Insights & news

British Medical Journal Publishes Critical Review of Orphan Medicines Rules Ahead of Release of European Commission's Own Studies

  • 31/07/2020
  • Articles

As part of the preparatory work for its Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe which is due in the fourth quarter of 2020, the European Commission (the Commission) is expected to publish shortly an external study and own work assessing the regulatory framework governing orphan medicines and the paediatric rules.
 
Ostensibly meant as a shot across the bow for the Commission, the British Medical Journal (see, attachment) and the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde published on 29 July 2020 an article written by two journalists of Amsterdam-based “The Investigative Desk”, Daan Marselis and Lucien Hordijk, which is highly critical of the current orphan medicine rules and, more broadly, the pharmaceutical industry. In their contribution entitled “From blockbuster to “nichebuster”: how a flawed legislation helped create a new profit model for the drug industry” Marselis and Hordijk claim that the orphan medicine rules are overly generous for the sector and turned these products into a “corporate cash machine”.
 
The authors point to a range of orphan medicines that reached a turnover of EUR 1 billion (there were 20 such products in 2019) and add that the average annual sales of an orphan medicine have multiplied by a factor of five, from EUR 133 million in 2001 to EUR 723 million in 2019. They also explain that a number of orphan medicines managed to benefit from a much longer period of market exclusivity than the 10 years provided for by applicable rules. This extended exclusivity results from other mechanisms such as paediatric incentives and the granting of orphan status to new therapeutic indications of the same active substance.
 
Much of the criticism voiced by Marselis and Hordijk is not new. As a matter of fact, the Commission had already started a review of the rules and identified a range of possible changes to the regulatory framework (see, attached pharmaceutical committee briefing note of 12 March 2020). For example, the Commission noted unspecified estimates that the number of new orphan medicines attributable to the EU orphan medicine rules falls in a range between 18 and 24 on a total of 146 authorisations during a period of approximatively 15 years. Ironically, part of the explanation for this seemingly limited success stems from the existence of similar orphan medicine rules in the United States which in many cases created the initial impetus for research, development and innovation. The authors also note that 95% of rare diseases still have no treatment but this would appear to be a strong argument in favour of maintaining a set of incentives for innovation.
 
Clearly, the figures cited by Marselis and Hordijk could also be regarded as indicative of a successful regulatory regime that is now ripe for improvement. Obvious areas for review include the possible attribution of orphan status to multiple therapeutic indications for the same active substance or to off-patent substances that were given a new lease of life following a relatively easy and inexpensive repurposing effort. What seems less helpful is the baseless rhetoric of Marselis and Hordijk when they decry the supposed fact “that companies have reaped billions of profit off the back of orphan drug designations” while stating elsewhere in the article, almost in the same breath, that “it was not possible to estimate profitability, as companies do not specifically disclose investments in developing an orphan medicine”. The authors’ approach, blessed by the British Medical Journal, was clearly that an insignificant technical distinction between the concepts of “turnover” and “profit” should not stand in the way of a good story.

Key contacts

Related practice areas

Related insights

Sign up for updates
    • 28/07/2020
    • Articles

    US President Signs Executive Order Implementing International Pricing Index Model

    On 24 July 2020 the US President signed four executive orders designed to lower medicine prices in the United States (see, attached press release). One of these orders, which has not yet been made publicly available, implements a form of international reference pricing and “take[s] action to ensure that the Medicare program and seniors pay no more for [a series of costly medicines] than any economically comparable OECD country, ending foreign countries’ free loading off the backs of American taxpayers and pharmaceutical investments” (the “International Pricing Index Model” or “IPI Model”).

    Read more
    • 23/07/2020
    • Articles

    Belgium - Belgian Competition Authority Offers Guidance on Mergers of Local Hospital Networks

    On 22 July 2020, the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) published a note (the Note) which discusses the application of the Belgian merger control rules to the creation of local hospital networks (locoregionale ziekenhuisnetwerken; réseaux hospitaliers locorégionaux – see the attached Note and press release in different language versions).

    Read more
    • 20/07/2020
    • Articles

    Belgium - Constitutional Court Rejects Request for Suspension of Key Provisions of Latest Medicine Shortages Law

    On 16 July 2020, the Constitutional Court rejected several requests for suspension of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Law of 20 December 2019 modifying various laws to tackle medicine shortages (Wet van 20 december 2019 tot wijziging van diverse wetgevingen wat de tekorten aan geneesmiddelen betreft/Loi du 20 décembre 2020 modifiant diverses législations, en ce qui concerne les pénuries de medicaments – the Law – see attachments). The requests had been introduced by the Belgian Association of Parallel Importers and Exporters, various other parties active in the parallel trade in medicines and pharmacists in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda (the Applicants).

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *