Objectives: The aim of this study was to characterize the reimbursement policy for orphan drugs (ODs) in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries in relation to the availability and impact of clinical evidence, health technology assessment (HTA) procedure, selected economic indicators, and the drug type according to indications. Materials and methods: A list of authorized medicines with orphan designation and information about active substance, Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification, and therapeutic area was extracted from the web-based register of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A country-based questionnaire survey was performed between September 2021 and January 2022 in a group of selected experts from nine CEE countries (an invitation was sent to 11 countries). A descriptive and statistical analysis was conducted to determine statistical significance, correlations, between the drug or country characteristic and the positive recommendation or reimbursement of ODs. Results: The proportion of reimbursed orphan drugs differed between countries, ranging from 17.7% in Estonia to 49.6% in Hungary (p < 0.001). The odds that ODs were reimbursed were reduced in countries with a "strong" level of impact of drug safety and efficacy on reimbursement decisions (p=0.018), the presence of other additional specific clinical aspects (e.g., genomic data) considered in the reimbursement decision (p < 0.001) and mandatory (without exception) safety assessments (p=0.004). The probability that ODs were reimbursed was increased in countries with a "moderate" level of impact of drug safety and efficacy on reimbursement decisions (p=0.018), when reimbursement decisions are dependent on the EMA registration status and orphan drug designation (p < 0.001), the presence of the "positive HTA recommendation guarantees reimbursement" policy (p < 0.001), higher GDP per inhabitant (p=0.003), and higher healthcare expenditure (p < 0.001). Conclusion: We found that there are differences among CEE countries in the reimbursement of orphan drugs, and we identified aspects that may influence these differences. Safety, efficacy, and specific clinical aspect issues significantly influenced reimbursement decisions. Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents drugs were the largest group of ODs and increased the chance of getting a positive recommendation. The higher GDP per inhabitant and healthcare expenditures per inhabitant were positively linked to the chance that an OD receives reimbursement.

Agency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices of Croatia Zagreb Croatia

Department of Biotechnology University of Rijeka Rijeka Croatia

Department of Clinical Pharmacy of Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Kaunas Lithuania

Department of Health Promotion and e Health Faculty of Health of Science Jagiellonian University Medical College Kraków Poland

Department of Nutrition and Drug Research Faculty of Health of Science Jagiellonian University Medical College Kraków Poland

Department of Organisation and Management in Pharmacy Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University in Bratislava Bratislava Slovakia

Department of Organization and Economics of Pharmacy Faculty of Pharmacy Medical University of Sofia Sofia Bulgaria

Department of Reimbursement National Institute of Health Insurance Fund Management Budapest Hungary

Department of Social and Clinical Pharmacy Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Kralove Charles University Prague Prague Czechia

Faculty of Medicine Titu Maiorescu University Bucharest Romania

Health Policy and Management Department Faculty of Health of Science Jagiellonian University Medical College Kraków Poland

Institute of Family Medicine and Public Health University of Tartu Tartu Estonia

The Romanian Association of International Medicine Manufacturers ARPIM Bucharest Romania

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Blankart C. R., Stargardt T., Schreyögg J. (2011). Availability of and access to orphan drugs: an international comparison of pharmaceutical treatments for pulmonary arterial hypertension, Fabry disease, hereditary angioedema and chronic myeloid leukaemia. Pharmacoeconomics 29, 63–82. 10.2165/11539190-000000000-00000 PubMed DOI

Dupont A. G., Van Wilder P. B. (2011). Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 71, 488–496. 10.1111/J.1365-2125.2010.03877.X PubMed DOI PMC

EUR Lex (2021). Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 of the European parliament and of the Council of 15 december 2021 on health technology assessment and amending directive 2011/24/EU (text with EEA relevance). 32021R2282.

European Medicines Agency (2022). Medicines | European medicines agency. Available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines (Accessed May 16, 2022).

European Medicines Agency (2023). Orphan designation: overview | European medicines agency. Available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/orphan-designation-overview (Accessed May 15, 2022).

European Parliament and Council (2000). Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European parliament and of the Council of 16 december 1999 on orphan medicinal products.

Eurostat (2022). Database - Eurostat. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/data/database (Accessed May 16, 2022).

Garau M. M.-F. J. (2009). Access mechanisms for orphan drugs: a comparative study of selected European countries. London, United Kingdom: The Office of Health Economics OHE. 52.

ISAP (2023). Ustawa z dnia 12 maja 2011 r. o refundacji leków, środków spożywczych specjalnego przeznaczenia żywieniowego oraz wyrobów medycznych. Available at: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu20111220696 (Accessed April 17, 2023).

Jakovljevic M., Lazarevic M., Milovanovic O., Kanjevac T. (2016). The new and old Europe: east-west split in pharmaceutical spending. Front. Pharmacol. 7, 18. 10.3389/FPHAR.2016.00018 PubMed DOI PMC

Joppi R., Bertele V., Garattini S. (2006). Orphan drug development is progressing too slowly. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 61, 355–360. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02579.x PubMed DOI PMC

Kamusheva M., Manova M., Savova A. T., Petrova G. I., Mitov K., Harsányi A., et al. (2018). Comparative analysis of legislative requirements about patients’ access to biotechnological drugs for rare diseases in central and Eastern European countries. Front. Pharmacol. 9, 795. 10.3389/FPHAR.2018.00795 PubMed DOI PMC

Kawalec P., Tesar T., Vostalova L., Draganic P., Manova M., Savova A., et al. (2017). Pharmaceutical regulation in Central and Eastern European countries: a current review. Front. Pharmacol. 8, 892. 10.3389/fphar.2017.00892 PubMed DOI PMC

Malinowski K. P., Kawalec P., Trabka W., Czech M., Petrova G., Manova M., et al. (2019). Reimbursement legislations and decision making for orphan drugs in central and eastern european countries. Front. Pharmacol. 10, 487. 10.3389/FPHAR.2019.00487 PubMed DOI PMC

Malinowski K. P., Kawalec P., Trąbka W., Sowada C., Petrova G., Manova M., et al. (2020). Health technology assessment and reimbursement policy for oncology orphan drugs in Central and Eastern Europe. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 15, 277. 10.1186/S13023-020-01556-9 PubMed DOI PMC

Malinowski K. P., Kawalec P., Trabka W., Sowada C., Pilc A. (2018). Reimbursement of orphan drugs in Europe in relation to the type of authorization by the European medicines agency and the decision making based on health technology assessment. Front. Pharmacol. 9, 1263. 10.3389/fphar.2018.01263 PubMed DOI PMC

Michel M., Toumi M. (2012). Access to orphan drugs in Europe: current and future issues. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 12, 23–29. 10.1586/ERP.11.95 PubMed DOI

OECD (2022). OECD data. Available at: https://data.oecd.org/(Accessed August 30, 2022).

Orphanet (2021). Lists of medicinal products for rare diseases in Europe. Available at: https://www.orpha.net/consor/cgi-bin/Education.php?lng=EN (Accessed May 15, 2022).

Orphanet (2022). Orphanet: about orphan drugs. Available at: https://www.orpha.net/consor/cgi-bin/Education_AboutOrphanDrugs.php?lng=EN&stapage=ST_EDUCATION_EDUCATION_ABOUTORPHANDRUGS_EUR (Accessed May 15, 2022).

Pontes C., Fontanet J. M., Vives R., Sancho A., Gómez-Valent M., Ríos J., et al. (2018). Evidence supporting regulatory-decision making on orphan medicinal products authorisation in Europe: methodological uncertainties 11 medical and health sciences 1117 public health and health services. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 13, 1–15. 10.1186/S13023-018-0926-Z PubMed DOI PMC

Tesar T., Obsitnik B., Kaló Z., Kristensen F. B. (2019). How changes in reimbursement practices influence the financial sustainability of medicine policy: lessons learned from Slovakia. Front. Pharmacol. 10, 664. 10.3389/fphar.2019.00664 PubMed DOI PMC

WHO (2022). Anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) classification. Available at: https://www.who.int/tools/atc-ddd-toolkit/atc-classification (Accessed October 3, 2022).

Winstone J., Chadda S., Ralston S., Sajosi P. (2015). Review and comparison of clinical evidence submitted to support European Medicines Agency market authorization of orphan-designated oncological treatments. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 10, 139. 10.1186/s13023-015-0349-z PubMed DOI PMC

Zamora B., Maignen F., O’Neill P., Mestre-Ferrandiz J., Garau M. (2019). Comparing access to orphan medicinal products in Europe. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 14, 95–12. 10.1186/S13023-019-1078-5 PubMed DOI PMC

Zelei T., Molnár M. J., Szegedi M., Kaló Z. (2016). Systematic review on the evaluation criteria of orphan medicines in Central and Eastern European countries. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 11, 72. 10.1186/s13023-016-0455-6 PubMed DOI PMC