James D Chambers1, Madison C Silver2, Flora C Berklein2, Joshua T Cohen2, Peter J Neumann2. 1. Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. jchambers@tuftsmedicalcenter.org. 2. Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orphan drugs offer important therapeutic options to patients suffering from rare conditions, but are typically considerably more expensive than non-orphan drugs, leading to questions about their cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To compare the value of orphan and non-orphan drugs approved by the FDA from 1999 through 2015. DESIGN: We searched the PubMed database to identify estimates of incremental health gains (measured in quality-adjusted life-years, or QALYs) and incremental costs that were associated with orphan and non-orphan drugs compared with preexisting care. We excluded pharmaceutical industry-funded studies from the dataset. When a drug was approved for multiple indications, we considered each drug-indication pair separately. We then compared incremental QALY gains, incremental costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for orphan and non-orphan drugs using the Mann-Whitney U (MWU) test (to compare median values of the different distributions) and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test (to compare the shape of different distributions). RESULTS: We identified estimates for 49 orphan drug-indication pairs, and for 169 non-orphan drug-indication pairs. We found that orphan drug-indication pairs offered larger median incremental health gains than non-orphan drug-indication pairs (0.25 vs. 0.05 QALYs; MWU p = 0.0093, KS p = 0.02), but were associated with substantially higher costs ($47,652 vs. $2870; MWU p < 0.001, KS p < 0.001) and less favorable cost-effectiveness ($276,288 vs. $100,360 per QALY gained; MWU p = 0.0068, KS p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that orphan drugs often offer larger health gains than non-orphan drugs, but due to their substantially higher costs they tend to be less cost-effective than non-orphan drugs. Our findings highlight the challenge faced by health care payers to provide patients appropriate access to orphan drugs while achieving value from drug spending.
BACKGROUND: Orphan drugs offer important therapeutic options to patients suffering from rare conditions, but are typically considerably more expensive than non-orphan drugs, leading to questions about their cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To compare the value of orphan and non-orphan drugs approved by the FDA from 1999 through 2015. DESIGN: We searched the PubMed database to identify estimates of incremental health gains (measured in quality-adjusted life-years, or QALYs) and incremental costs that were associated with orphan and non-orphan drugs compared with preexisting care. We excluded pharmaceutical industry-funded studies from the dataset. When a drug was approved for multiple indications, we considered each drug-indication pair separately. We then compared incremental QALY gains, incremental costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for orphan and non-orphan drugs using the Mann-Whitney U (MWU) test (to compare median values of the different distributions) and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test (to compare the shape of different distributions). RESULTS: We identified estimates for 49 orphan drug-indication pairs, and for 169 non-orphan drug-indication pairs. We found that orphan drug-indication pairs offered larger median incremental health gains than non-orphan drug-indication pairs (0.25 vs. 0.05 QALYs; MWU p = 0.0093, KS p = 0.02), but were associated with substantially higher costs ($47,652 vs. $2870; MWU p < 0.001, KS p < 0.001) and less favorable cost-effectiveness ($276,288 vs. $100,360 per QALY gained; MWU p = 0.0068, KS p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that orphan drugs often offer larger health gains than non-orphan drugs, but due to their substantially higher costs they tend to be less cost-effective than non-orphan drugs. Our findings highlight the challenge faced by health care payers to provide patients appropriate access to orphan drugs while achieving value from drug spending.
Authors: Eric Winquist; Doug Coyle; Joe T R Clarke; Gerald A Evans; Christine Seager; Winnie Chan; Janet Martin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Josh J Carlson; Sean D Sullivan; Louis P Garrison; Peter J Neumann; David L Veenstra Journal: Health Policy Date: 2010-03-11 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: James D Chambers; David D Kim; Elle F Pope; Jennifer S Graff; Colby L Wilkinson; Peter J Neumann Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: James D Chambers; Teja Thorat; Junhee Pyo; Matthew Chenoweth; Peter J Neumann Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: James D Chambers; Nikoletta M Margaretos; Daniel E Enright; Rosa Wang; Xin Ye Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Renée E Michels; Carlos H Arteaga; Michel L Peters; Ellen Kapiteijn; Carla M L Van Herpen; Marieke Krol Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 3.686