BioDrugs

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 71–79 | Cite as

Orphan Drug Designation and Pharmacogenomics

Options and Opportunities
Current Opinion

Abstract

The rapid increase in characterization and understanding of the human genome has had a major impact on the development of therapies for rare diseases. The “inborn errors of metabolism”, which are generally rare diseases, are beginning to realize new therapies based on an understanding of disease processes at the genetic level. Likewise, an understanding of acquired genetic errors, as seen in cancer, is allowing for targeted approaches to therapy that are revolutionizing, in many cases, both standards of care and prognosis. Since its inception, the Office of Orphan Products Development has been privileged to witness many of the successes and also the failures of pharmacogenomics as it relates to rare diseases. This approach, from a regulatory standpoint, often calls into question even basic assumptions about disease classification. Phenotypically homogeneous diseases are more frequently becoming ‘subsetted’ on the basis of genomics; conversely, overlap of therapeutic mechanisms of action is increasingly seen across seemingly diverse diseases. With the recent completion of sequencing of the human genome, as well as the increasing ease of DNA sequencing, the promise and challenge of the pharmacogenetic approach to treatment will be expected to play an increasingly important role in development of new therapies for both rare and common diseases.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Jeffrey Fritsch, RPh, for his editing assistance and to Marie L. Moses, MA, for her efforts in editing and proofreading the article.

The authors have received no funding to assist with the preparation of this manuscript and have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to its contents.

References

  1. 1.
    Orphan Drug Act, Pub. L. 97-414, Jan. 4, 1983, 96 Stat. 2049Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, June 25, 1938, ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1040 (21 USC 301 et seq.)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    FDA Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD). Internal OOPD database. Rockville (MD): FDA [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/orphan/[Accessed 2006 Mar 27]
  4. 4.
    Thoene JG. Orphan drugs and orphan tests in the USA. Community Genet 2004; 7: 169–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dockhorn RJ. Orphan drugs provide needed treatment options. Md Med 2005; 6(1): 26–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hulton SA, Greener M. Increasing the use of orphan drugs in clinical practice. Hosp Med 2004; 65: 400–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grienenberger A. Understanding orphan drug regulations: an EU and US comparative analysis. J Biolaw Bus 2004; 7: 58–61Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Venter JC, Adams MD, Myers EW, et al. The sequence of the human genome [published erratum appears in Science 2001 Jun 5; 292 (5523): 1838]. Science 2001 Feb 16; 291(5507): 1304–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Collins FS, Green ED, Guttmacher AE, et al. A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature 2003 Apr 24; 422(6934): 835–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Evans WE, McLeod HL. Pharmacogenomics: drug disposition, drug targets, and side effects. N Engl J Med 2003 Feb 6; 348(6): 538–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Couzin J, Kaiser J. Gene therapy: as Gelsinger case ends, gene therapy suffers another blow. Science 2005 Feb 18; 307(5712): 1028PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hacein-Bey-Abina S, Le Deist F, Carlier F, et al. Sustained correction of X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency by ex vivo gene therapy. N Engl J Med 2002 Apr 18; 346(16): 1185–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hacein-Bey-Abina S, von Kalle C, Schmidt M, et al. A serious adverse event after successful gene therapy for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency. N Engl J Med 2003 Jan 16; 348(3): 255–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    FDA Press Office. FDA places temporary halt on gene therapy trials using retroviral vectors in blood stem cells. FDA Talk Paper 2003 Jan 14. Rockville (MD): FDA [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2003/ANSOl190.html [Accessed 2005 Dec 15]
  15. 15.
    Hacein-Bey-Abina S, von Kalle C, Schmidt M, et al. LMO2-associated clonal T cell proliferation in two patients after gene therapy for SCID-X. Science 2003 Oct 17; 302(5644): 415–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dave UP, Jenkins NA, Copeland NG. Gene therapy insertional mutagenesis insights. Science 2004 Jan 16; 303(5656): 333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gleave ME, Monia BP. Antisense therapy for cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2005; 5: 468–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    FDA. Consumer information: Vitravene [package insert]. Rockville (MD): FDA, 1998 Aug 26Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    FDA. Biotechnology of food. FDA Backgrounder 1994 May 18; BG 94-4 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biotechn.html [Accessed 2006 Feb 23]
  20. 20.
    Bantounas I, Phylactou LA, Uney JB. RNA interference and the use of small interfering RNA to study gene function in mammalian systems. J Mol Endocrinol 2004; 33: 545–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bidoul L, et al. Premature stop codons involved in muscular dystrophies show a broad spectrum of read through efficiencies in response to gentamicin treatment. Gene Ther 2004; 11: 619–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stephenson J. Antibiotics show promise as therapy for genetic disorders. JAMA 2001; 285: 2067–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilschanski M, Yahav Y, Yaacov Y, et al. Gentamicin-induced correction of CFTR function in patients with cystic fibrosis and CFTR stop mutations. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1433–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Florian WM. Production of recombinant protein therapeutics in cultivated mammalian cells. Nat Biotechnol 2004; 22: 1393–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bory C, Boulieu R, Souillet G, et al. Polyethylene glycol-adenosine deaminase: a new adenosine deaminase deficiency therapy. Value of deoxyadenosine triphosphate determination for therapeutic monitoring [in French] [published erratum appears in Therapie 1991 Nov–Dec;46 (6): 501]. Therapie 1991 Jul–Aug; 46(4): 323–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chaffee S, Hersfield, MS. Imuune response to polyethylene glycol modified bovine adenosine deaminase (PEG-ADA). Pediatr Res 1990; 27(4 Pt 2): 155AGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    OOPD. Grant no. FDR-000285-01 to Abuchowski A. Severe combined immunogenicity disease: enzyme therapy. Rockville (MD): FDA [online]. Available from http://www.fda.gov/orphan/grants/previous.htm [Accessed 2006 Mar 28]
  28. 28.
    Grompe M. The pathophysiology and treatment of hereditary tyrosinemia type 1. Semin Liver Dis 2001 Nov; 21(4): 563–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Neergaard L. FDA OKs drug to fight liver disease. Associated Press, 2002 Jan 23 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.communities.ninemsn.com/tyrosinemia/ntbc.msnw [Accessed 2006 Feb 23]
  30. 30.
    de Geus B, Hendriksen CFM. In vivo and in vitro production of monoclonal antibodies: current possibilities and future perspectives. Res Immunol 1998 Jul–Aug; 149(6): 542–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    FDA News. FDA approves Gleevec for leukemia treatment. Rockville (MD): FDA, 2001 May 10Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Druker BJ, Talpaz M, Resta DJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of a specific inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase in chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2001 Apr 5; 344(14): 1031–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    FDA Press Office. FDA approves thalidomide for Hansen’s disease side effect, imposes unprecedented restrictions on distribution. FDA Talk Paper, 1998 Jul 16.Rockville (MD): FDA [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00887.htmlccessed 2005 Dec 15]
  34. 34.
    FDA. Consumer information: Herceptin® (Trastuzumab) [package insert]. Rockville (MD): FDA [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2000/trasgen0209001b.pdf [Accessed 2006 Mar 28]
  35. 35.
    Hochaus A, Highes T. Clinical resistance to imatinib: mechanisms and implications. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2004 Jun; 18(3): 641–56, ixCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chuang DT. Maple syrup urine disease: it has come a long way. J Pediatr 1998 Mar; 132(3 Pt 2): S17–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chuang DT, Shih VE. Maple syrup urine disease (branched-chain ketoaciduria). In: Scriver CR, Beaudet AL, Sly WS, et al., editors. The metabolic and molecular bases of inherited disease. Vol. II. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001: 1971–2005Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Patel MS, Harris RA. Mammalian alpha-keto acid dehydrogenase complexes: gene regulation and genetic defects. FASEB J 1995; 9: 1164–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fayette J, Soria JC, Armand JP. Use of angiogenesis inhibitors in tumour treatment. Eur J Cancer 2005 May; 41(8): 1109–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sieper J, Van Den Brande J. Diverse effects of infliximab and etanercept on T lymphocytes. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2005 Apr; 34(5 Suppl. 1): 23–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Breunig F, Weidemann F, Beer M, et al. Fabry disease: diagnosis and treatment. Kidney Int Suppl 2003; 63(84): S181–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Frustaci A, Chimenti C, Ricci R, et al. Improvement in cardiac function in the cardiac variant of Fabry’s disease with galactose infusion therapy. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 25–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gahl WA. New therapies for Fabry’s disease. N Engl J Med 2001 Jul 5; 345(1): 55–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Garman SC, Garboczi DN. Minireview: structural basis of Fabry disease. Mol Genet Metab 2002; 77: 3–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Helenius A, Marquardt T, Braakman I. The endoplasmic reticulum as a protein folding compartment. Trends Cell Biol 1992; 2: 227–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fan JQ. A contradictory treatment for lysosomal storage disorders: inhibitors enhance mutant enzyme activity. Trends Pharmacol sci 2003; 24: 356–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, Pub. L 100–578, 1988, ch. 6A [Public Health Service Act] (42 USC 263a)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments Regulations, 42 CFR 493Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chiche JD, Cariou A, Mira JP. Bench-to-bedside review: fulfilling promises of the Human Genome Project. Crit Care 2002; 6(3): 212–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Orphan Products DevelopmentFood and Drug AdministrationRockvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations