ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2019
Analysis of Health Technology Assessments of Orphan Drugs in Ireland from 2012 to 2017.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness evidence on approved cancer drugs in Ireland: the limits of data availability and implications for public accountability.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Article
- The Utility of a Rapid Review Evaluation Process to a National HTA Agency.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Ireland, health technology assessment (HTA) submissions for orphan drugs or drugs for rare diseases have increased in recent years but have not been explicitly analysed. All evaluations are conducted by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE).
objectivesThe objectives of this study were to ascertain the number of orphan drug submissions to the NCPE and determine how these drugs proceeded through the NCPE critical evaluation process compared with non-orphan drug submissions.
methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of applicant rapid review submissions made to the NCPE from January 2012 to December 2017 inclusive. Drugs were categorised according to the following definitions: orphan (non-cancer) drug, orphan (cancer) drug and ultra-orphan drug. In each of the three categories, the outcome of rapid review appraisal, and where relevant, the outcome of the subsequent HTA was recorded.
resultsDuring the period of study, 280 rapid review submissions were made to the NCPE, of which 21 were for orphan (non-cancer) drugs, 24 were for orphan (cancer) and ten were for ultra-orphan drugs. After rapid review, 44%, 78% and 100% of orphan (non-cancer) drugs, orphan (cancer) drugs and ultra-orphan products, respectively, were recommended for full HTA. When the outcome of the rapid review process was compared between orphan drugs and non-orphan drugs, a statistically significant difference was detected in the proportion of rapid reviews for which the outcome was 'HTA recommended' (Pearson's Chi-squared test; p = 0.04).
conclusionsThe number of submissions to the NCPE for orphan drugs has increased in recent years. The rapid review and HTA process in Ireland plays a role in supporting the reimbursement decision-making process for orphan drugs in a similar manner to the process established for non-orphan drugs. However, the outcome of the reimbursement process for orphan drugs versus non-orphan drugs (in terms of access for patients) has yet to be quantified.
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.