Evidence available and used by the Food and Drug Administration for the approval of orphan and nonorphan drugs

There are substantial financial incentives to develop orphan drugs for rare diseases, but concerns about the quality and volume of supporting evidence have emerged. We compare evidence used to evaluate orphan and nonorphan drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2023. This retrospective cross-sectional analysis utilizes FDA data on approvals and study information from ClinicalTrials.gov to compare characteristics of studies relevant to orphan and nonorphan drugs approved between 2016 and 2023. Of the 368 total drugs approved, 50% were orphan drugs. The FDA-approved drugs based on significantly fewer studies for orphan (1.5 studies/drug) compared to nonorphan (2.4 studies/drug). Additionally, a significantly lower proportion of studies were completed before FDA approval for orphan drugs (25% vs 41%). Orphan drugs were significantly less likely to be evaluated in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (34% vs 63%). Of these RCTs, there were significantly fewer completed before approval (40% vs 54%) and that had results posted (35% vs 53%). There was a significant difference in the available evidence for orphan and nonorphan drugs. As new legislation like Cures 2.0 is developed, it is critical to examine the balance between an expedited approval timeline and the standard of clinical evidence.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Health Affairs Scholar
Published
2025-03-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxaf057
Primary Topic
Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evidence available and used by the Food and Drug Administration for the approval of orphan and nonorphan drugs

Aditya Narayan, Robert M. Kaplan, Amanda Jeanette Koong, Veronica L. Irvin et al.
7 links
Health Affairs Scholar
Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
article

Evidence available and used by the Food and Drug Administration for the approval of orphan and nonorphan drugs

Aditya Narayan, Robert M. Kaplan, Amanda Jeanette Koong, Veronica L. Irvin, S.M. Song
article en

Abstract

There are substantial financial incentives to develop orphan drugs for rare diseases, but concerns about the quality and volume of supporting evidence have emerged. We compare evidence used to evaluate orphan and nonorphan drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2023. This retrospective cross-sectional analysis utilizes FDA data on approvals and study information from ClinicalTrials.gov to compare characteristics of studies relevant to orphan and nonorphan drugs approved between 2016 and 2023. Of the 368 total drugs approved, 50% were orphan drugs. The FDA-approved drugs based on significantly fewer studies for orphan (1.5 studies/drug) compared to nonorphan (2.4 studies/drug). Additionally, a significantly lower proportion of studies were completed before FDA approval for orphan drugs (25% vs 41%). Orphan drugs were significantly less likely to be evaluated in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (34% vs 63%). Of these RCTs, there were significantly fewer completed before approval (40% vs 54%) and that had results posted (35% vs 53%). There was a significant difference in the available evidence for orphan and nonorphan drugs. As new legislation like Cures 2.0 is developed, it is critical to examine the balance between an expedited approval timeline and the standard of clinical evidence.

Health Affairs ScholarVol. 3(4)
Oregon State University (US), University of California, Los Angeles (US), Stanford Medicine (US), University School (US), The University of Texas Health Science Center (US), Fielding Graduate University (US), The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US), Stanford University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.