IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v3y2019i4d10.1007_s41669-019-0136-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Health Technology Assessments of Orphan Drugs in Ireland from 2012 to 2017

Author

Listed:
  • Cara Usher

    (National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, St. James’s Hospital)

  • Laura McCullagh

    (National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, St. James’s Hospital
    Trinity College Dublin)

  • Lesley Tilson

    (National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, St. James’s Hospital)

  • Michael Barry

    (National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, St. James’s Hospital
    Trinity College Dublin)

Abstract

Background In Ireland, health technology assessment (HTA) submissions for orphan drugs or drugs for rare diseases have increased in recent years but have not been explicitly analysed. All evaluations are conducted by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE). Objectives The objectives of this study were to ascertain the number of orphan drug submissions to the NCPE and determine how these drugs proceeded through the NCPE critical evaluation process compared with non-orphan drug submissions. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of applicant rapid review submissions made to the NCPE from January 2012 to December 2017 inclusive. Drugs were categorised according to the following definitions: orphan (non-cancer) drug, orphan (cancer) drug and ultra-orphan drug. In each of the three categories, the outcome of rapid review appraisal, and where relevant, the outcome of the subsequent HTA was recorded. Results During the period of study, 280 rapid review submissions were made to the NCPE, of which 21 were for orphan (non-cancer) drugs, 24 were for orphan (cancer) and ten were for ultra-orphan drugs. After rapid review, 44%, 78% and 100% of orphan (non-cancer) drugs, orphan (cancer) drugs and ultra-orphan products, respectively, were recommended for full HTA. When the outcome of the rapid review process was compared between orphan drugs and non-orphan drugs, a statistically significant difference was detected in the proportion of rapid reviews for which the outcome was ‘HTA recommended’ (Pearson’s Chi-squared test; p = 0.04). Conclusions The number of submissions to the NCPE for orphan drugs has increased in recent years. The rapid review and HTA process in Ireland plays a role in supporting the reimbursement decision-making process for orphan drugs in a similar manner to the process established for non-orphan drugs. However, the outcome of the reimbursement process for orphan drugs versus non-orphan drugs (in terms of access for patients) has yet to be quantified.

Suggested Citation

  • Cara Usher & Laura McCullagh & Lesley Tilson & Michael Barry, 2019. "Analysis of Health Technology Assessments of Orphan Drugs in Ireland from 2012 to 2017," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 583-589, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0136-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-019-0136-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-019-0136-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-019-0136-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Áine Varley & Lesley Tilson & Emer Fogarty & Laura McCullagh & Michael Barry, 2022. "The Utility of a Rapid Review Evaluation Process to a National HTA Agency," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 203-214, February.
    2. Suaad Almajed & Nora Alotaibi & Sana Zulfiqar & Zahraa Dhuhaibawi & Niall O’Rourke & Richard Gaule & Caoimhe Byrne & Aaron M. Barry & Dylan Keeley & James F. O’Mahony, 2022. "Cost-effectiveness evidence on approved cancer drugs in Ireland: the limits of data availability and implications for public accountability," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 375-431, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0136-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.