Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs: A comment on Drummond et al. [1]

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 397-401

  McCabe, Christopher ^a   Tsuchiya, Aki ^b   Claxton, Karl ^c   Raftery, James ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (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;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ENZYME REPLACEMENT; FETISHISM; GAUCHER DISEASE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; LAW; LETTER; MEDICAID; MEDICARE;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EUROPE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; ORPHAN DRUG PRODUCTION; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34250772257     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462307071012     Document Type: Letter

References (17)

1. Arno P, Bonuck K, Davis M. Rare diseases, drug development and AIDS. The impact of the Orphan Drugs Act. Millbank Q. 1995;73:231-250.
2. Cannock M, Burls A, Frew E, et al. The clinical and cost effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy for Gauchers disease: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10:iii-iv, ix-136.
3. Chilcott J, McCabe C, Tappenden P, et al. Modelling the cost effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate. BMJ. 2003;326:522-526.
4. Claxton K, Culyer A. Wickedness or Folly? The ethics of NICE's decisions. J Med Ethics. 2006;32:373-377.
5. Drummond MF, Wilson DA, Kanavos P, Ubel P, Rovira J. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:36-42.
6. Garcia AL. Is the copy better than the original? The regulation of orphan drugs: A US-EU comparative perspective. Harvard Law School LLM Paper; 2004.
7. Goozner M. The $800 million pill. San Francisco: University of California Press; 2004:48.
8. Griffin S, Claxton K, Palmer S, Sculpher MJ. Dangerous omissions: The consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:E8.
9. Hughes D, Turnage B, Yeo ST. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: Do they deserve special status for funding? Q J Med. 2005;98:829-836.
10. McCabe C, Claxton K, Tsuchiya A. Orphan drugs and the NHS: Should we value rarity? BMJ. 2005;31:1016-1019.
11. McCabe C, Tsuchiya A, Claxton K, Raftery J. Orphan drugs revisited. Q J Med. 2006;99:341-345.
12. NICE. Citizen's council report on ultra orphan drugs. London: NICE; 2004.
13. NICE. Imatinib for unresectable and/or metastatic gastrointestinal tumours: Technology Appraisal 86. London: NICE; October 2004.
14. Office of Fair Trading. The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme: An OFT market study. London: Office of Fair Trading; February 2007.
15. Relman AS, Angell M. America's other drug problem. New Republic. 16/12/2002.
16. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G. Distributing Scarce livers: The moral reasoning of the general public. Soc Sci Med. 1996;42:1049-1055.
17. Ubel PA, Ricahrdson J, Prades JL. Life saving treatments across disabilities. Are all QALYs created equal? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:738-748.