Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40190699›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2025

Evidence available and used by the Food and Drug Administration for the approval of orphan and nonorphan drugs.

Amanda J Koong, Veronica L Irvin, Aditya Narayan, Sujin Song, Robert M Kaplan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Amanda J KoongDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health at the University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles 90095, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2447-4695
Veronica L IrvinCollege of Health, Oregon State University, Corvallis 97331, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6337-9108
Aditya NarayanStanford University Schools of Medicine and Business, Stanford 94305, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2427-6445
Sujin SongClinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford 94304, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5742-4667
Robert M KaplanClinical Excellence Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford 94304, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4837-5330

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are substantial financial incentives to develop orphan drugs for rare diseases, but concerns about the quality and volume of supporting evidence have emerged. We compare evidence used to evaluate orphan and nonorphan drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2023. This retrospective cross-sectional analysis utilizes FDA data on approvals and study information from ClinicalTrials.gov to compare characteristics of studies relevant to orphan and nonorphan drugs approved between 2016 and 2023. Of the 368 total drugs approved, 50% were orphan drugs. The FDA-approved drugs based on significantly fewer studies for orphan (1.5 studies/drug) compared to nonorphan (2.4 studies/drug). Additionally, a significantly lower proportion of studies were completed before FDA approval for orphan drugs (25% vs 41%). Orphan drugs were significantly less likely to be evaluated in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (34% vs 63%). Of these RCTs, there were significantly fewer completed before approval (40% vs 54%) and that had results posted (35% vs 53%). There was a significant difference in the available evidence for orphan and nonorphan drugs. As new legislation like Cures 2.0 is developed, it is critical to examine the balance between an expedited approval timeline and the standard of clinical evidence.

Indexed as

clinical trial transparencydrug regulationFDA approvalorphan drugsrandomized clinical trialsrare diseases

Identifiers

PMID40190699
PMCPMC11970248

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.