Paolo Caferra, Thomas Fraisse, Maria Letizia Trincavelli, Laura Marchetti, Anna Maria Piras
{"title":"2018 年至 2023 年欧盟孤儿维护生物药品评估:监管视角。","authors":"Paolo Caferra, Thomas Fraisse, Maria Letizia Trincavelli, Laura Marchetti, Anna Maria Piras","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2024.2422360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Orphan medicinal products (OMPs) authorized by the European Union (EU) benefit from market exclusivity, fee waivers, and national incentives. Maintaining orphan status during a marketing authorization application requires meeting eligibility criteria, especially demonstrating significant benefit (SB), which is challenging. This study identifies key features linked to successful orphan status maintenance for biological OMPs approved in the EU between 2018 and 2023.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from European public assessment reports and orphan maintenance assessment reports were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 50 biological OMP maintained orphan designations, 68.0% had to demonstrate SB over existing treatments, with 91.2% leveraging the clinically relevant advantage area, utilizing better clinical efficacy (83.9%) and efficacy in subpopulations (38.7%) subdomains. However, 32.0% did not need to demonstrate SB due to a lack of alternative treatments, most of which were ultra-orphan drugs. Advanced therapy medicinal products and monoclonal antibodies were the most numerous OMP categories, whereas oncology and immunomodulation were the preferred therapeutic areas.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Orphan Regulation is essential in advancing treatments for rare diseases, fostering innovation while addressing unmet medical needs. Nonetheless, the insufficient return on investment criterion remains underused, whereas refining major contribution to patient care guidelines and incorporating real-world evidence may enhance regulatory evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of orphan maintained biological medicinal products in the European Union between 2018 to 2023: a regulatory perspective.\",\"authors\":\"Paolo Caferra, Thomas Fraisse, Maria Letizia Trincavelli, Laura Marchetti, Anna Maria Piras\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14712598.2024.2422360\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Orphan medicinal products (OMPs) authorized by the European Union (EU) benefit from market exclusivity, fee waivers, and national incentives. Maintaining orphan status during a marketing authorization application requires meeting eligibility criteria, especially demonstrating significant benefit (SB), which is challenging. This study identifies key features linked to successful orphan status maintenance for biological OMPs approved in the EU between 2018 and 2023.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from European public assessment reports and orphan maintenance assessment reports were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 50 biological OMP maintained orphan designations, 68.0% had to demonstrate SB over existing treatments, with 91.2% leveraging the clinically relevant advantage area, utilizing better clinical efficacy (83.9%) and efficacy in subpopulations (38.7%) subdomains. However, 32.0% did not need to demonstrate SB due to a lack of alternative treatments, most of which were ultra-orphan drugs. Advanced therapy medicinal products and monoclonal antibodies were the most numerous OMP categories, whereas oncology and immunomodulation were the preferred therapeutic areas.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Orphan Regulation is essential in advancing treatments for rare diseases, fostering innovation while addressing unmet medical needs. Nonetheless, the insufficient return on investment criterion remains underused, whereas refining major contribution to patient care guidelines and incorporating real-world evidence may enhance regulatory evaluations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2024.2422360\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2024.2422360","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of orphan maintained biological medicinal products in the European Union between 2018 to 2023: a regulatory perspective.
Objectives: Orphan medicinal products (OMPs) authorized by the European Union (EU) benefit from market exclusivity, fee waivers, and national incentives. Maintaining orphan status during a marketing authorization application requires meeting eligibility criteria, especially demonstrating significant benefit (SB), which is challenging. This study identifies key features linked to successful orphan status maintenance for biological OMPs approved in the EU between 2018 and 2023.
Methods: Data from European public assessment reports and orphan maintenance assessment reports were analyzed.
Results: Among the 50 biological OMP maintained orphan designations, 68.0% had to demonstrate SB over existing treatments, with 91.2% leveraging the clinically relevant advantage area, utilizing better clinical efficacy (83.9%) and efficacy in subpopulations (38.7%) subdomains. However, 32.0% did not need to demonstrate SB due to a lack of alternative treatments, most of which were ultra-orphan drugs. Advanced therapy medicinal products and monoclonal antibodies were the most numerous OMP categories, whereas oncology and immunomodulation were the preferred therapeutic areas.
Conclusion: The Orphan Regulation is essential in advancing treatments for rare diseases, fostering innovation while addressing unmet medical needs. Nonetheless, the insufficient return on investment criterion remains underused, whereas refining major contribution to patient care guidelines and incorporating real-world evidence may enhance regulatory evaluations.
期刊介绍:
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (1471-2598; 1744-7682) is a MEDLINE-indexed, international journal publishing peer-reviewed research across all aspects of biological therapy.
Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the impact of the topic on research and clinical practice and the scope for future development.
The audience consists of scientists and managers in the healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries and others closely involved in the development and application of biological therapies for the treatment of human disease.
The journal welcomes:
Reviews covering therapeutic antibodies and vaccines, peptides and proteins, gene therapies and gene transfer technologies, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine
Drug evaluations reviewing the clinical data on a particular biological agent
Original research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on biological agents and biotherapeutic-based studies with a strong link to clinical practice
Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Collection format and includes the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results;
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.