Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Feature
  • Published:

Orphan products—pain relief for clinical development headaches

Nature Biotechnology volume 20, pages 780–784 (2002)Cite this article

As the cost of clinical development rises, and products take longer to reach the market, the biotechnology industry may be wise to take a closer look at orphan drug indications.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

© Bob Crimi

Figure 2

© Bob Crimi

Figure 3: Median development times for orphan versus non-orphan biopharmaceuticals with standard review status and approved by the FDA (1994–2001).

© Bob Crimi

Figure 4: Median development times for orphan versus non-orphan biopharmaceuticals with priority review status and approved by the FDA (1994–2001).

© Bob Crimi

References

  1. IMS Health Incorporated. http://www.imshealth.com. April 26 (2002).

  2. Kaitin, K.I., ed. Biotech products proliferate, but total development times lengthen. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development Impact Report Vol. 3, no. 6 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ashton, G. Growing pains for biopharmaceuticals. Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 307–311 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pharmaprojects. Update Analysis. Pharmaprojects Monthly Newsletter May (2002), pp.1–11.

  5. Anonymous. The future at FDA. Regulatory Affairs Focus, January (2000), pp.18–20.

  6. DiMasi, J. et al. Research and development costs for new drugs by therapeutic category: a study of the US pharmaceutical industry. PharmacoEconomics 7, 152–169 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Watkins, K. Fighting the clock. C&EN January 28 (2002), pp. 27–34.

  8. Usdin, S. Pipeline or flatline? Biocentury: The Bernstein Report on Business Vol. 10 no. 11 (2002).

  9. Zivin, J. Understanding clinical trials. Scientific American 282, 69–75 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Engel, S. Is the end of trial-and-error medicine in sight? R&D Directions April (2002), pp. 38–43.

  11. Horrobin, D. Realism in drug discovery—could Cassandra be right? Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 1099–1100 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Shulman, S. et al. Implementation of the orphan drug act: 1983–1991. Food & Drug Law J. 47, 363–403 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Reichert, J.M. Clinical development of therapeutic medicines: a biopharmaceutical versus pharmaceutical product comparison. Drug Information J. 35, 337–346 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Reichert, J.M. New biopharmaceuticals in the USA: trends in development and marketing approvals 1995–1999. Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 364–369 (2000).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Milne, C.-P. & Bergman, E. Fast track product designation under the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act: the industry experience. Drug Information J. 35, 71–83 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Milne, C.-P. The single controlled trial: industry survey indicates that implementation is still a work in progress. Drug Information J. 36, 291–301 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mathieu, M. New Drug Development: a Regulatory Overview (PAREXEL International Corp., Boston, MA, 2001), p. 408.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mathieu, M. PAREXEL's Pharmaceutical R&D Statistical Sourcebook 2001 (PAREXEL International Corp., Boston, MA, 2002), pp. 256–257.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Arlington, S. Pharma 2005: an industrial revolution in R&D. Pharmaceutical Exec. January (2000), pp.74–84.

  20. Haan, K. Growing up backwards. Biocentury: The Bernstein Report on Business Vol. 10, no. 20 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kaitin, K.I., ed. Biotechnology has become vital to orphan product development. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development Impact Report Vol. 4 no. 3 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bastianelli, E. et al. Pharma: can the middle hold? McKinsey Quarterly no. 1, 117–125 (2001).

  23. Grabowski, H.G. & Vernon, J. The distribution of sales revenues from pharmaceutical innovation. PharmacoEconomics Supp. 1, 21–32 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA office of orphan products development FY 2001 accomplishments. FDA Talk Paper March 14 (2002).

  25. Anonymous. FDA orphan drug grants would double to $25 mil. in Kennedy/Hatch Bill. The Pink Sheet, October 22 (2001), p. 9.

  26. US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. The orphan drug act: implementation and impact, Report # OEI-09-00-00380, May (2001).

  27. Anonymous. The plagues of poverty. New York Times March 19 (2002), p. A26.

  28. Heffler, S. et al. Health spending projections for 2001–2011: the latest outlook. Health Affairs March/April (2002), pp. 207–216.

  29. Marshall, E. Disease group invests in do-it-yourself drugs. Science 288, 1715–1717 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. assistant director, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Tufts University, Boston, 03301, MA

    Christopher-Paul Milne

Authors
  1. Christopher-Paul Milne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Milne, CP. Orphan products—pain relief for clinical development headaches. Nat Biotechnol 20, 780–784 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0802-780

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0802-780

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing