Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL)

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Annemans, Lieven ^a   Aymé, Ségolène ^b   Le Cam, Yann ^c   Facey, Karen ^d   Gunther, Penilla ^e   Nicod, Elena ^f   Reni, Michele ^g   Roux, Jean Louis ^c   Schlander, Michael ^h,i,j   Taylor, David ^k   Tomino, Carlo ^l   Torrent Farnell, Josep ^m   Upadhyaya, Sheela ⁿ   Hutchings, Adam ^o   Le Dez, Lugdivine ^p  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b INSTITUT DU CERVEAU ET DE LA MOELLE ÉPINIÈRE   (France)

^c Eurordis (European organisation for rare diseases)   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^e Swedish Parliament   (Sweden)

^f BOCCONI UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^g SAN RAFFAELE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^h UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

ⁱ GERMAN CANCER RESEARCH CENTER DKFZ   (Germany)

^j Institute for Innovation and Valuation in Health Care   (Germany)

^k UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^l Clinical Research at IRCSS San Raffaele   (Italy)

^m UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

ⁿ NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

^o Dolon Ltd   (United Kingdom)

^p European Government Affairs and Public Policy   (Belgium)

more..

Author keywords

Guidelines; Health technology assessment; Orphan medicinal products; Pricing and reimbursement; Rare diseases; Value assessment

Indexed keywords

ORPHAN DRUG;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; CONSULTATION; DRUG COST; DRUG LEGISLATION; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EUROPE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROGRAM SUSTAINABILITY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RARE DISEASE; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; DRUG MANUFACTURE; ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE POLICY;

DRUG COSTS; EUROPE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; ORPHAN DRUG PRODUCTION; RARE DISEASES;

EID: 85014817000     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17501172     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-017-0601-9     Document Type: Review

References (95)

1. EUCERD (The European Union Committee of Experts on Rare Diseases). Recommendation of the European Union committee of experts on rare diseases to the European Commission and the Member States on improving informed decisions based on the clinical added value of orphan medicinal products (CAVOMP) information flow. 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/health/rare-diseases/docs/eucerd-cavomp-annex-en.pdf. Accessed 06 Sep 2016.
2. European Commission. Inventory of Union and Member State incentives to support research into, and the development and availability of, orphan medicinal products. 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/orphanmp/doc/orphan-inv-cwd-20160126.pdf. Accessed 07 Sep 2016.
3. European Commission. Orphan medicinal products. 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/orphan-medicines/index-en.htm. Accessed 06 Sep 2016.
4. Dupont A, Van Wilder P. Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;71(4):488-96.
5. Gutierrez L, Patris J, Hutchings A, Cowell W. Principles for consistent value assessment and sustainable funding of orphan drugs in Europe. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10:53.
6. Barham L. Orphan medicines: special treatment required? 2012. http://socialwelfare.bl.uk/subject-areas/services-activity/health-services/2020health/147277orphan-medicines-2012.pdf. Accessed 06 Sep 2016.
7. Gammie T, Lu C, Babar ZD. Access to Orphan Drugs: A Comprehensive Review of Legislations, Regulations and Policies in 35 Countries. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140002.
8. Garau M, Mestre-Ferrandiz J. Access Mechanisms for Orphan Drugs: A Comparative Study of Selected European Countries. 2009. https://www.ohe.org/publications/access-mechanisms-orphan-drugs-comparative-study-selected-european-countries. Accessed 06 Sep 2016.
9. EURORDIS. Inventory of access and prices of orphan drugs across Europe: a collaborative work between National Alliances on Rare Diseases & EURORDIS. 2010. http://img.eurordis.org/newsletter/pdf/mar-2011/ERTC-13122010-YLeCam-Final.pdf. Accessed 07 Sep 2016.
10. Morel T, Arickx F, Befrits G, Siviero P, van der Meijden C, Xoxi E, et al. Reconciling uncertainty of costs and outcomes with the need for access to orphan medicinal products: a comparative study of managed entry agreements across seven European countries. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:198.
11. Van den Aardweg S. HTA of orphan drugs across six countries: fair, flawed or failing? Euro Observer. 2010;12(4):14-7.
12. Kesselheim A, Myers J, Avorn J. Characteristics of Clinical Trials to Support Approval of Orphan vs Nonorphan Drugs for Cancer. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2320-6.
13. EMA (European Medicine Agency). Orphan designation. 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general-content-000029.jsp. Accessed 8 Dec 2016.
14. Simoens S, Picavet E, Dooms M, Cassiman D, Morel T. Cost-effectiveness assessment of orphan drugs: a scientific and political conundrum. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:1-3.
15. Drummond L, Towse A. Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:335-40.
16. Schey C, Milanova T, Hutchings A. Estimating the budget impact of orphan medicines in Europe: 2010-2020. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6:62.
17. Rollet P, Lemoine A, Dunoyer M. Sustainable rare diseases business and drug access: no time for misconceptions. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:109.
18. Tordrup D, Tzouma V, Kanavos P. Orphan drug considerations in Health Technology Assessment in eight European countries. Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs: An International Journal of Public Health. 2014;1(3):86-97.
19. Australian Government - Department of Health. Life saving drugs program criteria and conditions. 2016. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/lsdp-criteria. Accessed 16 Sep 2016.
20. Nicod E. Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2016 [Epub ahead of print].
21. Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Value Orphan Medicines. 2013. https://www.ohe.org/publications/multi-criteria-decision-analysis-value-orphan-medicines. Accessed 06 Sep 2016.
22. Krüger L, Tamminga J, Wijnen B, Hiligsmann M, Evers S. An European overview of the future changes in evidence requirements for the reimbursement of orphan drugs A stakeholder analysis. Value Health. 2014;17(3):A236. https://www.ispor.org/research-pdfs/46/pdffiles/PSY72.pdf.
23. Grubert N. How will the Pharmadialog change the AMNOG and market access in Germany? 2016. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-pharmadialog-change-amnog-market-access-germany-neil-grubert. Accessed 08 Sep 2016.
24. Palaska C, Hutchings A. Value Assessment and Pricing Frameworks for Rare Disease Treatments: New Approaches From The Literature. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A678.
25. European Commission. Transparent value framework (Platform on access to medicines in Europe - Working Group on Mechanism of coordinated access to orphan medicinal products). 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/7631?locale=fr. Accessed 14 Sep 2016.
26. 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.
27. Fedyaeva V, Omelyanovskiy V, Rebrova O, Khan NN, Petrovskaya E. MCDA approach to ranking rare diseases in Russia: preliminary results. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A539.
28. Schey C, Connolly M. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): testing a proposed MCDA framework for orphan drugs. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A556.
29. Paulden M, Stafinski T, Menon D, McCabe C. Value-Based Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:255-69.
30. Wagner M, Khoury H, Willet J, Rindress D, Goetghebeur M. Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:285-301.
31. Kanavos P, Angelis A. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Value Based Assessment of New Medical Technologies: A Conceptual Framework. 2013. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/51211/. Accessed 20 Sep 2016.
32. Endrei D, Molics B, Ágoston I. ulticriteria Decision Analysis in the Reimbursement of New Medical Technologies: Real-World Experiences from Hungary. Value Health. 2014;17(4):487-9.
33. Williams P, Mauskopf J, Lebiecki J, Kilburg A. Using multicriteria decision analysis during drug development to predict reimbursement decisions. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2014. doi: 10.3402/jmahp.v2.25270.
34. Wahlster P, Goetghebeur M, Schaller S, Kriza C, Kolominsky-Rabas P, EMN' NLECMT'V. Exploring the perspectives and preferences for HTA across German healthcare stakeholders using a multi-criteria assessment of a pulmonary heart sensor as a case study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:24.
35. Cherny N, Dafni UKJ, Sobrero A, Zielinski C, de Vries E, Piccart M. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1547-73.
36. Schnipper L, Davidson N, Wollins D, Tyne C, Blayney D, Blum D, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: A Conceptual Framework to Assess the Value of Cancer Treatment Options. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(23):2563-77.
37. EURORDIS. The Voice of 12,000 Patients: Experiences and Expectations of Rare Disease Patients on Diagnosis and Care in Europe. 2009. http://www.eurordis.org/IMG/pdf/voice-12000-patients/EURORDISCARE-FULLBOOKr.pdf. Accessed 06 Sep 2016.
38. de Vrueh R, Baekelandt E, de Haan J. World Health Organisation update on 2004 Background Paper, BP 6.19 Rare Diseases. 2013. http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/priority-medicines/BP6-19Rare.pdf. Accessed 08 Sep 2016.
39. Schieppati A, Henter JI, Daina E, Aperia A. Why rare diseases are an important medical and social issue. Lancet. 2008;371:2039-41.
40. EUCERD (The European Union Committee of Experts on Rare Diseases). Rare Diseases: addressing the need for specialised social services and integration into social policies. 2012. http://www.eucerd.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/EJA-Specialised-Social-Services-Paper.pdf. Accessed 06 Sep 2016.
41. Mazzucato M, Visonà Dalla Pozza L, Manea S, Minichiello C, Facchin P. A population-based registry as a source of health indicators for rare diseases: the ten-year experience of the Veneto Region's rare diseases registry. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:37.
42. EUCERD (The European Union Committee of Experts on Rare Diseases). Report on EUCERD guiding principles for social care in RD/draft of Expert Group Recommendations in the social field. 2015. http://www.eucerd.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/EJADeliverable7.pdf. Accessed 06 Sep 2016.
43. Paris V, Belloni A. Value in Pharmaceutical Pricing. OECD Health Working Papers. 2013. doi: 10.1787/5k43jc9v6knx-en.
44. Schlander M, Garattini S, Holm S, Kolominsky-Rabas P, Nord E, Persson U, et al. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained? The need for alternative methods to evaluate medical interventions for ultra-rare disorders. J Comp Eff Res. 2014;3(4):399-422.
45. Whitty J, Lancsar E, Rixon K, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient. 2014;7(4):365-86.
46. European Commission. Transparency Directive (Council Directive 89/105/EEC). 1989. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/healthcare/competitiveness/products-pricing-reimbursement/transparency-directive-en. Accessed 06 Sep 2016.
47. Simoens S. Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: the need for more transparency. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6:42.
48. Douglas M, Wilcox E, Burgess M, Lynd L. Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement. Health Policy. 2015;119(5):588-96.
49. Solon C, Kanavos P. An analysis of HTA decisions for orphan drugs in Canada and Australia. Working Paper No: 42. 2015. http://www.lse.ac.uk/LSEHealthAndSocialCare/pdf/LSEHealthworkingpaperseries/LSEHWP42.pdf. Accessed 08 Sep 2016.
50. Hughes D, Tunnage B, Yeo S. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM. 2005;98:829-36.
51. Farrugia A, O'Mahony B, Cassar J. Health technology assessment and haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2012;18:152-7.
52. Lantrès O. Pricing and Reimbursement of Medicinal Products in France. 2013. http://www.eucope.org/en/files/2013/03/Lantr%C3%A8s-Pricing-and-Reimbursement-of-Medicinal-Products-in-France.pdf. Accessed 06 Sep 2016.
53. GKV-spitzenverband (German Federation of Health Insurance Funds). AMNOG - evaluation of new pharmaceutical. 2016. https://www.gkv-spitzenverband.de/english/statutory-health-insurance/amnog-evaluation-of-new-pharmaceutical/amnog-english.jsp. Accessed 06 Sep 2016.
54. Drummond M, Wilson D, Kanavos P, Ubel P, Rovira J. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):36-42.
55. Denis A, Mergaert L, Fostier C, Cleemput I, Simoens S. A comparative study of European rare disease and orphan drug markets. Health Policy. 2010;97(2-3):173-9.
56. Schlander M, Holm S, Nord E, Richardson J, Garattini S, Kolominsky-Rabas P, et al. Discussion Paper N°31. Position Paper: Towards Social Cost Value Analysis: The Need for New Approaches for Evaluating Drugs for Ultra-Rare Diseases (URDs). 2015. http://www.innoval-hc.com/discussion-papers.html. Accessed 06 Sep 2016.
57. Vickers P. Challenges and opportunities in the treatment of rare diseases. 2013. http://www.ddw-online.com/therapeutics/p211490-challenges-and-opportunities-in-the-treatment-of-rare-diseases-spring-13.html. Accessed 08 Sep 2016.
58. Sharma A, Jacob A, Tandon M, Kumar D. Orphan drug: Development trends and strategies. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2010;2(4):290-9.
59. NICE (The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, England). Highly specialised technologies guidance. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/nice-highly-specialised-technologies-guidance. Accessed 06 Sep 2016.
60. Onakpoya I, Spencer E, Thompson M, Heneghan C. Effectiveness, safety and costs of orphan drugs: an evidence-based review. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e007199.
61. NICE (The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, England). Citizens council reports: ultra orphan drugs. 2004. https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/Get-involved/Citizens-Council/Reports/CCReport04UltraOrphanDrugs.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2016.
62. Desser A, Gyrd-Hansen D, Olsen J, Grepperud S, Kristiansen I. Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67. BMJ. 2010;341:c4715.
63. Liney W, Hughes D. 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;8(22):948-64.
64. WHO (World Health Organization). Access to new medicines in Europe: technical review of policy initiatives and opportunities for collaboration and research. 2015. http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Health-systems/health-technologies-and-medicines/publications/2015/access-to-new-medicines-in-europe-technical-review-of-policy-initiatives-and-opportunities-for-collaboration-and-research-2015. Accessed 04 Sep 2016.
65. EUR-Lex Access to European Union law. Council Recommendation of 8 June 2009 on an action in the field of rare diseases (2009/C 151/02). 2009. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:151:0007:0010:EN:PDF. Accessed 09 Sep 2016.
66. Facey K. Patient involvement in HTA: What added value? Pharmaceuticals Policy and Law. 2011;13(3-4):245-51.
67. Gasson S, Bliss J, Jamal-Hanjani M, Krebs M, Swanton C, Wilcox M. The Value of Patient and Public Involvement in Trial Design and Development. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2015;27(12):747-9.
68. Berglas S, Jutai L, MacKean G, Weeks L. Patients' perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: an exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:21.
69. Staley K, Doherty C. It's not evidence, it's insight: bringing patients' perspectives into health technology appraisal at NICE. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:4.
70. NICE (The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, England). Patient and public involvement policy. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/about/nice-communities/public-involvement/patient-and-public-involvement-policy. Accessed 07 Sep 2016.
71. EUPATI (The European Patients' Academy). Patient involvement in the HTA decision-making process. 2016. https://www.eupati.eu/health-technology-assessment/patient-involvement-in-the-hta-decision-making-process/. Accessed 07 Sep 2016.
72. Griggs R, Batshaw M, Dunkle M, Gopal-Srivastava R, Kaye E, Krischer J, et al. Clinical research for rare disease: Opportunities, challenges, and solutions. Mol Genet Metab. 2009;96(1):20-6.
73. Augustine E, Adams H, Mink J. Clinical Trials in Rare Disease: Challenges and Opportunities. J Child Neurol. 2013;28(9):1142-50.
74. Mullins D, Vandigo J, Zheng Z, Wicks P. Patient-Centeredness in the Design of Clinical Trials. Value Health. 2014;17(4):471-5.
75. Potter B, Khangura S, Tingley K, Chakraborty P, Little J. Translating rare-disease therapies into improved care for patients and families: what are the right outcomes, designs, and engagement approaches in health-systems research. Genet Med. 2016;18(2):117-23.
76. Facey K, Granados A, Guyatt G, Kent A, Shah N, van der Wilt G, et al. Generating health technology assessment evidence for rare diseases. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(4):416-22.
77. IRDiRC-EMA (The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium and European Medicine Agency). Preparatory Document for Joint Workshop on Small Population Clinical Trials Challenges in the Field of Rare Diseases (DRAFT). 2016. http://www.irdirc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/SPCT-DraftDocument.pdf. Accessed 09 Sep 2016.
78. NICE (The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, England). Elosulfase alfa for treating mucopolysaccharidosis type IVA. Response to consultee and commentator comments on the draft remit, draft scope (pre-referral) and provisional matrix. 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/HST2/documents/mucopolysaccharidosis-type-iva-elosulfase-alfa-id7449. Accessed 20 Sep 2016.
79. NICE (The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, England). Eculizumab for treating atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome. 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/hst1. Accessed 08 Sep 2016.
80. EUPATI (The European Patients' Academy). What is EUPATI? 2016. https://www.eupati.eu/what-is-eupati. Accessed 08 Dec 2016.
81. HTAi (Health Technology Assessment International). For patients and patient groups. 2016. http://www.htai.org/interest-groups/patient-and-citizen-involvement/resources/for-patients-and-patient-groups.html. Accessed 15 Sep 2016.
82. EMA (European Medicine Agency). CHMP Guideline on the scientific application and the practical arrangements necessary to implement EC 507/2006 on the conditional marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of EC 726/2004. 2006. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/Scientific-guideline/2009/10/WC500004908.pdf. Accessed 04 Sep 2016.
83. Ferrario A, Kanavos P. Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals: the European experience. 2013. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/50513/1/--Libfile-repository-Content-Ferrario,%20A-Ferrario-Managed-%20entry-%20agreements-2013-Ferrario-Managed-%20entry-%20agreements-2013.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2016.
84. EMA (European Medicine Agency). Adaptive pathways. 2016. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general-content-000601.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac05807d58ce. Accessed 09 Sep 2016.
85. EUCERD (The European Union Committee of Experts on Rare Diseases). EUCERD core recommendations on rare disease patient registration and data collection. 2013. http://www.eucerd.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/EUCERD-Recommendations-RDRegistryDataCollection-adopted.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2016.
86. EUnetHTA (European Network for Health Technology Assessment). Evidence Generation - on the road to standardisation along the life-cycle of health technology. 2016. http://www.eunethta.eu/news/evidence-generation-road-standardisation-along-life-cycle-health-technology. Accessed 09 Sep 2016.
87. Field M, Berman R. The Ethical Conduct of Clinical Research Involving Children. 1st ed. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2004.
88. Simon K, Partners Healthcare Insights. Beyond AIFA: Navigating the next phase of Italian market access negotiations. 2013. https://www.simon-kucher.com/sites/default/files/hci-fall2013-volumevii-issue3.pdf. Accessed 02 Sep 2016.
89. Jönsson B, Wilking N. New cancer drugs in Sweden: Assessment, implementation and access. J Cancer Policy. 2014;2:45-62.
90. Adams B. Scotland creates fund for rare diseases. 2013. http://www.pharmatimes.com/news/scotland-creates-fund-for-rare-diseases-1004243. Accessed 09 Sep 2016.
91. AIFA (Italian Medicines Agency). The independent research on drugs. 2016. http://www.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/en/content/independent-research-drugs. Accessed 09 Sep 2016.
92. NHS England Cancer Drugs Fund Tram. Appraisal and Funding of Cancer Drugs from July 2016 (including the new Cancer Drug Fund). A new deal for patients, taxpayers and industry. 2016. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/cdf-sop.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2016.
93. Rare Disease Task Force. Centre of References for rare diseases in Europe: State-of-the-art in 2006 and recommendations of the Rare Disease Task Force. 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph-threats/non-com/docs/contribution-policy.pdf. Accessed 20 Sep 2016.
94. Kleijnen S, Toenders W, de Groot F, Huic M, George E, Wieseler B, et al. European collaboration on relative effectiveness assessments: What is needed to be successful? Health Policy. 2015;119(5):569-76.
95. Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Garau M, O'Neill P, Sussex J. Assessment of the Impact of Orphan Medicinal Products on the European Economy and Society. 2010. https://www.ohe.org/publications/assessment-impact-orphan-medicinal-products-european-economy-and-society. Accessed 19 Dec 2016.