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.

The European landscape for gene therapies in orphan diseases: 6-year experience with the EMA Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products.

In 2000, the European Union (EU) introduced the orphan pharmaceutical legislation to incentivize the development of medicinal products for rare diseases. The Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP), the European Medicines Agency committee responsible for evaluation of applications for orphan designation (OD), received an increasing flow of applications in the field of gene therapies over the last years. Here, the COMP has conducted a descriptive analysis of applications regarding gene therapies in non-oncological rare diseases, with respect to (a) targeted conditions and their rarity, (b) characteristics of the gene therapy products proposed for OD, with a focus on the type of vector used, and (c) regulatory aspects pertaining to the type of sponsor and development, by examining the use of available frameworks offered in the EU such as protocol assistance and PRIME. It was noted that gene therapies are being developed by sponsors from different backgrounds. Most conditions being targeted are monogenic, the most common being lysosomal disorders, and with a very low prevalence. Generally, adeno-associated viral vectors were being used to deliver the transgene. Finally, sponsors are not frequently using the incentives that may support the development and the reasons for this are unclear.

Haemophilia, state of the art and new therapeutic opportunities, a regulatory perspective.

Haemophilia A and B are rare bleeding disorders. Over the past decades, they have been transformed from debilitating diseases to manageable conditions in the Western world. However, optimizing haemophilia care remains challenging in developing countries. Several challenges and unmet needs remain in the treatment of the haemophilia limiting the QoL of patients. These challenges are now being addressed by extended half-life recombinant factors, rebalancing and substitution therapies. Gene therapy and genome editing show promise for a definite clinical cure. Here, we provide an overview of new therapeutic opportunities for haemophilia and their advances and limitations from a regulatory perspective. The database on human medicines from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was used and data from rare disease (orphan) designations and EPARs were retrieved for the analysis. Clinical trial databases were used to query all active studies on haemophilia. Gene therapy medicinal products based on AAV and lentiviral vectors are in development and clinical trials have reported substantial success in ameliorating bleeding tendency in haemophilia patients. The prospect of gene editing for correction of the underlying mutation is on the horizon and has considerable potential. With regard to the benefit of the gene therapy medicinal products, more long-term efficacy and safety data are awaited. We are entering an era of innovation and abundance in treatment options for those affected by bleeding disorders, but issues remain about the affordability and accessibility to patients.

Removal of the EMA orphan designation upon request of the sponsor: cui prodest?

PURPOSE: Various incentives are provided by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to facilitate the development and marketing of orphan drugs. A 10-year period of market exclusivity is reserved to an orphan medicinal product. Sometimes, the sponsor renounces the designation before the expiration of that standard period. Our aim was to focus on these premature withdrawals. METHODS: We retrieved all the molecules included in the Community Register of Orphan Medicinal Products for Human Use from 2000 to November 2020. We considered the active substance, therapeutic indication, sponsor, year of designation, year of approval of the corresponding medicinal product, and that of the withdrawal of the orphan designation, if occurred. RESULTS: Overall, 2350 orphan designations were approved from 2000 to November 2020. Of these, 141 have been marketed. Premature withdrawal of orphan designation concerned 23 drugs (20 being antineoplastic agents), corresponding to 16 medicinal products. These withdrawals occurred after almost 2 years (range <1-7 years). CONCLUSIONS: A not negligible fraction of marketed orphan medicinal products underwent premature removal of their orphan designation. No motivation is requested by the EMA for this renouncement, although the peculiarity of the orphan medicinal products would need a greater transparency. We can only speculate about possible compensations in support of this decision, for instance in terms of commercial agreements between pharmaceutical companies, giving way to alternative products, as a couple of examples suggest. An open debate on this topic among members of academia, regulatory bodies, price and reimbursements committees, and pharmaceutical industry representatives will be welcome.

Challenges in Research and Health Technology Assessment of Rare Disease Technologies: Report of the ISPOR Rare Disease Special Interest Group.

BACKGROUND: Successful development of new treatments for rare diseases (RDs) and their sustainable patient access require overcoming a series of challenges related to research and health technology assessment (HTA). These impediments, which may be unique to RDs or also apply to common diseases but are particularly pertinent in RDs, are diverse and interrelated. OBJECTIVE: To develop for the first time a catalog of primary impediments to RD research and HTA, and to describe the cause and effect of individual challenges. METHODS: Challenges were identified by an international 22-person expert working group and qualitative outreach to colleagues with relevant expertise. A broad range of stakeholder perspectives is represented. Draft results were presented at annual European and North American International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) congresses, and written comments were received by the 385-strong ISPOR Rare Disease Review Group from two rounds of review. Findings were refined and confirmed via targeted literature search. RESULTS: Research-related challenges linked to the low prevalence of RDs were categorized into those pertaining to disease recognition and diagnosis, evaluation of treatment effect, and patient recruitment for clinical research. HTA-related challenges were classified into issues relating to the lack of a tailored HTA method for RD treatments and uncertainty for HTA agencies and health care payers. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying and highlighting diverse, but interrelated, key challenges in RD research and HTA is an essential first step toward developing implementable and sustainable solutions. A collaborative multistakeholder effort is required to enable faster and less costly development of safe, efficacious, and appropriate new RD therapies that offer value for money.

Navigating through orphan medicinal product regulations in EU and US--similarities and differences.

Rare diseases as the name suggests are the diseases which occur in a very small population due to which the development of medicinal products for these diseases is sidelined as it is anticipated that the cost of development will never be recovered from the sales. It has been estimated by National Institute of Health (NIH) that globally around 7000 rare diseases are there, many of which are of genetic origin. This paper aims to analyze the basic similarities and differences between the rules and regulations put forth by regulatory agencies of US and EU for development of medicinal products for rare diseases, also called orphan medicinal products. The basic purpose was to carve out the loopholes as well as positive aspects of each of these acts and regulations so as to have a clear understanding on the subject. It was to understand that how these legal instruments have stimulated the growth of the drug products for rare diseases and what other things can be done in order to achieve a better impact. This article also provides an overview of the various incentives offered as well as challenges and hurdles faced by each of these regulatory agencies while implementing these regulations.

Feasibility of disease terminology systems for mapping orphan conditions and therapeutic indications of designated orphan medicines in the European Union.

BACKGROUND: In the European Union, rare diseases are defined as diseases that affect maximum 5 in 10,000 citizens. These diseases are typically associated with a high unmet medical need. To stimulate development and authorisation of medicines for rare diseases ('orphan conditions'), the European Commission (EC) can grant orphan designations. In order to enable systematic evaluation and communication of the diseases for which designated orphan medicines have (not) been developed and authorised, we aimed to investigate the feasibility of important disease terminology systems for mapping orphan conditions and therapeutic indications. METHODS: We selected all designated orphan medicines that were authorised by the EC during 2022-2023 from the EC's Union Register of medicinal products. For these medicines, we extracted orphan conditions and associated therapeutic indications at initial marketing authorisation. The orphan conditions and separate elements of therapeutic indications such as target disease or condition, severity criteria and target population were assessed for availability in six major disease terminology systems: ICD-10, ICD-11, MedDRA, MeSH, Orphanet nomenclature of rare diseases, and SNOMED CT. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the ability of each disease terminology system to map orphan conditions and elements of therapeutic indications. RESULTS: During 2022-2023, 37 designated orphan medicines were authorised that were designated for 40 orphan conditions (of which 37 unique) and granted 39 therapeutic indications (of which 37 unique). Overall, SNOMED CT covered most descriptions of orphan conditions (33/37, 89 %) and target diseases or conditions within therapeutic indications (28/37, 76 %). However, when allowing descriptions to be partly included and/or complemented by additional words, SNOMED CT, the Orphanet nomenclature, ICD-11 and MedDRA all had high coverage (92-97 %). Other elements than target diseases or conditions within therapeutic indications were mostly lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Regulatory data concerning orphan conditions and therapeutic indications of designated orphan medicines seem to be best covered by SNOMED CT. However, which disease terminology system best facilitates systematic evaluation and communication about development and authorisation of designated orphan medicines also depends on the specific use case. Given the frequent use of SNOMED CT in healthcare settings, it may also facilitate interoperability between regulatory and healthcare data, while for example ICD-11 may be better suited to generate statistics concerning drug development for rare diseases.

Inherited retinal dystrophies and orphan designations in the European Union.

Inherited Retinal Dystrophies (IRD) are diverse rare diseases that affect the retina and lead to visual impairment or blindness. Research in this field is ongoing, with over 60 EU orphan medicinal products designated in this therapeutic area by the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) at the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Up to now, COMP has used traditional disease terms, like retinitis pigmentosa, for orphan designation regardless of the product's mechanism of action. The COMP reviewed the designation approach for IRDs taking into account all previous Orphan Designations (OD) experience in IRDs, the most relevant up to date scientific literature and input from patients and clinical experts. Following the review, the COMP decided that there should be three options available for orphan designation concerning the condition: i) an amended set of OD groups for therapies that might be used in a broad spectrum of conditions, ii) a gene-specific designation for targeted therapies, and iii) an occasional term for products that do not fit in the above two categories. The change in the approach to orphan designation in IRDs caters for different scenarios to allow an optimum approach for future OD applications including the option of a gene-specific designation. By applying this new approach, the COMP increases the regulatory clarity, efficiency, and predictability for sponsors, aligns EU regulatory tools with the latest scientific and medical developments in the field of IRDs, and ensures that all potentially treatable patients will be included in the scope of an OD.

Increasing orphan drug loss in Japan: Trends and R&D strategy for rare diseases.

Rare disease (RD) patients face significant unmet therapeutic needs worldwide. However, orphan drugs approved in the United States, but not approved or developed in Japan, have increased rapidly with recently increasing US approvals, indicating greater RD drug loss in Japan. US/EU-based startups have become key players in RD drug R&D, significantly contributing to this drug loss trend. They successfully develop drugs in the United States by combining in-licensing with in-house drug discovery. Out-licensing to Japanese companies or large pharma is critical for expansion into Japan, with successes attributed to drug innovation, target indications, and transactional capabilities. These findings highlight the need to foster partnerships with startups and cultivate an ecosystem in Japan that nurtures local startups, to address drug loss and ensure access to promising drugs.

Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, US Congress enabled the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to facilitate and expedite drug development for serious conditions filling unmet medical needs with five special designations and review pathways: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study reviews the FDA's five special designations for drug development regarding their safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, clinical trials, innovation, economic incentives, development timelines, and price. METHODS: We conducted a keyword search to identify studies analyzing the impact of the FDA's special designations (orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy) on the safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, trials, innovativeness, economic incentives, development times, and pricing of new drugs. Results were summarized in a narrative overview. RESULTS: Expedited approval reduces new drugs' time to market. However, faster drug development and regulatory review are associated with more unrecognized adverse events and post-marketing safety revisions. Clinical trials supporting special FDA approvals frequently use small, non-randomized, open-label designs. Required post-approval trials to monitor unknown adverse events are often delayed or not even initiated. Evidence suggests that drugs approved under special review pathways, marketed as "breakthroughs", are more innovative and deliver a higher clinical benefit than those receiving standard FDA approval. Special designations are an economically viable strategy for investors and pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for rare diseases with unmet medical needs, due to financial incentives, expedited development timelines, higher clinical trial success rates, alongside greater prices. Nonetheless, patients, physicians, and insurers are concerned about spending money on drugs without a proven benefit or even on drugs that turn out to be ineffective. While European countries established performance- and financial-based managed entry agreements to account for this uncertainty in clinical trial evidence and cost-effectiveness, the pricing and reimbursement of these drugs remain largely unregulated in the US. CONCLUSION: Special FDA designations shorten clinical development and FDA approval times for new drugs treating rare and severe diseases with unmet medical needs. Special-designated drugs offer a greater clinical benefit to patients. However, physicians, patients, and insurers must be aware that special-designated drugs are often approved based on non-robust trials, associated with more unrecognized side effects, and sold for higher prices.

Drugs and biologics receiving FDA orphan drug designation: an analysis of the most frequently designated products and their repositioning strategies.

Background: The Orphan Drug Act was created to stimulate the development of drugs and biologics for rare diseases. Investigating products that have received orphan drug designation provide a greater understanding of rare disease drug development, as well as the repositioning business models of developers. Research design and methods: We used a dataset containing all orphan drug designations between 1983 and 2019. To analyze the orphan products, we constructed a variable, 'unique product,' that allowed for the standardization of generic names of drugs and biologics. Additional analysis was performed on the most frequently designated unique products and their repositioning strategies. Results: We found 5,099 orphan drug designations representing 3,269 unique products, of which 508 had an orphan-designated approval from FDA. Unique products with only a single designation represented 2,448 (75%) of the total products and 26 (1%) products had 10 or more designations. Over 60% of these unique products with 10 or more designations were antineoplastics or immunomodulators. Conclusions: The most designated unique products revealed a continuum of repositioning strategies, from the repurposing of approved drugs to parallel indication development programs for recently developed drugs. The fact that over 3,000 unique products have been studied for rare diseases indicates that future repositioning opportunities may become increasingly available.

Contribution of patient registries to regulatory decision making on rare diseases medicinal products in Europe.

Between 2000 and 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) assigned the orphan designation to over 1,900 medicines. Due to their small target populations, leading to challenges regarding clinical trial recruitment, study design and little knowledge on the natural history of the disease, the overall clinical evidence submitted at the time of marketing authorisation application for these medicines is often limited. Patient registries have been recognised as important sources of data on healthcare practices, drug utilisation and clinical outcomes. They may help address these challenges by providing information on epidemiology, standards of care and treatment patterns of rare diseases. In this review, we illustrate the utility of patient registries across the different stages of development of medicinal products, including orphans, to provide evidence in the context of clinical studies and to generate post-authorisation long term data on their effectiveness and safety profiles. We present important initiatives leveraging the role of registries for orphan medicinal products' development and monitoring to ultimately improve patients' lives.

Orphan Designation and Cisplatin/Hyaluronan Complex in an Intracavitary Film for Malignant Mesothelioma.

Pleural mesothelioma is a lung diffuse tumor, whose complete resection is unlikely. Consequently, metastases reappear where the primary tumor was removed. This paper illustrates the orphan medicine designation procedure of an intracavitary cisplatin film and related pharmaceutical development aspects requested by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in its Scientific Advice. Since cisplatin pharmacokinetics from the implanted film in sheep resulted substantially modified compared to intravenous administration, the formation of a cisplatin/hyaluronan complex had been hypothesized. Here, the interaction between sodium hyaluronate (NaHA) and cisplatin (CisPt) was demonstrated. Size exclusion chromatography qualitatively evidenced the complex in the film-forming mixture, only showing the NaHA peak. Atomic absorption spectroscopy of the corresponding fraction revealed platinum, confirming the interaction. Reverse phase HPLC quantified about 5% free cisplatin in the film-forming mixture, indirectly meaning that 95% was complexed. Finally, a study of CisPt release from the film assessed how CisPt/NaHA complex affected drug availability. In water, a medium without chloride ions, there was no release and the film remained intact for 48 h and longer, whereas the placebo film dissolved in 15 min. In 0.9% NaCl medium, the film became more soluble, dissolving within 3-4 h. However, cisplatin release was still controlled by the existing complex in solution until chloride ions displaced it. While the film modified its dissolution with aging, CisPt release remained unaffected (90% released in 48 h).

Defining Satisfactory Methods of Treatment in Rare Diseases When Evaluating Significant Benefit-The EU Regulator's Perspective.

Since the implementation of the EU Orphan Regulation in 2000, the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products at the European Medicines Agency has been evaluating the benefits of proposed orphan medicines vs. satisfactory treatment methods. This type of evaluation is foreseen in the Orphan Regulation as the orphan designation criterion called the "significant benefit." In this article, based on 20 years of experience, we provide a commentary explaining what is considered a satisfactory method of treatment in the context of the EU Orphan Regulation and for the purpose of the assessment of significant benefit. We discuss the challenges posed by continuously changing clinical practise, which is associated with the increasing number of treatment options, evolving nature of medicinal therapeutic indications and our understanding of them.

Regulatory Standards in Orphan Medicinal Product Designation in the EU.

Twenty years of orphan regulation in Europe have now elapsed, with almost 2,400 orphan designated medicinal products and more than 190 orphan products authorised in the EU. Alongside the evolution in understanding of rare diseases, considerable regulatory knowledge has also been accumulated regarding the level of evidence that would support inclusion of products into the framework. This article reviews publications and regulatory documents pertaining to orphan medicinal product designation in the EU and discusses the general expectations in submitted applications as reflected in the current regulatory practise. Important elements to recommend granting a European orphan designation are the key considerations of orphan condition, medical plausibility, seriousness, and prevalence, while significant benefit is also assessed when there are authorised medicinal products for the sought indication. This review attempts to clarify the specific concepts currently used in that regard and discusses how the available data can be used to justify the criteria for designation. Moving away from theoretical expectations or assumptions, it stresses that the applications have to be complemented with nosological and epidemiological justifications pertaining to the proposed condition, as well as relevant data in specific non-clinical in vivo models or in affected patients to support inclusion into the orphan scheme.

Orphan Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer: Lessons Learned From Two Decades of Orphan Designation.

Pancreatic cancer has a dismal prognosis and only a few treatment options are available. In the European Union, pancreatic cancer classifies as a rare disease, allowing drug developers to apply for orphan medicinal product (OMP) designation. The aim of this study was to provide more detail on OMPs for pancreatic cancer. All applications for OMP designation submitted to the EMA between 2000 and 2019 were identified. For each medicinal product that received an OMP designation, the mode of drug action, use of protocol assistance, and current life cycle status was determined. Fifty-two medicinal products received an OMP designation. At the time of submission, eighteen OMPs were at the non-clinical and 34 OMPs were at the clinical stage of development. At least fourteen kinds of mode of action were explored in the condition. For eighteen out of 52 OMPs protocol assistance was sought. At the time of data analysis, one OMP received marketing authorisation and 24 OMPs were ongoing in development. Many medicinal products for pancreatic cancer received an OMP designation and the majority of these products was already in the clinical stage of development. Nonetheless, the success rate of OMPs for pancreatic cancer that reach the market is low, and increasing this rate is something to aspire. Fortunately, development is still ongoing for a part of the OMPs, and a few developers are planning to submit a marketing authorisation application in the near future. This however does not guarantee success, as pancreatic cancer remains a difficult disease to treat. Developers are advised to make optimal use of incentives such as protocol assistance, establishing (early) dialogue between regulators and drug developers and to agree on important topics such as clinical trial design.

Comparative analysis of the scope of European Union paediatric investigation plans with corresponding orphan designations.

BACKGROUND: Market forces may not be sufficient to stimulate research and development of medicines for small patient populations, such as children and patients with rare diseases. Both the European Union Orphan and Paediatric Regulations were introduced to address the unmet public health needs of these smaller patient populations through the use of incentives, rewards and obligations. Developers for new medicines for rare diseases must agree a paediatric investigation plan (PIP) or waiver with the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) Paediatric Committee (PDCO), and can also apply for an orphan designation (OD) from the EMA's Committee of Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP). The scope of both the OD and the PIP (or waiver) is defined by the agreed condition. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyse the approach of PDCO and COMP in defining the appropriate condition for a PIP or OD, respectively, in order to investigate potential challenges in the paediatric development of orphan medicines which have to meet the requirements of both legislations. METHODS: A comparative analysis of PIP conditions and OD conditions was performed for medicines that have been reviewed by both Committees. RESULTS: We found that in the substantial majority of cases there is no divergence between the conclusions of COMP and PDCO with regard to the condition for which a medicine is to be developed. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that a collaborative approach allows both Regulations to work synergistically to foster pharmaceutical development for rare diseases in childhood.

Do investors value the FDA orphan drug designation?

BACKGROUND: The Orphan Drug Act is an important piece of legislation that uses financial incentives to encourage the development of drugs that treat rare diseases. This analysis studies the effects of a portion of the Orphan Drug Act, the orphan drug designation. Specifically, it studies the value that investors place on the orphan drug designation, by investigating how investors react to companies' announcing that their product has received the designation. RESULTS: The results, on average, show that the stock price of a company increases by 3.36% after the announcement of the designation, increasing the value of the company. The results are more pronounced for oncology drugs, and drugs being developed by the smallest companies. CONCLUSION: The orphan designation appears to be successful at generating positive value for companies, as seen by the positive and significant average increases in stock price.

Are products with an orphan designation for oncology indications different from products for other rare indications? A retrospective analysis of European orphan designations granted between 2002-2012.

BACKGROUND: Orphan designated medicinal products benefit from regulatory and economic incentives for orphan drug development. Approximately 40% of orphan designations target rare neoplastic disorders, referring to rare cancers. In order to provide more insights in drugs for rare neoplastic disorders that are under development and to better understand the role of orphan designation in the development of oncology drugs, this study investigates the characteristics of the product, the indication and the applicants as well as the stage of development of products with an orphan designation for rare neoplastic disorders and compares them with products with an orphan designation for other rare indications. Therefore, orphan designation application files and annual reports submitted by the applicant were reviewed at the premises of the European Medicines Agency. RESULTS: At the time of application, 41.6% of products with orphan designation for rare neoplastic disorders were in pre-clinical phase; this was 65.1% for other rare conditions (p < 0.05). Thirty percent of orphan designations for rare neoplastic disorders had reached phase 1; compared to 19.3% of orphan designations targeting other rare conditions (p < 0.05). The same trend was observed for the stage of development at the time of the latest annual report. Significant benefit was more often considered for orphan designations for rare neoplastic disorders compared to orphan designations for other rare conditions. CONCLUSION: Orphan designations for rare neoplastic disorders involve products that are in a more advanced stages of development compared to orphan designations for other (non-oncology) rare conditions.

Evolving prevalence of haematological malignancies in orphan designation procedures in the European Union.

The Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) evaluates prevalence of rare conditions as one of the criteria for granting an orphan designation with a prevalence threshold of 5 in 10.000. At the time of Marketing Authorisation (MA) these criteria are reassessed to ensure they are still met. The COMP has noted discordance between the prevalence of certain haematological malignancies at the time of Orphan Designation and at the time of Marketing Authorisation. Consequently, we conducted a retrospective assessment of Chronic Lymphocytic Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma/Plasma cell Myeloma as well as several other haematological rare aetiologies frequently subject of orphan designation. These were: Diffuse large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), Follicular Lymphoma (FL), Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (CTCL), Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) and Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia (CML). The review used submissions as well as recent publications and results from external and EMA databases. As a first step in the analysis, an increase over time in the number of people affected was evident for four conditions in the COMP designation documents, whereas for DLBCL, FL, CTCL and MCL there had been no significant change, since the introduction of the Regulation in 2000. Specifically, the prevalence estimates increased from 1.2 to 3.6 per 10,000 for multiple myeloma, from 0.4 to 1.7 in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, and from 2.7 to 4.85 for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic leukaemia and 1 to 2 in 10,000 for chronic myeloid leukaemia. The reasons for the changes in the prevalence of these four haematological conditions over the last 15 years were not assessed but recent publications have alluded to better outcomes due to new treatments being made available. In addition, many orphan diseases have a median age of onset over 60 years so that also the aging of the population may be a relevant contributing factor.