Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39085891›Full record

ReviewOrphanet journal of rare diseases2024

Rare disease clinical trials in the European Union: navigating regulatory and clinical challenges.

Sangita Mishra, M P Venkatesh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Medicine Development and Access for Rare Diseases: Can We Do Better?Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Genomics in Health and Biomedicine.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

2 authors.

Sangita MishraDept. of Pharmaceutics, Centre of Excellence in Regulatory Sciences, JSS College of Pharmacy, JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research, SS Nagara, Mysore, Karnataka, 570015, India.ORCID 0000-0002-7879-5259
M P VenkateshDept. of Pharmaceutics, Centre of Excellence in Regulatory Sciences, JSS College of Pharmacy, JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research, SS Nagara, Mysore, Karnataka, 570015, India. venkateshmpv@jssuni.edu.in.ORCID 0000-0002-6804-1023

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical development for orphan drugs presents significant difficulties and challenges. There is no unique or standard design, conduct, and outcome assessment methodology and it is sometimes impractical to fit design models of rare disease trials in any practiced and well-known framework. In the European Union (EU) these challenges encompass a broad array of subjects, including trial design, study outcomes, patient recruitment, trial conduct ethics, trial cost, and chances of success. This literature-based review study aims to provide a thorough overview of the critical aspects of rare disease trials in the EU by analyzing the current landscape of rare disease trials, highlighting key challenges, delving into regulatory and research initiatives and innovation in trial designs, and proposing multi-faceted solutions to implement effective rare disease clinical trials in the region. DISCUSSION: Traditional clinical trial designs, validation, and evaluation methodologies used for nonorphan drugs often prove unsuitable for orphan drugs, given the small patient populations, sometimes fewer than 1000 cases. There is an increasing need for accessible therapies and both regulators as well as industry are trying to develop affordable and effective drugs to address this need. Despite several steps that have been taken, the timely development of drugs remains a challenge. One of the reasons behind the long development timeline is the recruitment, retention, and conduct of rare disease trials. To optimize the development timelines of orphan drugs in the EU, it is important to ensure that the safety and efficacy of the product is not compromised. Industry and regulatory agencies must implement innovative trial designs, devise flexible policies, and incorporate real-world data for assessing clinical outcomes.

conclusionCollaboration among academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies (both small and major), patient groups, and health authorities is crucial in overcoming obstacles related to clinical trials and providing assistance and creative ideas. The ultimate objective of granting rare disease patients timely and affordable access to medications with a positive balance between benefits and risks is to be met.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicEuropean UnionOrphan Drug ProductionRare DiseasesHumansAdaptive trialsBasket trialsClinical trialsDecentralized trialsNovel methodologiesOrphan drugsRare diseasesReal world evidenceUmbrella trials

Identifiers

PMID39085891
PMCPMC11292868

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.