Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

Using four decades of FDA orphan drug designations to describe trends in rare disease drug development: substantial growth seen in development of drugs for rare oncologic, neurologic, and pediatric-onset diseases

Authors: Kathleen L. Miller, Lewis J. Fermaglich, Janet Maynard

Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Dunkle M. A 30-year retrospective: National Organization for Rare Disorders, the Orphan Drug Act, and the role of rare disease patient advocacy groups. Orphan Drugs Res Rev. 2014;4:19.CrossRef Dunkle M. A 30-year retrospective: National Organization for Rare Disorders, the Orphan Drug Act, and the role of rare disease patient advocacy groups. Orphan Drugs Res Rev. 2014;4:19.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Miller KL, Lanthier M. Trends in orphan new molecular entities, 1983–2014: half were first in class, and rare cancers were the most frequent target. Health Aff. 2016;35(3):464–70.CrossRef Miller KL, Lanthier M. Trends in orphan new molecular entities, 1983–2014: half were first in class, and rare cancers were the most frequent target. Health Aff. 2016;35(3):464–70.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Stockklausner C, et al. Novel treatments for rare cancers: the US orphan drug act is delivering—a cross-sectional analysis. Oncologist. 2016;21(4):487.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Stockklausner C, et al. Novel treatments for rare cancers: the US orphan drug act is delivering—a cross-sectional analysis. Oncologist. 2016;21(4):487.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Sarpatwari A, et al. Evaluating the impact of the Orphan Drug Act’s seven-year market exclusivity period. Health Aff. 2018;37(5):732–7.CrossRef Sarpatwari A, et al. Evaluating the impact of the Orphan Drug Act’s seven-year market exclusivity period. Health Aff. 2018;37(5):732–7.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kerr KW, Glos LJ. Effective market exclusivity of new molecular entities for rare and non-rare diseases. Pharm Med. 2020;34(1):19–29.CrossRef Kerr KW, Glos LJ. Effective market exclusivity of new molecular entities for rare and non-rare diseases. Pharm Med. 2020;34(1):19–29.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Schuck RN, et al. Considerations for developing targeted therapies in low-frequency molecular subsets of a disease. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;104(2):282–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Schuck RN, et al. Considerations for developing targeted therapies in low-frequency molecular subsets of a disease. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;104(2):282–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Van Ommen G, Bakker E, Den Dunnen J. The human genome project and the future of diagnostics, treatment, and prevention. The Lancet. 1999;354:S5–10.CrossRef Van Ommen G, Bakker E, Den Dunnen J. The human genome project and the future of diagnostics, treatment, and prevention. The Lancet. 1999;354:S5–10.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Zhang Y, Zhang Z. The history and advances in cancer immunotherapy: understanding the characteristics of tumor-infiltrating immune cells and their therapeutic implications. Cell Mol Immunol. 2020;17:1–15.CrossRef Zhang Y, Zhang Z. The history and advances in cancer immunotherapy: understanding the characteristics of tumor-infiltrating immune cells and their therapeutic implications. Cell Mol Immunol. 2020;17:1–15.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Verhaart IE, Aartsma-Rus A. Therapeutic developments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Nat Rev Neurol. 2019;15(7):373–86.PubMedCrossRef Verhaart IE, Aartsma-Rus A. Therapeutic developments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Nat Rev Neurol. 2019;15(7):373–86.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Pariser AR, Gahl WA. Important role of translational science in rare disease innovation, discovery, and drug development. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(3):804–7.PubMedCentralCrossRef Pariser AR, Gahl WA. Important role of translational science in rare disease innovation, discovery, and drug development. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(3):804–7.PubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Tambuyzer E, et al. Therapies for rare diseases: therapeutic modalities, progress and challenges ahead. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019;19:1–19.CrossRef Tambuyzer E, et al. Therapies for rare diseases: therapeutic modalities, progress and challenges ahead. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019;19:1–19.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Stephens J, Blazynski C. Rare disease landscape: will the blockbuster model be replaced? Expert Opin Orphan Drugs. 2014;2(8):797–806.CrossRef Stephens J, Blazynski C. Rare disease landscape: will the blockbuster model be replaced? Expert Opin Orphan Drugs. 2014;2(8):797–806.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Woodward L, et al. An innovative and collaborative partnership between patients with rare disease and industry-supported registries: the Global aHUS Registry. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11(1):154.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Woodward L, et al. An innovative and collaborative partnership between patients with rare disease and industry-supported registries: the Global aHUS Registry. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11(1):154.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Nakov, R., et al., Transthyretin amyloidosis: testing strategies and model for center of excellence support. Clin Chim Acta. 2020. Nakov, R., et al., Transthyretin amyloidosis: testing strategies and model for center of excellence support. Clin Chim Acta. 2020.
18.
go back to reference Kim E, Lo AW. Venture philanthropy: a case study of the cystic fibrosis foundation. SSRN 3376673. 2019. Kim E, Lo AW. Venture philanthropy: a case study of the cystic fibrosis foundation. SSRN 3376673. 2019.
21.
go back to reference Braun MM, et al. Emergence of orphan drugs in the United States: a quantitative assessment of the first 25 years. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(7):519–22.PubMedCrossRef Braun MM, et al. Emergence of orphan drugs in the United States: a quantitative assessment of the first 25 years. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(7):519–22.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Murakami M, Narukawa M. Matched analysis on orphan drug designations and approvals: cross regional analysis in the United States, the European Union, and Japan. Drug Discov Today. 2016;21(4):544–9.PubMedCrossRef Murakami M, Narukawa M. Matched analysis on orphan drug designations and approvals: cross regional analysis in the United States, the European Union, and Japan. Drug Discov Today. 2016;21(4):544–9.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Morel T, et al. Regulatory watch: the orphan drug pipeline in Europe. Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2016;15(6):376.PubMedCrossRef Morel T, et al. Regulatory watch: the orphan drug pipeline in Europe. Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2016;15(6):376.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Patel S, Needleman KIM. FDA’s Office of Orphan Products Development: providing incentives to promote the development of products for rare diseases. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2019;46(5):387–93.PubMedCrossRef Patel S, Needleman KIM. FDA’s Office of Orphan Products Development: providing incentives to promote the development of products for rare diseases. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2019;46(5):387–93.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Harada K, Toriyabe K, Ono S. Survey of Japanese orphan drug program: factors related to successful marketing approval. J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;60(1):117–24.PubMedCrossRef Harada K, Toriyabe K, Ono S. Survey of Japanese orphan drug program: factors related to successful marketing approval. J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;60(1):117–24.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Miller KL, et al. FDA orphan products clinical trial grants: assessment of outcomes and impact on rare disease product development. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020;15(1):1–8.CrossRef Miller KL, et al. FDA orphan products clinical trial grants: assessment of outcomes and impact on rare disease product development. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020;15(1):1–8.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Ridley DB, Grabowski HG, Moe JL. Developing drugs for developing countries. Health Aff. 2006;25(2):313–24.CrossRef Ridley DB, Grabowski HG, Moe JL. Developing drugs for developing countries. Health Aff. 2006;25(2):313–24.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Kerr KW, Henry TC, Miller KL. Is the priority review voucher program stimulating new drug development for tropical diseases? PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(8):e0006695.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kerr KW, Henry TC, Miller KL. Is the priority review voucher program stimulating new drug development for tropical diseases? PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(8):e0006695.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
35.
go back to reference Thorat C, et al. What the Orphan Drug Act has done lately for children with rare diseases: a 10-year analysis. Pediatrics. 2012;129(3):516–21.PubMedCrossRef Thorat C, et al. What the Orphan Drug Act has done lately for children with rare diseases: a 10-year analysis. Pediatrics. 2012;129(3):516–21.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Miller KL, Rabinovitz D, Kerr KW. Transition probabilities for clinical trials: investigating individual diseases. Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2019;18(9):658.PubMedCrossRef Miller KL, Rabinovitz D, Kerr KW. Transition probabilities for clinical trials: investigating individual diseases. Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2019;18(9):658.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference La Thangue NB, Kerr DJ. Predictive biomarkers: a paradigm shift towards personalized cancer medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8(10):587–96.PubMedCrossRef La Thangue NB, Kerr DJ. Predictive biomarkers: a paradigm shift towards personalized cancer medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8(10):587–96.PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Wong G. Biotech scientists bank on big pharma’s biologics push. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27(3):293–5.CrossRef Wong G. Biotech scientists bank on big pharma’s biologics push. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27(3):293–5.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 2016;47:20–33.PubMedCrossRef DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 2016;47:20–33.PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Westermark K. European regulation on orphan medicinal products: 10 years of experience and future perspectives. Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2011;10(5):341.PubMedCrossRef Westermark K. European regulation on orphan medicinal products: 10 years of experience and future perspectives. Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2011;10(5):341.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Using four decades of FDA orphan drug designations to describe trends in rare disease drug development: substantial growth seen in development of drugs for rare oncologic, neurologic, and pediatric-onset diseases
Authors
Kathleen L. Miller
Lewis J. Fermaglich
Janet Maynard
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1750-1172
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-021-01901-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2021 Go to the issue