Orphan drugs approved in Canada: health technology assessment, price negotiation, and government formulary listing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) have incentives to stimulate the development and marketing of orphan drugs.Health Canada has none.Methods: We identified 82 FDA and/or EMA-designated orphan drugs approved by one or both agencies between 2015 and 2020 that were also authorized in Canada.We tracked the drugs through health technology assessments (HTAs), price negotiations, and listing in government drug plans to assess the time required for these processes.Results: Median times for HTAs and price negotiations suggest a delay of around a year, but the median wait time between marketing authorization and price negotiation completion was over 18 months.Conclusions: Listing of orphan drugs in Canadian government drug plans is closely aligned with reimbursement recommendations and outcomes of price negotiations.Medicines with unsuccessful price negotiations are not listed.However, not all drugs with successful negotiations are listed by all provinces and listing does not guarantee patient access.Compared with Americans and some western Europeans, Canadians with rare disorders continue to suffer from a lack of timely and equitable access to innovative treatments.A comprehensive orphan drug policy would improve Canadians' access to the innovative treatments on the research horizon.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".