Medicamentos huérfanos

Orphan drugs are intended for the treatment of diseases of low prevalence, also known as rare diseases. Research and development into new therapies for this heterogeneous group of diseases presents a number of well-recognized difficulties. One of these is that the small number of patients affected jeopardizes the economic return on the investment made by the pharmaceutical industry. For this reason, in the year 2000 the European Union brought out a specific European Regulation to promote and encourage the development of these therapies. After more than a decade, the results reveal a positive effect of the approval of that regulation. Currently, more than 1300 compounds have been designated orphan drugs, of which over 90 have already obtained marketing authorization. The voice of the patient has been key to producing this change and programs and research consortia promoted by the EU promise an even brighter future.Los medicamentos huérfanos son aquellos fármacos destinados al tratamiento de enfermedades de baja prevalencia, también conocidas como enfermedades raras. La investigación y desarrollo de nuevas terapias para este conjunto heterogéneo de enfermedades presenta una serie de dificultades que están bien reconocidas. Entre ellas, el reducido número de afectados compromete el retorno económico de la inversión realizada por parte de la industria farmacéutica. Por ello la Unión Europea en el año 2000 aprobó un Reglamento Europeo específico para favorecer e incentivar el desarrollo de estas terapias. Transcurrida más de una década, los resultados muestran el efecto positivo que la entrada en vigor de dicho Reglamento ha provocado. Actualmente se han designado más de 1300 compuestos, de los cuales más de 90 ya han obtenido la autorización de comercialización. La voz de los pacientes ha sido clave para el devenir de este cambio y los programas y consorcios promovidos por la UE prometen todavía un futuro más esperanzador

Implementing reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to assess orphan drugs value in the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut)

Catalan healthcare; Decision-making; Multi-criteria decision analysis; Orphan drugsSanitat catalana; Presa de decisions; Anàlisi de decisions multicriteri; Medicaments orfesSanidad catalana; Toma de decisiones; Análisis de decisiones multicriteria; Medicamentos huérfanosBACKGROUND: Orphan medicines show some characteristics that hinder the evaluation of their clinical added value. The often low level of evidence available for orphan drugs, together with a high budget impact and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio many times higher than drugs used for non-orphan diseases, represent challenges in their appraisal and effective access to clinical use. In order to explore how to handle these hurdles, the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut) began an initiative on a multidimensional assessment of drugs value during the appraisal process. Reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) using analytical methods was chosen, since it may help to standardise and contextualize all the relevant data related with the drug that could contribute to a decision. The aim of the study was to determine whether the implementation of reflective MCDA methodology could support the decision-making process about orphan medicines in the context of CatSalut. METHODS: The assessment and decision-making process for orphan drugs in the Programa d'Harmonització Farmacoterapeutica (PHF) of CatSalut was prioritized to test the implementation of the reflective MCDA both a qualitative and quantitatively. A staged approach was used with the following main steps: selection and structuration of quantitative criteria (Core Model) and qualitative criteria (Contextual Tool), framework scoring and assessment of three orphan drug case studies. This proof-of-concept would grant a continued refinement of the methodology and, if and when validated, its potential integration to other therapeutic areas of the PHF. RESULTS: The final framework was composed by 10 quantitative criteria (Core Model) and 4 qualitative criteria (Contextual Tool) according to the PHF goals being the most important criteria "disease severity", "unmet need", "comparative effectiveness" and "comparative safety /tolerability". The matrix developed for the case studies served as a guide for the selection of the essential information that the decision-makers were expected to include in a framework. The reflective discussion was considered the most relevant phase of the approach to support inputs for health decision-making processes reflecting both drug value and place in therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that reflective MCDA methodology could be implemented to complement the decision-making process in CatSalut, as an aid to determine the clinical added value for orphan medicines. MCDA provided transparency and a structured discussion during the committee meetings, thus increasing transparency and predictability of the relevant items supporting the agreements adopted on orphan drugs access

Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL)

International audienceAbstractRare diseases are an important public health issue with high unmet need. The introduction of the EU Regulation on orphan medicinal products (OMP) has been successful in stimulating investment in the research and development of OMPs. Despite this advancement, patients do not have universal access to these new medicines. There are many factors that affect OMP uptake, but one of the most important is the difficulty of making pricing and reimbursement (P&R) decisions in rare diseases. Until now, there has been little consensus on the most appropriate assessment criteria, perspective or appraisal process. This paper proposes nine principles to help improve the consistency of OMP P&R assessment in Europe and ensure that value assessment, pricing and funding processes reflect the specificities of rare diseases and contribute to both the sustainability of healthcare systems and the sustainability of innovation in this field. These recommendations are the output of the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL), a collaboration between rare disease experts, patient representatives, academics, health technology assessment (HTA) practitioners, politicians and industry representatives. ORPH-VAL reached its recommendations through careful consideration of existing OMP P&R literature and through a wide consultation with expert stakeholders, including payers, regulators and patients. The principles cover four areas: OMP decision criteria, OMP decision process, OMP sustainable funding systems and European co-ordination. This paper also presents a guide to the core elements of value relevant to OMPs that should be consistently considered in all OMP appraisals. The principles outlined in this paper may be helpful in drawing together an emerging consensus on this topic and identifying areas where consistency in payer approach could be achievable and beneficial. All stakeholders have an obligation to work together to ensure that the promise of OMP’s is realised

Enfermedades raras: enfermedades crónicas que requieren un nuevo enfoque sociosanitario

El concepto de Enfermedades Raras es relativamente nuevo. Suponen aquellos procesos "que pueden ser mortales o provocar un debilitamiento crónico del paciente y que, debido a su escasa prevalencia, requieren esfuerzos combinados para tratarlas. A título indicativo, se considera una prevalencia escasa cuando es inferior a 5 casos por 10.000 personas en la Comunidad". La existencia de estas enfermedades está vinculada estrechamente con los medicamentos huérfanos, incluyendo como tales a todo fármaco, prótesis, agente biológico o preparación dietética destinado al tratamiento de una Enfermedad Rara. A este espectro hay que añadir dos factores más: 1. Los médicos de Atención Primaria no se sienten muy motivados en su conocimiento y 2. Necesitan una atención sociosanitaria compleja y habitualmente más onerosa que las enfermedades crónicas. Por todo lo expuesto las Enfermedades Raras se presentan como un universo que requiere un nuevo enfoque sociosanitario por parte de los sistemas de salud

Implementing reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to assess orphan drugs value in the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut)

Catalan healthcare; Decision-making; Multi-criteria decision analysis; Orphan drugsSanitat catalana; Presa de decisions; Anàlisi de decisions multicriteri; Medicaments orfesSanidad catalana; Toma de decisiones; Análisis de decisiones multicriteria; Medicamentos huérfanosBACKGROUND: Orphan medicines show some characteristics that hinder the evaluation of their clinical added value. The often low level of evidence available for orphan drugs, together with a high budget impact and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio many times higher than drugs used for non-orphan diseases, represent challenges in their appraisal and effective access to clinical use. In order to explore how to handle these hurdles, the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut) began an initiative on a multidimensional assessment of drugs value during the appraisal process. Reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) using analytical methods was chosen, since it may help to standardise and contextualize all the relevant data related with the drug that could contribute to a decision. The aim of the study was to determine whether the implementation of reflective MCDA methodology could support the decision-making process about orphan medicines in the context of CatSalut. METHODS: The assessment and decision-making process for orphan drugs in the Programa d'Harmonització Farmacoterapeutica (PHF) of CatSalut was prioritized to test the implementation of the reflective MCDA both a qualitative and quantitatively. A staged approach was used with the following main steps: selection and structuration of quantitative criteria (Core Model) and qualitative criteria (Contextual Tool), framework scoring and assessment of three orphan drug case studies. This proof-of-concept would grant a continued refinement of the methodology and, if and when validated, its potential integration to other therapeutic areas of the PHF. RESULTS: The final framework was composed by 10 quantitative criteria (Core Model) and 4 qualitative criteria (Contextual Tool) according to the PHF goals being the most important criteria "disease severity", "unmet need", "comparative effectiveness" and "comparative safety /tolerability". The matrix developed for the case studies served as a guide for the selection of the essential information that the decision-makers were expected to include in a framework. The reflective discussion was considered the most relevant phase of the approach to support inputs for health decision-making processes reflecting both drug value and place in therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that reflective MCDA methodology could be implemented to complement the decision-making process in CatSalut, as an aid to determine the clinical added value for orphan medicines. MCDA provided transparency and a structured discussion during the committee meetings, thus increasing transparency and predictability of the relevant items supporting the agreements adopted on orphan drugs access

Evidence supporting regulatory-decision making on orphan medicinal products authorisation in Europe : methodological uncertainties

To assess uncertainty in regulatory decision-making for orphan medicinal products (OMP), a summary of the current basis for approval is required; a systematic grouping of medical conditions may be useful in summarizing information and issuing recommendations for practice. A grouping of medical conditions with similar characteristics regarding the potential applicability of methods and designs was created using a consensus approach. The 125 dossiers for authorised OMP published between 1999 and 2014 on the EMA webpage were grouped accordingly and data was extracted from European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) to assess the extent and robustness of the pivotal evidence supporting regulatory decisions. 88% (110/125) of OMP authorizations were based on clinical trials, with 35% (38/110) including replicated pivotal trials. The mean (SD) number of pivotal trials per indication was 1.4 (0.7), and the EPARs included a median of three additional non-pivotal supportive studies. 10% of OMPs (13/125) were authorised despite only negative pivotal trials. One-third of trials (53/159) did not include a control arm, one-third (50/159) did not use randomisation, half the trials (75/159) were open-label and 75% (119/159) used intermediate or surrogate variables as the main outcome. Chronic progressive conditions led by multiple system/organs, conditions with single acute episodes and progressive conditions led by one organ/system were the groups where the evidence deviated most from conventional standards. Conditions with recurrent acute episodes had the most robust datasets. The overall size of the exposed population at the time of authorisation of OMP − mean(SD) 190.5 (202.5) − was lower than that required for the qualification of clinically-relevant adverse reactions. The regulatory evidence supporting OMP authorization showed substantial uncertainties, including weak protection against errors, substantial use of designs unsuited for conclusions on causality, use of intermediate variables, lack of a priorism and insufficient safety data to quantify risks of relevant magnitude. Grouping medical conditions based on clinical features and their methodological requirements may facilitate specific methodological and regulatory recommendations for the study of OMP to strengthen the evidence base. The online version of this article (10.1186/s13023-018-0926-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Catalonia's care model for rare diseases

Malalties rares; Xarxes d'unitats d'expertesa clínica; XUEC; Equips multidisciplinarisEnfermedades raras; Redes de unidades de experiencia clínica; XUEC; Equipos multidisciplinariosRare diseases; Networks of clinical expertise units; XUEC; Multidisciplinary teamsEl Comitè Europeu de Salut defineix les malalties rares (MR) com "malalties cròniques debilitants que amenacen la vida i que tenen una prevalença tan baixa que calen esforços especials combinats per abordar-les". Constitueixen entitats clíniques molt heterogènies, multisistèmiques i cròniques que requereixen un enfocament multidisciplinari. Les MR es defineixen amb una prevalença inferior a 1 de cada 2000 persones a Europa

The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium : Policies and Guidelines to maximize impact

Altres ajuts: This work and the IRDiRC Scientific Secretariat are supported by the European FP7 contract, "SUPPORT-IRDiRC" (No 305207). H.L. receives funding from the European Commission under FP7 through NeurOmics (No 305121) and RD-Connect (No 305444). C.P.A. contributed to this work in his capacity as Chair of the IRDiRC Consortium Assembly, not as Director of the NCATS. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests.The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) has agreed on IRDiRC Policies and Guidelines, following extensive deliberations and discussions in 2012 and 2013, as a first step towards improving coordination of research efforts worldwide. The 25 funding members and 3 patient umbrella organizations (as of early 2013) of IRDiRC, a consortium of research funders that focuses on improving diagnosis and therapy for rare disease patients, agreed in Dublin, Ireland in April 2013 on the Policies and Guidelines that emphasize collaboration in rare disease research, the involvement of patients and their representatives in all relevant aspects of research, as well as the sharing of data and resources. The Policies and Guidelines provide guidance on ontologies, diagnostics, biomarkers, patient registries, biobanks, natural history, therapeutics, models, publication, intellectual property, and communication. Most IRDiRC members-currently nearly 50 strong-have since incorporated its policies in their funding calls and some have chosen to exceed the requirements laid out, for instance in relation to data sharing. The IRDiRC Policies and Guidelines are the first, detailed agreement of major public and private funding organizations worldwide to govern rare disease research, and may serve as a template for other areas of international research collaboration. While it is too early to assess their full impact on research productivity and patient benefit, the IRDiRC Policies and Guidelines have already contributed significantly to improving transparency and collaboration in rare disease research

Evidence supporting regulatory-decision making on orphan medicinal products authorisation in Europe : methodological uncertainties

BACKGROUND: To assess uncertainty in regulatory decision-making for orphan medicinal products (OMP), a summary of the current basis for approval is required; a systematic grouping of medical conditions may be useful in summarizing information and issuing recommendations for practice. METHODS: A grouping of medical conditions with similar characteristics regarding the potential applicability of methods and designs was created using a consensus approach. The 125 dossiers for authorised OMP published between 1999 and 2014 on the EMA webpage were grouped accordingly and data was extracted from European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) to assess the extent and robustness of the pivotal evidence supporting regulatory decisions. RESULTS: 88% (110/125) of OMP authorizations were based on clinical trials, with 35% (38/110) including replicated pivotal trials. The mean (SD) number of pivotal trials per indication was 1.4 (0.7), and the EPARs included a median of three additional non-pivotal supportive studies. 10% of OMPs (13/125) were authorised despite only negative pivotal trials. One-third of trials (53/159) did not include a control arm, one-third (50/159) did not use randomisation, half the trials (75/159) were open-label and 75% (119/159) used intermediate or surrogate variables as the main outcome. Chronic progressive conditions led by multiple system/organs, conditions with single acute episodes and progressive conditions led by one organ/system were the groups where the evidence deviated most from conventional standards. Conditions with recurrent acute episodes had the most robust datasets. The overall size of the exposed population at the time of authorisation of OMP - mean(SD) 190.5 (202.5) - was lower than that required for the qualification of clinically-relevant adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: The regulatory evidence supporting OMP authorization showed substantial uncertainties, including weak protection against errors, substantial use of designs unsuited for conclusions on causality, use of intermediate variables, lack of a priorism and insufficient safety data to quantify risks of relevant magnitude. Grouping medical conditions based on clinical features and their methodological requirements may facilitate specific methodological and regulatory recommendations for the study of OMP to strengthen the evidence base