Orphan drugs are often approved under exceptional circumstances, requiring submission of additional data on safety and effectiveness through registries. These registries are mainly focused on one drug only and data is frequently incomplete. Some registries also address phenotypic heterogeneity and natural history data and publications on these aspects have contributed to the knowledge and awareness of these rare diseases. However, for the assessment of long-term outcomes and for cost-effectiveness, the incompleteness and variable quality of the data raises concerns on the usefulness of these registries. The existing registries for orphan drug treatments for lysosomal storage disorders (LSD's) illustrate these limitations. LSD's are inherited disorders of lysosomal metabolism with a wide variety in clinical symptoms, ranging from severe life-threatening neurological disease to mild or even asymptomatic cases. Their prevalence is extremely low and thus data is scarce and scattered all over Europe. In the past few years, several enzyme replacement therapies and an oral substrate inhibitor have been developed which provide lifelong treatment of LSD's. For Fabry disease, two enzymes were authorized at the same time resulting in two different drug registries being required by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to monitor effectiveness and safety. This has lead to patient data being divided between two separate registries which may have contributed to delays in the assessment of important outcomes. Three treatments (including a recently approved new enzyme) have now been authorized for Gaucher Disease and two other potential therapies are in the pipeline. Dividing up the data on Gaucher disease patients in to five separate registries benefits nobody. We argue that disease specific (rather than drug specific) registries, supervised by independent clinicians are urgently needed for the best long-term evaluation of treatments of these rare diseases.
BackgroundEU regulation 726/2004 authorises manufacturers to provide drugs to patients on a temporary basis when marketing authorisation sought centrally for the entire EU is still pending. Individual Member States retain the right to approve and implement such ‘compassionate use’ programmes which companies will usually provide for free. Nevertheless some companies have opted not to partake in such programmes, in effect restricting access to drugs for patients in need. Here we survey the state of compassionate use programmes in the EU with particular reference to the rare disease field, and provide legal and ethical arguments to encourage their increased compassionate use in the EU and beyond. We contend that if enacted, these recommendations will be mutually beneficial to companies as well as patients.MethodsRequests for information from the European Medicines Agency were made under the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000. Legal, ethical and economic/pragmatic analysis identified means by which provision of therapy in compassionate use programmes might be increased.ResultsMore than 50 notifications of compassionate use programmes have been submitted to the EMA by Member States since 2006. About 40 % relate to orphan drugs. As there is a compulsory register of programmes but not of outcomes, their success is difficult to evaluate but, for example, the French programme expedited treatment for more than 20,000 (orphan and non-orphan) patients over a period of three years.ConclusionCompelling self-interested, legal and ethical arguments can be mounted to encourage manufacturers to offer therapies on a compassionate use basis and these are often equally applicable to provision on a humanitarian aid basis. The EU’s compassionate use programmes are instrumental in ensuring continuity of access to drugs until approval and reimbursement decisions are finalised. We propose the creation of a registry of drugs offered on a compassionate use basis; further transparency would allow such programmes to be evaluated and direct patients to sources of treatment.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13023-015-0306-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
BackgroundLife-saving orphan drugs are some of the most expensive medicines. European Union governments aim to accommodate their provision within stretched healthcare budgets but face pressure to reduce funding of such treatments. Patients struggle to retain or gain access to them as their special status is questioned, causing distress and in some cases, fears of premature death. In the UK and EU reimbursement and pricing model of drugs, and orphan drugs in particular, is being re-evaluated.MethodsUsing the United Kingdom as a case study we present, for the first time, legal arguments which compel governments to provide orphan medicinal products. These include (i) disability legislation, (ii) national and organisational constitutions, (iii) judicial review, (iv) tort law and (v) human rights legislation. We then address directly potential objections to our analysis and counter arguments which aim to limit provision of orphan drugs to the intended patient recipients.ResultsWe demonstrate that a compelling case can be made that the law demands the treatment of orphan diseases.ConclusionsOur legal framework will assist doctors and patients in ensuring the continued provision of treatments despite significant economic pressure to reduce funding. These legal avenues will empower stakeholders in drafting funding guidelines throughout the EU. The legal right to treatment extends beyond rare diseases and our analysis may therefore affect allocation of healthcare budgets throughout the EU.
BackgroundThe European Gaucher Alliance (EGA) was established in 1994 and constituted in 2008 as an umbrella group supporting patient organisations for Gaucher disease. Every two years, the EGA conducts a questionnaire survey of member associations to help develop its priorities and annual work programme. Results of the latest survey are presented.MethodsBetween June 2012 and April 2013, the 36 members and associate members of the EGA were asked to complete a questionnaire detailing membership numbers, disease specific treatments used by patients, means of access to treatment, availability of treatment centres and home infusions, sources of support for patients with Gaucher disease, patient organisations’ activities, collaborations, funding sources and any issues of concern. Questionnaires completed in 2012 were revised in January 2013 and responses analysed between July and September 2013.ResultsThirty three members returned data on one or more questions. Findings identified inequalities in access to treatment both within and between members’ countries. Three of 27 countries, for which data were available, relied totally on humanitarian aid for treatment and 6% of untreated patients in 20 countries were untreated because of funding issues, a situation many feared would worsen with deteriorating economic climates. Access to treatment and reimbursement represented 45% of members’ concerns, while 35% related to access to specialist treatment centres, home infusions and doctors with expertise in Gaucher disease. Member associations’ main activities centred on patient support (59% of responses) and raising awareness of Gaucher disease and patients’ needs amongst the medical community, government and healthcare decision makers and the general public (34% of responses). Twenty one (78% of respondents) indicated they were the only source of help for Gaucher disease patients in their country. For many, activities were constrained by funds; two members had no external funding source. Activities were maximised through collaboration with other patient organisations and umbrella organisations for rare diseases.ConclusionThe survey provided a ‘snapshot’ of the situation for patients and families affected by Gaucher disease, helping the EGA direct its activities into areas of greatest need.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.