Advertisement

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 343–350 | Cite as

Issues surrounding orphan disease and orphan drug policies in Europe

  • Alain Denis
  • Lut Mergaert
  • Christel Fostier
  • Irina Cleemput
  • Steven Simoens
Current Opinion

Abstract

An orphan disease is a disease with a very low prevalence. Although there are 5000–7000 orphan diseases, only 50 orphan drugs (i.e. drugs developed to treat orphan diseases) were marketed in the EU by the end of 2008. In 2000, the EU implemented policies specifically designed to stimulate the development of orphan drugs. While decisions on orphan designation and the marketing authorization of orphan drugs are made at the EU level, decisions on drug reimbursement are made at the member state level. The specific features of orphan diseases and orphan drugs make them a high-priority issue for policy makers.

The aim of this article is to identify and discuss several issues surrounding orphan disease and drug policies in Europe.

The present system of orphan designation allows for drugs for non-orphan diseases to be designated as orphan drugs. The economic factors underlying orphan designation can be questioned in some cases, as a low prevalence of a certain indication does not equal a low return on investment for the drug across its indications. High-quality evidence about the clinical added value of orphan drugs is rarely available at the time of marketing authorization, due to the low number of patients. A balance must be struck between ethical and economic concerns. To this effect, there is a need to initiate a societal dialogue on this issue, to clarify what society wants and accepts in terms of ethical and economic consequences. The growing budgetary impact of orphan drugs puts pressure on drug expenditure. Indications can be extended for an orphan drug and the total prevalence across indications is not considered. Finally, cooperation needs to be fostered in the EU, particularly through a standardized approach to the creation and use of registries.

These issues require further attention from researchers, policy makers, health professionals, patients, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders with a view to optimizing orphan disease and drug policies in Europe.

Keywords

Enzyme Replacement Therapy Bosentan Orphan Drug Eculizumab Marketing Authorization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support for this research was received from the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, a state-funded research institution. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    European Commission. European Commission Regulation (EC) no. 141/2000 of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products. Official Journal of the European Communities 2000; L18/1 [online]. Available from URL: http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2000_141/reg_2000_141_en.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jun 30]
  2. 2.
    European Medicines Agency. Annual report of the European Medicines Agency 2007. London: European Medicines Agency, 2008Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denis A, Simoens S, Fostier C, et al. Health technology assessment policy governing orphan diseases and orphan medicines. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, 2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yin W. R&D policy, agency costs and innovation in personalized medicine. J Health Econ 2009; 28: 950–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    European Medicines Agency. COMP report to the Commission in relation to article 10 of regulation 141 /2000 on orphan medicinal products. London: European Medicines Agency, 2007Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dear JW, Lilitkarntakul P, Webb DJ. Are rare diseases still orphans or happily adopted? The challenges of developing and using orphan medicinal products. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 62: 264–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Medicines Evaluation Agency. Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/htms/general/contacts/COMP/COMP.html [Accessed 2009 Nov 24]
  8. 8.
    Sheridan C. EU to review rare disease drugs market exclusivity [letter]. Nat Biotechnol 2004; 22(9): 1061PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use post-authorisation summary of positive opinion for Revatio. London: European Medicines Agency, 2009Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Guideline on clinical trials in small populations [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/8356105en.pdf [Accessed 2009 Nov 24]
  11. 11.
    European Organisation for Rare Diseases. EURORDIS position paper on the ‘centralised procedure for the scientific assessment of the therapeutic added value of orphan drugs’ [online]. Available from URL: http://www.eurordis.org/IMG/pdf/position-paper-EURORDIS-therapeutic-added-value-ODFeb08.pdf [Accessed 2009 Nov 23]
  12. 12.
    The Pharmaceutical Forum. Improving access to orphan medicines for all affected EU citizens [online]. Available from URL: http://ec.europa.eu/pharmaforum/docs/pricing_orphans_en.pdf [Accessed 2009 Nov 16]
  13. 13.
    Cleemput I, Neyt M, Thiry N, et al. Cost-effectiveness thresholds in health care. Brussels: Belgian Healthcare Knowledge Centre, 2008Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Drummond M, Evans B, LeLorier J, et al. Evidence and values: requirements for public reimbursement of drugs for rare diseases — a case study in oncology. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 16: e273–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gericke CA, Riesberg A, Busse R. Ethical issues in funding orphan drug research and development. J Med Ethics 2005; 31: 164–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Littlejohns P, Garner S, Doyle N, et al. 10 years of NICE: still growing and still controversial. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 417–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Connock M, Juarez-Garcia A, Frew E, et al. A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapies for Fabry’s disease and mucopolysaccharidosis type 1. Health Technol Assess 2006; 10: iii–113Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heemstra HE, de Vrueh RL, van WS, et al. Orphan drug development across Europe: bottlenecks and opportunities. Drug Discov Today 2008; 13: 670–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schlander M, Beck M. Expensive drugs for rare disorders: to treat or not to treat? The case of enzyme replacement therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis VI. Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25: 1285–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cook JP, Vernon JA, Manning R. Pharmaceutical risk-sharing agreements. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26(7): 551–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Orofino J, Soto J, Casado MA, et al. Global spending on orphan drugs in France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain during 2007. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2010; 8(5): 301–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCabe C, Tsuchiya A, Claxton K, et al. Orphan drugs revisited. QJM 2006; 99: 341–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rinaldi A. Adopting an orphan. EMBO Rep 2005; 6(6): 507–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Owen A, Sprinks J, Meehan A, et al. A new model to evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of orphan and highly specialised drugs following listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: the Bosentan Patient Registry. J Med Econ 2008; 11: 235–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Italian Medicines Agency. Post-marketing surveillance programme [online]. Available from URL: http://monitoraggio-farmaci.agenziafarmaco.it [Accessed 2010 Feb 16]

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Denis
    • 1
  • Lut Mergaert
    • 1
  • Christel Fostier
    • 1
  • Irina Cleemput
    • 2
  • Steven Simoens
    • 3
  1. 1.Yellow Window Management ConsultantsAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Belgian Health Care Knowledge CentreBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Research Centre for Pharmaceutical Care and Pharmaco-economicsKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations