Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 301–315 | Cite as

Global spending on orphan drugs in France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain during 2007

  • Javier Orofino
  • Javier Soto
  • Miguel A. Casado
  • Itziar Oyagüez
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Orphan drugs are indicated for the treatment of rare diseases which, in the EU, are defined as those with a prevalence of <5 per 10 000 inhabitants. Characteristically, these diseases negatively affect health-related quality of life and may be life threatening. The EU has passed legislation to encourage pharmaceutical companies to invest in research programmes into rare diseases, with the aim of developing new, safe and effective orphan drugs.

Objectives

To describe the status of orphan drugs in five countries in the EU (France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain), estimate the mean annual cost per patient and indication of these orphan drugs, and determine the associated cost of these drugs in comparison with overall spending on drugs in each country (year 2007 values).

Methods

The analysis was limited solely to costs of orphan drugs with sales data available for 2007. The mean annual cost per patient was estimated using recommended regimens for maintenance dose and duration from the summary of product characteristics. Likewise, the ratio between annual costs per patient for treatment of each disease and its prevalence was calculated. Sales data were available for at least one of the countries studied for 38 of the 44 orphan drugs authorized by the European Medicines Agency. Only 21 products had data available for all five countries studied.

Results

Germany was the country with access to the largest number of orphan drugs (36), followed by the UK (34), Spain (28), France (27) and Italy (25). The mean annual cost per patient and indication of the 38 orphan drugs on the market ranged widely from €331 to €337 501. It appears that orphan drugs indicated to treat diseases with a prevalence of <2 per 10 000 inhabitants have higher annual per-patient costs than those indicated to treat diseases with a higher prevalence. The percentage of total drug spending accounted for by orphan drugs in 2007 was 1.7% in France, 2.1% in Germany, 1.0% in the UK, 1.5% in Italy and 2.0% in Spain, with an average overall percentage of 1.7% for these five countries.

Conclusions

In 2007, spending on orphan drugs in five European countries was acceptable in terms of the percentage of these countries’ overall drug expenditure. Mean annual costs per patient of orphan drugs varied widely, with costs being related to the prevalence of the disease for which the product is indicated.

Supplementary material

40258_2012_8050301_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (179 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 183 KB.

References

  1. 1.
    Aronson JK. Rare diseases and orphan drugs. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 61(3): 243–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lavandeira A. Orphan drugs: legal aspects, current situation. Haemophilia 2002; 8(3): 194–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Medicines Agency. Orphan drugs and rare diseases at a glance. London: European Medicines Agency, 2007 Jul 3 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/comp/29007207en.pdf [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Organisation for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS). EURORDIS position paper on the WHO report on priority medicines for Europe and the world [online]. Available from URL: http://www.eurordis.org/IMG/pdf/eurordis_position_WHO__priority_medicines_dec04.pdf [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]
  5. 5.
    Wästfelt M, Fadeel B, Henter JI. A journey of hope: lessons learned from studies on rare diseases and orphan drugs. J Intern Med 2006; 260(1): 1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    European Organisation for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS). Rare diseases: understanding this public health priority. Paris: EURORDIS, 2005 Nov [online]. Available from URL: http://www.eurordis.org/IMG/pdf/princeps_document-EN.pdf [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drummond MF, Wilson DA, Kanavos P, et al. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23(1): 36–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. The orphan drug act (as amended) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/default.htm [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]
  9. 9.
    European Commission. Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 16, 1999 on orphan medicinal products. Official Journal of the European communities 2000; 43(L18): 1–5 [online]. Available from URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:018:0001:0005:EN:PDF [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rinaldi A. Adopting an orphan. EMBO Rep 2005 Jun; 6(6): 507–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Medicines Agency. Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP): overview [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/htms/general/contacts/COMP/COMP.html [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]
  12. 12.
    Haffner ME. Adopting orphan drugs: two dozen years of treating rare diseases. N Engl J Med 2006; 354(5): 445–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    European Medicines Agency. European Publics Assessment Reports (EPARs) for authorised medicinal products for human use. 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/htms/human/epar/eparintro.htm [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    IMS Health. MIDAS, MAT. Dec 2007 [database]Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Commission. Enterprise and industry. Community register of orphan medicinal products for human use [online]. Available from URL: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pharmaceuticals/register/index.htm [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]
  16. 16.
    European Medicines Agency. Human medicines: orphan medicinal products: summaries of opinion on orphan designation [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/htms/human/orphans/opinions.htm [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]
  17. 17.
    Olry A, editor. Prevalence of rare diseases: bibliographic data. Orphanet report series: rare diseases collection. 2010 May [online]. Available from URL: http://www.orpha.net/orphacom/cahiers/docs/GB/Prevalence_of_rare_diseases_by_alphabetical_list.pdf [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]
  18. 18.
    All Wales Medicine Strategy Group. Final appraisal report: dexrazoxane (Savene®) TopoTarget. Advice no: 0207-June 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Documents/371/Dexrazoxane%20FAR%20%20website.pdf [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    European Medicines Agency. COMP report to the commission in relation to article 10 of regulation 141 /2000 on orphan medicinal products. Doc. Ref. EMEA 35218/2005. London: European Medicines Agency, 2005 Jul 25 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/comp/3521805en.pdf [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Population Reference Bureau. 2007 World population data sheet [online]. Available from URL: http://www.prb.org [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]
  21. 21.
    The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Facts and statistics from the pharmaceutical industry: a global industry. Annual medicines expenditures per person, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.abpi.org.uk/statistics/section.asp?sect=1#2 [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    European Central Bank. Euro foreign exchange reference rates [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/index.en.html [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]
  23. 23.
    Miles KA, Packer C, Stevens A. Quantifying emerging drugs for very rare conditions. QJM 2007; 100(5): 291–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraising orphan drugs. London: NICE, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/smt/120705item4.pdf [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gilman BH, Gage B, Haber S, et al. Impact of drug coverage on medical expenditures among the elderly. Health Care Financ Rev 2008; 29(1): 103–18Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller DP, Furberg CD, Small RH, et al. Controlling prescription drug expenditures: a report of success. Am J Manag Care 2007 Aug; 13(8): 473–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marshall DA, Douglas PR, Drummond MF, et al. Guidelines for conducting pharmaceutical budget impact analyses for submission to public drug plans in Canada. Pharmaco-economics 2008; 26(6): 477–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Joppi R, Bertele V, Garattini S. Orphan drug development is progressing too slowly. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 61(3): 355–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Remuzzi G, Garattini S. Rare diseases: what’s next? Lancet 2008; 371: 1978–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schieppali A, Henter J-I, Daina E, et al. Why rare diseases are important medical and social issue. Lancet 2008; 371: 2039–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haffner ME, Torrent-Farnell J, Meher PD. Does orphan drug legislation really answer the needs of patients? Lancet 2008; 371: 2041–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McCabe C, Claxton K, Tsuchiya A. Orphan drugs and the NHS: should we value rarity? BMJ 2005; 331(7523): 1016–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ 2004; 329(7459): 224–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Clarke JT. Is the current approach to reviewing new drugs condemning the victims of rare diseases to death? A call for a national orphan drug review policy. CMAJ 2006; 174(2): 189–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hughes D. Rationing of drugs for rare diseases. Pharmaco-economics 2006; 24(4): 315–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    George B, Harris A, Mitchell A. Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmaco-economics 2001; 19(11): 1103–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance. 2nd ed. London: NICE [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/C18/30/SVJ2PUBLICATION2008.pdf [Accessed 2008 Dec 20]

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Orofino
    • 1
  • Javier Soto
    • 2
  • Miguel A. Casado
    • 3
  • Itziar Oyagüez
    • 3
  1. 1.CellerixMadridSpain
  2. 2.Pfizer Medical UnitMadridSpain
  3. 3.Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research IberiaMadridSpain
  4. 4.Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research IberiaPozuelo de AlarcónSpain

Personalised recommendations