Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 285-301

  Wagner, Monika ^a   Khoury, Hanane ^a   Willet, Jacob ^b   Rindress, Donna ^a   Goetghebeur, Mireille ^a,c  

^a LASER Analytica   (Canada)

^b LA SER Analytica   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DISEASE SEVERITY; EVALUATION STUDY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; MEDICAL ETHICS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RARE DISEASE; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; RARE DISEASES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; ETHICS, CLINICAL; HUMANS; RARE DISEASES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84959106689     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0340-5     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. EURORDIS. Rare diseases: understanding this public health priority. EURORDIS. 2005. Available at: http://www.eurordis.org/publication/rare-diseases-understanding-public-health-priority. Accessed 21 Oct 2013.
2. Barrera LA, Galindo GC. Ethical aspects on rare diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:493–511.
3. Kole A, Faurisson F. Rare diseases social epidemiology: analysis of inequalities. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:223–50.
4. Beutler E. Lysosomal storage diseases: natural history and ethical and economic aspects. Mol Genet Metab. 2006;88(3):208–15.
5. Gomez-Rubio V, Lopez-Quilez A. Statistical methods for the geographical analysis of rare diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:151–71.
6. de la Paz MP, Villaverde-Hueso A, Alonso V, Janos S, Zurriaga O, Pollan M, et al. Rare diseases epidemiology research. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:17–39.
7. Groft SC, de la Paz MP. Rare diseases—avoiding misperceptions and establishing realities: the need for reliable epidemiological data. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:3–14.
8. Fuller M, Meikle PJ, Hopwood JJ. Epidemiology of lysosomal storage diseases: an overview. In: Mehta A, Beck M, Sunder-Plassmann G, editors. Fabry disease: perspectives from 5 years of FOS. Oxford: Oxford PharmaGenesis; 2006.
9. Hughes DA, Tunnage B, Yeo ST. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM. 2005;98(11):829–36.
10. Kanters TA, de Sonneville-Koedoot C, Redekop WK, Hakkaart L. Systematic review of available evidence on 11 high-priced inpatient orphan drugs. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8(1):124.
11. Liu BC, He L, He G, He Y. A cross-national comparative study of orphan drug policies in the United States, the European Union, and Japan: towards a made-in-China orphan drug policy. J Public Health Policy. 2010;31(4):407–20.
12. Loorand-Stiver L. Drugs for rare diseases: evolving trends in regulatory and health technology assessment perspectives. Environ Scan. 2013;2013(42):1–40.
13. Roll K, Stargardt T, Schreyogg J. Authorization and reimbursement of orphan drugs in an international comparison [in German]. Gesundheitswesen. 2011;73(8–9):504–14.
14. Tambuyzer E. Rare diseases, orphan drugs and their regulation: questions and misconceptions. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(12):921–9.
15. Herder M. When everyone is an orphan: against adopting a U.S.-styled orphan drug policy in Canada. Acc Res. 2013;20(4):227–69.
16. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Interim process and methods of the Highly Specialised Technologies programme. 2013. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devhst/DevelopingNICEHighlySpecialisedTechnologies.jsp. Accessed 30 Oct 2013.
17. Winquist E, Bell CM, Clarke JT, Evans G, Martin J, Sabharwal M, et al. An evaluation framework for funding drugs for rare diseases. Value Health. 2012;15(6):982–6.
18. Hughes-Wilson W, Palma A, Schuurman A, Simoens S. Paying for the Orphan Drug System: break or bend? Is it time for a new evaluation system for payers in Europe to take account of new rare disease treatments? Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7:74.
19. Paulden M, Stafinski T, Menon D, McCabe C. Value-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs: a scoping review and decision framework. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;33(3):255–69.
20. Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A. A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value Health. 2013;16(8):1163–9.
21. Clark S, Weale A. Social values in health priority setting: a conceptual framework. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):293–316.
22. Biron L, Rumbold B, Faden R. Social value judgments in healthcare: a philosophical critique. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26(3):317–30.
23. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff. 1997;26(4):303–50.
24. Daniels N. Decisions about access to health care and accountability for reasonableness. J Urban Health. 1999;76(2):176–91.
25. Goetghebeur M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and value: impact on DEcisionMaking: the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8(1):270.
26. Goetghebeur M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Gregoire JP, Deal C. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010;8(1):4.
27. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(2):376–88.
28. Tanios N, Wagner M, Tony M, Baltussen R, van Til J, Rindress D, et al. Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(4):456–65.
29. Guindo LA, Wagner M, Baltussen R, Rindress D, van Til J, Kind P, et al. From efficacy to equity: review of decision criteria used in resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10(1):9.
30. van Til J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Lieferink M, Dolan J, Goetghebeur M. Does technique matter: a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12:22.
31. EVIDEM Collaboration website. EVIDEM Collaboration. 2015. Available at: http://www.evidem.org. Accessed 12 June 2015.
32. Miot J, Wagner M, Khoury H, Anderson AN, Rindress D, Goetghebeur MM. Field testing of a framework for coverage of a diagnostic test for cervical cancer in South Africa. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2011;10(1):2.
33. Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Papastavros T, Oh P, et al. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:329.
34. Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Masella C, Merlino L, Strada A, Tringali M. Implementation of EUnetHTA Core Model(R) in Lombardia: the VTS framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(1):105–12.
35. MCDA for HTA in action: leveraging experience from Europe and Latin America. Panel presented at the Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) 12th Annual Conference, 15–17 June 2015: Oslo; 2015.
36. Goetghebeur M, Wagner M. Defining value: the ethical foundations of MCDA in healthcare decision making. Manuscript in preparation. In: Marsh K, Thokala P, Goetghebeur M, Baltussen R, editors. Healthcare decisions supported by multi-criteria decision analysis. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG; 2015.
37. EVIDEM Collaboration. Decision criteria of the framework: conceptual background, definitions, design & instructions. EVIDEM Collaboration. 2015. Available at: https://www.evidem.org/components-decision.php. Accessed 29 July 2015.
38. Alexander L, Moore M. Deontological ethics. In: Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 edition). Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/ethics-deontological/.
39. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
40. Beauchamp TL. The ‘four principles’ approach. Principles of health care ethics. Chichester: Wiley; 1994. p. 3–12.
41. Lawrence DJ. The four principles of biomedical ethics: a foundation for current bioethical debate. J Chiropr Humanit. 2007;14:34–40.
42. Driver J. The history of utilitarianism. In: Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 edition). Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/utilitarianism-history/.
43. World Health Organization. Guidance on ethics and equitable access to HIV treatment and care. World Health Organization. 2004. Available at: http://www.who.int/ethics/Guidance%20on%20Ethics%20and%20HIV.pdf. Accessed 6 Feb 2009.
44. Hoedemaekers R, Dekkers W. Justice and solidarity in priority setting in health care. Health Care Anal. 2003;11(4):325–43.
45. Hursthouse R. Virtue ethics. In: Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 edition). Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/ethics-virtue.
46. Department for Communities and Local Government. Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. London: Department for Communities and Local Government; 2009.
47. Black AP, Baker M. The impact of parent advocacy groups, the Internet, and social networking on rare diseases: the IDEA League and IDEA League United Kingdom example. Epilepsia. 2011;52(Suppl 2):102–4.
48. Boon W, Broekgaarden R. The role of patient advocacy organisations in neuromuscular disease R&D: the case of the Dutch neuromuscular disease association VSN. Neuromuscul Disord. 2010;20(2):148–51.
49. Cornu C, Kassai B, Fisch R, Chiron C, Alberti C, Guerrini R, et al. Experimental designs for small randomised clinical trials: an algorithm for choice. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:48.
50. Denis A, Mergaert L, Fostier C, Cleemput I, Simoens S. Budget impact analysis of orphan drugs in Belgium: estimates from 2008 to 2013. J Med Econ. 2010;13(2):295–301.
51. Desser AS, Gyrd-Hansen D, Olsen JA, Grepperud S, Kristiansen IS. Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67. BMJ. 2010;341:c4715.
52. Desser AS. Prioritizing treatment of rare diseases: a survey of preferences of Norwegian doctors. Soc Sci Med. 2013;94:56–62.
53. Dimichele DM, Blanchette V, Berntorp E. Clinical trial design in haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2012;18(Suppl. 4):18–23.
54. Dunkle M, Pines W, Saltonstall PL. Advocacy groups and their role in rare diseases research. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:515–25.
55. Eidt D, Frank M, Reimann A, Wagner TOF, Mittendorf T. Maánahmen zur Verbesserung der gesundheitlichen Situation von Menschen mit Seltenen Erkrankungen in Deutschland. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2009. Available at: http://www.bmg.bund.de/uploads/publications/BMG-G-09050-Bericht-Massnahmen-seltene-Krankheiten_200908.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2013.
56. Gericke CA, Riesberg A, Busse R. Ethical issues in funding orphan drug research and development. J Med Ethics. 2005;31(3):164–8.
57. Henderson SL, Packman W, Packman S. Psychosocial aspects of patients with Niemann-Pick disease, type B. Am J Med Genet A. 2009;149A(11):2430–6.
58. Hollak CE, Aerts JM, Ayme S, Manuel J. Limitations of drug registries to evaluate orphan medicinal products for the treatment of lysosomal storage disorders. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6:16.
59. Joppi R, Bertele’ V, Garattini S. Orphan drugs, orphan diseases. The first decade of orphan drug legislation in the EU. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69(4):1009–24.
60. Kenny TD, Jessop EG, Gutteridge WH. Monitoring clinical quality in rare disease services: experience in England. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2008;3:23.
61. Kesselheim AS, Myers JA, Avorn J. Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs nonorphan drugs for cancer. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2320–6.
62. Lavery C. Role of patient support groups in lysosomal storage diseases. In: Mehta A, Beck M, Sunder-Plassmann G, editors. Fabry disease: perspectives from 5 years of FOS. Oxford: Oxford PharmaGenesis; 2006.
63. Linley WG, Hughes DA. Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great Britain. Health Econ. 2013;22(8):948–64.
64. MacLeod S. Optimal therapy for rare disorders and genetic diseases: ethical and political challenges. Proc West Pharmacol Soc. 2007;50:21–3.
65. Mavris M, Le CY. Involvement of patient organisations in research and development of orphan drugs for rare diseases in europe. Mol Syndromol. 2012;3(5):237–43.
66. Mentzakis E, Stefanowska P, Hurley J. A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011;6(3):405–33.
67. Orofino J, Soto J, Casado MA, Oyaguez I. Global spending on orphan drugs in France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain during 2007. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8(5):301–15.
68. Pinxten W, Denier Y, Dooms M, Cassiman JJ, Dierickx K. A fair share for the orphans: ethical guidelines for a fair distribution of resources within the bounds of the 10-year-old European Orphan Drug Regulation. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(3):148–53.
69. Rajmil L, Perestelo-Perez L, Herdman M. Quality of life and rare diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:251–72.
70. Rosselli D, Rueda JD, Solano M. Ethical and economic considerations of rare diseases in ethnic minorities: the case of mucopolysaccharidosis VI in Colombia. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(11):699–700.
71. Schey C, Milanova T, Hutchings A. Estimating the budget impact of orphan medicines in Europe: 2. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6:62.
72. van der Kloot WA, Hamdy NA, Hafkemeijer LC, den Dulk FM, Chotkan SA, van Emmerik AA, et al. The psychological burden of an initially unexplained illness: patients with sternocostoclavicular hyperostosis before and after delayed diagnosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:97.
73. Wyatt K, Henley W, Anderson L, Anderson R, Nikolaou V, Stein K, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enzyme and substrate replacement therapies: a longitudinal cohort study of people with lysosomal storage disorders. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(39):1–543.
74. Drummond M, Towse A. Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(4):335–40.
75. Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support. A primer on the use of multiple-criteria decision-making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–248.
76. Orphanet Report Series. Prevalence of rare diseases: bibliographic data. 2014. Available at: http://www.orpha.net/consor/cgi-bin/Education_Home.php?lng=EN#REPORT_RARE_DISEASES.
77. Golan OG, Hansen P. Which health technologies should be funded? A prioritization framework based explicitly on value for money. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2012;1(1):44.
78. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010;182(18):E839–42.
79. Leget C, Hoedemaekers R. Teaching medical students about fair distribution of healthcare resources. J Med Ethics. 2007;33(12):737–41.
80. EUROPLAN Project. EUROPLAN 2012-2015. EUROPLAN Project. 2015. http://www.europlanproject.eu/Content?folder=1&content=1. Accessed 23 Oct 2015.
81. Taruscio D, Vittozzi L, Stefanov R. National plans and strategies on rare diseases in Europe. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:475–91.
82. EUCERD. EUCERD Joint Action: working for rare diseases. EUCERD. 2014. http://www.eucerd.eu/?page_id=54. Accessed 23 Oct 2015.
83. Molster C, Youngs L, Hammond E, Dawkins H. Key outcomes from stakeholder workshops at a symposium to inform the development of an Australian national plan for rare diseases. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7:50.
84. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE’s equality objectives and equality programme 2013–2016. 2013. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/about/nice-communities/public-involvement/equality-scheme#. Accessed 28 Jan 2015.
85. ® (efalizumab). European Medicines Agency. 2015. v.2.6:1–99.http://www.imi-protect.eu/. Accessed 23 Oct 2015.
86. Cox R, Sanchez J, Revie CW. Multi-criteria decision analysis tools for prioritising emerging or re-emerging infectious diseases associated with climate change in Canada. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e68338.
87. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–8.
88. Denis A, Mergaert L, Fostier C, Cleemput I, Hulstaert F, Simoens S. Critical assessment of Belgian reimbursement dossiers of orphan drugs. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(10):883–93.
89. Drummond M, Evans B, LeLorier J, Karakiewicz P, Martin D, Tugwell P, et al. Evidence and values: requirements for public reimbursement of drugs for rare diseases: a case study in oncology. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;16(2):e273–81.
90. Bettinger TL, Shuler G, Jones DR, Wilson JP. Schizophrenia: multi-attribute utility theory approach to selection of atypical antipsychotics. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41(2):201–7.
91. Singh S, Dolan JG, Centor RM. Optimal management of adults with pharyngitis: a multi-criteria decision analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006;6:14.
92. Aenishaenslin C, Hongoh V, Cisse HD, Hoen AG, Samoura K, Michel P, et al. Multi-criteria decision analysis as an innovative approach to managing zoonoses: results from a study on Lyme disease in Canada. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):897.
93. Tromp N, Baltussen R. Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:454.
94. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Social value judgements. Principles for the development of NICE guidance. 2nd ed. 2013. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/proxy/?sourceurl=http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/socialvaluejudgements/socialvaluejudgements.jsp. Accessed 28 Jan 2015.
95. Australian Government. Therapeutic goods regulations 1990: statutory rules No. 394, 1990 as amended. Australian Government. 2013. https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013C00670. Accessed 23 Oct 2015.
96. Office of Legislative and Regulatory Modernization. Initial draft discussion document for a Canadian orphan drug regulatory framework. Orphanet. 2012. 1-25. http://www.orpha.net/national/data/CA-EN/www/uploads/Initial-Draft-Discussion-Document-for-A-Canadian-Orphan-Drug--Regulatory-Framework.doc. Accessed 30 Oct 2013.