Orphan drug development across Europe: bottlenecks and opportunities

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 13, Issue 15-16, 2008, Pages 670-676

  Heemstra, Harald E ^a   de Vrueh, Remco L A ^b   van Weely, Sonja ^b   Büller, Hans A ^c   Leufkens, Hubert G M ^a,b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b Steering Committee on Orphan Drugs   (Netherlands)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ORPHAN DRUG;

DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG RESEARCH; EUROPE; PERFORMANCE; POLICY; REVIEW;

DRUG APPROVAL; EUROPE; EUROPEAN UNION; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; LEGISLATION, DRUG; ORPHAN DRUG PRODUCTION; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS;

EID: 48149083466     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2008.05.001     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Commission for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) (2007) Press release of the September 2007 meeting (http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/comp/42020707en.pdf)
2. Commission for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) (2005) COMP report to the commission in relation to article 10 of regulation 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products (http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/comp/3521805en.pdf)
3. Commission of the European Communities (2006) Commission Staff Working Document on the experience acquired as a result of the application of Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products and account of the public health benefits obtained (http://www.ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pharmaceuticals/orphanmp/doc/orphan_en_06-2006.pdf)
4. Regulation (EC), No. 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on Orphan Medicinal Products. Official Journal of The European Communities L18, 1-5
5. The Orphan Drug Act (1983) Public law, 97-141 (http://www.fda.gov/orphan/oda.htm)
6. Haffner M., and Maher P. The impact of the orphan drug act on drug discovery. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 1 (2006) 521-524
7. Rohde D.D. The Orphan Drug Act: an engine of innovation? At what cost?. Food Drug Law J. 55 (2000) 125-143
8. Haffner M., et al. Two decades of orphan product development. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1 (2002) 821-825
9. Kwong Y.L., and Todd D. Delicious poison: arsenic trioxide for the treatment of leukemia. Blood 89 (1997) 3487-3488
10. Joppi R., et al. Orphan drug development is progressing too slowly. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 61 (2006) 355-360
11. Czerepak E.A., and Ryser S. Drug approvals and failures: implications for alliances. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 7 (2008) 197-198
12. Wilgenbus K., et al. What pharma wants. Nat. Biotechnol. 25 (2007) 967-969
13. Drews J. Strategic trends in the drug industry. Drug Discov. Today 8 (2003) 411-420
14. Heemstra H.E., et al. Predictors of orphan drug approval in the European Union. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 64 (2008) 545-552
15. Motola D., et al. An update on the first decade of the European centralized procedure: how many innovative drugs?. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 62 (2006) 610-616
16. National Organization for Rare Disorders & Genetic Alliance (2006) A decade of innovation; advancements in the treatment of rare diseases (http://www.innovation.org/documents/full_report_decade-of-innovation.pdf)
17. Whyte B. Innovation drives success in Switzerland's biotech scene. Drug Discov. Today 10 (2005) 1342-1345
18. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (2006) The innovation gap - why policy needs to reflect the reality of innovation in the UK (http://www.nesta.org.uk/assets/Uploads/pdf/Research-Report/innovation_gap_report_NESTA.pdf)
19. European Commission (2000) Presidency conclusions - Lisbon European Council, 23 and 24 March 2000 (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/00100-r1.en0.htm)
20. European Commission (2004) Facing the challenge, The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment - Report from the high level group chaired by Wim Kok (http://www.ec.europa.eu/growthandjobs/pdf/kok_report_en.pdf)
21. Gambardella A. et al. (2000) Global competitiveness in pharmaceuticals: a European perspective. Report prepared for the Enterprise Directorate-General of the European Commission
22. Frantz S. Pharma's year of trouble and strife. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5 (2006) 7-9
23. Baxendale I.R., et al. Pharmaceutical strategy and innovation: an academics perspective. Chem. Med. Chem. 2 (2007) 768-788
24. Schmid E.F., and Smith D.A. Keynote review: is declining innovation in the pharmaceutical industry a myth?. Drug Discov. Today 10 (2005) 1031-1039
25. Baines E. Viewpoint: pharmaceutical innovation in Europe. Circulation 115 (2007) F5-F6
26. Sheridan C. Budget cuts curb Europe's enthusiasm to revive innovation. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5 (2006) 621
27. Dearing A. Enabling Europe to innovate. Science 315 (2007) 344-347
28. Schatz G. Europe's innovation barriers. Eur. J. Cell Biol. 84 (2005) 1-3
29. European Commission Directorate-General for Research (2003) Third European report on science & technology indicators (http://cordis.europa.eu/indicators/third_report.htm)
30. European Medicines Agency (EMEA) (2005) The European Medicines Agency Road Map to 2010: preparing the ground for the future (http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/general/direct/directory/3416303enF.pdf)
31. Regulation (EC) No. 1901/2006 of the European parliament and of the council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use. Official Journal of The European Union L378, 1-19
32. Kaplan W., and Laing R. Priority Medicines for Europe and the World (2004), World Health Organization, Department of Essential Drugs and Medicines Policy
33. Sharp, M. and Patel, P. (2002) EIMS studies - Europe's pharmaceutical industry: an innovation profile. European Innovation Monitoring System
34. Cohen F.J. Macro trends in pharmaceutical innovation. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 4 (2005) 78-84
35. Seget, S. (2003) The future of pharmaceutical innovation. Scrip Reports
36. McMillan G.S., and Hamilton R.D. The public science base of US biotechnology: a citation-weighted approach. Scientometrics 72 (2007) 3-10
37. McMillan G.S., et al. An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology. Res. Policy 29 (2000) 1-8
38. Caprino L., and Russo P. Developing a paradigm of drug innovation: an evaluation algorithm. Drug Discov. Today 11 (2006) 999-1006
39. Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association (2005) Industry Report Pharma Ireland (http://www.ipha.ie/htm/info/download/Publications/Pharma%20Ireland%20Report%20(IPHA%20Review).pdf)
40. Center for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy, Lund University (2006) The Swedish Paradox (http://65.19.180.219/UploadedPublications/200601_Ejermo&Kandler.pdf)
41. Kreijnen M., and Van Scherrenburg E. Closing the gap: the Dutch paradox and the role of technology-based start-ups. Paper for the High-technology Small Firms Conference. Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague, The Netherlands (2002)
42. King D.A. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430 (2004) 311-316
43. Kola I. The state of innovation in drug development. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 83 (2008) 227-230
44. Dear J., et al. Are rare diseases still orphans or happily adopted? The challenges of developing and using orphan medicinal products. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 62 (2006) 264-271
45. Hughes B. Rare incentives. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 7 (2008) 190-191
46. Soteriades E.S., and Falagas M.E. Comparison of amount of biomedical research originating from the European Union and the United States. Br. Med. J. 331 (2005) 192-194
47. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) (2000-2006) The pharmaceutical industry in figures (http://www.efpia.org/Content/Default.asp?PageID=199)
48. Bundesamt für Statistik (2007) Betriebszählung 2005 (http://www.statistik.admin.ch)