The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy for Gaucher's disease: A systematic review

West Midlands Health Technology Assessment Collaboration (WMHTAC), University of Birmingham, UK.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) (Impact Factor: 5.03). 08/2006; 10(24). DOI: 10.3310/hta10240
Source: OAI


see also

Download full-text


Available from: Christopher Mccabe, Oct 21, 2014
1 Follower
249 Reads
  • Source
    • "Accordingly, a large number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients would not be eligible for reimbursement unless earlier intervention has been demonstrated clearly to lead to a significantly greater long-term benefit than later intervention . This approach has worked well in the case of Gaucher disease because, except in the presence of advanced skeletal complications, the response to ERT is almost always brisk [29]. In Canada, therefore, symptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients are treated differently than symptomatic patients. "
  • Source
    • "So far, for ERT in GD I, only limited cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses have been performed. Connock et al have reviewed the available data, primarily based on available literature as well as limited data from the Gaucher Registry [10]. Without the possibility for complex modeling, a comparison was made of cost-effectiveness of enzyme therapy versus no specific treatment for patients with GD I and a comparison of different dosage regimens. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) compared to standard medical care without ERT in the Dutch cohort of patients with type 1 Gaucher disease (GD I). Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a life-time state-transition model of the disease’s natural course. Transition probabilities, effectiveness data and costs were derived from retrospective data and prospective follow-up of the Dutch study cohort. The tertiary referral center for Gaucher disease in the Netherlands. The Dutch cohort of patients with GD I. ERT versus standard medical care without ERT in symptomatic patients. Main outcome measures Years free of end organ damage (YFEOD) (splenectomy, bone complication, malignancy, multiple complications), quality adjusted life years (QALY), and costs. Over an 85 year lifetime, an untreated GD I patient will generate 48.9 YFEOD and 55.86 QALYs. Starting ERT in a symptomatic patient increases the YFEOD by 12.8 years, while the number of QALYs gained increases by 6.27. The average yearly ERT medication costs range between €124,000 and €258,000 per patient. The lifetime costs of ERT starting in the symptomatic stage are €5,716,473 against €171,780 without ERT, a difference of €5,544,693. Consequently, the extra costs per additional YFEOD or per additional QALY are €434,416 and €884,994 respectively. After discounting effects by 1.5% and costs by 4% and under a reasonable scenario of ERT unit cost reduction by 25%, these incremental cost-effectiveness ratios could decrease to €149,857 and €324,812 respectively. ERT is a highly potential drug for GD I with substantial health gains. The conservatively estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are substantially lower than for Pompe and Fabry disease. We suggest that the high effectiveness has contributed importantly to acceptance of reimbursement of ERT for GD I. The present study may further support discussions on acceptable price limits for ultra-orphan products.
    Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 04/2014; 9(1):51. DOI:10.1186/1750-1172-9-51 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "It has been acknowledged that standard methodologies for Health Technology Assessments (HTA) will need to be tailored to take into account the specificities of orphan drugs [25,26] given that the higher price-points claimed by orphan drugs are unlikely to meet current cost-effectiveness thresholds where these are applied. This challenge tends to increase proportionally with the rarity of the disease [27]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since its enactment in 2000, the European Orphan Medicinal Products Regulation has allowed the review and approval of approaching 70 treatments for some 55 different conditions in Europe. Success does not come without a price, however. Many of these so-called "orphan drugs" have higher price points than treatments for more common diseases. This has been raising debate as to whether the treatments are worth it, which, in turn risks blocking patient access to treatment. To date, orphan drugs have only accounted for a small percentage of the overall drug budget. It would appear that, with increasing numbers of orphan drugs, governments are concerned about the future budget impact and their cost-effectiveness in comparison with other healthcare interventions. Orphan drugs are under the spotlight, something that is likely to continue as the economic crisis in Europe takes hold and governments respond with austerity measures that include cuts to healthcare expenditures. Formally and informally, governments are looking at how they are going to handle orphan drugs in the future. Collaborative proposals between EU governments to better understand the value of orphan drugs are under consideration. In recent years there has been increasing criticism of behaviours in the orphan drug field, mainly centring on two key perceptions of the system: the high prices of orphan drugs and their inability to meet standard cost-effectiveness thresholds; and the construct of the system itself, which allows companies to gain the benefits that accrue from being badged as an orphan drug. The authors hypothesise that, by examining these criticisms individually, one might be able to turn these different "behaviours" into criteria for the creation of a system to evaluate new orphan drugs coming onto the market. It has been acknowledged that standard methodologies for Health Technology Assessments (HTA) will need to be tailored to take into account the specificities of orphan drugs given that the higher price-points claimed by orphan drugs are unlikely to meet current cost-effectiveness thresholds. The authors propose the development of a new assessment system based on several evaluation criteria, which would serve as a tool for Member State governments to evaluate each new orphan drug at the time of pricing and reimbursement. These should include rarity, disease severity, the availability of other alternatives (level of unmet medical need), the level of impact on the condition that the new treatment offers, whether the product can be used in one or more indications, the level of research undertaken by the developer, together with other factors, such as manufacturing complexity and follow-up measures required by regulatory or other authorities. This will allow governments to value an orphan drug that fulfilled all the criteria very differently from one that only met some of them. An individual country could determine the (monetary) value that it places on each of the different criteria, according to societal preferences, the national healthcare system and the resources at its disposal -- each individual government deciding on the weighting attributed to each of the criteria in question, based on what each individual society values most. Such a systematic and transparent system will help frame a more structured dialogue between manufacturers and payers, with the involvement of the treating physicians and the patients; and foster a more certain environment to stimulate continued investment in the field. A new approach could also offer pricing and reimbursement decision-makers a tool to handle the different characteristics amongst new orphan drugs, and to redistribute the national budgets in accordance with the outcome of a differentiated assessment. The authors believe that this could, therefore, facilitate the approach for all stakeholders.
    Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 09/2012; 7(1):74. DOI:10.1186/1750-1172-7-74 · 3.36 Impact Factor
Show more