Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24365263›Full record

ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2013

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.

Thomas Morel, Francis Arickx, Gustaf Befrits, Paolo Siviero, Caroline van der Meijden, Entela Xoxi, Steven Simoens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Health technology assessment criteria as drivers of coverage with managed entry agreements: a case study of cancer medicines in four countries.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Article
  15. Novel approach to decision making for orphan drugs.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. How Do Iranian Stakeholders Think About Pharmaceutical Managed Entry Agreements?Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Thomas MorelKU Leuven Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, O&N2 bus 521, Herestraat 49, Leuven, Belgium. thomas.morel@pharm.kuleuven.be.
Francis Arickx
Gustaf Befrits
Paolo Siviero
Caroline van der Meijden
Entela Xoxi
Steven Simoens

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNational payers across Europe have been increasingly looking into innovative reimbursement approaches - called managed entry agreements (MEAs) - to balance the need to provide rapid access to potentially beneficial orphan medicinal products (OMPs) with the requirements to circumscribe uncertainty, obtain best value for money or to ensure affordability. This study aimed to identify, describe and classify MEAs applied to OMPs by national payers and to analyse their practice in Europe.

methodsTo identify and describe MEAs, national health technology assessments and reimbursement decisions on OMPs across seven European countries were reviewed and their main characteristics extracted. To fill data gaps and validate the accuracy of the extraction, collaboration was sought from national payers. To classify MEAs, a bespoke taxonomy was implemented. Identified MEAs were analysed and compared by focusing on five key themes, namely by describing the MEAs in relation to: drug targets and therapeutic classes, geographical spread, type of MEA applied, declared rationale for setting-up of MEAs, and evolution over time.

results42 MEAs for 26 OMPs, implemented between 2006 and 2012 and representing a variety of MEA designs, were identified. Italy was the country with the highest number of schemes (n=15), followed by the Netherlands (n=10), England and Wales (n=8), Sweden (n=5) and Belgium (n=4). No MEA was identified for France and Germany due to data unavailability. Antineoplastic agents were the primary targets of MEAs. 55% of the identified MEAs were performance-based risk-sharing arrangements; the other 45% were financial-based. Nine of these 26 OMPs were subject to MEAs in two or three different countries, resulting in 24 MEAs. 60% of identified MEAs focused on conditions whose prevalence is less than 1 per 10,000.

conclusionsThis study confirmed that a variety of MEAs were increasingly used by European payers to manage aspects of uncertainty associated with the introduction of OMPs in the healthcare system, and which may be of a clinical, utilisation, or budgetary nature. It remains unclear whether differences in the use of MEAs reflect differences in how 'uncertainty' and 'value' are perceived across healthcare systems.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisEuropeHumansInsurance, Health, ReimbursementOrphan Drug Production

Identifiers

PMID24365263
PMCPMC3882782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.