Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28057032›Full record

ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2017

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

R Rodriguez-Monguio, T Spargo, E Seoane-Vazquez

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
46.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Literature Review on Health Emigration in Rare Diseases-A Machine Learning Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R Rodriguez-MonguioDepartment of Health Promotion and Policy, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, 322 Arnold House. 715 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA, 01003-9304, USA. rmonguio@schoolph.umass.edu.
T SpargoDepartment of Health Promotion and Policy, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 325 Arnold House. 715 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA, 01003-9304, USA.
E Seoane-VazquezDepartment of Pharmaceutical Business and Administrative Sciences Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, MCPHS University, Room W324 179 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA, 02115-5804, USA.
University of Massachusetts Amherst · USMCPHS University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMore 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.

methodsStudy 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.

resultsIn 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.

conclusionOrphan 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.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalHumansOrphan Drug ProductionRare DiseasesUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationEconomic incentivesEthical aspectsFDAOrphan diseasesOrphan drugsRare diseasesResearch and development

Identifiers

PMID28057032
PMCPMC5217554
OpenAlexW2571094594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.