ReviewClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2017
Oncology drugs for orphan indications: how are HTA processes evolving for this specific drug category?
Review in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Institutional Priority-Setting for Novel Drugs and Therapeutics: A Qualitative Systematic Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Pooled it
- Reimbursement decision-making system in Poland systematically compared to other countries.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- A scoping review of challenges in pediatric health technology assessments with a focus on pharmaceutical interventions.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Optimizing Patient Access to Orphan Medicinal Products: Lessons from Central and Eastern Europe.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- Patient engagement for the development of equity-focused health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations: a case study of two Canadian HTA organizations.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Ensuring the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Joint Clinical Assessment in National HTA Decision-Making: Insights from the 2024 CIRS Multi-Stakeholder Workshop.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- The value-for-money assessment and funding arrangements for high-priced drugs in an era of uncertainty: a comparative analysis of national health technology assessment agencies in South Korea, England, Australia, and Canada.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- New Anticancer Drugs: Reliably Assessing "Value" While Addressing High Prices.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Availability and Access to Orphan Drugs for Rare Cancers in Bulgaria: Analysis of Delays and Public Expenditures.Cancers · 2024Article
- Navigating the unknown: how to best 'reflect' standard of care in indications without a dedicated treatment pathway in health technology assessment submissions.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Review
- Priority-setting for hospital funding of high-cost innovative drugs and therapeutics: A qualitative institutional case study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Literature Review on Health Emigration in Rare Diseases-A Machine Learning Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- What to Expect in 2024: Important Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) Trends.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2023Article
- Accelerating patient access to oncology medicines with multiple indications in Europe.Journal of market access & health policy · 2021Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of isavuconazole versus voriconazole for the treatment of patients with possible invasive aspergillosis in Sweden.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Common drug review recommendations for orphan drugs in Canada: basis of recommendations and comparison with similar reviews in Quebec, Australia, Scotland and New Zealand.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2018Article
- Reimbursement of Orphan Drugs in Europe in Relation to the Type of Authorization by the European Medicines Agency and the Decision Making Based on Health Technology Assessment.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orphan drugs (ODs) are intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of rare diseases. Many cancer subtypes, including all childhood cancers, are defined as rare diseases, and over one-third of ODs are now intended to treat oncology indications. However, market access for oncology ODs is becoming increasingly challenging; ODs are prone to significant uncertainty around their cost-effectiveness, while payers must balance the need for these vital innovations with growing sensitivity to rising costs. The objective of this review was to evaluate different mechanisms that have been introduced to facilitate patient access to oncology ODs in five different countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, and Sweden), using eight oncology ODs and non-orphan oncology drugs as examples of their application. A targeted literature review of health technology assessment (HTA) agency websites was undertaken to identify country-specific guidance and HTA documentation for recently evaluated oncology ODs and non-orphan oncology drugs. None of these countries were found to have explicit HTA criteria for the assessment of ODs, and therefore, oncology ODs are assessed through the usual HTA process. However, distinct and additional processes are adopted to facilitate access to oncology ODs. Review of eight case-study drugs showed that these additional assessment processes were rarely used, and decisions were largely driven by proving cost-effectiveness using standard incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds. The predominant implication arising from this study is that application of standard HTA criteria to oncology ODs in many countries fails to take into account any uncertainties around their clinical- and cost-effectiveness, resulting in disparities in HTA reimbursement decisions based on differences in addressing or accepting uncertainty. In order to address this issue, HTA agencies should adopt a more flexible approach to cost-effectiveness, as typified by the Tandvårds-och Läkemedelsförmånsverket in Sweden, which takes into account the small patient numbers involved, limited budget impact, and high unmet medical needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.