Search

The Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) evaluates prevalence of rare conditions as one of the criteria for granting an orphan designation with a prevalence threshold of 5 in 10.000. At the time of Marketing Authorisation (MA) these criteria are reassessed to ensure they are still met. The COMP has noted discordance between the prevalence of certain haematological malignancies at the time of Orphan Designation and at the time of Marketing Authorisation. Consequently, we conducted a retrospective assessment of Chronic Lymphocytic Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma/Plasma cell Myeloma as well as several other haematological rare aetiologies frequently subject of orphan designation. These were: Diffuse large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), Follicular Lymphoma (FL), Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (CTCL), Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) and Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia (CML). The review used submissions as well as recent publications and results from external and EMA databases. As a first step in the analysis, an increase over time in the number of people affected was evident for four conditions in the COMP designation documents, whereas for DLBCL, FL, CTCL and MCL there had been no significant change, since the introduction of the Regulation in 2000. Specifically, the prevalence estimates increased from 1.2 to 3.6 per 10,000 for multiple myeloma, from 0.4 to 1.7 in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, and from 2.7 to 4.85 for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic leukaemia and 1 to 2 in 10,000 for chronic myeloid leukaemia. The reasons for the changes in the prevalence of these four haematological conditions over the last 15 years were not assessed but recent publications have alluded to better outcomes due to new treatments being made available. In addition, many orphan diseases have a median age of onset over 60 years so that also the aging of the population may be a relevant contributing factor.

The use of biomarkers within the procedures of the Committee of Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is discussed herein. The applications for Orphan Medicinal Product designation in the EU are evaluated at two stages. At the time of orphan designation application, the file undergoes an assessment to establish whether the proposed condition is a distinct and serious condition affecting not more than 5 in 10,000 people in the EU, and whether the product is plausible as a therapy for that condition. In cases where therapies already exist, the significant benefit of the candidate product over existing therapies is also evaluated. The orphan criteria are reassessed at the time of marketing authorisation, so that marketing exclusivity for the product in the orphan medical condition can be granted. Within this context, biomarkers have been used in submissions in order to define an orphan condition and to justify that the criteria for orphan designation are met. The current work discusses specific examples from the experience of the COMP, where biomarkers have played a decisive role. Importantly, it identifies the proposal of sub-sets of non-rare conditions based on biomarkers as a challenging issue in the evaluation of applications. In particular two specific requirements for the candidate orphan medicines in relation to the biomarker-based subsets are highlighted: the “plausible link to the condition” and the “exclusion of effects outside the subset”.

In the European Union, sponsors have the responsibility to demonstrate the "intention to diagnose, prevent or treat" a serious and rare condition before the Committee of Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP), for a medicinal product to meet the criteria for Orphan Designation. This requirement is commonly referred to as "medical plausibility" and the justification of this intention is assessed on the merits of each application by the COMP, which deliberates over the scientific evaluation of the evidence submitted. The scientific assessment of the applications for orphan designation by the Committee is based on the review of non-clinical (such as in vitro and in vivo) and/or clinical data submitted by the sponsor. Several challenges regarding the evidence provided emerge when the sponsor is applying for a designation at an early stage of development. Herein we discuss specific examples from the experience of the COMP, in order to elaborate on the type and level of evidence generally considered necessary for the purpose of justification of the intention to treat an orphan condition. Importantly, it is pointed out that bridging of data from other products, irrespectively of how comparable they may be, or from settings not directly associated with the condition as applied for designation, is by and large not a successful exercise and may only be exceptionally considered. It is further exemplified that, as reflected in the updated 'Guideline on the format and context of the applications for designation' and the guidance document 'Recommendation on elements required to support the medical plausibility and the assumption of significant benefit for an orphan designation' available on the EMA website, the sponsor should provide data with the specific product as applied for in specific models of the condition or in patients affected by the same condition subject of each application.