To the Editor I offer a few points of disagreement in response to the Viewpoint on the Orphan Drug Act (ODA).1
The authors incorrectly stated that the ODA extends patent protections. In fact, it does not alter patent life; rather, it grants a period of postapproval market exclusivity distinct from patent protection.
A distinction should be drawn between 2 categories of orphan drugs: those that treat rare or ultra-rare conditions and those that are approved for narrow subsets of disease (often advanced cancer with the presence of a genetic mutation and/or after failure of prior therapy). The latter is problematic while the former is appropriately incentivized by the ODA. Existing literature has established the unique problems posed by orphan anticancer drugs,2,3 to which the authors alluded. Rather than a new definition of orphan drugs, the onus should be on the US Food and Drug Administration to exercise greater discretion in its approval of orphan drugs for narrowly defined disease subsets.
Karas L. Incentivizing Therapies for Rare Diseases. JAMA. 2019;322(5):464–465. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.6954
Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: