Systematic Literature Review of Access Pathways to Drugs for Patients with Rare Diseases

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Constanza Vargas, Richard De Abreu Lourenco, Manuel Espinoza, Stephen Goodall
{"title":"Systematic Literature Review of Access Pathways to Drugs for Patients with Rare Diseases","authors":"Constanza Vargas,&nbsp;Richard De Abreu Lourenco,&nbsp;Manuel Espinoza,&nbsp;Stephen Goodall","doi":"10.1007/s40258-024-00939-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This article reviews the assessment pathways that have been implemented worldwide to facilitate access to drugs for patients with rare diseases.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to conduct a systematic literature review. The Ovid (Embase/MEDLINE), Cochrane, Web of Science, Econlit, National Institute of Health Research, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts; one reviewer did the full-text review and data extraction. Data were extracted on study general characteristics, general aspects of rare diseases, source of funding, allocation of public resources (e.g., use of health technology assessment), and pricing strategies. Assessment pathways were classified as: (1) separate processes; (2) exception to standard process; (3) standard process with no change; and (4) alternative process. Each assessment pathway was characterized based on its unique characteristics specific to rare diseases focusing on whether they targeted specific aspects of the process, utilized particular methodologies during the evaluation of the evidence, or considered specific attributes in the recommendation.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 5604 unique citations were screened and 158 were included for data extraction. Sixty-one assessment pathways were identified in 43 countries, categorized as separate processes (37%), exceptions to standard processes (32%), standard processes with no changes (26%), and alternative processes (5%). Some countries (10/43; 23%) have more than one assessment pathway available. Assessment pathways varied in their inclusion of a health technology assessment, source of funding, consideration of uncertainty, and pricing strategies.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The diversity of assessment pathways reflects the complexity of addressing access to treatments for rare diseases. Furthermore, most assessment pathways are from high-income countries; therefore, there is less clarity on what is happening in low- and middle-income countries.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":"23 2","pages":"209 - 229"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40258-024-00939-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

This article reviews the assessment pathways that have been implemented worldwide to facilitate access to drugs for patients with rare diseases.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to conduct a systematic literature review. The Ovid (Embase/MEDLINE), Cochrane, Web of Science, Econlit, National Institute of Health Research, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts; one reviewer did the full-text review and data extraction. Data were extracted on study general characteristics, general aspects of rare diseases, source of funding, allocation of public resources (e.g., use of health technology assessment), and pricing strategies. Assessment pathways were classified as: (1) separate processes; (2) exception to standard process; (3) standard process with no change; and (4) alternative process. Each assessment pathway was characterized based on its unique characteristics specific to rare diseases focusing on whether they targeted specific aspects of the process, utilized particular methodologies during the evaluation of the evidence, or considered specific attributes in the recommendation.

Results

A total of 5604 unique citations were screened and 158 were included for data extraction. Sixty-one assessment pathways were identified in 43 countries, categorized as separate processes (37%), exceptions to standard processes (32%), standard processes with no changes (26%), and alternative processes (5%). Some countries (10/43; 23%) have more than one assessment pathway available. Assessment pathways varied in their inclusion of a health technology assessment, source of funding, consideration of uncertainty, and pricing strategies.

Conclusions

The diversity of assessment pathways reflects the complexity of addressing access to treatments for rare diseases. Furthermore, most assessment pathways are from high-income countries; therefore, there is less clarity on what is happening in low- and middle-income countries.

罕见病患者药物获取途径的系统文献综述。
目的:本文综述了世界范围内为促进罕见病患者获得药物而实施的评估途径。方法:采用系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行系统文献综述。检索了Ovid (Embase/MEDLINE)、Cochrane、Web of Science、Econlit、National Institute of Health Research、Centre for Reviews and Dissemination和国际Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment数据库。两位独立审稿人对所有标题和摘要进行了筛选;一位审稿人进行全文审查和数据提取。提取了关于研究的一般特征、罕见病的一般方面、资金来源、公共资源的分配(例如卫生技术评估的使用)和定价策略的数据。评估途径分为:(1)独立过程;(二)标准程序的例外;(3)无变化的标准工艺;(4)替代工艺。每一种评估途径都是根据其特有的罕见疾病特征来确定其特征的,重点是它们是否针对该过程的特定方面,在评估证据时是否使用了特定方法,或在建议中是否考虑了特定属性。结果:共筛选到5604条独特引文,其中158条纳入数据提取。在43个国家确定了61种评估途径,分为单独的过程(37%)、标准过程的例外(32%)、没有变化的标准过程(26%)和替代过程(5%)。一些国家(10/43;23%)有一个以上的评估途径。评估途径在包括卫生技术评估、资金来源、考虑不确定性和定价策略方面各不相同。结论:评估途径的多样性反映了解决罕见病治疗可及性问题的复杂性。此外,大多数评估途径来自高收入国家;因此,低收入和中等收入国家的情况不太清楚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信