Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

Ethical imperatives of timely access to orphan drugs: is possible to reconcile economic incentives and patients’ health needs?

Authors: R. Rodriguez-Monguio, T. Spargo, E. Seoane-Vazquez

Published in: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

More than 6,800 rare diseases and conditions have been identified in the US, which affect 25–30 million Americans. In 1983, the US Congress enacted the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) to encourage the development and marketing of drugs to treat rare diseases and conditions. This study analyzed all orphan designations and FDA approvals since 1983 through 2015, discussed the effectiveness of incentives for the development of treatments for rare diseases, and reflected on the ethical imperatives for timely access to orphan drugs.

Methods

Study data were derived from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Orange Book and the Office of Orphan Drugs Development. A search was conducted to assess literature on the ethical principles and economic incentives for the development of orphan drugs.

Results

In the period 1983–2015, the FDA granted 3,647 orphan drug designations and 554 orphan drug approvals. The orphan drug approvals corresponded to 438 different brand names. Cancer was the therapeutic area with the highest number of approvals. The increased number of patients with rare diseases and the growth in the cost of orphan drugs pose a significant economic burden for patients, public programs and private third party payers. Regulatory differences to qualify for orphan designation and various population thresholds employed by the FDA and the European Medicines Agency lead to further unmet health needs for patients with rare diseases and aggravate health inequities. There is no societal consensus on the population and economic thresholds, the drug effectiveness indicator(s), or the societal value to be placed for the approval and reimbursement of orphan drugs.

Conclusion

Orphan drug development and marketing in the US concentrate in few therapeutic areas. Despite the increase in the number of FDA approved orphan drugs, the unmet needs of patients with rare diseases evidence that the current incentives are not efficiently stimulating orphan drug development. There is need to balance economic incentives to stimulate the development and marketing of orphan drugs without jeopardizing patients’ access to treatment. Thus, aligning pharmaceutical companies’ incentives with societal budgetary constraints is necessary and the ethical imperatives of timely access to orphan drugs need to be agreed upon.
Literature
3.
go back to reference United States Congress: Rare diseases Act of 2002. Public Law 107–280. United States Congress: Rare diseases Act of 2002. Public Law 107–280.
4.
go back to reference Wastfelt 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.CrossRefPubMed Wastfelt 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.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Muff-Luett M, Nester CM. The Genetics of Ultra-Rare Renal Disease. J Pediatr Genet. 2016;5(1):33–42.CrossRefPubMed Muff-Luett M, Nester CM. The Genetics of Ultra-Rare Renal Disease. J Pediatr Genet. 2016;5(1):33–42.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Putzeist M, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Wied CC, Hoes AW, Leufkens HG, de Vrueh RL. Drug development for exceptionally rare metabolic diseases: challenging but not impossible. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:179.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Putzeist M, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Wied CC, Hoes AW, Leufkens HG, de Vrueh RL. Drug development for exceptionally rare metabolic diseases: challenging but not impossible. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:179.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Miles KA, Packer C, Stevens A. Quantifying emerging drugs for very rare conditions. QGM. 2007;100(5):291–5. Miles KA, Packer C, Stevens A. Quantifying emerging drugs for very rare conditions. QGM. 2007;100(5):291–5.
8.
go back to reference Hughes DA, Tunnage B, Yeo ST. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM. 2005;98(11):829–36.CrossRefPubMed Hughes DA, Tunnage B, Yeo ST. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: do they deserve special status for funding? QJM. 2005;98(11):829–36.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference National Institute for Clinical Excellence. NICE Citizens Council Report Ultra Orphan Drugs. 2004. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. NICE Citizens Council Report Ultra Orphan Drugs. 2004.
10.
go back to reference Food and Drug Administration: Orphan drug regulations. 1992. Final rule. 57 Fed Register 62076 21 CFR 316. Food and Drug Administration: Orphan drug regulations. 1992. Final rule. 57 Fed Register 62076 21 CFR 316.
11.
go back to reference 21 United States Code 360bb- Designation of drugs for rare diseases or conditions. 1984. 21 United States Code 360bb- Designation of drugs for rare diseases or conditions. 1984.
12.
go back to reference European Parliament: the Orphan Regulation. 1999. 141/2000. European Parliament: the Orphan Regulation. 1999. 141/2000.
14.
go back to reference Haffner ME, Whitley J, Moses M. Two decades of orphan product development. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2002;1(10):821–5.CrossRefPubMed Haffner ME, Whitley J, Moses M. Two decades of orphan product development. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2002;1(10):821–5.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Kole A, Faurisson F. Rare diseases social epidemiology: analysis of inequalities. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:223–50.CrossRefPubMed Kole A, Faurisson F. Rare diseases social epidemiology: analysis of inequalities. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:223–50.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Szeinbach SL, Visaria J. Incentives for orphan drug research and development in the United States. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2008;3:33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Szeinbach SL, Visaria J. Incentives for orphan drug research and development in the United States. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2008;3:33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Meekings KN, Williams CS, Arrowsmith JE. Orphan drug development: an economically viable strategy for biopharma R&D. Drug Discov Today. 2012;17(13–14):660–4.CrossRefPubMed Meekings KN, Williams CS, Arrowsmith JE. Orphan drug development: an economically viable strategy for biopharma R&D. Drug Discov Today. 2012;17(13–14):660–4.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Rzakhanov Z. Regulatory Policy, Value of Knowledge Assets and Innovation Strategy: The Case of the Orphan Drug Act. Research Policy. 2008;37(4):673–89.CrossRef Rzakhanov Z. Regulatory Policy, Value of Knowledge Assets and Innovation Strategy: The Case of the Orphan Drug Act. Research Policy. 2008;37(4):673–89.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Wellman-Labadie O, Zhou Y. The US Orphan Drug Act: rare disease research stimulator or commercial opportunity? Health Policy. 2010;95(2–3):216–28.CrossRefPubMed Wellman-Labadie O, Zhou Y. The US Orphan Drug Act: rare disease research stimulator or commercial opportunity? Health Policy. 2010;95(2–3):216–28.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Rai AK. Pharmacogenetic interventions, orphan drugs, and distributive justice: the role of cost-benefit analysis. Soc Philos Policy. 2002;19(2):246–70.CrossRefPubMed Rai AK. Pharmacogenetic interventions, orphan drugs, and distributive justice: the role of cost-benefit analysis. Soc Philos Policy. 2002;19(2):246–70.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Gutierrez L, Patris J, Hutchings A, Cowell W. Principles for consistent value assessment and sustainable funding of orphan drugs in Europe. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10(1):53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gutierrez L, Patris J, Hutchings A, Cowell W. Principles for consistent value assessment and sustainable funding of orphan drugs in Europe. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10(1):53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Yin W. R&D policy, agency costs and innovation in personalized medicine. J Health Econ. 2009;28(5):950–62.CrossRefPubMed Yin W. R&D policy, agency costs and innovation in personalized medicine. J Health Econ. 2009;28(5):950–62.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Angelis A, Tordrup D, Kanavos P. Socio-economic burden of rare diseases: A systematic review of cost of illness evidence. Health Policy. 2014. Angelis A, Tordrup D, Kanavos P. Socio-economic burden of rare diseases: A systematic review of cost of illness evidence. Health Policy. 2014.
26.
go back to reference Paulden M, Stafinski T, Menon D, McCabe C. Value-Based Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(3):255–69.CrossRefPubMed Paulden M, Stafinski T, Menon D, McCabe C. Value-Based Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(3):255–69.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Tencer T, Roberson C, Duncan N, Johnson K, Shapiro A. A haemophilia treatment centre-administered disease management programme in patients with bleeding disorders. Haemophilia. 2007;13(5):480–8.CrossRefPubMed Tencer T, Roberson C, Duncan N, Johnson K, Shapiro A. A haemophilia treatment centre-administered disease management programme in patients with bleeding disorders. Haemophilia. 2007;13(5):480–8.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Tur-Kaspa I, Aljadeff G, Rechitsky S, Grotjan HE, Verlinsky Y. PGD for all cystic fibrosis carrier couples: novel strategy for preventive medicine and cost analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(2):186–95.CrossRefPubMed Tur-Kaspa I, Aljadeff G, Rechitsky S, Grotjan HE, Verlinsky Y. PGD for all cystic fibrosis carrier couples: novel strategy for preventive medicine and cost analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(2):186–95.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Landfeldt E, Lindgren P, Bell CF, Schmitt C, Guglieri M, Straub V, Lochmuller H, Bushby K. The burden of Duchenne muscular dystrophy: an international, cross-sectional study. Neurology. 2014;83(6):529–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Landfeldt E, Lindgren P, Bell CF, Schmitt C, Guglieri M, Straub V, Lochmuller H, Bushby K. The burden of Duchenne muscular dystrophy: an international, cross-sectional study. Neurology. 2014;83(6):529–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Kanters TA, van der Ploeg AT, Brouwer WB, Hakkaart L. The impact of informal care for patients with Pompe disease: an application of the CarerQol instrument. Mol Genet Metab. 2013;110(3):281–6.CrossRefPubMed Kanters TA, van der Ploeg AT, Brouwer WB, Hakkaart L. The impact of informal care for patients with Pompe disease: an application of the CarerQol instrument. Mol Genet Metab. 2013;110(3):281–6.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Juth N. For the Sake of Justice: Should We Prioritize Rare Diseases? Health Care Anal. 2014. Juth N. For the Sake of Justice: Should We Prioritize Rare Diseases? Health Care Anal. 2014.
32.
33.
go back to reference Drummond M, Towse A. Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(4):335–40.CrossRefPubMed Drummond M, Towse A. Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(4):335–40.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference McCabe C, Edlin R, Round J. Economic considerations in the provision of treatments for rare diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:211–22.CrossRefPubMed McCabe C, Edlin R, Round J. Economic considerations in the provision of treatments for rare diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:211–22.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Ehni HJ. Expensive cancer drugs and just health care. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;28(2):327–37.CrossRefPubMed Ehni HJ. Expensive cancer drugs and just health care. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;28(2):327–37.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Achelrod D, Blankart CR, Linder R, von Kodolitsch Y, Stargardt T. The economic impact of Marfan syndrome: a non-experimental, retrospective, population-based matched cohort study. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Achelrod D, Blankart CR, Linder R, von Kodolitsch Y, Stargardt T. The economic impact of Marfan syndrome: a non-experimental, retrospective, population-based matched cohort study. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
go back to reference Richesson R, Vehik K. Patient registries: utility, validity and inference. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:87–104.CrossRefPubMed Richesson R, Vehik K. Patient registries: utility, validity and inference. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;686:87–104.CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference World Health Organization. Constitution of the World Health Organization. 1946. World Health Organization. Constitution of the World Health Organization. 1946.
41.
go back to reference Nitecki v. Poland. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 2002. Application 65653/01. Nitecki v. Poland. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 2002. Application 65653/01.
44.
go back to reference American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). 1990; 42 U.S.C. § 12101. American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). 1990; 42 U.S.C. § 12101.
45.
go back to reference Social Security Administration: Social Security Act. 1935; SEC. 1105. Social Security Administration: Social Security Act. 1935; SEC. 1105.
46.
go back to reference Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). 2010; 42 U.S.C. § 18001. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). 2010; 42 U.S.C. § 18001.
48.
go back to reference R(on the application of Rogers) v. Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust & another 2006 EWCA Civ:392. R(on the application of Rogers) v. Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust & another 2006 EWCA Civ:392.
49.
go back to reference R(on the application of Otley) v. Barking and Dagenham NHS Primary Care Trust 2007 EWHC 1927. R(on the application of Otley) v. Barking and Dagenham NHS Primary Care Trust 2007 EWHC 1927.
50.
go back to reference Stockklausner C, Lampert A, Hoffmann GF, Ries M. Novel Treatments for Rare Cancers: The U.S. Orphan Drug Act is Delivering-A Cross Sectional Analysis. Oncologist. 2016;21(4):487–93.CrossRefPubMed Stockklausner C, Lampert A, Hoffmann GF, Ries M. Novel Treatments for Rare Cancers: The U.S. Orphan Drug Act is Delivering-A Cross Sectional Analysis. Oncologist. 2016;21(4):487–93.CrossRefPubMed
51.
go back to reference Kesselheim AS, Myers JA, Solomon DH, Winkelmayer WC, Levin R, Avorn J. The prevalence and cost of unapproved uses of top-selling orphan drugs. PLoS One. 2012;7(2), e31894.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kesselheim AS, Myers JA, Solomon DH, Winkelmayer WC, Levin R, Avorn J. The prevalence and cost of unapproved uses of top-selling orphan drugs. PLoS One. 2012;7(2), e31894.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
go back to reference Grabowski HG, DiMasi JA, Long G. The roles of patents and research and development incentives in biopharmaceutical innovation. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(2):302–10.CrossRef Grabowski HG, DiMasi JA, Long G. The roles of patents and research and development incentives in biopharmaceutical innovation. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(2):302–10.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Ethical imperatives of timely access to orphan drugs: is possible to reconcile economic incentives and patients’ health needs?
Authors
R. Rodriguez-Monguio
T. Spargo
E. Seoane-Vazquez
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1750-1172
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-016-0551-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 1/2017 Go to the issue