Literature DB >> 20003427

No difference in between-country variability in use of newly approved orphan and non- orphan medicinal products--a pilot study.

Pieter Stolk1, Harald E Heemstra, Hubert G M Leufkens, Brigitte Bloechl-Daum, Eibert R Heerdink.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Regulators and payers have to strike a balance between the needs of the patient and the optimal allocation of resources. Drugs indicated for rare diseases (orphan medicines) are a special group in this context because of their often high per unit costs. Our objective in this pilot study was to determine, for drugs used in an outpatient setting, how utilisation of centrally authorised drugs varies between countries across a selection of EU member states.
METHODS: We randomly selected five orphan medicines and nine other drugs that were centrally authorised in the European Union between January 2000 and November 2006. We compared utilisation of these drugs in six European Union member states: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Portugal, The Netherlands, and Sweden. Utilisation data were expressed as Defined Daily Doses per 1000 persons per year. Variability in use across countries was determined by calculating the relative standard deviation for the utilisation rates of individual drugs across countries.
RESULTS: No association between orphan medicine status and variability in use across countries was found (P = 0.52). Drugs with an orphan medicine status were more expensive and had a higher innovation score than drugs without an orphan medicine status.
CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the variability in use of orphan medicines in the different health care systems of the European Union appears to be comparable to the other newly authorised drugs that were included in the analysis. This means that, although strong heterogeneity in access may exist, this heterogeneity is not specific for drugs with an orphan status.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20003427      PMCID: PMC2805618          DOI: 10.1186/1750-1172-4-27

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis        ISSN: 1750-1172            Impact factor:   4.123


  5 in total

Review 1.  Orphan drugs and the NHS: should we value rarity?

Authors:  Christopher McCabe; Karl Claxton; Aki Tsuchiya
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-10-29

2.  Therapeutic innovation in the European Union: analysis of the drugs approved by the EMEA between 1995 and 2003.

Authors:  Domenico Motola; Fabrizio De Ponti; Pasqualino Rossi; Nello Martini; Nicola Montanaro
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Between-country variation in the utilization of antihypertensive agents: Guidelines and clinical practice.

Authors:  P Stolk; B L G Van Wijk; H G M Leufkens; E R Heerdink
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2006-09-21       Impact factor: 3.012

4.  Variability in abciximab (ReoPro) prescribing: evidence based or budget driven?

Authors:  J E F Zwart-van Rijkom; H G M Leufkens; M L Simoons; A W Broekmans
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.890

5.  Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs.

Authors:  Michael F Drummond; David A Wilson; Panos Kanavos; Peter Ubel; Joan Rovira
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.188

  5 in total
  7 in total

1.  Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence.

Authors:  Alain G Dupont; Philippe B Van Wilder
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  Orphan Drug Use in Patients With Rare Diseases: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

Authors:  Francesca Gorini; Michele Santoro; Anna Pierini; Lorena Mezzasalma; Silvia Baldacci; Elena Bargagli; Alessandra Boncristiano; Maurizia Rossana Brunetto; Paolo Cameli; Francesco Cappelli; Giancarlo Castaman; Barbara Coco; Maria Alice Donati; Renzo Guerrini; Silvia Linari; Vittoria Murro; Iacopo Olivotto; Paola Parronchi; Francesca Pochiero; Oliviero Rossi; Barbara Scappini; Andrea Sodi; Alessandro Maria Vannucchi; Alessio Coi
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 5.988

3.  Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries.

Authors:  Elena Nicod
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-08-18

4.  Using 5 consecutive years of NICE guidance to describe the characteristics and influencing factors on the economic evaluation of orphan oncology drugs.

Authors:  Duan Shengnan; Lv Zixuan; Zhou Na; Zhu Weikai; Yi Yuanyuan; Liu Jiasu; Yuan Ni
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-09-14

Review 5.  Access to Orphan Drugs: A Comprehensive Review of Legislations, Regulations and Policies in 35 Countries.

Authors:  Todd Gammie; Christine Y Lu; Zaheer Ud-Din Babar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Determinants of utilisation differences for cancer medicines in Belgium, Scotland and Sweden.

Authors:  Alessandra Ferrario
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-12-09

7.  Comparing access to orphan medicinal products in Europe.

Authors:  Bernarda Zamora; Francois Maignen; Phill O'Neill; Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz; Martina Garau
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2019-05-03       Impact factor: 4.123

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.