ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2026
Methodological challenges in Dutch HTA of non-oncological orphan drugs: a retrospective analysis and price comparison using different pricing models.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCost-effectiveness analyses can have limited informative value for pricing and reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. In cases where cost-effectiveness cannot be reliably assessed or achieved, value-based pricing principles may not be applicable. As a result, alternative pricing models have been proposed. It remains unclear how these alternative approaches compare to one another and to traditional value-based pricing. This study aims to explore and compare these pricing models in the context of orphan drugs.
methodsAll cost-effectiveness assessments of non-oncological orphan drugs published by the Dutch National Health Care Institute between 2015 and 2024 were analyzed to identify methodological challenges and recommended value-based price estimates. For each treatment, prices were also estimated using a cost-plus pricing model and a discounted cash flow model. These estimates were then compared to value-based prices and public list prices.
resultsCost-effectiveness assessments of 13 different therapies were found, 12 of which provide information for determining a value-based price. All assessment reports cite major uncertainties or unresolved issues in one or more of the following areas: (1) lack of a suitable comparator, (2) sub-optimal disease understanding, (3) limited evidence to inform models, (4) effect uncertainty and (5) flawed QoL measurement. Only one single treatment was found to be cost-effective at the appropriate threshold. Value-based prices were found to fall below, within or above the price ranges of the two alternative models.
conclusionChallenges cited in literature are present in Dutch assessments of the cost-effectiveness of orphan drugs. Although these issues cause considerable uncertainty, they did not negate CEA’s ability to inform decision-making. Still, orphan drugs tend to be far from cost-effective, providing a challenge for patient access that is both timely and financially feasible. Alternative models like cost-plus pricing and discounted cash flow tend to generate even lower price estimates and rely on considerable assumptions, making them unlikely to offer a viable solution in their current state.
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.