ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
Orphan Designation for Drugs Approved in the United States and European Union: A Comparative Analysis.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Drug and country characteristics associated with global approval and launch of FDA-approved novel therapeutics.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rare disease drugs represent a significant portion of new drug approvals, but the United States and European Union (EU) have differing approaches to Orphan Drug designations, impacting application fees and market exclusivity. This cross-sectional study analyzed the first rare disease drug approvals in the United States and EU from 2011 to 2020 using data from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) databases, describing similarities and differences in how both regions grant Orphan Drug designations. Out of 344 rare disease drug approvals, 336 (97.7%) were licensed by the FDA with Orphan Drug designations, 139 (40.4%) by the EMA with Orphan Drug designations; 131 (38.1%) were licensed with Orphan Drug designations by both the FDA and EMA, while 103 (29.9%) were approved in the EU without this designation. Additionally, 110 (32.0%) had approval from one agency only, with 102 (29.7%) by the FDA and 8 (2.3%) by the EMA. Both agencies were most consistent in granting Orphan Drug designations for advanced therapies (75.0%) and genetic diseases (55.4%). EMA approvals were lacking for tropical diseases (12.7%), while EU designations were often absent for diseases not considered distinct entities, such as subsets of cancers or pediatric indications of prevalent diseases. These findings reflect the differing regulatory frameworks and practices between the United States and the EU. Policymakers seeking to improve rare disease drug approval could prioritize incentives for the development of treatments for truly rare diseases as opposed to subsets of more common conditions for which incentives have already been established or create pathways that tackle scientific and societal challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.