Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 10;9(10):e028634. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028634.

Application of orphan drug designation to cancer treatments (2008-2017): a comprehensive and comparative analysis of the USA and EU.

Author information

1
Academic Chair for Public Law, Health Law, and Digitalization, Institute of Law, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland kerstinnoelle.vokinger@usz.ch.
2
Institute for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University Hospital of Zurich/University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
3
Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To determine differences in the characteristics of cancer drugs designated as orphan drugs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA).

DESIGN AND SETTING:

Identification of all cancer drugs (initial or supplementary indication) with orphan status approved by the FDA between 2008-2017 based on publicly accessible reports. The European public assessment reports (EPAR) was searched to determine whether these FDA-approved drugs were also approved by the EMA.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Extraction of active ingredient, trade name, approval date and approved indication from two FDA data sources (Orphan Drug Product Designation Database, Drugs@FDA) and comparison with the same data from EPAR.

RESULTS:

The FDA approved 135 cancer drugs with orphan indications that met our inclusion criteria, of which 101 (75%) were also approved by the EMA. 80/101 (79%) were first approved in the USA. Only 41/101 (41%) also received orphan designation by the EMA. 33/101 (33%) were approved for biomarker-based indications in the USA, however, only nine approved cancer drug indications by the EMA were biomarker-derived drugs. 78% (47/60) of approved cancer drugs that were only approved in the USA with orphan status were indicated for solid tumours, 22% (13/60) had indications for non-solid tumours. By contrast, out of those approved cancer drugs that received orphan designation by both agencies, 20% (8/41) were indicated for solid, and 80% (33/41) for non-solid tumours.

CONCLUSIONS:

Orphan designation was intended to encourage drug development for rare conditions. This study shows that the FDA approves more cancer drugs with such designations compared with the EMA, especially for subgroups of more prevalent cancers. One reason for the difference could be that the European Union requires demonstration of significant benefit for drugs that target the same indication as a drug already on the market to earn the orphan designation.

KEYWORDS:

chemotherapy; health policy; medical ethics; medical law; oncology

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center