Explore the vast range of titles available.

Rare diseases collectively affect millions of Americans of all ages, but developing drugs and medical devices to prevent, diagnose, and treat these conditions is challenging. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends implementing an integrated national strategy to promote rare diseases research and product development.

To review existing regulations and policies utilised by countries to enable patient access to orphan drugs. A review of the literature (1998 to 2014) was performed to identify relevant, peer-reviewed articles. Using content analysis, we synthesised regulations and policies for access to orphan drugs by type and by country. Fifty seven articles and 35 countries were included in this review. Six broad categories of regulation and policy instruments were identified: national orphan drug policies, orphan drug designation, marketing authorization, incentives, marketing exclusivity, and pricing and reimbursement. The availability of orphan drugs depends on individual country's legislation and regulations including national orphan drug policies, orphan drug designation, marketing authorization, marketing exclusivity and incentives such as tax credits to ensure research, development and marketing. The majority of countries (27/35) had in place orphan drug legislation. Access to orphan drugs depends on individual country's pricing and reimbursement policies, which varied widely between countries. High prices and insufficient evidence often limit orphan drugs from meeting the traditional health technology assessment criteria, especially cost-effectiveness, which may influence access. Overall many countries have implemented a combination of legislations, regulations and policies for orphan drugs in the last two decades. While these may enable the availability and access to orphan drugs, there are critical differences between countries in terms of range and types of legislations, regulations and policies implemented. Importantly, China and India, two of the largest countries by population size, both lack national legislation for orphan medicines and rare diseases, which could have substantial negative impacts on their patient populations with rare diseases.

Most rare diseases still lack approved treatments despite major advances in research providing the tools to understand their molecular basis, as well as legislation providing regulatory and economic incentives to catalyse the development of specific therapies. Addressing this translational gap is a multifaceted challenge, for which a key aspect is the selection of the optimal therapeutic modality for translating advances in rare disease knowledge into potential medicines, known as orphan drugs. With this in mind, we discuss here the technological basis and rare disease applicability of the main therapeutic modalities, including small molecules, monoclonal antibodies, protein replacement therapies, oligonucleotides and gene and cell therapies, as well as drug repurposing. For each modality, we consider its strengths and limitations as a platform for rare disease therapy development and describe clinical progress so far in developing drugs based on it. We also discuss selected overarching topics in the development of therapies for rare diseases, such as approval statistics, engagement of patients in the process, regulatory pathways and digital tools.Most rare diseases still lack approved treatments. This article analyses the main therapeutic modalities available to researchers interested in translating advances in the scientific understanding of rare diseases into therapies, highlights progress so far and discusses overarching issues in drug development for rare diseases.

Background Orphan drug designations are a useful proxy to investigate trends in rare disease drug development. Drug developers must receive a designation before they are eligible for the economic incentives of the Orphan Drug Act in the United States. We created a database of all orphan drugs designated between 1983 and 2019 that included numerous drug characteristics, including therapeutic area. In addition, we constructed a “broad disease” categorization of designations as an alternative to therapeutic area, based on disease etiology and age of onset rather than organ system. By looking at the pattern of orphan drug designations over the past four decades, this analysis studied the impact of the evolving rare disease drug development landscape and considers the future of rare disease therapies over the coming decades. Results Between 1983 and 2019, a total of 5099 drugs and biologics received orphan drug designation. Designations more than doubled between the 1980s and 1990s, almost doubled between the 1990s and 2000s, and almost tripled in number between the 2000s and 2010s. The top three therapeutic areas represented in the orphan drug designations were: oncology (1910, 37%), neurology (674, 13%), and infectious diseases (436, 9%). The broad disease categorization found that the proportion of designations for pediatric-onset diseases has increased in the most recent decade to 27%. Conclusions Analysis of the last four decades of orphan drug designation indicates seismic shifts have occurred in the rare disease drug development space. The number of designations granted more than quadrupled between the 1990s and 2010s. While these substantial increases led to growth in the absolute number of designations within all therapeutic areas (bar one) and broad disease categories, the relative proportions have seen considerable change over time. In the most recent decade, there have been notable increases in the proportion of drugs in oncology, pediatric-onset diseases, and neurologic disorders. The dramatic rise in overall orphan designations over the past four decades suggests we may continue to see an upward trajectory in designations leading to an increased number of approvals for drugs and biologics designed specifically for diagnosing, preventing, and treating rare diseases in the coming decades.

Background Extremely high prices facilitate drug development for ultra-rare diseases (ultra-orphan drugs). However, various problems arise in terms of healthcare financing and fairness, and the status of ultra-orphan drug pricing remains ambiguous. In this study, we investigated ultra-orphan drug prices in Japan relative to that of other drugs. We examined the relationship between annual expected drug prices and expected sales, and the expected number of patients, for 393 drugs containing new active ingredients for therapeutic use that were listed on the National Health Insurance drug price list in Japan between April 16, 2010 and August 26, 2020. In addition, we compared prices, the drug price calculation method, and price calculation adjustment factors for ultra-orphan and other drugs. Results Drug prices tended to increase as the expected number of patients to whom the drug was administered decreased; however, this trend diminished when the expected number of patients was less than 1000. On the other hand, the expected sales tended to decrease as the number of expected patients decreased, and this tendency was reinforced when the expected number of patients was less than 1000. The cost accounting method tended to be used for the price calculation of ultra-orphan drugs, but there were no price differences based on the drug price calculation method. Regarding the price calculation adjustment factors, the premium for usefulness tended to be higher for ultra-orphan drugs. The premium for marketability was higher for non-orphan drugs but did not differ from that for orphan drugs, except for ultra-orphan drugs. Conclusions The status of drug prices and expected sales differed beyond a threshold of 1000 expected patients, indicating that recovering the development cost for ultra-orphan drugs is difficult. In addition, the higher premium for usefulness for ultra-orphan drugs reflects the largely unmet need of the associated diseases. Scarcity among orphan drugs is not considered for marketability, highlighting the need for a new framework to promote the development of ultra-orphan drugs.

[...]the diseases, not the drugs, are the orphans because all drugs are very expensive,3 having marrying this success story (table). [...]in some cases, several OMPs are available for the same disease; for example, three drugs are licensed for treatment of Gaucher's disease (imiglucerase, velaglucerase alfa, and taliglucerase alfa).15 No evidence favours any one product over the other, and each drug costs about US$200 000 per patient per year. In a landmark departure from previous practice in 2014, the US Senate requested information on developmental costs and numerous other details for sofosbuvir, a drug for radical treatment of hepatitis C virus infection.19 Individual EU member state governments have since increasingly been requesting that industry disclose information about costs incurred during drug development that justify drug prices, but without legal obligations, these requests have largely been evaded. First synthesised in 1869, hydroxyurea has been used for decades in patients with myeloproliferative disorders and is now also indicated for sickle-cell disease.22,23 In the 2017 issue of the British National Formulary, one type of hydroxyurea for myeloproliferative disorders is listed at £0·24 per g, and another type of hydroxyurea for sickle-cell disease is listed at £16·7 per g. Common sense suggests that something must be wrong here.

Background The aim of this study was to review and compare types of reimbursement recommendations for orphan drugs issued by eight European health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and the reimbursement status of these drugs in the corresponding countries. Separate calculations were also performed for three sub-groups: ultra-orphan drugs, oncology orphan drugs and other (non-ultra, non-oncology) orphan drugs. Results We reviewed drugs authorized by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) between 1 November 2002 and 30 September 2015. Among these, we identified 101 orphan drugs. Seventy-nine of them were assessed by eight European HTA agencies. The average rates of positive, conditional and negative reimbursement recommendations issued by these agencies were 55.7 %, 15.3 % and 29.0 %, respectively. On average, 21.2 % of EMA-authorized orphan drugs were reimbursed in the eight European countries studied: 49.0 % of those with positive, 53.6 % of those with conditional, and 16.0 % of those with negative reimbursement recommendations. In addition, 5.4 % of orphan drugs that had not been assessed by any of the eight HTA agencies were also reimbursed. The shares of oncology, ultra, and other orphan drugs that were assessed by HTA agencies were similar, with the lowest share observed in ultra-orphan drugs (72 %) and the highest in other orphan drugs (80 %). In terms of reimbursement, 20 % of oncology orphan drugs, 25 % of ultra-orphan drugs and 21 % of other orphan drugs were reimbursed. Conclusions Reimbursement of orphan drugs does not always correspond to the type of HTA recommendation. While the highest rate of reimbursement is observed (unsurprisingly) among drugs with positive or conditional recommendation, a high rate of reimbursement (11 %) is also observed among ultra-orphan drugs that had never been assessed by any HTA agency.

Background Rare diseases affect more than 30 million Americans. The passage of the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) in the United States in 1983 represented a launching point for a rare disease drug development revolution for these patients. Financial incentives provided by the ODA through its Orphan Drug Designation Program, in addition to remarkable scientific advances over the past 40 years, have led to hundreds of drug approvals for rare diseases. Our research examines the rare diseases that have been targeted by orphan drug designations and subsequent approvals since the law was enacted. Methods Using an internal FDA database, we classified and analyzed all orphan drug designations and approvals from 1983 to 2022 by disease and therapeutic area. Results Over the 40 years of the ODA, 6,340 orphan drug designations were granted, representing drug development for 1,079 rare diseases. Additionally, 882 of those designations resulted in at least one FDA approval for use in 392 rare diseases. Much of this development has been concentrated in oncology as seven of the top ten most designated and approved diseases were rare cancers. Conclusions Researchers have estimated that there may be 7000–10,000 rare diseases that have been identified and described. Based on our study, we can conclude that around 5% of rare diseases have an FDA-approved drug and up to 15% of rare diseases have at least one drug that has been developed and shown promise in their treatment, diagnosis or prevention. Funding of basic and translational science for rare disease drug development should continue in order to bring therapies to the millions of affected patients who remain without treatment options.

Background More than 6,800 rare diseases and conditions have been identified in the US, which affect 25–30 million Americans. In 1983, the US Congress enacted the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) to encourage the development and marketing of drugs to treat rare diseases and conditions. This study analyzed all orphan designations and FDA approvals since 1983 through 2015, discussed the effectiveness of incentives for the development of treatments for rare diseases, and reflected on the ethical imperatives for timely access to orphan drugs. Methods Study data were derived from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Orange Book and the Office of Orphan Drugs Development. A search was conducted to assess literature on the ethical principles and economic incentives for the development of orphan drugs. Results In the period 1983–2015, the FDA granted 3,647 orphan drug designations and 554 orphan drug approvals. The orphan drug approvals corresponded to 438 different brand names. Cancer was the therapeutic area with the highest number of approvals. The increased number of patients with rare diseases and the growth in the cost of orphan drugs pose a significant economic burden for patients, public programs and private third party payers. Regulatory differences to qualify for orphan designation and various population thresholds employed by the FDA and the European Medicines Agency lead to further unmet health needs for patients with rare diseases and aggravate health inequities. There is no societal consensus on the population and economic thresholds, the drug effectiveness indicator(s), or the societal value to be placed for the approval and reimbursement of orphan drugs. Conclusion Orphan drug development and marketing in the US concentrate in few therapeutic areas. Despite the increase in the number of FDA approved orphan drugs, the unmet needs of patients with rare diseases evidence that the current incentives are not efficiently stimulating orphan drug development. There is need to balance economic incentives to stimulate the development and marketing of orphan drugs without jeopardizing patients’ access to treatment. Thus, aligning pharmaceutical companies’ incentives with societal budgetary constraints is necessary and the ethical imperatives of timely access to orphan drugs need to be agreed upon.