Translation of rare disease research into orphan drug development: disease matters

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 14, Issue 23-24, 2009, Pages 1166-1173

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

IMATINIB; ORPHAN DRUG;

CHRONIC MYELOID LEUKEMIA; CONGENITAL MALFORMATION; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG RESEARCH; ENDOCRINE DISEASE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; METABOLIC DISORDER; NUTRITIONAL DISORDER; PREVALENCE; PUBLICATION; RARE DISEASE; REVIEW;

DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG INDUSTRY; HUMANS; LEGISLATION, DRUG; MOTIVATION; ORPHAN DRUG PRODUCTION; RARE DISEASES; RESEARCH;

EID: 71749103033     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2009.09.008     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. Stolk P., et al. Rare essentials: drugs for rare diseases as essential medicines. Bull. World Health Organ. 84 (2006) 745-775
2. Schieppati A., et al. Why rare diseases are an important medical and social issue. Lancet 371 (2008) 2039-2041
3. Dear J.W., 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
4. The Orphan Drug Act (1983). http://www.fda.gov/orphan/oda.htm
5. Haffner M.E., et al. Does orphan drug legislation really answer the needs of patients?. Lancet 371 (2008) 2041-2044
6. 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
7. Haffner M.E. Adopting orphan drugs - two dozen years of treating rare diseases. N. Engl. J. Med. 354 (2006) 445-447
8. European Medicines Agency. Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products April 2009 Plenary Meeting Monthly Report. London (2009). http://www.emea.europa.eu/
9. European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use December 2008 Plenary Meeting Report. London (2008). http://www.emea.europa.eu/pressoffice/chmp.htm
10. Commission for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP). COMP Report to the Commission in Relation to Article 10 of Regulation 141/2000 on Orphan Medicinal Products (2005). http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/comp/3521805en.pdf
11. Commission of the European Communities. 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 (2006). http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pharmaceuticals/orphanmp/doc/orphan_en_06-2006.pdf
12. Heemstra H.E., et al. Predictors of orphan drug approval in the European Union. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 64 (2008) 545-552
13. Heemstra H.E., et al. Orphan drug development across Europe: bottlenecks and opportunities. Drug Discov. Today 13 (2008) 670-676
14. Griggs R.C., et al. Clinical research for rare disease: opportunities, challenges, and solutions. Mol. Genet. Metab. 96 (2009) 20-26
15. O'Connell D., and Roblin D. Translational research in the pharmaceutical industry: from bench to bedside. Drug Discov. Today 11 (2006) 833-838
16. Orphanet. Orphanet Report Series. Prevalence of Rare Diseases; Bibiolographic Data (2008). http://www.orpha.net/consor/cgi-bin/Education_Home.php?lng=EN
17. Kola I. The state of innovation in drug development. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 83 (2008) 227-230
18. DiMasi J.A., et al. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econ. 22 (2003) 151-185
19. Adams C.P., and Brantner V.V. Estimating the cost of new drug development: is it really 802 million dollars?. Health Aff. (Millwood) 25 (2006) 420-428
20. Buckley B.M. Clinical trials of orphan medicines. Lancet 371 (2008) 2051-2055
21. Joppi R., et al. Orphan drug development is not taking off. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. (2009) 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03369.x
22. Joppi R., et al. Orphan drug development is progressing too slowly. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 61 (2006) 355-360
23. Haffner M.E., et al. Two decades of orphan product development. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1 (2002) 821-825
24. Haffner M.E., and Maher P.D. The impact of the orphan drug act on drug discovery. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 1 (2006) 521-524
25. Wästfelt M., et al. A journey of hope: lessons learned from studies on rare diseases and orphan drugs. J. Intern. Med. 260 (2006) 1-10
26. Editorial. To thwart disease, apply now. Nature 453 (2008) 823
27. Overington J.P., et al. How many drug targets are there?. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5 (2006) 993-996
28. Imming P., et al. Drugs, their targets and the nature and number of drug targets. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5 (2006) 821-834
29. Haran C. Vince DeVita; the view from the top. Cancer World 6 (2005) 38-43
30. European Cancer Research Managers Forum. Investment and Outputs of Cancer Research: From the Public Sector to Industry (2007). http://www.ecrmforum.org
31. Eckhouse S., and Sullivan R. A survey of public funding of cancer research in the European union. PLoS Med. 3 (2006) e267
32. 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
33. Stratton M.R., et al. The cancer genome. Nature 458 (2009) 719-724
34. Benson J.D., et al. Validating cancer drug targets. Nature 441 (2006) 451-456
35. Capdeville R., et al. Glivec (STI571, imatinib), a rationally developed, targeted anticancer drug. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1 (2002) 493-502
36. Müller B.A. Imatinib and its successors - how modern chemistry has changed drug development. Curr. Pharm. Des. 15 (2009) 120-133
37. Pytel D., et al. Tyrosine kinase blockers: new hope for successful cancer therapy. Anticancer Agents Med. Chem. 9 (2009) 66-76
38. De Duve C., et al. Lysosomotropic agents. Commentary. Biochem. Pharmacol. 23 (1974) 2495-2531
39. Reuser A.J., et al. Enzyme therapy for Pompe disease: from science to industrial enterprise. Eur. J. Pediatr. 161 (2002) S106-S111
40. Brady R.O., et al. Metabolism of glucocerebrosides. II. Evidence of an enzymatic deficiency in Gaucher's disease. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 18 (1965) 221-225
41. Aerts J.M., et al. Pathogenesis of lysosomal storage disorders as illustrated by Gaucher disease. J. Inherit. Metab. Dis. 16 (1993) 288-291
42. Beutler E. Enzyme replacement in Gaucher disease. PLoS Med. 1 (2004) e21
43. Isaacson G. An approach to congenital malformations of the head and neck. Otolaryngol. Clin. North Am. 40 (2007) 1-8
44. Nativio D.G. The genetics, diagnosis, and management of Prader-Willi syndrome. J. Pediatr. Health Care 16 (2002) 298-303
45. Lindsay M.A. Target discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2 (2003) 831-838
46. Hall J.E. The promise of translational physiology. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 283 (2002) 235-236
47. Sánchez-Serrano I. Success in translational research: lessons from the development of bortezomib. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5 (2006) 107-114
48. Tralau-Stewart C.J., et al. Drug discovery: new models for industry-academic partnerships. Drug Discov. Today 14 (2009) 95-101
49. No authors. Carglumic acid: a second look. Confirmed progress in a rare urea cycle disorder. Prescrire Int. 17 (2008) 50-51
50. No authors. Nitisinone: new drug. Type 1 tyrosinemia: an effective drug. Prescrire Int. 16 (2007) 56-58
51. Fischer A., et al. The European rare diseases therapeutic initiative. PLoS Med. 2 (2005) e243
52. Wetterauer B., and Schuster R. Rare diseases funding programs in Germany and Europe. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 51 (2008) 519-528
53. Mendis K., and McLean R. Increased expenditure on Australian health and medical research and changes in numbers of publications determined using PubMed. Med. J. Aust. 185 (2006) 155-158