Abstract
AIM: We analysed the Belgian reimbursement decisions of orphan drugs as compared with those of innovative drugs for more common but equally severe diseases, with special emphasis on the quality of clinical evidence. METHODS: Using the National Health Insurance Agency administrative database, we evaluated all submitted orphan drug files between 2002 and 2007. A quality analysis of the clinical evidence in the orphan reimbursement files was performed. The evaluation reports of the French 'Haute Autorité de Santé', including the five-point scale parameter 'Service Médical Rendu (SMR), were examined to compare disease severity. Chi-squared tests (at P < 0.05 significance level) were used to compare the outcome of the reimbursement decisions between orphan and non-orphan innovative medicines. RESULTS: Twenty-five files of orphan drugs and 117 files of non-orphan drugs were evaluated. Twenty-two of 25 (88%) submissions of orphan drugs were granted reimbursement as opposed to 74 of the 117 (63%) non-orphan innovative medicines (P= 0.02). Only 52% of the 25 orphan drug files included a randomized controlled trial as opposed to 84% in a random control sample of 25 non-orphan innovative submissions (P < 0.01). The duration of drug exposure was in most cases far too short in relation to the natural history of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: Orphan drug designation predicts reimbursement despite poor quality of clinical evidence. The evidence gap at market authorization should be reduced by post-marketing programmes, in which the centralized regulatory and the local reimbursement authorities collaborate in an efficient way across the European Union member states.