Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41613088›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Orphan medical devices: addressing the regulatory and access gaps in the EU and US.

Sanae Akodad, Baptiste Haon, Lise Rochaix, Hilde Stevens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 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. Review
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

4 authors.

Sanae AkodadInstitute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in Healthcare (I3h), Faculté de Médecine, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Baptiste HaonParis School of Economics - Hospinnomics, Paris, France.
Lise RochaixParis School of Economics - Hospinnomics, Paris, France.
Hilde StevensInstitute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in Healthcare (I3h), Faculté de Médecine, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Orphan medical devices remain the blind spot of rare disease policy. While the United States has recognized them since 1990 through the Humanitarian Use Device (HUD) and Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) framework, the European Union only introduced a non-binding definition in 2024 (MDCG 2024-10), revealing a deeper asymmetry: flexibility is codified in the US but interpreted in the EU. Methods: We conducted a document-based policy analysis (1990-2025) and examined legislation, regulatory guidance, and academic literature to compare EU and US frameworks across evidentiary standards, access pathways, economic incentives, and reimbursement-post-market alignment. Three illustrative case studies (Berlin Heart EXCOR, Argus II, and the Medtronic Melody valve) were used to assess real-world consequences for access, sustainability, and patient continuity of care. Results: The EU's Medical Devices Regulation 2017/745 lacks a legal orphan-device designation, dedicated incentives, or a harmonized HTA framework. Access remains fragmented, and recertification under the MDR threatens supply continuity. The US HUD/HDE pathway codifies flexibility through a "probable benefit" standard under IRB supervision and an annual distribution cap, though financial sustainability remains limited by profit restrictions and inconsistent reimbursement. Case comparisons reveal: (i) earlier EU access without post-market safeguards (Argus II); (ii) US capacity to transition from humanitarian to full approval when incentives align (Melody); and (iii) vulnerability of SMEs to compliance costs (EXCOR). Conclusion: Addressing this policy vacuum requires an inflection point equivalent to the 1983 Orphan Drug Act, one that redefines how innovation for the few is valued. Five policy pillars emerge: a legal designation, adaptive evidentiary pathways, sustainable incentives (e.g., pooled procurement), integrated reimbursement mechanisms, and mandatory continuity-of-access or "exit-insurance" schemes. Without such reform, essential technologies for rare diseases will remain trapped between regulatory rigidity and market abandonment. This policy paper highlights structural regulatory gaps and proposes actionable reforms to ensure equitable access to orphan medical devices.

Indexed as

Device ApprovalEquipment and SuppliesHealth Services AccessibilityEuropean UnionHumansRare DiseasesUnited Statesaccess pathwaysadaptive evidentiary pathwaysargus iiBerlin heart EXCOReconomic incentivesevidentiary standardsexit-insurance schemesharmonized HTA framework

Identifiers

PMID41613088
PMCPMC12847439

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.