Does market exclusivity hinder the development of Follow-on Orphan Medicinal Products in Europe
Publication date
2011
Authors
Brabers, A.E.M.
Moors, E.H.M.
Weely, S. van
Vrueh, R.L.A. de
Editors
Advisors
Supervisors
DOI
Document Type
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
License
Abstract
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.