Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Orphan Drugs aus Sicht der Arzneimittelkommission der deutschen Ärzteschaft

Chancen und Herausforderungen

Orphan drugs from the perspective of the Drug Commission of the German Medical Association

Opportunities and challenges

  • Seltene Erkrankungen
  • Published:
Der Internist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. Cote A, Keating B (2012) What is wrong with orphan drug policies? Value Health 15:1185–1191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Danzon PM (2018) Affordabulity challenges to value-based pricing: Mass diseases, orphan diseases, and cures. Value Health 21:252–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Deticek A, Locatelli I, Kos M (2018) Patient access to medicines for rare diseases in European countries. Value Health 21:553–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Deutscher Ethikrat (2018) Herausforderungen im Umgang mit seltenen Erkrankungen. https://www.ethikrat.org/fileadmin/Publikationen/Ad-hoc-Empfehlungen/deutsch/herausforderungen-im-umgang-mit-seltenen-erkrankungen.pdf (Erstellt: 23. Nov. 2018). Zugegriffen: 11. Febr. 2019

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dupont AG, Van Wilder PB (2011) Access to orphan drugs despite poor quality of clinical evidence. Br J Clin Pharmacol 71:488–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Europäisches Parlament, Rat der Europäischen Union (2000) Verordnung (EG) Nr. 141/2000 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 16. Dezember 1999 über Arzneimittel für seltene Leiden. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000R0141&from=BG (ABl Nr. L 018:1-5)

    Google Scholar 

  7. European Commission (2016) Inventory of union and member state incentives to support research into, and the development and availability of, orphan medicinal products: State of play 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/files/orphanmp/doc/orphan_inv_report_20160126.pdf. Zugegriffen: 11. Febr. 2019

    Google Scholar 

  8. European Medicines Agency (EMA) (2017) Conditional marketing authorisation: Report on ten years of experience at the European Medicines Agency. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2017/01/WC500219991.pdf. Zugegriffen: 11. Febr. 2019 (EMA/471951/2016)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Evaluate Pharma (2018) Orphan Drug Report 2018. http://info.evaluategroup.com/rs/607-YGS-364/images/OD18.pdf. Zugegriffen: 11. Febr. 2019

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gammie T, Lu CY, Ud-Din Babar Z (2015) Access to orphan drugs: A comprehensive review of Legislations, regulations and policies in 35 countries. PLoS ONE 10(10):e140002. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (2011) Bekanntmachung eines Beschlusses des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Einfügung eines Kapitels zur Bewertung des Nutzens von Arzneimitteln mit neuen Wirkstoffen nach § 35a des Fünften Buches Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB V) in die Verfahrensordnung. https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/39-261-1273/2011-01-20_VerfO_35a_BAnz.pdf (Bundesanzeiger vom 20. Januar 2011. BAnz 63 (Nr. 95a):3–78)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Giannuzzi V, Landi A, Bosone E et al (2017) Failures to further developing orphan medicinal produvcts after designation granted in Europe: An analysis of marketing authorisation failures and abandoned drugs. BMJ Open 7(9):e17358. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017358

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Gottwald S, Huster S (2013) Personalisierte Medizin als Orphanisierung: Rechtliche und ethische Fragen. Ethik Med 25:259–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Haffner ME, Torrent-Farnell J, Maher PD (2008) Does orphan drug legislation really answer the needs of patients? Lancet 371:2041–2044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hofer MP, Hedman H, Mavris M et al (2018) Marketing authorization of orphan medicines in Europe from 2000 to 2013. Drug Discov Today 23:424–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Joppi R, Bertele V, Garattini S (2013) Orphan drugs, orphan diseases. The first decade of orphan drug legislation in the EU. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 69:1009–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Joppi R, Gerardi C, Bertele V, Garattini S (2016) Letting post-marketing bridge the evidence gap: The case of orphan drugs. BMJ 353:i2978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kawalec P, Sagan A, Pilc A (2016) The correlation between HTA recommendations and reimbursement status of orphan drugs in Europe. Orphanet J Rare Dis 11:122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kesselheim AS, Myers JA, Avorn J (2011) Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs nonorphan drugs for cancer. JAMA 305:2320–2326

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kesselheim AS, Treasure CL, Joffe S (2017) Biomarker-defines subsets of common diseases: Policy and economic implications of orphan drug act coverage. Plos Med 14(1):e1002190. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002190

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ludwig W‑D (2018) Zulassungsverfahren für neue Arzneimittel in Europa. In: Schwabe U, Paffrath D, Ludwig W‑D, Klauber J (Hrsg) Arzneiverordnungs-Report 2018. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, S 27–51

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Melnikova I (2012) Rare diseases and orphan drugs. Nat Rev Drug Discov 11:267–268

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mitsumoto J, Dorsey ER, Beck CA et al (2009) Pivotal studies of orphan drugs approved for neurological diseases. Ann Neurol 66:184–190

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. O’Connor DJ, Sheean ME, Hofer MP et al (2018) Defining orphan conditions in the context of the European orphan regulation: Challenges and evolution. Nat Rev Drug Discov. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2018.128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Orpha (2019) Prävalenzen und Inzidenzen seltener Krankheiten. https://www.orpha.net/orphacom/cahiers/docs/DE/Pravalenzen_seltener_Krankheiten_absteigender_Pravalenz_oder_Falle.pdf. Zugegriffen: 11. Febr. 2019

    Google Scholar 

  26. Schieppati A, Henter JI, Daina E, Aperia A (2008) Why rare diseases are an important medical and social issue. Lancet 371:2039–2041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schröder M, Telschow C (2018) Der GKV-Arzneimittelmarkt 2017: Trends und Marktsegmente. In: Schwabe U, Paffrath D, Ludwig W‑D, Klauber J (Hrsg) Arzneiverordnungs-Report 2018. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, S 173–216

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Schwabe U, Ludwig W‑D (2018) Arzneiverordnungen 2017 im Überblick. In: Schwabe U, Paffrath D, Ludwig W‑D, Klauber J (Hrsg) Arzneiverordnungs-Report 2018. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, S 3–26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Sträter B, Burgardt C, Bickmann M (2014) Arzneimittel für seltene Leiden – Situation in der Europäischen Union. Arzneimittel Recht 5:195–201

    Google Scholar 

  30. Szegedi M, Zelei T, Arickx F et al (2018) The European challenges of funding orphan medicinal products. Orphanet J Rare Dis 13:184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tay-Teo K, Ilbawi A, Hill SR (2019) Comparison sales income and research and development costs for FDA-approved cancer drugs sold by originator drug companies. Jama Network Open 2(1):e186875. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.6875

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Verband der forschenden Pharma-Unternehmen in Deutschland (VFA) (2019) Zugelassene Orphan Drugs. https://www.vfa.de/de/arzneimittel-forschung/datenbanken-zu-arzneimitteln/orphan-drugs-list. Zugegriffen: 11. Febr. 2019

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arzneimittelkommission der deutschen Ärzteschaft, Herbert-Lewin-Platz 1, 10623, Berlin, Deutschland

    Wolf-Dieter Ludwig

Authors
  1. Wolf-Dieter Ludwig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolf-Dieter Ludwig.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

W.-D. Ludwig gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine vom Autor durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Additional information

Redaktion

J.R. Schäfer, Marburg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ludwig, WD. Orphan Drugs aus Sicht der Arzneimittelkommission der deutschen Ärzteschaft. Internist 60, 399–404 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00108-019-0578-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00108-019-0578-7

Search

Navigation