ReviewOrphanet journal of rare diseases2025
Debates over orphan drug pricing: a meta-narrative literature review.
Review in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reconceiving orphan drug market exclusivity as a conditional public-law entitlement: a sustainable regulatory governance model with comparative lessons for China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Evolution and synergy of healthcare security policies for rare diseases in China: a quantitative content analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Transformative roles of digital twins from drug discovery to continuous manufacturing: pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical perspectives.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2025Review
- Advances in Cell and Gene Therapy for Rare Disease Treatment.International journal of stem cells · 2025Review
- Access to Orphan Medicinal Products in Bulgaria: An Analysis of the Positive Drug List and Individual Access Schemes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Repurposing Metformin in Precision Oncology: Mechanistic Insights, Biomarker-Guided Strategies, and Translational Imperatives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- How policymakers value end-of-life treatments for rare and common diseases in China: evidence from a contingent valuation study.Global health research and policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Rare disease prevalence rates are increasing rapidly worldwide, as are the cost of orphan indication drugs used to treat them, posing significant strain on many healthcare systems. In response, a set of tensions have arisen within academic, activist, advocacy, industry, and policy circles over orphan drug pricing. Yet there has to date been no unifying review of the literature engaging critically with these tensions. Addressing this gap, the article examines the narratives in circulation around orphan pricing, the traditions and epistemic bases they draw on, and their points of contestation/coalescence. It does so through a meta-narrative literature review, finding three core narratives. One involves dispute over outlay costs for developing new orphan drugs, often drawing on normative health economics with a base in practical idealism. It argues that (bio)pharmaceutical manufacturers misuse policy incentives to profit excessively through monopoly capitalism. A second narrative draws on both empirical and normative health economics (often steeped in empiricism paired with a utilitarian standpoint). It contends that high orphan drug prices signify a healthy market and justifiably support longer-term innovation while promoting wider equity of access. A third (midway) narrative draws on the sociology of health and innovation studies alongside normative health economics and health policy studies to suggest alternative models of innovation and valuation. As a unifying meta-narrative, the review finds a sustained call for reform, centred on welfare economics and resource allocation, where current incentives and regulations are held to be insufficient. Overall, the article recommends that regulators look to alternative models of innovation steeped in social science thinking to modify reviewing appraisal, coverage, and reimbursement processes for orphan drugs. Also, that greater patient inclusion and transparency would help include a wider range of intangible social factors that rare disease patients face in accessing high priced orphan drugs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.