Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:42:37.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs: A comment on Drummond et al.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2007

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To the Editor:

In a recent study in this Journal, Drummond and colleagues (5) attempt to address the question “Whether the standard methods of HTA are adequate for assisting decisions on patient access to and funding of orphan drugs” before proposing “a research agenda to help understand the societal value of orphan drugs and issues surrounding their development, funding, and use.”

Type
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , July 2007 , pp. 397 - 401
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arno P, Bonuck K, Davis M. 1995 Rare diseases, drug development and AIDS. The impact of the Orphan Drugs Act. Millbank Q. 73: 231– 250.Google Scholar
Cannock M, Burls A, Frew E, et al. 2006 The clinical and cost effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy for Gauchers disease: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 10: iii– iv, ix– 136.Google Scholar
Chilcott J, McCabe C, Tappenden P, et al. 2003 Modelling the cost effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate. BMJ. 326: 522– 526.Google Scholar
Claxton K, Culyer A. 2006 Wickedness or Folly? The ethics of NICE's decisions. J Med Ethics. 32: 373– 377.Google Scholar
Drummond MF, Wilson DA, Kanavos P, Ubel P, Rovira J. 2007 Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 23: 36– 42.Google Scholar
Garcia AL. 2004. Is the copy better than the original? The regulation of orphan drugs: A US-EU comparative perspective. Harvard Law School LLM Paper;
Goozner M. 2004: The $800 million pill. San Francisco: University of California Press; 48.
Griffin S, Claxton K, Palmer S, Sculpher MJ. 2007 Dangerous omissions: The consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty. Med Decis Making. 27: E8.Google Scholar
Hughes D, Turnage B, Yeo ST. 2005 Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: Do they deserve special status for funding? Q J Med. 98: 829– 836.Google Scholar
McCabe C, Claxton K, Tsuchiya A. 2005 Orphan drugs and the NHS: Should we value rarity? BMJ. 31: 1016– 1019.Google Scholar
McCabe C, Tsuchiya A, Claxton K, Raftery J. 2006 Orphan drugs revisited. Q J Med. 99: 341– 345.Google Scholar
NICE. 2004. Citizen's council report on ultra orphan drugs. London: NICE;
NICE. 2004. Imatinib for unresectable and/or metastatic gastro-intestinal tumours: Technology Appraisal 86. London: NICE; October
Office of Fair Trading. 2007. The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme: An OFT market study. London: Office of Fair Trading; February
Relman AS, Angell M. America's other drug problem. New Republic. 16/12/2002.
Ubel PA, Loewenstein G. 1996 Distributing Scarce livers: The moral reasoning of the general public. Soc Sci Med. 42: 1049– 1055.Google Scholar
Ubel PA, Ricahrdson J, Prades JL. 1999 Life saving treatments across disabilities. Are all QALYs created equal? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 15: 738– 748.Google Scholar