Orphan drugs revisited

QJM: An International Journal of Medicine

Volumn 99, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 341-345

  McCabe, C ^a   Tsuchiya, A ^a,b   Claxton, K ^c   Raftery, J ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGLUCERASE; BETA INTERFERON; IMATINIB; ORPHAN DRUG;

BUDGET; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG COST; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG RESEARCH; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GAUCHER DISEASE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; LICENSING; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NOTE; PATENT; PATIENT CARE; PHARMACOGENETICS; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFIT; QUALITY OF LIFE; RARE DISEASE; REGISTER; REIMBURSEMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 33646240617     PISSN: 14602725     EISSN: 14602393     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcl033     Document Type: Note

References (18)

1. Hughes DA, Tunnage B, Yeo ST. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: Do they deserve special status for funding? Q J Med 2005; 98:829-36.
2. Palmer S, Smith P. Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies. JHE 2000; 19:755-66.
3. Connock M, Burls A, Frew E, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy for Gauchers Disease. Health Technol Assess 2006; in press.
4. NICE. Guide to the methods of health technology assessment London, NICE, 2004.
5. McCabe C. Claxton K. Tsuchiya A. Authors response. BMJ Rapid Response. [http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/331/7523/1016] (accessed 18th December 2005).
6. Department of Health. NHS Reference Cost Index 2004. London, 2005. [http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/10/55/53/04105553.xls] (Accessed 30th January 2006).
7. Hadorn DC. Setting health care priorities in Oregon. Cost-effectiveness meets the rule of rescue. JAMA 1991; 265:2218-25.
8. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/content/articles/2005/09/26/ herceptin_diary_feature.shtml]
9. Horton R. Herceptin and Early Breast Cancer: A moment for caution. Lancet 2005; 366:1673.
10. Broome J. Trying to value a life. J Public Econ 1978; 9:91-100.
11. McCabe C, Claxton K, Tsuchiya A. Orphan Drugs and the NHS: Should we value rarity? Br Med J 2005; 331:1016-19.
12. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. NICE citizen's council report on ultra orphan drugs. London, NICE, 2004. [http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=240951] (accessed 18th December 2005).
13. Burls A, Austin D, Moore D. Commissioning for rare diseases: A view from the frontline. Br Med J 2005; 331:1019-21.
14. Relman AS, Angel M. America's other drug problem. New Republic 2002; Dec 16:27-41.
15. Goozner M. The $800m pill. The truth behind the cost of new drugs. University of California Press, 2004.
16. Newby D, Creese A, Stevens A. Pricing of pharmaceuticals. In: Freemantle N, Hill S, eds, Evaluating pharmaceuticals for health policy and reimbursement. BMJ/Blackwell, 2004.
17. Food and Drug Administration. Orphan drug act (as amended). [www.fda.gov/ orphan/oda.htm] (accessed 15 November 2004).
18. Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 16, 1999 on orphan medicinal products. Official Journal of the European Communities 2000; 43(L18):1-5.