Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2012 Jan 3;106(1):14-7.
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.544.

Developing and paying for medicines for orphan indications in oncology: utilitarian regulation vs equitable care?

Affiliations
Review

Developing and paying for medicines for orphan indications in oncology: utilitarian regulation vs equitable care?

J E Davies et al. Br J Cancer. .

Abstract

Despite 'orphan drug' legislation, bringing new medicines for rare diseases to market and securing funding for their provision is sometimes both costly and problematic, even in the case of medicines for very rare 'ultra orphan' oncological indications. In this paper difficulties surrounding the introduction of a new treatment for osteosarcoma exemplify the challenges that innovators can face. The implications of current policy debate on 'value-based' medicines pricing in Europe, North America and elsewhere are also explored in the context of sustaining research into and facilitating cancer patient access to medicines for low-prevalence indications. Tensions exist between utilitarian strategies aimed at optimising the welfare of the majority in the society and minority-interest-focused approaches to equitable care provision. Current regulatory and pricing strategies should be revisited with the objective of facilitating fair and timely drug supply to patients without sacrificing safety or overall affordability. Failures effectively to tackle the problems considered here could undermine public interests in developing better therapies for cancer patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Funding for research conducted by James Davies for this article was received from Ashley Communications, a company working with Takeda Pharmaceuticals, who also funded open access to this paper. Neither Professor Taylor nor Professor Neidle have received funding or fees relating to this article. None of the authors have financial interests in Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Estimated osteosarcoma incidence in selected countries. On the basis of a mean incidence three case per million using the World Bank and EUROSTAT population figures for 2010.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Academy of Medical Sciences (2011) A New Pathway for the Regulation and Governance of Health Research. The Academy of Medical Sciences: London
    1. Bielack SS (2010) Osteosarcoma: time to move on? Eur J Cancer Care 46: 1942–1945 - PubMed
    1. Catchpole P, Taylor D (2011) Fair for all? The pricing and affordability of new anti-cancer medicines: an industry perspective. Lancet Oncol 12(10): 923–998 - PubMed
    1. Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products and the European Medicines Agency Scientific Secretariat (2011) European regulation on orphan medicinal products: 10 years of experience and future perspectives. Nat Rev Drug Discov 10: 342–349 - PubMed
    1. Drummond MF, Wilson DA, Kanavos P, Ubel P, Rovira J (2007) Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23(01): 36–42 - PubMed

Publication types

Substances