While no one argues that orphan drugs that treat rare diseases can be expensive, the drugs’ reputation for being budget-busters is not borne out by a data presented in a recent report by Quintiles IMS Institute.
While no one argues that orphan drugs that treat rare diseases can be expensive, the drugs’ reputation for being budget-busters is not borne out by a data presented in a recent report by Quintiles IMS Institute, “Orphan Drugs in the United States: Providing Context for Use and Cost.”
Between 25 million and 30 million Americans suffer from rare diseases—serious, chronic diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people, which can become progressively disabling and limit life expectancy. There are approximately 7000 rare diseases, and children make up more than half of affected patients. A challenge faced by patients and caregivers in the rare disease community is the lack of treatments available: treatments exist for just 5% of an estimated 7000 rare diseases.
The Orphan Drug Act (ODA) of 1983 greatly advanced efforts to introduce more treatments for rare diseases. The ODA provides tax incentives and research grants for drug makers to develop therapies for these diseases, extends marketing exclusivity to patentable as well as unpatentable drugs, and exempts orphan drugs and biologics from submitting a new drug application (NDA) or paying user fees charged by FDA. The 449 approved orphan therapies for 549 orphan indications has led to small-molecule drugs and biologics to treat rare diseases across numerous therapeutic categories.
Of the 449 approved orphan drugs, 351 have only orphan indications, while 98 have both orphan and non-orphan indications. An example of a drug with both orphan and non-orphan approved indications is the biologic Humira (adalimumab), which was approved in 2002 for rheumatoid arthritis and then received 4 approvals for orphan-designated indications. Use in these indications accounts for only a small fraction of overall spending on Humira: use in rare diseases accounted for just 3.8% of the total US adalimumab use in 2016.
In fact, the report found that, in 2016, spending on orphan drugs and orphan indications represented only 7.9% ($36 billion) of the $450 billion spent on pharmaceuticals. Almost 60% of spending was for non-orphan traditional drugs and one-third was spent on non-orphan specialty drugs.
Additionally, though the number of orphan drugs approved in the last 5 years increased from 315 to 449, the share of spending on orphan drugs increased moderately:
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
Biosimilar Approvals Streamlined With Advanced Statistics Amidst Differing Regulatory Requirements
February 25th 2025The FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) mandate high similarity between biosimilars and reference products, but their regulatory processes differ, especially with multiple reference products.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
FDA, EMA Approve Second Pair of Denosumab Biosimilars
February 17th 2025The FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) granted approval, with interchangeability in the US, to Samsung Bioepis' denosumab biosimilars, which will be marketed under different names depending on whether they will be used to treat osteoporosis or bone metastases.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
Biosimilar Approvals Streamlined With Advanced Statistics Amidst Differing Regulatory Requirements
February 25th 2025The FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) mandate high similarity between biosimilars and reference products, but their regulatory processes differ, especially with multiple reference products.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
FDA, EMA Approve Second Pair of Denosumab Biosimilars
February 17th 2025The FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) granted approval, with interchangeability in the US, to Samsung Bioepis' denosumab biosimilars, which will be marketed under different names depending on whether they will be used to treat osteoporosis or bone metastases.
2 Commerce Drive
Cranbury, NJ 08512