TY - JOUR
T1 - Does market exclusivity hinder the development of Follow-on Orphan Medicinal Products in Europe
AU - Brabers, A.E.M.
AU - Moors, E.H.M.
AU - van Weely, S
AU - de Vrueh, R.L.
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - 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, diseasespecific
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.
AB - 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, diseasespecific
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.
U2 - 10.1186/1750-1172-6-59
DO - 10.1186/1750-1172-6-59
M3 - Article
SN - 1750-1172
VL - 6
JO - Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
JF - Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
IS - 59
ER -