Time for Change? The Why, What and How of Promoting Innovation to Tackle Rare Diseases – Is It Time to Update the EU’s Orphan Regulation? And if so, What Should be Changed?

Abstract

Since developments are global in the healthcare arena, more should be done to align EU and other big markets' regulatory practices for rare disease patients. Notwithstanding efforts and cooperation between the US and EU aimed to harmonize their strategic plans in the field of orphan drugs, regulatory criteria and procedures to gain the designation, terms and classifications should be still harmonised. Aligning the criteria of prevalence and support to orphan medicines in the various jurisdictions internationally, would facilitate patient recruitment eventually at global level, so as to gain the data and the biological insights required to identify biomarkers and appropriate endpoints needed for progressing clinical development. A conducive regulatory environment can further support the development of medicines to treat rare diseases. Overall there is a need for joined-up regulatory process coordination. Better integration of regulatory pathways and better integration of regulatory systems, such as scientific tools and methods to generate evidence, would be helpful. There is a need to revise and agree the current frameworks to be improved which will take into account the considerations and challenges to diagnose and treat different rare diseases and improve quality of life. Deliberative processes with multi-stakeholders' involvement for reimbursement should be considered. This paper explores the successes and limitation of both the regulation and its implementation mechanisms in the current regulatory context, and suggests some improvements that could maximise its benefits and boost rare disease research even further.

Towards Better Pharmaceutical Provision in Europe—Who Decides the Future?

“…Among HTA bodies there is a desire for clearer guidance on criteria, and some payors have also expressed support for a definition—not least because it could ease their decision-making on what to reimburse. However, among clinicians and drug developers there is perceptible concern over the potential risks of over-rigid definitions imposing arbitrary and ultimately unhelpful limits on care and on innovation [ 42 , 43 ].…”

Clinical outcomes and temporal trends of immunological and non-immunological rare diseases in adult kidney transplant

“…Identification, management, and treatment of RDs represent a challenging question for every health care system [5,17,18]. First of all, the heterogeneity of classification systems limited the generalizability of literature data.…”

Tackling Mantle Cell Lymphoma in Europe

“…A study conducted by the European MCL Network confirmed that the NanoString platform-based MCL35 assay is a reliable prognostic biomarker in MCL patients which identifies subgroups with different outcomes via a proliferation signature-based score [ 23 ]. Specialists have an important role, as in all rare cancers, to identify patients early and assess the most appropriate treatment based on clinical characteristics and personal choice of each patient [ 7 , 24 , 25 ].…”