ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2024
Application of four pricing models for orphan medicines: a case study for lumasiran.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Repurposing biosimilars, rethinking costs: a framework for sustainable drug pricing for repurposed bevacizumab for intravitreal injections.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Balancing Innovation and Access: Insights from AIM's Fair Pricing Model and Its Current and Future Applications.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- A cost-based-plus pricing approach for repurposed tiratricol in the treatment of Allan-Herndon-Dudley syndrome.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
- Targeting Oxalate Production by Combining Enzyme Inhibition and Proteolysis Activation: A Novel Therapeutic Approach for Primary Hyperoxaluria Type 1.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2026Article
- Access to Orphan Medicinal Products in Bulgaria: An Analysis of the Positive Drug List and Individual Access Schemes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe combination of high prices and uncertain effectiveness is a growing challenge in the field of orphan medicines, hampering health technology assessments. Hence, new methods for establishing price benchmarks might be necessary to support reimbursement negotiations. In this study, we applied several pricing models containing cost-based elements to the case of lumasiran for treating primary hyperoxaluria type 1.
methodsPrice ranges were calculated by estimating minimum and maximum scenarios for four pricing models: Novel Cancer Pricing Model (NCP-model), AIM Model for Innovative Medicines (AIM-model), Discounted Cash Flow model (DCF-model), and the Real-Option Rate Of Return model (ROROR-model). Data was gathered from disease registries, scientific literature, Security and Exchange Committee filings, and expert opinion. A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the parameters with the largest influence.
resultsOutcomes resulting from the NCP-model ranged between €87,000 and €224,000 per patient per year, between €33,000 and €340,000 for the AIM-model, between €182,000 and €748,000 for the DCF-model, and between €81,000 and €273,000 for the ROROR-model.
conclusionOutcomes of the four pricing models show wide and heterogeneous price ranges. The DCF-model might be most compatible with the case of lumasiran, due to inclusion of parameters for prevalence, incidence, prescription restrictions and cost of capital. The minimum DCF price could serve as a starting point for pricing and reimbursement negotiations. Uncertainties can be solved by more transparency on input variables.
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.