A systematic review of real-world evidence (RWE) supportive of new drug and biologic license application approvals in rare diseases.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence (RWE) generated using real-world data (RWD) presents the potential to contextualize and/or supplement traditional clinical trials for regulatory approval of rare diseases (RDs). This systematic review evaluated the use of RWD for non-oncologic RD therapies with orphan drug designation (ODD) to support efficacy outcomes in regulatory application packages to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). New drug applications (NDAs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) submitted between January 2017 and October 2022 were obtained from publicly available FDA drug approval websites. NDAs and BLAs of non-oncologic RD therapies were screened, and manually reviewed using RWE-related keywords. Quantitative summary of number/proportion of study types was provided, whereas qualitative synthesis focused on key categories of output assessing the use of RWD in overall drug approval process, including agency's feedback on its strengths and key challenges. RESULTS: A total of 868 NDAs and BLAs were identified, of which 243 were screened for non-oncologic RDs with ODD, and 151 were subsequently reviewed for the RWD used to support efficacy outcomes. Twenty (12 NDAs, 8 BLAs) applications met the review inclusion criteria. Most (19; 95%) applications used only retrospective RWD, while one (5%) collected RWD both retrospectively and prospectively. RWD studies included natural history including registry-based/retrospective historical controls (14; 70%), retrospective medical chart-reviews (4; 20%), and external RWD controls from other studies (2; 10%). The FDA generally accepted RWD studies demonstrating a large effect size despite the noted concerns and criticisms. However, the agency expressed concerns about overall quality and comparability of RWD with trial data for some applications, including RWD study designs with respect to differences in patients' baseline characteristics, missing information, and potential bias and measurement errors. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights potential benefits of appropriately conducted RWE studies in RD, which can strengthen the clinical evidence for efficacy comparison and contextualization to support product approval efforts, particularly when a large magnitude of effect is observed for the new intervention. Nonetheless, quality and completeness of RWD and its comparability with trial data remain areas of concern that can serve as valuable learnings for advancing future science and regulatory approvals.

Analysis of the first ten years of FDA's rare pediatric disease priority review voucher program: designations, diseases, and drug development.

BACKGROUND: The Rare Pediatric Disease (RPD) Priority Review Voucher (PRV) Program was enacted in 2012 to support the development of new products for children. Prior to requesting a voucher, applicants can request RPD designation, which confirms their product treats or prevents a rare disease in which the serious manifestations primarily affect children. This study describes the trends and characteristics of these designations. Details of RPD designations are not publicly disclosable; this research represents the first analysis of the RPD designation component of the program. RESULTS: We used an internal US Food and Drug Administration database to analyze all RPD designations between 2013 and 2022. Multiple characteristics were analyzed, including the diseases targeted by RPD designation, whether the product targeted a neonatal disease, product type (drug/biologic), and the level of evidence (preclinical/clinical) to support designation. There were 569 RPD designations during the study period. The top therapeutic areas were neurology (26%, n = 149), metabolism (23%, n = 131), oncology (18%, n = 105). The top diseases targeted by RPD designation were Duchenne muscular dystrophy, neuroblastoma, and sickle cell disease. Neonatology products represented 6% (n = 33), over half were for drug products and 38% were supported by clinical data. CONCLUSIONS: The RPD PRV program was created to encourage development of new products for children. The results of this study establish that a wide range of diseases have seen development-from rare pediatric cancers to rare genetic disorders. Continued support of product development for children with rare diseases is needed to find treatments for all children with unmet needs.

Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration new drug and biologic approvals, regulatory pathways, and review times, 1980-2022.

U.S. laws enacted since 1983 have aimed to enhance the development and marketing of new pharmaceutical products. We thoroughly characterized all new molecular entities, therapeutic biologics, and gene and cell therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the period 1980-2022 in the context of these laws and regulations. Throughout the study period, the FDA approved 1355 new pharmaceutical products. The median FDA review time decreased from 26.6 months prior to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (1992), which authorized the FDA to collect fees from drug companies to 9.9 months after the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (2012), which created new designations that eliminated the requirement for evidence of added therapeutic benefit for FDA expedited drug review. The greatest increase in approvals occurred in antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs, biologics, and orphan drugs. More than half of new drug approvals benefited from regulatory designations and pathways that did not require addressing unmet medical needs or demonstrating therapeutic benefit over available alternatives. The legislative goal of bringing more drugs to the market faster has been achieved. Further studies are needed to determine the therapeutic value to patients of new drugs approved using expedited approval pathways.

Orphan drug development: Challenges, regulation, and success stories.

Rare diseases, also known as orphan diseases, are diseases with low occurrence in the population. Developing orphan drugs is challenging because of inadequate financial and scientific resources and insufficient subjects to run clinical trials. With advances in genome sequencing technologies, emergence of cell and gene therapies, and the latest developments in regulatory pathways, some orphan drugs that have curative potential have been approved. In India, due to its large population and resource crunch, developing orphan drugs is phenomenally challenging. After adopting the Orphan Drug Act, the US-FDA has continuously made advances in regulatory pathways for orphan drugs. Particularly, n-of-one clinical trials have been successful in some cases. India has recently adopted policies that have impacted the long-neglected rare-disease ecosystem; however, there is no clear regulatory path for orphan drug development in India. We have proposed a multi-pronged approach involving close collaboration between the government, regulatory bodies, industries, and patient advocacy groups to boost orphan drug development in India. We believe that rapidly evolving technologies and business models can enable better and faster development of novel orphan drugs in India and other resource-constrained countries.

Trends in orphan medicinal products approvals in the European Union between 2010-2022.

BACKGROUND: Over the last twenty years of orphan drug regulation in Europe, the regulatory framework has increased its complexity, with different regulatory paths and tools engineered to facilitate the innovation and accelerate approvals. Recently, the proposal of the new Pharmaceutical Legislation for the European Union, which will replace at least three Regulations and one Directive, was released and its new framework is raising many questions. The aim of this study was to present a characterisation of the Orphan Medicinal Products (OMPs) authorised by the European Commission (EC), between 2010 and 2022, looking into eighteen variables, contributing to the ongoing discussion on the proposal and implementation of the new Pharmaceutical Legislation proposed. METHODS: Data of the OMPs identified and approved between 2010 and 2022 were extracted from the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) produced by the European Medicines Agency. Information regarding legal basis of the application, applicant, protocol assistance received, type of authorization, registration status, type of molecule, ATC code, therapeutic area, target age, disease prevalence, number of pivotal clinical trials supporting the application, clinical trial designs, respective efficacy endpoints and number of patients enrolled in the pivotal clinical trials were extracted. A descriptive statistical analysis was applied. RESULTS: We identified 192 OMPs approved in the period between 2010 and 2022. 89% of the OMPs have legal basis of "full application". 86% of the sponsors received protocol assistance whereas 64% of the MAA benefited from the accelerated assessment. 53% of the active substances are small molecules; about 1 in 5 molecules are repurposed. 40% of the OMPs have oncological therapeutic indications and 56% of the OMPs are intended to treat only adults. 71% of the products were approved based on a single pivotal trial. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of OMPs approved between 2010 and 2022 shows that a shift has occurred in the rare disease medicine development space. Through the period studied we observe an increase of non-small molecules approved, accelerated assessment received and non-standard MA's granted.

Prescription Drug Prices: An AAN Position Statement.

This position statement serves to establish the AAN's stance on the methods to address the cost of prescription drugs being considered by state and federal policymakers so that the AAN can continue to advocate effectively for its members. Neurologists seek to provide high-value care for patients with neurologic diseases at the lowest cost possible. However, many therapies for neurologic diseases are among the most expensive in the United States. The 3 major cost challenges include (1) unjustified increases in the pricing for drugs used to treat neurologic disorders, (2) the high cost of medications used to treat rare diseases where there are limited or no therapeutic options available, and (3) the high cost of noninnovative (already FDA-approved) therapies that used accelerated FDA approval pathways or Orphan Drug Act designated to expedite approvals in neurologic disorders. In each of these cases, AAN is concerned that the high cost does not deliver sufficient value to patients or society. The AAN's position is that action must be taken to ensure that effective prescription medications are accessible for patients with complex, chronic neurologic conditions. Potential solutions should be affordable, simple, and transparent. Cost-containment efforts must also address the burden on the entire healthcare system because high prescription drug prices may be shifted and absorbed in ways that negatively affect patient and prescriber access to important medications. AAN supports price negotiations, the cost saving potential of generics and biosimilars, development of novel therapeutics, price transparency, and importation.

Uptake of orphan drugs in the WHO essential medicines lists.

Objective: We evaluated the uptake of medicines licensed as orphan drugs by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or European Medicines Agency (EMA) into the WHO Model list of essential medicines and the WHO Model list of essential medicines for children from 1977 to 2021. Methods: We collated and analysed data on drug characteristics, reasons for adding or rejecting medicines, and time between regulatory approval and inclusion in the lists. We compared trends in listing orphan drugs before and after revisions to the inclusion criteria of the essential medicines lists in 2001, as well as differences in trends for listing orphan and non-orphan drugs, respectively. Findings: The proportion of orphan drugs in the essential medicines lists increased from 1.9% (4/208) in 1977 to 14.6% (70/478) in 2021. While orphan drugs for communicable diseases have remained stable over time, we observed a considerable shift towards more orphan drugs for noncommunicable diseases, particularly for cancer. The median period for inclusion in the essential medicines lists after either FDA or EMA first approval was 13.5 years (range: 1-28 years). Limited clinical evidence base and uncertainty about the magnitude of net benefit were the most frequent reasons to reject proposals to add new orphan drugs to the essential medicines lists. Conclusion: Despite lack of a global definition of rare diseases, the essential medicines lists have broadened their scope to include medicines for rare conditions. However, the high costs of many listed orphan drugs pose accessibility and reimbursement challenges in resource-constrained settings.

Partial Orphan Cancer Drugs: US Food and Drug Administration Approval, Clinical Benefit, Trials, Epidemiology, Price, Beneficiaries, and Spending.

OBJECTIVES: The Orphan Drug Act (ODA) incentivizes drug development for rare diseases with limited sales potential. Partial orphans-drugs used to treat rare and common diseases-frequently turn into multi-billion dollar blockbusters. This study analyzes partial orphan cancer drugs' development, approval, and economics. METHODS: 170 drugs with US Food and Drug Administration approval for 455 cancer indications were identified (2000-2021). 110 full, 22 partial, and 38 non-orphan drugs were compared regarding their approval, benefits, trials, epidemiology, price, beneficiaries, and spending with data from regulatory documents, Global Burden of Disease study, and Medicare and Medicaid. RESULTS: Full orphans, relative to partial and non-orphans, were more frequently monotherapies for hematologic cancers supported by smaller single-arm trials treating diseases with a lower incidence and higher severity. The time from first to second indication approval was 1 year shorter for partial than full orphans. Full orphans offered a greater overall survival (median: 4.0 vs 2.8 vs 2.8 months, P < .001) and progression-free survival benefit (median: 5.1 vs 2.5 vs 3.6 months, P < .001). Monthly prices were higher for full and partial than non-orphan drugs (median: $17 177 vs $13 284 vs $12 457, P < .001). Beneficiaries (8790 vs 4390 vs 1730) and spending ($570 vs $305 vs $156 million) per drug were greater for partial than non-and full orphans. CONCLUSIONS: Although partial orphans' benefits, trials, and economics are more similar to non-than full orphans, they receive all of the ODA's benefits and are swiftly extended to new indications; resulting in greater spending. A maximum ODA revenue/patient threshold could limit expenditure on partial orphans.

Orphan Drug Label Expansions: Analysis Of Subsequent Rare And Common Indication Approvals.

The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 was enacted to provide financial incentives to stimulate drug development for rare diseases. In recent years, concerns have been raised regarding these orphan drugs, including how many are being approved for both rare and common diseases and the number of subsequent indication approvals. Policy makers have suggested modifications to the Orphan Drug Act's incentives to address these concerns. In this study we investigated the approval "family trees" of orphan drugs. We found that 491 novel orphan drugs were approved between 1990 and 2022. To date, 65 percent have been approved for a single rare disease, 15 percent have been approved for multiple rare diseases, and 20 percent have been approved for both rare and common diseases. Ten percent of orphan drugs received a subsequent indication approval for a pediatric population of an orphan disease. Revenue estimates from 2021 show that one-third of the drugs approved for both rare and common indications and 6 percent of rare-only drugs were among the 200 top-selling drugs worldwide. The results have implications for the possible externalities of modifying the incentives of the Orphan Drug Act, such as a potential decrease in the initiation of programs to develop pediatric rare disease drugs.

A Drug Discovery Perspective on FDA Expedited Development and Incentive Programs.

Expedited development and approval pathways at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) such as Priority review, Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Designation, and Accelerated Approval are programs available to drug sponsors that aim to incentivize and expedite the delivery of drugs to patients in need. In addition, other incentive programs such as Orphan Drug Designation (ODD), Qualified Infectious Disease Product Designation (QIDP), and Rare Pediatric Disease Designation (RPDD) are available to drug sponsors to help motivate development of drugs that may have lower economic incentive for commercialization. These programs have been largely effective, and many new innovative drugs since 2010 have accessed these programs. This Perspective highlights how these programs have been used in recent FDA drug approvals and discusses future ways sponsors and regulatory agencies may further enable development of these innovative drugs in the most expeditious fashion.

Implementation status of pharmacological studies in the development of orphan drugs.

BACKGROUND: The nonclinical as well as clinical development of orphan drugs is difficult, owing to unknown pathophysiology and the absence of animal models. Both, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance and European Medicines Agency (EMA) Guidelines, for orphan drug development describe non-clinical studies, but lack specific information, such as animal species and study design. Against this background, this study aimed to elucidate efficient methods for evaluating nonclinical efficacy based on a review report of orphan drugs approved in Japan. RESULTS: A total of 184 orphan drugs, including 84 anticancer and 100 non-anticancer drugs, approved in Japan from January 2010 to December 2019 were investigated. Some anticancer drugs progressed to clinical development without distinct efficacy data in nonclinical studies. Patient-derived cells have been used for some drugs due to a lack of established cell lines. Cells used for non-clinical studies were devised for drugs indicated for cancers resistant to prior therapies, tumours with specific amino acid mutations in the target molecules, and solid tumours with specific biomarkers. For some non-anticancer drugs, similar disease animal models and normal animals were used for evaluation, since animal models did not exist. Biomarkers have been used specifically for evaluation in normal animals and as endpoints in some clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to evaluate drug efficacy by flexibly designing nonclinical studies according to disease characteristics for potentials orphan drugs. These approaches, which are not described in detail in the EMA Guideline or FDA Guidance, may thus lead to approval.

Applying the win ratio method in clinical trials of orphan drugs: an analysis of data from the COMET trial of avalglucosidase alfa in patients with late-onset Pompe disease.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials for rare diseases often include multiple endpoints that capture the effects of treatment on different disease domains. In many rare diseases, the primary endpoint is not standardized across trials. The win ratio approach was designed to analyze multiple endpoints of interest in clinical trials and has mostly been applied in cardiovascular trials. Here, we applied the win ratio approach to data from COMET, a phase 3 trial in late-onset Pompe disease, to illustrate how this approach can be used to analyze multiple endpoints in the orphan drug context. METHODS: All possible participant pairings from both arms of COMET were compared sequentially on changes at week 49 in upright forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted and six-minute walk test (6MWT). Each participant's response for the two endpoints was first classified as a meaningful improvement, no meaningful change, or a meaningful decline using thresholds based on published minimal clinically important differences (FVC ± 4% predicted, 6MWT ± 39 m). Each comparison assessed whether the outcome with avalglucosidase alfa (AVA) was better than (win), worse than (loss), or equivalent to (tie) the outcome with alglucosidase alfa (ALG). If tied on FVC, 6MWT was compared. In this approach, the treatment effect is the ratio of wins to losses ("win ratio"), with ties excluded. RESULTS: In the 2499 possible pairings (51 receiving AVA × 49 receiving ALG), the win ratio was 2.37 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-4.29, p = 0.005) when FVC was compared before 6MWT. When the order was reversed, the win ratio was 2.02 (95% CI, 1.13-3.62, p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: The win ratio approach can be used in clinical trials of rare diseases to provide meaningful insight on treatment benefits from multiple endpoints and across disease domains.

Cost of Exempting Sole Orphan Drugs From Medicare Negotiation.

Importance: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) requires Medicare to negotiate prices for some high-spending drugs but exempts drugs approved solely for the treatment of a single rare disease. Objective: To estimate Medicare spending and global revenues for drugs that might have been exempt from negotiation from 2012 to 2021. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed drugs that met the IRA threshold for price negotiation (Medicare spending >$200 million/y) in any year from 2012 to 2021 and had an Orphan Drug Act designation. We stratified drugs into 4 mutually exclusive categories: approved for a single rare disease (sole orphan), approved for multiple rare diseases (multiorphan), initially approved for a rare disease and subsequently approved for a nonrare disease (orphan first), and initially approved for a nonrare disease and subsequently approved for a rare disease (non-orphan first). Outcomes: The primary outcomes were the number of sole orphan drugs, estimated Medicare spending on those drugs from 2012 to 2021, and global revenue since launch. Results: Among 282 drugs, 95 (34%) were approved to treat at least 1 rare disease, including 25 sole orphan drugs (26%), 20 multiorphan drugs (21%), 13 orphan first drugs (14%), and 37 non-orphan first drugs (39%). From 2012 to 2021, Medicare spending on sole orphan drugs increased from $3.4 billion to $10.0 billion. Each year, a median (IQR) of $2.5 ($1.9-$2.6) billion in Medicare spending would have been excluded from price negotiation because of the sole orphan exemption. The cumulative global revenue of the median (IQR) sole orphan drug was $11 ($6.6-$19.2) billion. Conclusions and Relevance: The sole orphan exemption will exclude billions of dollars of Medicare drug spending from price negotiation. The high level of global revenues achieved by these drugs, however, suggests that special exemption is unnecessary for them to achieve financial success. Congress could consider removing the sole orphan exemption to obtain additional savings for patients and taxpayers and to eliminate any potential disincentive for developing additional indications for these drugs.

High-cost drugs for rare diseases: their expenditure and value based on a regional area-based study.

Background: in the field of rare diseases (RDs) most of the European studies on budget impact analysis of drugs that have been conducted often lay on theoretical assumptions and focus only on Orphan drugs (ODs). Objectives: we aimed to estimate the budget impact of specific drugs for non-oncological RDs, both ODs and non-ODs, using real-world data about patients residing in Veneto Region (Italy) and to describe its expenditure structure and dynamics. Methods: a population-based multi-source observational study was conducted using data from Regional administrative databases; an ad-hoc drugs' list specific for RDs including both ODs and non-ODs and classifying them by ATC codes has been created. Results: In 2019, the total expenditure for drugs specific for RDs was EUR 97.2 million (6.6% of the total Regional budget). The RD drug list included 58 ATC codes, of which 15 ATC had an annual budget impact over EUR 1 million ("blockbuster drugs"). The most expensive treatment was a non-OD drug (Coagulation factor VIII). The two most represented therapeutical areas were the metabolic and the hematological ones. Conclusions: Cost analyses on RD high-cost drugs expenditure should consider any specific RD drug, not only ODs. Expenditure dynamics for RD drugs are peculiar showing "blockbuster drugs". Some therapeutical areas seem to be lacking in the drug research field.

The Orphan Drug for Acanthamoeba Keratitis (ODAK) Trial: PHMB 0.08% (Polihexanide) and Placebo versus PHMB 0.02% and Propamidine 0.1.

PURPOSE: To compare topical PHMB (polihexanide) 0.02% (0.2 mg/ml)+ propamidine 0.1% (1 mg/ml) with PHMB 0.08% (0.8 mg/ml)+ placebo (PHMB 0.08%) for Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) treatment. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-masked, active-controlled, multicenter phase 3 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03274895). PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-five patients treated at 6 European centers. METHODS: Principal inclusion criteria were 12 years of age or older and in vivo confocal microscopy with clinical findings consistent with AK. Also included were participants with concurrent bacterial keratitis who were using topical steroids and antiviral and antifungal drugs before randomization. Principal exclusion criteria were concurrent herpes or fungal keratitis and use of antiamebic therapy (AAT). Patients were randomized 1:1 using a computer-generated block size of 4. This was a superiority trial having a predefined noninferiority margin. The sample size of 130 participants gave approximately 80% power to detect 20-percentage point superiority for PHMB 0.08% for the primary outcome of the medical cure rate (MCR; without surgery or change of AAT) within 12 months, cure defined by clinical criteria 90 days after discontinuing anti-inflammatory agents and AAT. A prespecified multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline imbalances in risk factors affecting outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was MCR within 12 months, with secondary outcomes including best-corrected visual acuity and treatment failure rates. Safety outcomes included adverse event rates. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five participants were randomized, providing 127 in the full-analysis subset (61 receiving PHMB 0.02%+ propamidine and 66 receiving PHMB 0.08%) and 134 in the safety analysis subset. The adjusted MCR within 12 months was 86.6% (unadjusted, 88.5%) for PHMB 0.02%+ propamidine and 86.7% (unadjusted, 84.9%) for PHMB 0.08%; the noninferiority requirement for PHMB 0.08% was met (adjusted difference, 0.1 percentage points; lower one-sided 95% confidence limit, -8.3 percentage points). Secondary outcomes were similar for both treatments and were not analyzed statistically: median best-corrected visual acuity of 20/20 and an overall treatment failure rate of 17 of 127 patients (13.4%), of whom 8 of 127 patients (6.3%) required therapeutic keratoplasty. No serious drug-related adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: PHMB 0.08% monotherapy may be as effective (or at worse only 8 percentage points less effective) as dual therapy with PHMB 0.02%+ propamidine (a widely used therapy) with medical cure rates of more than 86%, when used with the trial treatment delivery protocol in populations with AK with similar disease severity. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

[Current Status and Issues in Drug Development for Rare Cancers].

Since 1993, the"R & D Promotion System for Orphan Drugs and Orphan Medical Devices"has been in operation to support the development of orphan drugs in Japan. Various supportive measures are in place for indications that target less than 50,000 patients, have high medical needs and high probability of successful development(which means regulatory approval). However, recently a trend was observed that the designation for orphan drugs occurred most often in late phase of development, because clinical data for late stage clinical studies were required to show the high probability of successful regulatory approval. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare are trying to make efforts to expand the orphan drug designation, and have made the decision to include the related expenses will be included in the FY 2023 budget request. It is expected that the expansion of orphan drug designation will lead to promote drug development in rare disease area. On the other hand, fundamental reform is considered necessary for this system. Among the approved anti-cancer drugs that obtained orphan designation in the U. S. and EU as of 2020, there are 24 drugs that have not been approved in Japan. Of these, there are at least 16 drugs approved in either China, Taiwan, and South Korea. From viewpoint of development pathway of an orphan drug, participation in a multi-regional clinical trial(MRCT)is useful, but there are cases that Japan cannot join MRCT in time due to the requirement of Japanese safety data prior to the participation. In that case, it is impossible to conduct a separate clinical trial to obtain Japan regulatory approval due to very limited patients(eg several to several tens of Ultra-Orphan). A review system that allows earlier patient access is desired.

[PMDA's Initiatives to Encourage the New Drug Development for Rare Cancers].

Rare cancers, estimated to account for 15% of all cancers, have many unmet medical needs, but at the same time, developing treatments for these cancers is fraught with difficulties. PMDA's efforts to promote and support the development of treatments for rare cancers include the development consultation to meet the needs of emerging biopharma(EBP), promotion of development through multi-regional clinical trials, and development support for investigator-initiated clinical trials. In addition, the development environment for rare cancers and rare subtypes has been improved through the revision of clinical evaluation guidelines, consultation programs and guidance publication for the utilization of RWDs, and the accumulation of tissue-agnostic cancer drug approvals. Regarding the Orphan Drug Designation System, about one-third of the 267 drugs designated during the 15-year period from 2004-2018 were anti-cancer drugs. Looking at the approvals of anti-cancer drugs during the past 10 years(2013-2022), 26%(53/203)of drugs for solid tumors and 60%(62/104)of drugs for hematologic tumors received orphan drug designation. Regulatory measures that support the development for rare cancers include not only the Orphan Drug Designation but also the Conditional Accelerated Approval, which facilitates the development of drugs for diseases where timely conduct of a confirmatory clinical trial is difficult, and the Sakigake Designation that allows the accelerated approval of innovative new drugs. PMDA will continue its efforts to promote drug development in response to changes of the circumstances surrounding drug development as well as developer's need and will make further efforts to disseminate information of those measures both domestically and internationally.

Costs of orphan medicinal products: longitudinal analysis of expenditure in Wales.

BACKGROUND: The Orphan Regulation ((EC) No 141/2000) has successfully redirected private and public investment towards previously neglected areas through incentives, regulatory obligations and rewards. However, the growth in the number of licensed orphan medicinal products (OMPs) has led to concerns about increased costs. The aims were to investigate the trend in the costs of OMPs to the National Health Service in Wales, to attribute costs of medicines within and outside periods of marketing exclusivity, and estimate the contribution of individual medicines to the overall costs of OMPs. METHODS: Expenditure on OMPs in Wales was analysed between the 2014/15 and 2019/20 financial years using data on prescriptions dispensed in primary care, secondary care, and specialised commissioned services. OMP spend was calculated as a proportion of total medicines expenditure, whether it was incurred during, or outside the marketing exclusivity period (MEP), and by therapeutic area and medicine. RESULTS: Overall spend on OMPs and all medicines increased from £32 m to £82 m, and from £1,030 m to £1,198 m, respectively, with the proportion of spend on OMPs more than doubling from 3.1% to 6.9% per annum. Average year-on-year growth in the costs of OMPs was 21%, compared to 2% for other medicines. Costs following MEP expiry contributed significantly to overall OMP costs, increasing from £8 m to £30 m, corresponding to an increase from 24% to 37%. Treatments for 'malignant disease and immunosuppression', 'nutrition and blood' and the 'respiratory system' accounted for 90% of all OMP spend. Half of total OMP annual expenditure was on just 4 medicines in 2014/15, increasing to 8 in 2019/20. CONCLUSIONS: Both the number of OMPs and the amount spent on OMPs in Wales has increased over time, possibly as a consequence of favourable licensing conditions, permissive health technology assessment policies and dedicated funding.