A new coding system for metabolic disorders demonstrates gaps in the international disease classifications ICD-10 and SNOMED-CT, which can be barriers to genotype-phenotype data sharing.

Data sharing is essential for a better understanding of genetic disorders. Good phenotype coding plays a key role in this process. Unfortunately, the two most widely used coding systems in medicine, ICD-10 and SNOMED-CT, lack information necessary for the detailed classification and annotation of rare and genetic disorders. This prevents the optimal registration of such patients in databases and thus data-sharing efforts. To improve care and to facilitate research for patients with metabolic disorders, we developed a new coding system for metabolic diseases with a dedicated group of clinical specialists. Next, we compared the resulting codes with those in ICD and SNOMED-CT. No matches were found in 76% of cases in ICD-10 and in 54% in SNOMED-CT. We conclude that there are sizable gaps in the SNOMED-CT and ICD coding systems for metabolic disorders. There may be similar gaps for other classes of rare and genetic disorders. We have demonstrated that expert groups can help in addressing such coding issues. Our coding system has been made available to the ICD and SNOMED-CT organizations as well as to the Orphanet and HPO organizations for further public application and updates will be published online (www.ddrmd.nl and www.cineas.org).

Does market exclusivity hinder the development of Follow-on Orphan Medicinal Products in Europe?

BACKGROUND: We determined whether the market exclusivity incentive of the European Orphan Drug Regulation results in a market monopoly or that absence of another Orphan Medicinal Product (OMP) for the same rare disorder, a so-called follow-on OMP, is a matter of time or market size. In the interest of rare disorder patients better understanding of the effect of the market exclusivity incentive on follow-on OMP development is warranted. METHODS: First, the impact of various market-, product- and disease-related characteristics on follow-on OMP development in the EU was determined by comparing rare disorders with an approved OMP and at least one follow-on OMP (N = 26), with rare disorders with an approved OMP and no follow-on OMP (N = 18). Next, we determined whether manufacturers continued development of a follow-on OMP upon approval of the first OMP for the intended rare disorder. Since in the EU significant benefit of an OMP has to be established, we determined for each follow-on OMP for which development was continued on what grounds significant benefit was assumed by the sponsor. Data were collected from the public domain only. RESULTS: The likelihood of a rare disorder with an approved OMP to obtain at least one follow-on OMP development was strongly associated with disease prevalence, turnover of the first OMP, disease class, disease-specific scientific output and age of onset. Out of a total of 120 follow-on OMPs only one follow-on OMP could be identified for which development was discontinued upon approval of the first OMP for the same rare disorder. Only a substantial level of discontinuation of follow-on OMP development would have indicated the existence of a market monopoly. Moreover, sponsors that continued development of a follow-on OMP predominantly assumed that their product had an improved efficacy compared to the first approved OMP. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that absence of follow-on OMP development is a matter of time or market size, rather than that the market exclusivity incentive of the European Orphan Drug Regulation creates a market monopoly.

Translation of rare disease research into orphan drug development: disease matters.

More than 25 years of orphan drug regulations have yielded several new treatments for patients with rare diseases. Here, we show that successful translation of rare disease research into an orphan drug discovery and development programme is dependent on the disease class, its prevalence and the disease-specific scientific output. Our findings indicate that current orphan drug legislation alone is not sufficient to stimulate orphan drug development for diseases with a very low prevalence. Consequently, additional incentives should focus on stimulating the specific needs of rare disease research at disease class level.

Orphan drug development across Europe: bottlenecks and opportunities.

With the assignment of the 500th European Union orphan drug designation in 2007, the Regulation on Orphan Medicinal Products truly begins to show its potential for delivering new medicines to patients with rare diseases. Here, we analysed European orphan drug development at a national level and unveil a strong relationship between orphan drug development and pharmaceutical innovation performance in Europe. Moreover, we identify gaps in transition from science into orphan drug development as important bottlenecks that exist in several European countries. Our findings underline the importance of innovation-based policies to enhance the development of orphan drugs in Europe.

Predictors of orphan drug approval in the European Union.

OBJECTIVE: To encourage the development of drugs for rare diseases, orphan drug legislation has been introduced in the USA (1983) and in the EU (2000). Recent literature discusses factors that may influence the development of new orphan medicinal products in the EU. This study aims to identify predictors for successful marketing authorisation of potential orphan drugs in the EU. METHODS: A comparison between randomly selected authorised and a matched sample of not-yet-authorised orphan drug designations has been performed. Determinants in the study included characteristics of the indication, of the product and of the sponsor. Data were collected from the public domain only. RESULTS: Orphan drug approval was strongly associated with previous experience of the sponsor in obtaining approval for another orphan drug (OR = 17.3, 95% CI = 5.6-53.1). Furthermore, existing synthetic entities compared to biotechnology products tended to have a higher likelihood of reaching approval status (OR = 3.9, 95% CI = 0.9-16.6). CONCLUSION: This study showed that experience of a company in developing orphan drugs is an important predictor for subsequent authorisation of other orphan drugs. The same applies for existing (synthetic) molecules, for which much knowledge is available. Further research should be directed towards studying the quality of the clinical development program of those designated orphan medicinal products not reaching approval status.

Oral maintenance clinical trial with miglustat for type I Gaucher disease: switch from or combination with intravenous enzyme replacement.

Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with imiglucerase reduces hepatosplenomegaly and improves hematologic parameters in Gaucher disease type 1 within 6-24 months. Miglustat reduces organomegaly, improves hematologic parameters, and reverses bone marrow infiltration. This trial evaluates miglustat in patients clinically stable on ERT. Tolerability of miglustat and imiglucerase, alone and in combination, pharmacokinetic profile, organ reduction, and chitotriosidase activity were assessed. Thirty-six patients stable on imiglucerase were randomized into this phase II, open-label trial. Statistically significant changes from baseline were assessed (paired t test) on primary objectives with secondary analyses on biochemical and safety parameters. Liver and spleen volume were unchanged in switched patients. No significant differences were seen between groups regarding mean change in hemoglobin. Mean change in platelet counts was only significant between miglustat and imiglucerase groups (P = .035). Chitotriosidase activity remained stable. In trial extension, clinical endpoints were generally maintained. Miglustat was well tolerated alone or in combination. Miglustat's safety profile was consistent with previous trials; moreover, no new cases of peripheral neuropathy were observed. Gaucher disease type 1 (GD1) parameters were stable in most switched patients. Combination therapy did not show benefit. Findings suggest miglustat could be an effective maintenance therapy in stabilized patients with GD1.