Systematic review on the evaluation criteria of orphan medicines in Central and Eastern European countries.

BACKGROUND: In case of orphan drugs applicability of the standard health technology assessment (HTA) process is limited due to scarcity of good clinical and health economic evidence. Financing these premium priced drugs is more controversial in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region where the public funding resources are more restricted, and health economic justification should be an even more important aspect of policy decisions than in higher income European countries. OBJECTIVES: To explore and summarize the recent scientific evidence on value drivers related to the health technology assessment of ODs with a special focus on the perspective of third party payers in CEE countries. The review aims to list all potentially relevant value drivers in the reimbursement process of orphan drugs. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed; PubMed and Scopus databases were systematically searched for relevant publications until April 2015. Extracted data were summarized along key HTA elements. RESULTS: From the 2664 identified publications, 87 contained relevant information on the evaluation criteria of orphan drugs, but only 5 had direct information from the CEE region. The presentation of good clinical evidence seems to play a key role especially since this should be the basis of cost-effectiveness analyses, which have more importance in resource-constrained economies. Due to external price referencing of pharmaceuticals, the relative budget impact of orphan drugs is expected to be higher in CEE than in Western European (WE) countries unless accessibility of patients remains more limited in poorer European regions. Equity principles based on disease prevalence and non-availability of alternative treatment options may increase the price premium, however, societies must have some control on prices and a rationale based on multiple criteria in reimbursement decisions. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of orphan medicines should include multiple criteria to appropriately measure the clinical added value of orphan drugs. The search found only a small number of studies coming from CEE, therefore European policies on orphan drugs may be based largely on experiences in WE countries. More research should be done in the future in CEE because financing high-priced orphan drugs involves a greater burden for these countries

Ulnar-sided wrist pain. II. Clinical imaging and treatment

Pain at the ulnar aspect of the wrist is a diagnostic challenge for hand surgeons and radiologists due to the small and complex anatomical structures involved. In this article, imaging modalities including radiography, arthrography, ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), CT arthrography, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and MR arthrography are compared with regard to differential diagnosis. Clinical imaging findings are reviewed for a more comprehensive understanding of this disorder. Treatments for the common diseases that cause the ulnar-sided wrist pain including extensor carpi ulnaris (ECU) tendonitis, flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU) tendonitis, pisotriquetral arthritis, triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) lesions, ulnar impaction, lunotriquetral (LT) instability, and distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) instability are reviewed

Communal Sharing and the Provision of Low-Volume High-Cost Health Services: Results of a Survey

Introduction: This paper suggests and tests a reason why the public might support the funding of services for rare diseases (SRDs) when the services are effective but not cost effective, i.e. when more health could be produced by allocating funds to other services. It is postulated that the fairness of funding a service is influenced by a comparison of the average patient benefit with the average cost to those who share the cost. Methods: Survey respondents were asked to allocate a budget between cost-effective services that had a small effect upon a large number of relatively well patients and SRDs that benefited a small number of severely ill patients but were not cost effective because of their high cost. Results: Part of the budget was always allocated to the SRDs. The budget share rose with the number sharing the cost. Discussion: Sharing per se appears to characterise preferences. This has been obscured in studies that focus upon cost per patient rather than cost per person sharing the cost.</p