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
. 2012;7(2):e31894.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031894. Epub 2012 Feb 21.

The prevalence and cost of unapproved uses of top-selling orphan drugs

Affiliations

The prevalence and cost of unapproved uses of top-selling orphan drugs

Aaron S Kesselheim et al. PLoS One. 2012.

Abstract

Introduction: The Orphan Drug Act encourages drug development for rare conditions. However, some orphan drugs become top sellers for unclear reasons. We sought to evaluate the extent and cost of approved and unapproved uses of orphan drugs with the highest unit sales.

Methods: We assessed prescription patterns for four top-selling orphan drugs: lidocaine patch (Lidoderm) approved for post-herpetic neuralgia, modafinil (Provigil) approved for narcolepsy, cinacalcet (Sensipar) approved for hypercalcemia of parathyroid carcinoma, and imatinib (Gleevec) approved for chronic myelogenous leukemia and gastrointestinal stromal tumor. We pooled patient-specific diagnosis and prescription data from two large US state pharmaceutical benefit programs for the elderly. We analyzed the number of new and total patients using each drug and patterns of reimbursement for approved and unapproved uses. For lidocaine patch, we subcategorized approved prescriptions into two subtypes of unapproved uses: neuropathic pain, for which some evidence of efficacy exists, and non-neuropathic pain.

Results: We found that prescriptions for lidocaine patch, modafinil, and cinacalcet associated with non-orphan diagnoses rose at substantially higher rates (average monthly increases in number of patients of 14.6, 1.45, and 1.58) than prescriptions associated with their orphan diagnoses (3.12, 0.24, and 0.03, respectively (p<0.001 for all)). By contrast, for imatinib, approved uses increased significantly over off-label (0.97 vs. 0.47 patients, p<0.001). Spending on off-label uses was highest for lidocaine patch and modafinil (>75%). Increases in lidocaine patch use for non-neuropathic pain far exceeded neuropathic pain (10.2 vs. 3.6 patients, p<0.001).

Discussion: In our sample, three of four top-selling orphan drugs were used more commonly for non-orphan indications. These orphan drugs treated common clinical symptoms (pain and fatigue) or laboratory abnormalities. We should continue to monitor orphan drug use after approval to identify products that come to be widely used for non-FDA approved indications, particularly those without adequate evidence of efficacy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have read the journal's policy and have the following conflicts: DHS has received salary support from studies related to rheumatoid arthritis funded by Amgen and Abbott. DHS serves as an unpaid member of an analgesic trial's Executive Committee and as an unpaid member of a Data Safety Monitoring Board of a trial of a different analgesic. Both trials are funded by Pfizer. WCW has served as an advisor or consultant to AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Astellas, Fibrogen, and Fresenius. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLoS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. The number of patients filling prescriptions for lidocaine patch (Lidoderm) for on- and off-label uses in two state drug benefit programs.
Raw data are plotted over the linear regression line. Shaded regions indicate bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals for the regression lines.
Figure 2
Figure 2. The number of patients filling prescriptions for modafinil (Provigil) for on- and off-label uses in two state drug benefit programs.
Raw data are plotted over the linear regression line. Shaded regions indicate bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals for the regression lines.
Figure 3
Figure 3. The number of patients filling prescriptions for cinacalcet (Sensipar) for on- and off-label uses in two state drug benefit programs.
Raw data are plotted over the linear regression line. Shaded regions indicate bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals for the regression lines.
Figure 4
Figure 4. The number of patients filling prescriptions for imatinib (Gleevec) for on- and off-label uses in two state drug benefit programs.
Raw data are plotted over the linear regression line. Shaded regions indicate bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals for the regression lines.

Similar articles

Cited by

  • Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy.
    Michaeli DT, Michaeli T, Albers S, Boch T, Michaeli JC. Michaeli DT, et al. Eur J Health Econ. 2024 Aug;25(6):979-997. doi: 10.1007/s10198-023-01639-x. Epub 2023 Nov 14. Eur J Health Econ. 2024. PMID: 37962724 Free PMC article. Review.
  • Outcomes of off-label drug uses in hospitals: a multicentric prospective study.
    Danés I, Agustí A, Vallano A, Alerany C, Martínez J, Bosch JA, Ferrer A, Gratacós L, Pérez A, Olmo M, Marron SM, Valderrama A, Bonafont X. Danés I, et al. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Nov;70(11):1385-93. doi: 10.1007/s00228-014-1746-2. Epub 2014 Sep 9. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014. PMID: 25196202 Free PMC article.
  • The European challenges of funding orphan medicinal products.
    Szegedi M, Zelei T, Arickx F, Bucsics A, Cohn-Zanchetta E, Fürst J, Kamusheva M, Kawalec P, Petrova G, Slaby J, Stawowczyk E, Vocelka M, Zechmeister-Koss I, Kaló Z, Molnár MJ. Szegedi M, et al. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018 Nov 6;13(1):184. doi: 10.1186/s13023-018-0927-y. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018. PMID: 30396361 Free PMC article.
  • Personalizing health care: feasibility and future implications.
    Godman B, Finlayson AE, Cheema PK, Zebedin-Brandl E, Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea I, Jones J, Malmström RE, Asola E, Baumgärtel C, Bennie M, Bishop I, Bucsics A, Campbell S, Diogene E, Ferrario A, Fürst J, Garuoliene K, Gomes M, Harris K, Haycox A, Herholz H, Hviding K, Jan S, Kalaba M, Kvalheim C, Laius O, Lööv SA, Malinowska K, Martin A, McCullagh L, Nilsson F, Paterson K, Schwabe U, Selke G, Sermet C, Simoens S, Tomek D, Vlahovic-Palcevski V, Voncina L, Wladysiuk M, van Woerkom M, Wong-Rieger D, Zara C, Ali R, Gustafsson LL. Godman B, et al. BMC Med. 2013 Aug 13;11:179. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-179. BMC Med. 2013. PMID: 23941275 Free PMC article. Review.
  • Pharmaceutical policy and innovation for rare diseases: A narrative review.
    Alonso Ruiz A, Large K, Moon S, Vieira M. Alonso Ruiz A, et al. F1000Res. 2023 Nov 13;12:211. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.130809.2. eCollection 2023. F1000Res. 2023. PMID: 38778810 Free PMC article. Review.

References

    1. Orphan Drug Act. 1983. Public Law Number 97-414 (96 Stat. 2049)
    1. Anand G. How drugs for rare diseases became lifeline for companies. 2005. Wall St. Journal 2005 Nov 15. - PubMed
    1. Wellman-Labadie O, Zhou Y. The US Orphan Drug Act: rare disease research stimulator or commercial opportunity? Health Policy. 2010;95:216–228. - PubMed
    1. Haffner ME, Torrent-Farnell J, Maher PD. Does orphan drug legislation really answer the needs of patients? Lancet. 2008;371:2041–2044. - PubMed
    1. Rohde DD. The Orphan Drug Act: an engine of innovation? At what cost? Food Drug Law J. 2000;55:125–143. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms