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.

A child with a neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis was found to carry loss-of-function mutations in the gene MFSD8 ( CLN7 ). A year after genetic diagnosis, the child began treatment with an oligonucleotide drug that was designed to correct the aberrant pre–messenger RNA splicing caused by one of these mutations.

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.

For the past three decades, the use of genomics to inform drug discovery and development pipelines has generated both excitement and scepticism. Although earlier efforts successfully identified some new drug targets, the overall clinical efficacy of developed drugs has remained unimpressive, owing in large part to the heterogeneous causes of disease. Recent technological and analytical advances in genomics, however, have now made it possible to rapidly identify and interpret the genetic variation underlying a single patient's disease, thereby providing a window into patient-specific mechanisms that cause or contribute to disease, which could ultimately enable the 'precise' targeting of these mechanisms. Here, we first examine and highlight the successes and limitations of the earlier phases of genomics in drug discovery and development. We then review the current major efforts in precision medicine and discuss the potential broader utility of mechanistically guided treatments going forward.

Niemann-Pick disease, type C1 (NPC1) is a lysosomal storage disorder characterised by progressive neurodegeneration. In preclinical testing, 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrins (HPβCD) significantly delayed cerebellar Purkinje cell loss, slowed progression of neurological manifestations, and increased lifespan in mouse and cat models of NPC1. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of lumbar intrathecal HPβCD. In this open-label, dose-escalation phase 1–2a study, we gave monthly intrathecal HPβCD to participants with NPC1 with neurological manifestation at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, USA. To explore the potential effect of 2-week dosing, three additional participants were enrolled in a parallel study at Rush University Medical Center (RUMC), Chicago, IL, USA. Participants from the NIH were non-randomly, sequentially assigned in cohorts of three to receive monthly initial intrathecal HPβCD at doses of 50, 200, 300, or 400 mg per month. A fifth cohort of two participants received initial doses of 900 mg. Participants from RUMC initially received 200 or 400 mg every 2 weeks. The dose was escalated based on tolerance or safety data from higher dose cohorts. Serum and CSF 24(S)-hydroxycholesterol (24[S]-HC), which serves as a biomarker of target engagement, and CSF protein biomarkers were evaluated. NPC Neurological Severity Scores (NNSS) were used to compare disease progression in HPβCD-treated participants relative to a historical comparison cohort of 21 NPC1 participants of similar age range. Between Sept 21, 2013, and Jan 19, 2015, 32 participants with NPC1 were assessed for eligibility at the National Institutes of Health. 18 patients were excluded due to inclusion criteria not met (six patients), declined to participate (three patients), pursued independent expanded access and obtained the drug outside of the study (three patients), enrolled in the RUMC cohort (one patient), or too late for the trial enrolment (five patients). 14 patients were enrolled and sequentially assigned to receive intrathecal HPβCD at a starting dose of 50 mg per month (three patients), 200 mg per month (three patients), 300 mg per month (three patients), 400 mg per month (three patients), or 900 mg per month (two patients). During the first year, two patients had treatment interrupted for one dose, based on grade 1 ototoxicity. All 14 patients were assessed at 12 months. Between 12 and 18 months, one participant had treatment interrupted at 17 months due to hepatocellular carcinoma, one patient had dose interruption for 2 doses based on caregiver hardship and one patient had treatment interrupted for 1 dose for mastoiditis. 11 patients were assessed at 18 months. Between Dec 11, 2013, and June 25, 2014, three participants were assessed for eligibility and enrolled at RUMC, and were assigned to receive intrathecal HPβCD at a starting dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks (two patients), or 400 mg every two weeks (one patient). There were no dropouts in this group and all 3 patients were assessed at 18 months. Biomarker studies were consistent with improved neuronal cholesterol homoeostasis and decreased neuronal pathology. Post-drug plasma 24(S)-HC area under the curve (AUC8-72) values, an indicator of neuronal cholesterol homoeostasis, were significantly higher than post-saline plasma 24(S)-HC AUC8-72 after doses of 900 mg (p=0·0063) and 1200 mg (p=0·0037). CSF 24(S)-HC concentrations in three participants given either 600 or 900 mg of HPβCD were increased about two fold (p=0·0032) after drug administration. No drug-related serious adverse events were observed. Mid-frequency to high-frequency hearing loss, an expected adverse event, was documented in all participants. When managed with hearing aids, this did not have an appreciable effect on daily communication. The NNSS for the 14 participants treated monthly increased at a rate of 1·22, SEM 0·34 points per year compared with 2·92, SEM 0·27 points per year (p=0·0002) for the 21 patient comparison group. Decreased progression was observed for NNSS domains of ambulation (p=0·0622), cognition (p=0·0040) and speech (p=0·0423). Patients with NPC1 treated with intrathecal HPβCD had slowed disease progression with an acceptable safety profile. These data support the initiation of a multinational, randomised, controlled trial of intrathecal HPβCD. National Institutes of Health, Dana's Angels Research Trust, Ara Parseghian Medical Research Foundation, Hope for Haley, Samantha's Search for the Cure Foundation, National Niemann-Pick Disease Foundation, Support of Accelerated Research for NPC Disease, Vtesse, Janssen Research and Development, a Johnson & Johnson company, and Johnson & Johnson.

Traditionally, drug discovery utilises a de novo design approach, which requires high cost and many years of drug development before it reaches the market. Novel drug development does not always account for orphan diseases, which have low demand and hence low-profit margins for drug developers. Recently, drug repositioning has gained recognition as an alternative approach that explores new avenues for pre-existing commercially approved or rejected drugs to treat diseases aside from the intended ones. Drug repositioning results in lower overall developmental expenses and risk assessments, as the efficacy and safety of the original drug have already been well accessed and approved by regulatory authorities. The greatest advantage of drug repositioning is that it breathes new life into the novel, rare, orphan, and resistant diseases, such as Cushing’s syndrome, HIV infection, and pandemic outbreaks such as COVID-19. Repositioning existing drugs such as Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir, Ivermectin and Baricitinib shows good potential for COVID-19 treatment. This can crucially aid in resolving outbreaks in urgent times of need. This review discusses the past success in drug repositioning, the current technological advancement in the field, drug repositioning for personalised medicine and the ongoing research on newly emerging drugs under consideration for the COVID-19 treatment.

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.

[...]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.

AbstractObjectiveTo analyze the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, trials, unmet needs, benefit, and pricing of ultra-rare (<6600 affected US citizens), rare (6600-200 000 citizens), and common (>200 000 citizens) orphan cancer drug indications and non-orphan cancer drug indications.DesignCross sectional analysis.SettingData from Drugs@FDA, FDA labels, Global Burden of Disease study, and Medicare and Medicaid.Population170 FDA approved drugs across 455 cancer indications between 2000 and 2022.Main outcome measuresComparison of non-orphan and ultra-rare, rare, and common orphan indications regarding regulatory approval, trials, epidemiology, and price. Hazard ratios for overall survival and progression-free survival were meta-analyzed.Results161 non-orphan and 294 orphan cancer drug indications were identified, of which 25 were approved for ultra-rare diseases, 205 for rare diseases, and 64 for common diseases. Drugs for ultra-rare orphan indications were more frequently first in class (76% v 48% v 38% v 42%; P<0.001), monotherapies (88% v 69% v 72% v 55%; P=0.001), for hematologic cancers (76% v 66% v 0% v 0%; P<0.001), and supported by smaller trials (median 85 v 199 v 286 v 521 patients; P<0.001), of single arm (84% v 44% v 28% v 21%; P<0.001) phase 1/2 design (88% v 45% v 45% v 27%; P<0.001) compared with rare and common orphan indications and non-orphan indications. Drugs for common orphan indications were more often biomarker directed (69% v 26% v 12%; P<0.001), first line (77% v 39% v 20%; P<0.001), small molecules (80% v 62% v 48%; P<0.001) benefiting from quicker time to first FDA approval (median 5.7 v 7.1 v 8.9 years; P=0.02) than those for rare and ultra-rare orphan indications. Drugs for ultra-rare, rare, and common orphan indications offered a significantly greater progression-free survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.53 v 0.51 v 0.49 v 0.64; P<0.001), but not overall survival benefit (0.50 v 0.73 v 0.71 v 0.74; P=0.06), than non-orphans. In single arm trials, tumor response rates were greater for drugs for ultra-rare orphan indications than for rare or common orphan indications and non-orphan indications (objective response rate 57% v 48% v 55% v 33%; P<0.001). Disease incidence/prevalence, five year survival, and the number of available treatments were lower, whereas disability adjusted life years per patient were higher, for ultra-rare orphan indications compared with rare or common indications and non-orphan indications. For 147 on-patent drugs with available data in 2023, monthly prices were higher for ultra-rare orphan indications than for rare or common orphan indications and non-orphan indications ($70 128 (£55 971; €63 370) v $33 313 v $16 484 v $14 508; P<0.001). For 48 on-patent drugs with available longitudinal data from 2005 to 2023, prices increased by 94% for drugs for orphan indications and 50% for drugs for non-orphan indications on average.ConclusionsThe Orphan Drug Act of 1983 incentivizes development of drugs not only for rare diseases but also for ultra-rare diseases and subsets of common diseases. These orphan indications fill significant unmet needs, yet their approval is based on small, non-robust trials that could overestimate efficacy outcomes. A distinct ultra-orphan designation with greater financial incentives could encourage and expedite drug development for ultra-rare diseases.

Rare diseases collectively exert a global public health burden in the severity of their manifestations and the total number of people they afflict. For many patients, considerable barriers exist in terms of access to appropriate care, delayed diagnosis and limited or non-existing treatment options. Motivated by these challenges, the rare disease patient community has played a critical role, elevating the patient voice and mobilizing legislation to support the development of programs that address the needs of patients with rare diseases. The US Orphan Drug Act of 1983 served as a key milestone in this journey, providing a roadmap for other countries to introduce and implement similar orphan drug legislation; more recently, the European Union (EU) has gone further to encourage the widespread adoption and implementation of rare disease plans or strategies designed to more adequately address the comprehensive needs of patients with rare diseases. Despite these legislative efforts and the growing contributions of patient advocacy groups in moving forward implementation and adoption of rare disease programs, gaps still exist across the policy landscape for several countries. To gain deeper insights into the challenges and opportunities to address key needs of rare disease patients, it is critical to define the current status of rare disease legislation and policy across a geographically and economically diverse selection of countries. We analyzed the rare disease policy landscape across 11 countries: Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Bulgaria, Turkey, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, China, and Taiwan. The status and implementation of policy was evaluated for each country in the context of key patient needs across 5 dimensions: improving coordination of care, diagnostic resources, access to treatments, patient awareness and support, and promoting innovative research. Our findings highlight the continuing role of the patient community in driving the establishment and adoption of legislation and programs to improve rare disease care. Further, we found that while national rare disease plans provide important guidance for improving care, implementation of plans is uneven across countries. More research is needed to demonstrate the effect of specific elements of rare disease plans on patient outcomes.