ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
The clinical assessment of studies on orphan drugs in relation to the EMA's authorization marketing decisions in Europe.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The main objective of this study was to assess the correlation between the methodological characteristics of clinical trials on orphan drugs and the special statuses granted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Material and methods: Data were collected for all medicines with orphan designation assigned by 2020. From August 2019 to June 2020, special statuses (authorization statuses and registration requirements) and general information on orphan drugs were obtained from the EMA's web-based registry. The following clinical data were collected: number of patients, clinical phase, randomization, masking, control group, treatment durations, and safety and efficacy follow-ups. Descriptive, comparative, multivariate, and univariate analyses of data were conducted. Results: Results were provided for 105 medicines with orphan designation. The odds of an orphan drug receiving conditional approval were lower for studies with randomization (p = 0.002) and active controlled trials (p = 0.010), but they increased in those with a treatment duration of 3-12 months (p = 0.002) and those with a safety and efficacy follow-up of 2-6 months (p = 0.008 and p = 0.035, respectively). Approval under exceptional circumstances was less likely for each additional 1,000 patients included in reference (p = 0.002), randomization (p = 0.024), double blinding (p = 0.033), and active-controlled trials (p = 0.006). However, it was more likely for phase II/III trials (p = 0.039), those with a treatment duration of 3-12 months (p = 0.03), and those with a safety and efficacy follow-up longer than 6 months (p = 0.022 and p = 0.047, respectively). Conclusion: The types of clinical trials and their methodological characteristics are correlated with the EMA's decisions. Randomization, double blinding, and active-controlled trials reduce the odds of ODs receiving EMA special statuses. In contrast, phase II/III trials, specific durations of treatment, and specific safety and efficacy follow-ups increased these odds.
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.