Search

Background: Rare diseases are defined as life-threatening or chronically debilitating diseases with a prevalence of 50 out of 100,000 individuals or less. Orphan medicinal products (OMPs) are intended for the treatment of rare diseases. The assessment of quality of evidence in small populations is often complex. Many generic tools are unfit. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop and validate a new tool to assess the quality of OMPs' clinical evidence (COMPASS)., Methods: Firstly, a draft version of the COMPASS tool, developed by the authors and consisting of three parts, was amended based on suggestions obtained in four rounds of expert consultation. Secondly, the tool was put through three rounds of validation. The data source was information provided on the Orphanet website and in European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) document of the European Medicines Agency., Results: The first pilot round revealed a high (92.2%) inter-rater agreement for part one of the tool. After further improvements, the final inter-rater agreement was 86.4% for part two (on methodological quality) and three (on quality of reporting) of the tool. The COMPASS tool does not attempt to score or rank the quality of clinical evidence, but rather to give an outline of various, key elements with respect to quality of clinical evidence of OMP studies., Conclusions: The COMPASS tool can be applied to assess the quality of evidence of an OMP based on information in the registration dossier, for example by local reimbursement agencies, pharmacists or clinicians. In that way, the tool can contribute to making reimbursement and/or treatment decisions increasingly more founded on the principles of evidence-based decision making.

Orphan drugs are intended for diseases with a very low prevalence, and many countries have implemented legislation to support market access of orphan drugs. We argue that it is time to revisit the special market access status of orphan drugs. Indeed, evidence suggests that there is no societal preference for treating rare diseases. Although society appears to assign a greater value to severity of disease, this criterion is equally relevant to many common diseases. Furthermore, the criterion of equity in access to treatment, which underpins orphan drug legislation, puts more value on health improvement in rare diseases than in common diseases and implies that population health is not maximized. Finally, incentives for the development, pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs have created market failures, including monopolistic prices and the artificial creation of rare diseases. We argue that, instead of awarding special market access status to orphan drugs, there is scope to optimize research and development (R&D) of orphan drugs and to control prices of orphan drugs by means of, for example, patent auctions, advance purchase commitments, pay-as-you-go schemes and dose-modification studies. Governments should consider carefully the right incentive strategy for R&D of orphan drugs in rare diseases.

The literature indicates that the expenditure on orphan drugs will be increasing over the coming years. The market for orphan drugs has inherent market characteristics that sometimes result in high prices. The aim of this study was to analyse whether awarding orphan designation status has an influence on the price setting of drugs for rare disease indications. To this effect, prices of designated orphan drugs were compared with other non-designated drugs for rare disease indications. We identified 28 designated orphan drugs and 16 comparable non-designated drugs for rare disease indications for which we collected official hospital prices (per defined daily dose) in Belgium in 2010. Orphan-designated drugs had a higher median price (138.56 Euros [interquartile range; IQR 406.57 Euros]) than non-designated drugs (16.55 Euros [IQR 28.05 Euros]) for rare disease indications (p < 0.01). In conclusion, our results suggest that awarding orphan designation status in itself is associated with higher prices for drugs for rare disease indications. In order to gain full insight into orphan drug pricing mechanisms, future research should focus on collecting information about the different factors influencing orphan drug pricing.

Background: Off-label use of (orphan) medicinal products for (rare) diseases is quite common but not underpinned by clinical studies to confirm efficacy and safety. No risk-analyses by regulatory agencies are carried out. The objective of this study was to map off-label use of orphan medicinal products in Belgium in terms of attitude towards off-label prescribing, factors influencing off-label prescribing, disclosure of information towards the patient, reporting of off-label use, risks and consequences. Most of the EMA authorized orphan drugs are fully reimbursed in Belgium under well-defined circumstances. Moreover, a "Special Solidarity Fund" takes care of some specific cases eventually prescribed off-label. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with seven physicians with expertise in the treatment with and six experts in the reimbursement of orphan medicinal products in Belgium. This task was performed by five last-year pharmacy students after having studied profoundly the medical literature around off-label prescribing. They had no previous contact with the participants. Results: Most participants do agree with the off-label use if the medicinal product is quite safe and well-tolerated, if the on-label indication is rather general and when all other options have failed in some specific, evidence-based indications, especially in children. Before starting off-label use, the patient/family needs to be fully and clearly informed. The treatment is not reimbursed but sometimes sponsored by the company or by charity funds. Reporting of the outcome is necessary to avoid losing valuable information. The prescriber is responsible and can be held accountable. Conclusions: While there is support from physicians and reimbursement experts, there is also concern in case of off-label use, mainly for reasons of patient safety especially when medicinal products are prescribed off-label in the absence of medical or scientific justification and driven by cost-containment motives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The difficulties associated with organising clinical studies for orphan medicinal products (OMPs) are plentiful. Recent debate on the long-term effectiveness of some OMPs, led us to question whether the initial standards for clinical evidence for OMPs, set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) at the time of marketing authorization, are too low. Therefore, the aim of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the characteristics and quality of clinical evidence that is presented for OMPs to obtain marketing authorization in Europe, using the new and validated COMPASS tool. Methods We quantitatively assessed the characteristics and quality of clinical evidence of the pivotal studies of 64 OMPs as described in the European Public Assessment Report and/or the Scientific Discussion document prepared by the Committee for Human Medicinal Products of the EMA. Results The 64 OMPs were altogether authorized for 78 orphan indications, for which 117 studies were identified as 'pivotal' or 'main' studies. In approximately two thirds of the studies, the allocation was randomized (64.8%) and a control arm was used (68.5%). Half of the studies applied some type of blinding. Only a minority (26.9%) of the studies included a Quality-of- Life (QoL) related endpoint, of which a third claim an improvement in QoL. Upon analyzing the quality of reporting, we found that some aspects (i.e. the endpoints, the sampling criteria, and the interventions) are well described, whereas other items (i.e. a description of the patients and of potential biases) are not reported for all studies. Conclusions In conclusion, the pivotal studies that are the basis for marketing authorization of OMPs are a cause for concern, as they exhibit methodological flaws i.e. the lack of QoL-related endpoints as outcome, lack of blinding in the study design and the use of surrogate endpoints. Additionally, there are shortcomings in the reporting of those studies that complicate the interpretation. A more demanding regulatory process for OMPs is needed to guide evidencebased clinical decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PMM2-CDG is a rare disease, causing hypoglycosylation of multiple proteins, hence preventing full functionality. So far, no direct genotype–phenotype correlations have been identified. We carried out a retrospective cohort study on 26 PMM2-CDG patients. We collected the identified genotype, as well as continuous variables indicating the disease severity (based on Nijmegen Pediatric CDG Rating Score or NPCRS) and dichotomous variables reflecting the patients' phenotype. The phenotypic effects of patients' genotype were studied using non-parametric and Chi-Square tests. Seventeen different pathogenic variants have been studied. Variants with zero enzyme activity had no significant impact on the Nijmegen score. Pathogenic variants involving the stabilization/folding domain have a significantly lower total NPCRS (p = 0.017): presence of the p.Cys241Ser mutation had a significantly lower subscore 1,3 and NPCRS (p = 0.04) and thus result in a less severe phenotype. On the other hand, variants involving the dimerization domain, p.Pro113Leu and p.Phe119Leu, resulted in a significantly higher NPCRS score (p = 0.002), which indicates a worse clinical course. These concepts give a better insight in the phenotypic prognosis of PMM2-CDG, according to their molecular base. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]