The impact of the Orphan Drug Act on Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies for rare skin diseases and skin-related cancers.

The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 (ODA) put in place a set of financial and marketing incentives to stimulate the development of drugs to treat rare diseases, and since its passage, more than 600 orphan drug and biologic products have been brought to market in the United States. Rapid growth in orphan drug approvals in conjunction with high orphan drug prices have triggered concern that drug makers are exploiting certain aspects of the ODA for financial gain and that some pharmaceutical drugs are receiving orphan status where it is not warranted. The landscape of approved therapies for rare skin diseases has not been well described. In this article, we provide a descriptive analysis of the United States Food and Drug Administration-approved orphan drugs for the treatment of rare dermatologic conditions and skin-related cancers since the enactment of the ODA. We discuss policy issues that emerge from the analysis and suggest areas for future research. Next, we elucidate ODA loopholes using dermatologic drugs as examples and propose potential reforms. Finally, we consider future directions for orphan drug development in the field of dermatology.

Pharmaceutical Industry Support of US Patient Advocacy Organizations: An International Context.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the share of pharmaceutical industry funds allocated to patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) is disproportionately large in the United States relative to other industrialized countries and to compare pharmaceutical companies' disclosure practices across industrialized countries. METHODS: We examined funding of PAOs among the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies in 2016. We compared funding allocated to organizations across 8 large industrialized countries and pharmaceutical companies' disclosure practices in each country. RESULTS: Only 6 of the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies disclosed their financial transactions with PAOs in the United States. All 10 companies disclosed transactions in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, with varying levels of disclosure in other countries. In 2016, the 6 companies that disclosed transactions in the United States allocated 74% of their patient advocacy funding ($88 million) in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: The disproportionate funding of US PAOs in the absence of any disclosure requirements suggests that the United States should consider adoption of regulatory actions to enhance the transparency of relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and PAOs, and to ensure the integrity of public health decision-making.

Limited distribution networks stifle competition in the generic and biosimilar drug industries.

A limited distribution network (LDN) restricts the distribution channel for a pharmaceutical drug to 1 or a very small number of distributors. This strategy may allow for more effective allocation of drugs in shortage and is purported to help ensure the safe distribution of high-risk drugs to small patient populations. However, in recent years, some drug companies, including Turing Pharmaceuticals, have used LDNs to prevent generic and biosimilar companies from accessing samples of drug products necessary to perform testing required by the FDA for generic and biosimilar drug applications. LDNs also hamper provider access to pharmaceuticals and facilitate price gouging. This paper synthesizes existing knowledge on the misuse of LDNs to thwart competition, clarifies the relationship between limited distribution and the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies, discusses proposed federal legislation under consideration to address this issue, and offers several policy options to remedy this anticompetitive practice, including authorizing the FDA to require the sale of approved drug products to generic and biosimilar drug developers.

Progesterone for Prevention of Preterm Birth: Shortcomings and Unintended Consequences of the Orphan Drug Act.

Preterm birth is a problem of major public health significance that continues to plague our country despite the existence of a therapy, 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate, with known efficacy in reducing the risk of spontaneous preterm birth among high-risk women. Over the past several years, the Louisiana Department of Health has undertaken a robust, multifaceted initiative to improve access to 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate, which resulted in a 3.5-fold increase in the percentage of eligible high-risk pregnant women in the Medicaid program who received the therapy between 2013 and 2016. Yet despite Louisiana's progress, the vast majority of the eligible population still fails to receive 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate. In this Current Commentary, we argue that the high price of progesterone since U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval has unnecessarily complicated access, and our nation has potentially suffered nearly 60,000 avoidable premature births as a consequence. We present the history of the orphan drug approval and manufacturer-imposed price increase for injectable progesterone, the interplay between the drug's high price and the persistence of racial and ethnic disparities in preterm birth, which are particularly germane in Louisiana, and Louisiana's broad-reaching efforts to improve progesterone coverage. The story of 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate highlights the durable barriers that high prices place in the way of access and helps illuminate the shortcomings and unintended consequences of the Orphan Drug Act. This case, however, is not an outlier; it is the far-too-common product of monopoly pricing in the U.S. pharmaceutical market, inadvertently bolstered by existing law, at the expense of affordability and patient access.