Results of health technology assessments of orphan drugs in Germany-lack of added benefit, evidence gaps, and persisting unmet medical needs.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care Pub Date : 2024-12-03 DOI:10.1017/S026646232400062X
Philip Kranz, Natalie McGauran, Can Ünal, Thomas Kaiser
{"title":"Results of health technology assessments of orphan drugs in Germany-lack of added benefit, evidence gaps, and persisting unmet medical needs.","authors":"Philip Kranz, Natalie McGauran, Can Ünal, Thomas Kaiser","doi":"10.1017/S026646232400062X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The number of orphan drug (OD) approvals has increased sharply in Europe. In Germany, all ODs are initially subject to a limited assessment after market access. Their added benefit over the standard of care is accepted as established upon EU approval; a regular health technology assessment (HTA) is performed only in certain cases.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We assessed whether the increase in OD approvals has led to improvements in patient-relevant outcomes as supported by the evidence submitted by market authorization holders (MAHs) for HTA in Germany. We also examined the extent to which these ODs address unmet medical needs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The results of limited assessments and regular HTAs of ODs in Germany (January 2011-September 2021, plus January-December 2023) were analyzed to determine their added benefit based on MAH-submitted dossiers. Added benefit was reported separately for each research question generated from the EU-approved therapeutic indications and any sub-indications (e.g., different subpopulations or control interventions) specified for HTA in Germany.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-nine ODs (limited assessments: sixty-nine; regular HTAs: twenty) were evaluated in 175 research questions (limited assessments: ninety-seven; regular HTAs: seventy-eight). The added benefit granted in limited assessments was non-quantifiable in nearly eighty percent of the ninety-seven questions. In regular HTAs, no proof of added benefit was shown in fifty-four percent of the seventy-eight questions, mainly due to insufficient comparative data with the standard of care. Established treatments were available for fifty-eight percent of the seventy-eight questions; more than half of which addressed oncology indications (although these account for only eight percent of rare diseases).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Due to evidence gaps in post-approval HTA, many ODs approved in the EU lack proof of added benefit in terms of improving patient-relevant outcomes. Moreover, most approved ODs are indicated for diseases with established treatments and oncology indications, while many unmet medical needs remain. Incentives are required to encourage research in areas of unmet medical need and to generate comparative data with the standard of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":"40 1","pages":"e68"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S026646232400062X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The number of orphan drug (OD) approvals has increased sharply in Europe. In Germany, all ODs are initially subject to a limited assessment after market access. Their added benefit over the standard of care is accepted as established upon EU approval; a regular health technology assessment (HTA) is performed only in certain cases.

Objective: We assessed whether the increase in OD approvals has led to improvements in patient-relevant outcomes as supported by the evidence submitted by market authorization holders (MAHs) for HTA in Germany. We also examined the extent to which these ODs address unmet medical needs.

Methods: The results of limited assessments and regular HTAs of ODs in Germany (January 2011-September 2021, plus January-December 2023) were analyzed to determine their added benefit based on MAH-submitted dossiers. Added benefit was reported separately for each research question generated from the EU-approved therapeutic indications and any sub-indications (e.g., different subpopulations or control interventions) specified for HTA in Germany.

Results: Eighty-nine ODs (limited assessments: sixty-nine; regular HTAs: twenty) were evaluated in 175 research questions (limited assessments: ninety-seven; regular HTAs: seventy-eight). The added benefit granted in limited assessments was non-quantifiable in nearly eighty percent of the ninety-seven questions. In regular HTAs, no proof of added benefit was shown in fifty-four percent of the seventy-eight questions, mainly due to insufficient comparative data with the standard of care. Established treatments were available for fifty-eight percent of the seventy-eight questions; more than half of which addressed oncology indications (although these account for only eight percent of rare diseases).

Conclusions: Due to evidence gaps in post-approval HTA, many ODs approved in the EU lack proof of added benefit in terms of improving patient-relevant outcomes. Moreover, most approved ODs are indicated for diseases with established treatments and oncology indications, while many unmet medical needs remain. Incentives are required to encourage research in areas of unmet medical need and to generate comparative data with the standard of care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
德国孤儿药卫生技术评估结果——缺乏额外效益、证据不足和持续未满足的医疗需求。
背景:孤儿药(OD)的批准数量在欧洲急剧增加。在德国,所有ODs在进入市场后最初都要接受有限的评估。在欧盟批准的基础上,他们对护理标准的额外好处被接受;只有在某些情况下才进行定期卫生技术评估。目的:我们评估了德国HTA市场授权持有人(mah)提交的证据是否支持OD批准的增加导致患者相关结局的改善。我们还检查了这些ODs在多大程度上满足了未满足的医疗需求。方法:分析德国ODs有限评估和常规hta(2011年1月至2021年9月,以及2023年1月至12月)的结果,根据mah提交的档案确定其附加效益。根据欧盟批准的治疗适应症和德国指定的HTA的任何亚适应症(例如,不同的亚人群或对照干预)产生的每个研究问题,分别报告了额外的益处。结果:89例ODs(有限评价:69例;常规hta: 20个)在175个研究问题中进行评估(有限评估:97个;常规HTAs: 78)。在97个问题中,有近80%的问题是无法量化的。在常规的hta中,78个问题中有54%没有显示出额外益处的证据,主要是由于与护理标准的比较数据不足。在78个问题中,已有的治疗方法可以解决58%的问题;其中一半以上针对肿瘤适应症(尽管这些疾病仅占罕见病的8%)。结论:由于HTA获批后的证据不足,欧盟批准的许多ODs在改善患者相关结局方面缺乏额外益处的证据。此外,大多数核准的药物是针对已确立治疗方法和肿瘤适应症的疾病,而许多医疗需求仍未得到满足。需要采取奖励措施,鼓励在医疗需求未得到满足的领域进行研究,并产生与护理标准相比较的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
15.60%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.
期刊最新文献
A MINIMUM DATASET FOR DESTINATION THERAPY WITH LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE: THE EVIDENCE THAT MATTERS TO DECISION MAKERS. A decision-analytic method to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring technology for chronic depression. Development of a value assessment framework for Health Technology Assessment in rare diseases drugs: insights from a Delphi study in Brazil. Good Practices for Health Technology Assessment Guideline Development: A Report of the Health Technology Assessment International, HTAsiaLink, and ISPOR Special Task Force. How can actuarial science contribute to the field of health technology assessment? An interdisciplinary perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1