scholarly journals Pricing and Market Access of Orphan Drugs in Asia: a Comparative Study Across Growth Markets

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. A785
Author(s):  
G. Sherwin ◽  
P. Akpinar ◽  
S. Saraf ◽  
X. Li
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 30-37
Author(s):  
Budhwar Vikaas ◽  
◽  
Singh Ajay K ◽  
Choudhary Manjusha ◽  

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 92-93
Author(s):  
George Wang ◽  
Richard Macaulay

IntroductionOrphan legislations over the past thirty years have successfully increased the number of drugs receiving marketing authorization for rare diseases. However, for a therapy to be accessible to most patients, it requires not only marketing authorization, but market access via public reimbursement. In many major markets, the pricing and reimbursement of new therapies is based on an assessment by a national Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body, for which economic value is typically a key consideration. This research evaluates the outcome of HTAs of orphan drugs in Europe.MethodsHTA decision data (to 31/08/2017) was extracted from Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss (G-BA), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), and Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) websites. EC-approval data was extracted from the European Medicines Agency (to 31/08/2017).ResultsOnly a small minority of drugs for orphan diseases received full recommendations for their licensed indication(s) by NICE (3/35, 9%), SMC (8/66, 12%) and PBAC (1/44, 2%). 37% (26/70) of drugs assessed received positive HTA outcome by HAS (ASMR I-III). In Germany, all approved orphan drugs (100/100) received automatic additional benefit post regulatory approval by G-BA.ConclusionsThere have been significant challenges for manufacturers in converting regulatory approval of orphan drugs into commercial success and optimised market access. Attaining positive HTA appraisals for these drugs, which have been approved under expedited regulatory pathways on a less than fully mature dataset, whilst also having high prices, due to small patient populations, limiting commercial returns, may necessitate increased utilisation of alternative reimbursement mechanisms.


2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. A22
Author(s):  
A. Grosvenor ◽  
S. Saraf ◽  
K. Jones
Keyword(s):  

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. A391 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Morel ◽  
F. Arickx ◽  
G. Befrits ◽  
P.D. Siviero ◽  
C.M.J. van der Meijden ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. A8
Author(s):  
JJ Doyle ◽  
B Sepulveda

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. S206
Author(s):  
T. Kirchmann ◽  
A. Ewald ◽  
M. Schönermark
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S854
Author(s):  
L. Vollmer ◽  
M. Prada ◽  
F. Benazet ◽  
I. Berard ◽  
N. López ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mari Minn

AbstractThis article analyses how the regulatory incentives provided by Regulation 141/2000 affect orphan drug development and generic market entry. It seeks to find out how the regulatory incentives work in combination with patent protection, and whether in combination they foster orphan drug innovation and overall patient access, or rather hinder the latter. The article argues that even though the regulatory incentives are targeted to fostering innovation and early generic market access, when combined with patent protection, the generic entry is likely blocked or delayed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document