36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development and validation of COMPASS: clinical evidence of orphan medicinal products – an assessment tool

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Rare diseases are defined as life-threatening or chronically debilitating diseases with a prevalence of 50 out of 100,000 individuals or less. Orphan medicinal products (OMPs) are intended for the treatment of rare diseases. The assessment of quality of evidence in small populations is often complex. Many generic tools are unfit. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop and validate a new tool to assess the quality of OMPs' clinical evidence (COMPASS).

          Methods

          Firstly, a draft version of the COMPASS tool, developed by the authors and consisting of three parts, was amended based on suggestions obtained in four rounds of expert consultation. Secondly, the tool was put through three rounds of validation. The data source was information provided on the Orphanet website and in European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) document of the European Medicines Agency.

          Results

          The first pilot round revealed a high (92.2%) inter-rater agreement for part one of the tool. After further improvements, the final inter-rater agreement was 86.4% for part two (on methodological quality) and three (on quality of reporting) of the tool. The COMPASS tool does not attempt to score or rank the quality of clinical evidence, but rather to give an outline of various, key elements with respect to quality of clinical evidence of OMP studies.

          Conclusions

          The COMPASS tool can be applied to assess the quality of evidence of an OMP based on information in the registration dossier, for example by local reimbursement agencies, pharmacists or clinicians. In that way, the tool can contribute to making reimbursement and/or treatment decisions increasingly more founded on the principles of evidence-based decision making.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Which clinical studies provide the best evidence? The best RCT still trumps the best observational study.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Rare diseases, orphan drugs and their regulation: questions and misconceptions.

              Sustained advocacy efforts driven by patients' organizations to make rare diseases a health priority have led to regulatory and economic incentives for industry to develop drugs for these diseases, known as orphan drugs. These incentives, enacted in regulations first introduced in the United States in 1983 and later in Japan, Europe and elsewhere, have resulted in substantial improvements in the treatment for patients with a range of rare diseases. However, the advent of orphan drug development has also triggered several questions, from the definition of rarity to the pricing of orphan drugs and their impact on health-care systems. This article provides an industry perspective on some of the common questions and misconceptions related to orphan drug development and its regulation, with the aim of facilitating future progress in the field.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Orphanet J Rare Dis
                Orphanet J Rare Dis
                Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
                BioMed Central
                1750-1172
                2013
                9 October 2013
                : 8
                : 157
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, PO box 521, Leuven 3000, Belgium
                [2 ]Department of Hepatology, University Hospital Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven 3000, Belgium
                [3 ]Department of General Practice, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, PO box 7001, Leuven 3000, Belgium
                [4 ]Belgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Leuven, Belgium
                Article
                1750-1172-8-157
                10.1186/1750-1172-8-157
                3856624
                24107467
                e417667b-99f1-4b81-bece-5ffdcb22a575
                Copyright © 2013 Picavet et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 25 June 2013
                : 5 October 2013
                Categories
                Research

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                quality assessment,quality assessment tool,quality of reporting

                Comments

                Comment on this article