SynthesisOrphanet journal of rare diseases2021
A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement.
Synthesis in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- What Drives Public Preference for Rare Drugs Coverage in China? Insights From a Multi-Center Discrete Choice Experiment.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Access to orphan drugs in adults with inherited metabolic diseases in Switzerland: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
- Implicit ethical choices in ultra-rare therapy development: researchers' perspectives on patient selection and communication, therapy value, and accessibility.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Determinants of orphan drug health technology assessment in South Korea: an empirical analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Views and opinions of the general public about the reimbursement of expensive medicines in the Netherlands.PloS one · 2025Article
- Trends in orphan medicinal products approvals in the European Union between 2010-2022.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- Article
- Clinical and non-clinical aspects of reimbursement policy for orphan drugs in selected European countries.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Inequities in kidney health and kidney care.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2023Review
- Costs of orphan medicinal products: longitudinal analysis of expenditure in Wales.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Article
- A qualitative study on the views of experts on the social impact of the high-priced orphan drug nusinersen.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- Moving beyond the Court of Public Opinion: A Citizens' Jury Exploring the Public's Values around Funding Decisions for Ultra-Orphan Drugs.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The reimbursement for expensive medicines: stakeholder perspectives on the SMA medicine nusinersen and the Dutch Coverage Lock policy.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- The ethics of aggregation in cost-effectiveness analysis or, "on books, bookshelves, and budget impact".Frontiers in health services · 2022Article
- Gene Therapy for Neuromuscular Diseases: Health Economic Challenges and Future Perspectives.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2022Review
- Real-world use of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) in rare disease (RD) patients: A population-based registry study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- How Can We Optimize the Value Assessment and Appraisal of Orphan Drugs for Reimbursement Purposes? A Qualitative Interview Study Across European Countries.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of market approvals of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) has been increasing steadily in the last 3 decades. While OMPs can offer a unique chance for patients suffering from rare diseases, they are usually very expensive. The growing number of approved OMPs increases their budget impact despite their low prevalence, making it pressing to find solutions to ethical challenges on how to fairly allocate scarce healthcare resources under this context. One potential solution could be to grant OMPs special status when considering them for reimbursement, meaning that they are subject to different, and less stringent criteria than other drugs. This study aims to provide a systematic analysis of moral reasons for and against such a special status for the reimbursement of OMPs in publicly funded healthcare systems from a multidisciplinary perspective.
resultsWith a systematic review of reasons, we identified 39 reasons represented in 243 articles (scientific and grey literature) for and against special status for the reimbursement of OMPs, then categorized them into nine topics. Taking a multidisciplinary perspective, we found that most articles came from health policy (n = 103) and health economics (n = 49). More articles took the position for a special status of OMPs (n = 97) than those against it (n = 31) and there was a larger number of reasons identified in favour (29 reasons) than against (10 reasons) this special status.
conclusionResults suggest that OMP reimbursement issues should be assessed and analysed from a multidisciplinary perspective. Despite the higher occurrence of reasons and articles in favour of a special status, there is no clear-cut solution for this ethical challenge. The binary perspective of whether or not OMPs should be granted special status oversimplifies the issue: both OMPs and rare diseases are too heterogeneous in their characteristics for such a binary perspective. Thus, the scientific debate should focus less on the question of disease prevalence but rather on how the important variability of different OMPs concerning e.g. target population, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence or mechanism of action could be meaningfully addressed and implemented in Health Technology Assessments.
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.