Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2011

Open Access 01-12-2011 | Research

Does market exclusivity hinder the development of Follow-on Orphan Medicinal Products in Europe?

Authors: Anne EM Brabers, Ellen HM Moors, Sonja van Weely, Remco LA de Vrueh

Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

We determined whether the market exclusivity incentive of the European Orphan Drug Regulation results in a market monopoly or that absence of another Orphan Medicinal Product (OMP) for the same rare disorder, a so-called follow-on OMP, is a matter of time or market size. In the interest of rare disorder patients better understanding of the effect of the market exclusivity incentive on follow-on OMP development is warranted.

Methods

First, the impact of various market-, product- and disease-related characteristics on follow-on OMP development in the EU was determined by comparing rare disorders with an approved OMP and at least one follow-on OMP (N = 26), with rare disorders with an approved OMP and no follow-on OMP (N = 18). Next, we determined whether manufacturers continued development of a follow-on OMP upon approval of the first OMP for the intended rare disorder. Since in the EU significant benefit of an OMP has to be established, we determined for each follow-on OMP for which development was continued on what grounds significant benefit was assumed by the sponsor. Data were collected from the public domain only.

Results

The likelihood of a rare disorder with an approved OMP to obtain at least one follow-on OMP development was strongly associated with disease prevalence, turnover of the first OMP, disease class, disease-specific scientific output and age of onset. Out of a total of 120 follow-on OMPs only one follow-on OMP could be identified for which development was discontinued upon approval of the first OMP for the same rare disorder. Only a substantial level of discontinuation of follow-on OMP development would have indicated the existence of a market monopoly. Moreover, sponsors that continued development of a follow-on OMP predominantly assumed that their product had an improved efficacy compared to the first approved OMP.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that absence of follow-on OMP development is a matter of time or market size, rather than that the market exclusivity incentive of the European Orphan Drug Regulation creates a market monopoly.
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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: 264-271. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02654.x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed 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: 264-271. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02654.x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Stolk P, Willemen MJ, Leufkens HG: Rare essentials: drugs for rare diseases as essential medicines. Bull World Health Organ. 2006, 84 (9): 745-751. 10.2471/BLT.06.031518.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Stolk P, Willemen MJ, Leufkens HG: Rare essentials: drugs for rare diseases as essential medicines. Bull World Health Organ. 2006, 84 (9): 745-751. 10.2471/BLT.06.031518.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Schieppati A, Henter JI, Daina E, Aperia A: Why rare diseases are an important medical and social issue. Lancet. 2008, 371 (9629): 2039-2041. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60872-7.CrossRefPubMed Schieppati A, Henter JI, Daina E, Aperia A: Why rare diseases are an important medical and social issue. Lancet. 2008, 371 (9629): 2039-2041. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60872-7.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference The Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products and the European Medicines Agency Scientific Secretariat: European regulation on orphan medicinal products: 10 years of experience and future perspectives. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011, 10 (5): 341-349.CrossRef The Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products and the European Medicines Agency Scientific Secretariat: European regulation on orphan medicinal products: 10 years of experience and future perspectives. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011, 10 (5): 341-349.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Haffner ME: Adopting orphan drugs - two dozen years of treating rare diseases. N Engl J Med. 2006, 354: 445-447. 10.1056/NEJMp058317.CrossRefPubMed Haffner ME: Adopting orphan drugs - two dozen years of treating rare diseases. N Engl J Med. 2006, 354: 445-447. 10.1056/NEJMp058317.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Haffner ME, Torrent-Farnell J, Maher PD: Does orphan drug legislation really answer the needs of patients?. Lancet. 2008, 371: 2041-2044. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60873-9.CrossRefPubMed Haffner ME, Torrent-Farnell J, Maher PD: Does orphan drug legislation really answer the needs of patients?. Lancet. 2008, 371: 2041-2044. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60873-9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Joppi R, Bertele V, Garattini S: Orphan drug development is not taking off. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009, 67 (5): 494-502. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03369.x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Joppi R, Bertele V, Garattini S: Orphan drug development is not taking off. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009, 67 (5): 494-502. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03369.x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Joppi R, Bertele V, Garattini S: Orphan drug development is progressing too slowly. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006, 61 (3): 355-360. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02579.x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Joppi R, Bertele V, Garattini S: Orphan drug development is progressing too slowly. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006, 61 (3): 355-360. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02579.x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Meyers A, Lipucci Di Paola M: The orphan medicinal products: an international challenge. Minerva Biotecnol. 2003, 15: 161-166. Meyers A, Lipucci Di Paola M: The orphan medicinal products: an international challenge. Minerva Biotecnol. 2003, 15: 161-166.
16.
go back to reference Roos JC, Hyry HI, Cox TM: Orphan drug pricing may warrant a competition law investigation. BMJ. 2010, 16: 341. Roos JC, Hyry HI, Cox TM: Orphan drug pricing may warrant a competition law investigation. BMJ. 2010, 16: 341.
17.
go back to reference Tambuyzer E: Rare diseases, orphan drugs and their regulation: questions and misconceptions. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010, 9 (12): 921-929. 10.1038/nrd3275.CrossRefPubMed Tambuyzer E: Rare diseases, orphan drugs and their regulation: questions and misconceptions. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010, 9 (12): 921-929. 10.1038/nrd3275.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Heemstra HE, van Weely S, Büller HA, Leufkens HGM, de Vrueh RL: Translation of rare disease research into orphan drug development: disease matters. Drug Discov Today. 2009, 14 (23-24): 1166-1173. 10.1016/j.drudis.2009.09.008.CrossRefPubMed Heemstra HE, van Weely S, Büller HA, Leufkens HGM, de Vrueh RL: Translation of rare disease research into orphan drug development: disease matters. Drug Discov Today. 2009, 14 (23-24): 1166-1173. 10.1016/j.drudis.2009.09.008.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Heemstra HE, de Vrueh RL, van Weely S, Büller HA, Leufkens HG: Predictors of orphan drug approval in the European Union. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008, 64 (5): 545-552. 10.1007/s00228-007-0454-6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Heemstra HE, de Vrueh RL, van Weely S, Büller HA, Leufkens HG: Predictors of orphan drug approval in the European Union. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008, 64 (5): 545-552. 10.1007/s00228-007-0454-6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Yin W: Market incentives and pharmaceutical innovation. J Health Econ. 2008, 27 (4): 1060-1077. 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.01.002.CrossRefPubMed Yin W: Market incentives and pharmaceutical innovation. J Health Econ. 2008, 27 (4): 1060-1077. 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.01.002.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Acemoglu D, Linn J: Market size in innovation: theory and evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. NBER Working Papers 10038 National Bureau of Economics Research. 2003, 1-67. Acemoglu D, Linn J: Market size in innovation: theory and evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. NBER Working Papers 10038 National Bureau of Economics Research. 2003, 1-67.
25.
go back to reference Griggs RC, Batshaw M, Dunkle M, Gopal-Srivastava R, Kaye E, Krischer J: Clinial research for rare disease: opportunities, challenges, and solutions. Mol Genet Metab. 2009, 96 (1): 20-26. 10.1016/j.ymgme.2008.10.003.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Griggs RC, Batshaw M, Dunkle M, Gopal-Srivastava R, Kaye E, Krischer J: Clinial research for rare disease: opportunities, challenges, and solutions. Mol Genet Metab. 2009, 96 (1): 20-26. 10.1016/j.ymgme.2008.10.003.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Rose K: Better medicines for children - where are we now, and where do we want to be?. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005, 59 (6): 657-659. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2005.02411.x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Rose K: Better medicines for children - where are we now, and where do we want to be?. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005, 59 (6): 657-659. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2005.02411.x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Saint Raymond A, Brasseur D: Development of medicines for children in Europe: ethical implications. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2005, 6 (1): 45-51. 10.1016/j.prrv.2004.11.008.CrossRefPubMed Saint Raymond A, Brasseur D: Development of medicines for children in Europe: ethical implications. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2005, 6 (1): 45-51. 10.1016/j.prrv.2004.11.008.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Rocchi F, Paolucci P, Ceci A, Rossi P: The European paediatric legislation: benefits and perspectives. Ital J Pediatr. 2010, 36: 56. 10.1186/1824-7288-36-56.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Rocchi F, Paolucci P, Ceci A, Rossi P: The European paediatric legislation: benefits and perspectives. Ital J Pediatr. 2010, 36: 56. 10.1186/1824-7288-36-56.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Wästfelt M, Fadeel B, Henter JI: A journey of hope: lessons learned from studies on rare diseases and orphan drugs. J Intern Med. 2006, 260 (1): 1-10. 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2006.01666.x.CrossRefPubMed Wästfelt M, Fadeel B, Henter JI: A journey of hope: lessons learned from studies on rare diseases and orphan drugs. J Intern Med. 2006, 260 (1): 1-10. 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2006.01666.x.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Eckhouse S, Sullivan R: A survey of public funding of cancer research in the European union. PLoS Med. 2006, 3 (7): e267. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030267.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Eckhouse S, Sullivan R: A survey of public funding of cancer research in the European union. PLoS Med. 2006, 3 (7): e267. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030267.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Schmid EF, Smith DA: Keynote review: Is declining innovation in the pharmaceutical industry a myth?. Drug Discov Today. 2005, 10 (15): 1031-1039. 10.1016/S1359-6446(05)03524-5.CrossRefPubMed Schmid EF, Smith DA: Keynote review: Is declining innovation in the pharmaceutical industry a myth?. Drug Discov Today. 2005, 10 (15): 1031-1039. 10.1016/S1359-6446(05)03524-5.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Bonaccorsi A: Search regimes and the industrial dynamics of science. Minerva. 2008, 46 (3): 285-315. 10.1007/s11024-008-9101-3.CrossRef Bonaccorsi A: Search regimes and the industrial dynamics of science. Minerva. 2008, 46 (3): 285-315. 10.1007/s11024-008-9101-3.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference DiMasi JA: Risks in new drug development: approval success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001, 69 (5): 2997-307. DiMasi JA: Risks in new drug development: approval success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001, 69 (5): 2997-307.
38.
go back to reference Heemstra HE, Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, de Vrueh RL, Leufkens HG: Safety-related regulatory actions for orphan drugs in the US and EU: a cohort study. Drug Saf. 2010, 33 (2): 127-137. 10.2165/11319870-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed Heemstra HE, Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, de Vrueh RL, Leufkens HG: Safety-related regulatory actions for orphan drugs in the US and EU: a cohort study. Drug Saf. 2010, 33 (2): 127-137. 10.2165/11319870-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Boon WPC, Moors EHM, Kuhlmann S, Smits REHM: Demand articulation in intermediary organisations: the case of orphan drugs in the Netherlands. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2008, 75 (5): 644-671. 10.1016/j.techfore.2007.03.001.CrossRef Boon WPC, Moors EHM, Kuhlmann S, Smits REHM: Demand articulation in intermediary organisations: the case of orphan drugs in the Netherlands. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2008, 75 (5): 644-671. 10.1016/j.techfore.2007.03.001.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Aymé S, Kole A, Groft S: Empowerment of patients: lessons from the rare diseases community. Lancet. 2008, 371 (9629): 2048-2051. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60875-2.CrossRefPubMed Aymé S, Kole A, Groft S: Empowerment of patients: lessons from the rare diseases community. Lancet. 2008, 371 (9629): 2048-2051. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60875-2.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Does market exclusivity hinder the development of Follow-on Orphan Medicinal Products in Europe?
Authors
Anne EM Brabers
Ellen HM Moors
Sonja van Weely
Remco LA de Vrueh
Publication date
01-12-2011
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases / Issue 1/2011
Electronic ISSN: 1750-1172
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-6-59

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2011 Go to the issue