Welcome to our new website! If this is the first time you are logging in on the new site, you will need to reset your password. Please contact us at email@example.com if you need assistance.
Your membership opens the door to free learning resources on demand. Check out the Member Knowledge Center for free webcasts, publications and online courses.
Hear from leaders around the globe as they share insights about their experiences and lessons learned throughout their certification journey.
RAPS recognizes that the current situation in Ukraine impacts our members and customers on many levels. If you are directly impacted by the current situation in the region and are challenged to meet your deadlines or obligations to RAPS, please reach out to firstname.lastname@example.org so that we can defer those challenges. Your health and safety are paramount to us.
Posted 05 January 2017 | By Michael Mezher
Following a public consultation in November 2015, the European Commission (EC) has released a new communication intended to clarify some lingering questions about the EU's Orphan Regulation.
The consultation sought to address five issues that have arisen since the Orphan Regulation came into effect in January 2000:
According to Jordi Llinares, head of the department for scientific and regulatory management at the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the agency is working to implement the changes brought on by the communication.
To qualify for orphan designation, a medicine must treat, diagnose or prevent a serious or life threatening condition that affects fewer than 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union.
Additionally, there must not be any "satisfactory" treatment for the condition within the EU, or the medicine must be shown to demonstrate significant benefit to patients over existing options.
According to the communication, sponsors must demonstrate significant benefit based on clinically relevant advantages such as improved efficacy or a better safety profile compared to existing treatments, or a major contribution to patient care, such as a new pharmaceutical form that is demonstrated to improve adherence.
However, the communication clarifies that significant benefit should not be based on:
The communication also establishes that drugs prepared by hospitals or pharmacies under Article 3(7) of Directive 2001/83/EC "should not be considered a satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a condition" for the purposes of establishing significant benefit over existing treatment options.
Another question addressed by the communication has to do with how the orphan designations for conditions that do not affect people within the EU are handled.
The question was raised in light of the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak, which affected tens of thousands of people in West Africa, but was not transmitted within the EU.
According to the communication, such diseases do qualify for consideration as orphan products as the prevalence of the disease outside of the EU is not a consideration for orphan designation.
"A medicinal product intended to diagnose, prevent or treat a condition which affects a large number of people in certain non-EU countries, but which has a low prevalence or a prevalence of approximately zero in the EU, may be eligible for designation as an orphan medicinal product with respect to the prevalence criterion, and if all other criteria are met, eligible for the benefits set out in the Regulation," the communication states.
However, for conditions with zero prevalence within the EU, the Commission notes that sponsors should account for the risk that people within the EU may be affected by the disease in the future.
The communication also clarifies questions about maintaining orphan designation in cases where two products for the same orphan indication are being assessed by EMA at the same time.
"Where two applications for marketing authorisation for the same condition have been received by the European Medicines Agency at the same time, they might not remain in parallel. In such cases, it may be difficult for the second product to show significant benefit as compared with the first product due to the limited information available," the Commission writes.
In such cases, the Commission says the sponsor of the second product will not be required to demonstrate significant benefit over the first product.
However, the Commission says that the sponsor of the second product will need to demonstrate significant benefit over the first product if the notification of marketing authorization for the first product has already been published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the time the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) re-evaluates the second product's designation criteria, though the Commission notes that this may be done using an indirect comparison.
The Commission has also clarified that an orphan product's designation must be reassessed when there is a change to its indication, such as a new indication, type-II variation or extension of the marketing authorization.
This verification, the Commission says, will be done "to ensure that the variation of the terms of the orphan marketing authorisation complies with Article 7(3)," which establishes that the marketing authorisation for an orphan product may only cover indications that meet the criteria for an orphan product.
While Article 5(11) of the Orphan Regulation allows an orphan designation to be transferred between sponsors, the Commission has clarified that "it is not possible to transfer an orphan designation to a sponsor who already has a marketing authorisation for the same medicinal product and condition."
Tags: Orphan Regulation, Orphan Drugs, Orphan Designation