Policy alternatives for treatments for rare diseases

CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal

Volumn 182, Issue 17, 2010, Pages

  Panju, Abbas H ^a,b   Bell, Chaim M ^b,c  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANADA; DRUG COST; ECONOMIC ASPECT; POLICY; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; RARE DISEASE; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW;

EID: 78649652812     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: 14882329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.081429     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Haffner ME. Orphan drug development: international program and study design issues. Optimizing pharmaceutical development: the global experience. Drug Inf J 1998;32:93-9.
2. House of Commons. Journals. 39th Parliament, 2nd session, no. 90 (7 May 2008). Available: www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications /Publication.aspx?Language =E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2&DocId=3472169 9 9 (accessed 2010 Apr. 16).
3. Scott DL, Alder S, Usui E, et al. Orphan drug programs/policies in Australia, Japan, and Canada. Drug Inf J 2001;35:1-16. (Pubitemid 32198548)
4. Gilron I. The Emergency Drug Release Program: regulatory aspects of new drug access in Canada. CMAJ 1993;148:1151-3. (Pubitemid 23144469)
5. Health Canada. Guidance document on the import requirements for health products under the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada/Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate; 2010. Available: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/compli-conform/import-export/gui-0084-biu-uif-eng.php (accessed 2010 July 1).
6. Orphan Drug Policy [letter sent to associations]. Ottawa (ON): Drugs Directorate, Health Canada; 1997. File no: 96-037419. Available: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps /prodpharma/applic-demande/pol/orph-pol-eng.php (accessed 2010 Jan. 12).
7. Clarke JTR, Amato D, Deber RB. Managing public payment for high-cost, highbenefit treatment: enzyme replacement therapy for Gaucher's disease in Ontario. CMAJ 2001;165:595-6.
8. Lavandeira A. Orphan drugs: legal aspects, current situation. Haemophilia 2002;8:194-8.
9. Villa S, Compagni A, Reich MR. Orphan drug legislation: lessons for neglected tropical diseases. Int J Health Plann Manage 2009;24:27-42.
10. Rinaldi A. Adopting an orphan. EMBO Rep 2005;6:507-10.
11. Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration. Drugs designated as orphan drugs. Available: www.tga.gov.au/docs/html/orphand2.htm (accessed 2010 July 5).
12. European Comission. Register of designated orphan medicinal products (alphabetical). Available: http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community- register /html/alforphreg.htm (accessed 2010 July 5).
13. US Food and Drug Administration. Search orphan drug designations and approvals. Available: www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/opdlisting/oopd/index.cfm (accessed 2010 July 3).
14. Badyal D. Orphan diseases and drugs. Indian J Pharmacol 2006;38:299-300.
15. McGlynn KA, London WT. Epidemiology and natural history of hepatocellular carcinoma. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2005;19:3-23.
16. Public Health Agency of Canada. Cancer surveillance on-line. Available: http://dsol-smed.phac-aspc.gc.ca/dsol-smed/cancer/c-time-eng.php (accessed 2010 July 1).
17. Hughes DA, Tunnage B, Yeo ST. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: Do they deserve special status for funding? QJM 2005;98:829-36. (Pubitemid 41631334)
18. Raut CP, Morgan JA, Ashley SW. Current issues in gastrointestinal stromal tumors: incidence, molecular biology, and contemporary treatment of localized and advanced disease. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2007;23:149-58.
19. Lagakos SW. Clinical trials and rare diseases. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2455-6.
20. Clarke JT. Is the current approach to reviewing new drugs condemning the victims of rare diseases to death? A call for a national orphan drug review policy. CMAJ 2006; 174: 189-90.
21. Park-Wyllie LY, Juurlink DN, Kopp A, et al. Outpatient gatifloxacin therapy and dysglycemia in older adults. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1352-61.
22. Solomon SD, McMurray JJ, Pfeffer MA, et al. Cardiovascular risk associated with celecoxib in a clinical trial for colorectal adenoma prevention. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1071-80.
23. Bresalier RS, Sandler RS, Quan H, et al. Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. [Published erratum in: N Engl J Med 2006;355:221]. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1092-102.
24. Bennett CL, Nebeker JR, Yarnold PR, et al. Evaluation of serious adverse drug reactions: a proactive pharmacovigilance program (RADAR) vs safety activities conducted by the Food and Drug Administration and pharmaceutical manufacturers. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:1041-9.
25. Friedreich's Ataxia Research Alliance. Research and Clinical Programs. Available: www.curefa.org/registry.html (accessed 2009 Mar.10).
26. Jaussaud R. The French 'observatoire' on Gaucher's disease. Eur J Intern Med 2006; 17 :S6-8.
27. Jaussaud R, Javier RM, Rose C, et al. French observatoire on Gaucher disease (FROG) results on 107 patients. J Inherit Metab Dis 2007;30:106.
28. Hampton T. Rare disease research gets a boost. JAMA 2006;295:2836-8.
29. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003;22:151-85.
30. Connock M, Wang D, Fry-Smith A, et al. Prevalence and prognosis of paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria and the clinical and cost-effectiveness of eculizumabBirmingham (UK): University of Birmingham, Department of Publich Health and Epidemiology; 2008. West Midlands Health Technology Assessment Collaboration Report 69.
31. Joppi R, Bertele V, Garattini S. Orphan drug development is progressing too slowly. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006;61: 355-360.
32. CBC News. Alberta teen pleads for $500,000 drug therapy. 2008 Feb. 28. Available: www .cbc .ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/02/28/pare-drug.html (accessed 2009 Mar. 10).
33. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Search CDR drug database. Available: www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/cdr/search (accessed 2010 July 1).
34. Chapman RH, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, et al. A comprehensive league table of cost-utility ratios and a sub-table of "panel-worthy" studies. Med Decis Making 2000;20:451-67.
35. McKie J, Richardson J. The rule of rescue. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:2407-19.
36. Hadorn DC. Setting health care priorities in Oregon: cost-effectiveness meets the rule of rescue. JAMA 1991;265:2218-25.
37. Silversides A. Enzyme therapy for Fabry patients in jeopardy. CMAJ 2009;181(6- 7):E120. Available: www.ecmaj.com/earlyreleases/4aug09-enzyme.shtml (accessed 2009 Sept. 3).
38. Hasman A, Holm S. Accountability for reasonableness: opening the black box of process. Health Care Anal 2005;13:261-73. (Pubitemid 43016878)
39. Yuan CS, Foss JF, Osinski J, et al. The safety and efficacy of oral methylnaltrexone in preventing morphine-induced delay in oral-cecal transit time. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997;61:467-75. (Pubitemid 27195949)
40. Haffner ME. Adopting orphan drugs - two dozen years of treating rare diseases. N Engl J Med 20062;354:445-7.
41. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. Consideration for funding drugs for rare diseases: a report of the Ontario Citizens' Council March 2010. Available: www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/programs/drugs/councils/reports.aspx (accessed 2010 May 25).