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

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, diseasespecific 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

Predictors of orphan drug approval in the European Union

Objective: To encourage the development of drugs for rare diseases, orphan drug legislation has been introduced in the USA (1983) and in the EU (2000). Recent literature discusses factors that may influence the development of new orphan medicinal products in the EU. This study aims to identify predictors for successful marketing authorisation of potential orphan drugs in the EU. Methods: A comparison between randomly selected authorised and a matched sample of not-yet-authorised orphan drug designations has been performed. Determinants in the study included characteristics of the indication, of the product and of the sponsor. Data were collected from the public domain only. Results: Orphan drug approval was strongly associated with previous experience of the sponsor in obtaining approval for another orphan drug (OR=17.3, 95% CI=5.6-53.1). Furthermore, existing synthetic entities compared to biotechnology products tended to have a higher likelihood of reaching approval status (OR=3.9, 95% CI=0.9-16.6). Conclusion: This study showed that experience of a company in developing orphan drugs is an important predictor for subsequent authorisation of other orphan drugs. The same applies for existing (synthetic) molecules, for which much knowledge is available. Further research should be directed towards studying the quality of the clinical development program of those designated orphan medicinal products not reaching approval status

The supportive care needs of parents with a child with a rare disease : results of an online survey

Background: Parents caring for a child affected by a rare disease have unmet needs, the origins of which are complex and varied. Our aim was to determine the supportive care needs of parents caring for a child with a rare disease. Methods: An online survey was developed consisting of 45 questions (108 items) and separated into six domains. The survey included questions about perceived level of satisfaction with receiving care, experiences and needs of providing daily care, the impacts of disease on relationships, the emotional and psychological burdens of disease, and parents overall satisfaction with the support received. Results: Three-hundred and one parents from Australia and New Zealand completed the survey; 91 % (n = 275/301) were mothers, with 132 distinct rare diseases being reported. Fifty-four percent (n = 140/259) of parents were dissatisfied with health professionals’ level of knowledge and awareness of disease; 71 % (n = 130/183) of parents felt they received less support compared to other parents. Information regarding present (60 %, n = 146/240) and future services (72 %, n = 174/240) available for their child were considered important. Almost half of parents (45 %, n = 106/236) struggled financially, 38 % (n = 99/236) reduced their working hours and 34 % (n = 79/236) ceased paid employment. Forty-two percent (n = 99/223) of parents had no access to a disease specific support group, and 58 % (n = 134/230) stated that their number of friends had reduced since the birth of their child; 75 % (n = 173/230) had no contact with other parents with a child with a similar disease, and 46 % (n = 106/230) reported feeling socially isolated and desperately lonely. Most frequent emotions expressed by parents in the week prior to completing the survey were anxiety and fear (53 %, n = 119/223), anger and frustration (46 %, n = 103/223) and uncertainty (39 %, n = 88/223). Conclusion: This study is the first to develop an online survey specifically for use with parents to investigate their supportive care needs across a large and diverse group of rare diseases. The findings highlight that parents with a child with a rare disease have common unmet needs regardless of what disease their child has. Such information may allow health providers to improve child outcomes through improving parental supportive care

Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL)

International audienceAbstractRare diseases are an important public health issue with high unmet need. The introduction of the EU Regulation on orphan medicinal products (OMP) has been successful in stimulating investment in the research and development of OMPs. Despite this advancement, patients do not have universal access to these new medicines. There are many factors that affect OMP uptake, but one of the most important is the difficulty of making pricing and reimbursement (P&R) decisions in rare diseases. Until now, there has been little consensus on the most appropriate assessment criteria, perspective or appraisal process. This paper proposes nine principles to help improve the consistency of OMP P&R assessment in Europe and ensure that value assessment, pricing and funding processes reflect the specificities of rare diseases and contribute to both the sustainability of healthcare systems and the sustainability of innovation in this field. These recommendations are the output of the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL), a collaboration between rare disease experts, patient representatives, academics, health technology assessment (HTA) practitioners, politicians and industry representatives. ORPH-VAL reached its recommendations through careful consideration of existing OMP P&R literature and through a wide consultation with expert stakeholders, including payers, regulators and patients. The principles cover four areas: OMP decision criteria, OMP decision process, OMP sustainable funding systems and European co-ordination. This paper also presents a guide to the core elements of value relevant to OMPs that should be consistently considered in all OMP appraisals. The principles outlined in this paper may be helpful in drawing together an emerging consensus on this topic and identifying areas where consistency in payer approach could be achievable and beneficial. All stakeholders have an obligation to work together to ensure that the promise of OMP’s is realised

Reflections on the Future of Pharmaceutical Public-Private Partnerships : From Input to Impact

Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are multiple stakeholder partnerships designed to improve research efficacy. We focus on PPPs in the biomedical/pharmaceutical field, which emerged as a logical result of the open innovation model. Originally, a typical PPP was based on an academic and an industrial pillar, with governmental or other third party funding as an incentive. Over time, other players joined in, often health foundations, patient organizations, and regulatory scientists. This review discusses reasons for initiating a PPP, focusing on precompetitive research. It looks at typical expectations and challenges when starting such an endeavor, the characteristics of PPPs, and approaches to assessing the success of the concept. Finally, four case studies are presented, of PPPs differing in size, geographical spread, and research focus