Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-8-124
Title: Systematic review of available evidence on 11 high-priced inpatient orphan drugs
Authors: Kanters, T.A
De Sonneville-Koedoot, C
Redekop, W.K 
Hakkaart, L
Keywords: agalsidase alfa
agalsidase beta
alemtuzumab
canakinumab
clofarabine
eculizumab
fludarabine
galsulfase
iduronate 2 sulfatase
laronidase
ofatumumab
orphan drug
recombinant glucan 1,4 alpha glucosidase
trabectedin
acute lymphoblastic leukemia
article
case study
chronic lymphatic leukemia
CINCA syndrome
clinical effectiveness
cost effectiveness analysis
cost utility analysis
drug approval
drug cost
evidence based medicine
Fabry disease
hospital patient
human
mucopolysaccharidosis
observational study
paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria
quality adjusted life year
quasi experimental study
soft tissue sarcoma
systematic review
cost benefit analysis
drug manufacture
economics
Netherlands
randomized controlled trial (topic)
Rare Diseases
standards
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Humans
Inpatients
Netherlands
Orphan Drug Production
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Rare Diseases
Issue Date: 2013
Citation: Kanters, T.A, De Sonneville-Koedoot, C, Redekop, W.K, Hakkaart, L (2013). Systematic review of available evidence on 11 high-priced inpatient orphan drugs. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 8 (1) : 124. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-8-124
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Abstract: Background: Attention for Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) is growing, but evidence for orphan drugs is argued to be limited and inferior. This study systematically reviews the available evidence on clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and budget impact for orphan drugs. Methods. A systematic review was performed in PubMed, Embase, NHS EED and HTA databases for 11 inpatient orphan drugs listed on the Dutch policy rule on orphan drugs. For included studies, we determined the type of study and various study characteristics. Results: A total of 338 studies met all inclusion criteria. Almost all studies (96%) focused on clinical effectiveness of the drug. Of these studies, most studies were case studies (41%) or observational studies (39%). However, for all orphan diseases at least one experimental or quasi-experimental study was found, and a randomized clinical trial was available for 60% of the orphan drugs. Eight studies described the cost-effectiveness of an orphan drug; an equal number described an orphan drug's budget impact. Conclusions: Despite the often heard claim that RCTs are not feasible for orphan drugs, we found that an RCT was available in 60% of orphan drugs investigated. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses for orphan drugs are seldom published. © 2013 Kanters et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Source Title: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/181805
ISSN: 17501172
DOI: 10.1186/1750-1172-8-124
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications
Elements

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1186_1750-1172-8-124.pdf326.69 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons