MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404182058 · doi:10.1186/s13023-024-03398-1

Expediting treatments in the 21st century: orphan drugs and accelerated approvals

2024· article· en· W4404182058 on OpenAlexaff
Reuben Domike, G. K. Raju, Jamie Sullivan, Annie Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueOrphanet Journal of Rare Diseases · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyEveryLife Foundation for Rare Diseases
KeywordsExpeditingOrphan drugDrug approvalMedicinePharmacologyBioinformaticsEngineeringBiologyDrug

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In response to activated patient communities' catalyzation, two significant efforts by the FDA to expedite treatments have now been in place for multiple decades. In 1983, the United States Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act to provide financial incentives for development of drugs for rare diseases. In 1992, partly in response to the HIV epidemic, the FDA implemented Accelerated Approval (AA) to expedite access to promising new therapies to treat serious conditions with unmet medical need based on surrogate marker efficacy while additional clinical data is confirmed. The uses of these regulatory approaches over time are assessed in this study. METHODS: The following U.S. FDA CDER published lists were used in this analysis: 1. all orphan designations and approvals; 2. all AA and their details updated through December 31, 2022; new molecular entities (NMEs). RESULTS: Orphan drug designations and approvals have increased several-fold over the past four decades. The largest increase recently has been in therapies targeting oncological diseases (comprised of both oncology and malignant hematology). Although orphan drug approvals based on NMEs are the minority of orphan drug designations, the count of approved orphan drug NMEs has increased in recent years. The characteristics of orphan drug approvals show notable differences by disease area with rare diseases and medical genetics (49%) having a relatively large fraction of orphan drug approvals with NMEs compared to the oncological diseases (32%). Similar to the use of orphan drug designation, oncological disease therapies have been the largest utilizers of AA. Many therapies targeting these diseases address unmet medical need and can leverage surrogate markers that have previously been used in similar trials. The timings of conversion of AA (confirmed or withdrawn) were assessed and found to be consistent across decades and to have some dependency upon the broad disease area (when assessed by three large groups: HIV conversions were fastest; followed by oncology; followed by all others). By the end of 2022, 98% of the first 105 (approved in 2010 or earlier) AA had been converted to confirmed or withdrawn. CONCLUSIONS: Although the typical timings for AA to be confirmed or withdrawn has not changed significantly over the decades, the disease areas utilizing orphan drug designation and AA have changed significantly over time. Both programs have had increases in their use for therapies targeting oncological diseases. The re-use of surrogate markers for oncological diseases has been an advantage in a way that may not be scientifically feasible in many other disease areas that have greater differentiation across disease etiology. For non-oncological diseases, applicability of AA is, in part, dependent upon greater focus on characterization and acceptance of novel surrogate markers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrphanet Journal of Rare DiseasesSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207