Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38164340›Full record

ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2024

Uptake of orphan drugs in the WHO essential medicines lists.

Enrico Costa, Lorenzo Moja, Veronika J Wirtz, Hendrika A van den Ham, Benedikt Huttner, Nicola Magrini, Hubert Gm Leufkens

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
15.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Uptake of orphan drugs in the WHO essential medicines lists.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Enrico CostaWHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation, Department of Pharmacoepidemiology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Lorenzo MojaSecretariat of the Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines, Department of Health Products Policy and Standards, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211Geneva, Switzerland.
Veronika J WirtzWHO Collaborating Centre in Pharmaceutical Policy, Department of Global Health, Boston University, Boston, United States of America.
Hendrika A van den HamWHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation, Department of Pharmacoepidemiology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Benedikt HuttnerSecretariat of the Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines, Department of Health Products Policy and Standards, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211Geneva, Switzerland.
Nicola MagriniWHO Collaborating Centre for Evidence-Based Research Synthesis and Guideline Development, Emilia-Romagna Health Authority, Bologna, Italy.
Hubert Gm LeufkensWHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation, Department of Pharmacoepidemiology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Pharmo Institute · NLWorld Health Organization · CHAzienda Unità Sanitaria Locale Della Romagna · ITBoston University · US

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: We evaluated the uptake of medicines licensed as orphan drugs by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or European Medicines Agency (EMA) into the Methods: We collated and analysed data on drug characteristics, reasons for adding or rejecting medicines, and time between regulatory approval and inclusion in the lists. We compared trends in listing orphan drugs before and after revisions to the inclusion criteria of the essential medicines lists in 2001, as well as differences in trends for listing orphan and non-orphan drugs, respectively. Findings: The proportion of orphan drugs in the essential medicines lists increased from 1.9% (4/208) in 1977 to 14.6% (70/478) in 2021. While orphan drugs for communicable diseases have remained stable over time, we observed a considerable shift towards more orphan drugs for noncommunicable diseases, particularly for cancer. The median period for inclusion in the essential medicines lists after either FDA or EMA first approval was 13.5 years (range: 1-28 years). Limited clinical evidence base and uncertainty about the magnitude of net benefit were the most frequent reasons to reject proposals to add new orphan drugs to the essential medicines lists. Conclusion: Despite lack of a global definition of rare diseases, the essential medicines lists have broadened their scope to include medicines for rare conditions. However, the high costs of many listed orphan drugs pose accessibility and reimbursement challenges in resource-constrained settings.

Indexed as

Drugs, EssentialOrphan Drug ProductionChildDrug ApprovalHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsRare DiseasesUnited StatesWorld Health OrganizationDrugs, EssentialPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID38164340
PMCPMC10753278
OpenAlexW4390506817

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.