Issues surrounding orphan disease and orphan drug policies in Europe

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 8, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 343-350

  Denis, Alain ^a   Mergaert, Lut ^a   Fostier, Christel ^a   Cleemput, Irina ^b   Simoens, Steven ^c  

^a Yellow Window Management Consultants   (Belgium)

^b BELGIAN HEALTH CARE KNOWLEDGE CENTRE KCE   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Health policy; Orphan drugs

Indexed keywords

SILDENAFIL;

AWARENESS; DISEASE REGISTRY; DRUG COST; DRUG MARKETING; ECONOMIC ASPECT; EUROPE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; ORPHAN DISEASE; PREVALENCE; RARE DISEASE; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW;

EUROPE; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; ORPHAN DRUG PRODUCTION; PREVALENCE; RARE DISEASES; REGISTRIES;

EID: 77956290687     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11536990-000000000-00000     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. European Commission. European Commission Regulation (EC) no. 141/2000 of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products. Official Journal of the European Communities 2000; L 18/1 [online]. Available from URL: http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg-2000- 141/reg-2000-141-en.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jun 30]
2. European Medicines Agency. Annual report of the European Medicines Agency 2007. London: European Medicines Agency, 2008
3. Denis A, Simoens S, Fostier C, et al. Health technology assessment policy governing orphan diseases and orphan medicines. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, 2009
4. Yin W. R & D policy, agency costs and innovation in personalized medicine. J Health Econ 2009; 28: 950-962
5. European Medicines Agency. COMP report to the Commission in relation to article 10 of regulation 141 /2000 on orphan medicinal products. London: European Medicines Agency, 2007
6. Dear JW, Lilitkarntakul P, Webb DJ. Are rare diseases still orphans or happily adopted? The challenges of developing and using orphan medicinal products. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 62: 264-271
7. European Medicines Evaluation Agency. Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/htms/ general/contacts/COMP/COMP.html [Accessed 2009 Nov 24]
8. Sheridan C. EU to review rare disease drugs market exclusivity [letter]. Nat Biotechnol 2004; 22 (9): 1061
9. European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use post-authorisation summary of positive opinion for Revatio. London: European Medicines Agency, 2009
10. European Medicines Agency. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Guideline on clinical trials in small populations [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/8356105en.pdf [Accessed 2009 Nov 24]
11. European Organisation for Rare Diseases. EURORDIS position paper on the 'centralised procedure for the scientific assessment of the therapeutic added value of orphan drugs' [online]. Available from URL: http://www.eur ordis.org/IMG/pdf/position-paper-EURORDIS-therapeutic-added-value-0DFeb08.pdf [Accessed 2009 Nov 23]
12. The Pharmaceutical Forum. Improving access to orphan medicines for all affected EU citizens [online]. Available from URL: http://ec.europa.eu/ pharmaforum/docs/pricing-orphans-en.pdf [Accessed 2009 Nov 16]
13. Cleemput I, Neyt M, Thiry N, et al. Cost-effectiveness thresholds in health care. Brussels: Belgian Healthcare Knowledge Centre, 2008
14. Drummond M, Evans B, LeLorier J, et al. Evidence and values: requirements for public reimbursement of drugs for rare diseases - a case study in oncology. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 16:e273-81
15. Gericke CA, Riesberg A, Busse R. Ethical issues in funding orphan drug research and development. J Med Ethics 2005; 31: 164-168
16. Littlejohns P, Garner S, Doyle N, et al. 10 years of NICE: still growing and still controversial. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 417-424
17. Connock M, Juarez-Garcia A, Frew E, et al. A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapies for Fabry's disease and mucopolysaccharidosis type 1. Health Technol Assess 2006; 10: iii-113
18. Heemstra HE, de Vrueh RL, van WS, et al. Orphan drug development across Europe: bottlenecks and opportunities. Drug Discov Today 2008; 13: 670-676
19. Schlander M, Beck M. Expensive drugs for rare disorders: to treat or not to treat? The case of enzyme replacement therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis VI. Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25: 1285-1293
20. Cook JP, Vernon JA, Manning R. Pharmaceutical risk-sharing agreements. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (7): 551-556
21. Orofino J, Soto J, Casado MA, et al. Global spending on orphan drugs in France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain during 2007. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2010; 8 (5): 301-315
22. McCabe C, Tsuchiya A, Claxton K, et al. Orphan drugs revisited. QJM 2006; 99: 341-345
23. Rinaldi A. Adopting an orphan. EMBO Rep 2005; 6 (6): 507-510
24. Owen A, Sprinks J, Meehan A, et al. A new model to evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of orphan and highly specialised drugs following listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: the Bosentan Patient Registry. J Med Econ 2008; 11: 235-43
25. Italian Medicines Agency. Post-marketing surveillance programme [online]. Available from URL: http://monitoraggio- farmaci.agenziafarmaco.it [Accessed 2010 Feb 16]