend that troponin I may have prognostic value and merits exploration for clinical decision-making including health warning bracelets. Rapamycin (Sirolimus®), an approved immunosuppressant which also influences autophagy, may prove beneficial. In the interim, while new treatments are developed, a revaluation of cardiac transplantation eligibility criteria is warranted.
BackgroundLife-saving orphan drugs are some of the most expensive medicines. European Union governments aim to accommodate their provision within stretched healthcare budgets but face pressure to reduce funding of such treatments. Patients struggle to retain or gain access to them as their special status is questioned, causing distress and in some cases, fears of premature death. In the UK and EU reimbursement and pricing model of drugs, and orphan drugs in particular, is being re-evaluated.MethodsUsing the United Kingdom as a case study we present, for the first time, legal arguments which compel governments to provide orphan medicinal products. These include (i) disability legislation, (ii) national and organisational constitutions, (iii) judicial review, (iv) tort law and (v) human rights legislation. We then address directly potential objections to our analysis and counter arguments which aim to limit provision of orphan drugs to the intended patient recipients.ResultsWe demonstrate that a compelling case can be made that the law demands the treatment of orphan diseases.ConclusionsOur legal framework will assist doctors and patients in ensuring the continued provision of treatments despite significant economic pressure to reduce funding. These legal avenues will empower stakeholders in drafting funding guidelines throughout the EU. The legal right to treatment extends beyond rare diseases and our analysis may therefore affect allocation of healthcare budgets throughout the EU.
Whether the prices of certain orphan treatments are justified is highly controversial. One argument is that such therapies should not be funded through the public purse or private health plans because a patient with a rare disease requires more than their 'fair share' of a limited health care budget. Orphan medications can also be denied because they fare poorly in the cost-effectiveness assessments of drugs. This paper takes the unusual line that life-saving treatments should be provided regardless of their cost. This contention is based on the Harvard philosopher John Rawls' theory of justice. We offer three rules to limit the use of cost-effectiveness approaches: efficiency assessments should not be deployed (i) when the choice is between an only treatment and no treatment, or to (ii) prioritise between different patients and patient groups. However a well considered cost efficiency calculation may have its place (iii) where a patient has a choice between two or more equally safe and effective treatments. We rebut potential objections to this analysis, and conclude that there has been a tendency to classify appeals for orphan treatments as a minority interest and in conflict with the aims of public health and society at large. Rawls' concept of societal justice shows that a distinction between the individual and society in this context is bogus. The funding of orphan therapies is as much a matter for public health as the funding of treatments for other conditions. Treatment must not be withheld on economic grounds.
Orphan-drug sales are rocketing, with revenue expected to total $176 billion annually by 2020. As a share of the industry, orphan drugs now account for close to 15% of all prescription revenue globally (excluding generics) and the sector is set to grow at more than twice the rate (10.5%) of the overall prescription market (4.3%). But this success also equates to costs--borne by individual patients and cash-strapped health systems. Prices for orphan drugs can be 19 times higher than for other medications, hampering access for patients, many of whom are children. With ever more such expensive drugs reaching the market, the situation is becoming unsustainable and putting the survival of the orphan drug legislation itself at risk. Here the authors consider why there has been an increase in orphan drug designations, how orphan drug prices are set and regulated, before discussing proposals for how changes which could save the legislation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.