共查询到19条相似文献,搜索用时 187 毫秒
1.
罕见病用药的界定和认定标准是实施罕见病用药研发、生产、供应等激励政策的基础。域外很多国家结合国情制定了本国孤儿药的认定标准。美国孤儿药认定标准最为宽松,符合流行病学或者预期收益不足以弥补研发成本的药品,均可以获得孤儿药认定;欧盟在美国的基础上增加了“疾病严重程度”和“显著收益”要求,对于孤儿亚组的认定也较为严格;日本、韩国均强调孤儿药的研发可能性;澳大利亚更侧重于孤儿药的引进,对其认定的孤儿药设置了6个月的孤儿药资格有效期。结合我国罕见病及罕见病用药的管理现状,建议相关部门应当首先明确罕见病定义,在此基础上从成本-收益、疾病严重程度、显著收益、研发可能性及临床优势等方面对罕见病用药的认定标准进行细化和考量,并制定配套的激励政策,进一步提升罕见病用药的可及性。 相似文献
2.
3.
《中国药房》2017,(16):2161-2166
目的:为构建和完善我国的罕用药研发激励政策提供参考和建议。方法:从罕用药的立法沿革、研发罕用药的激励措施与效果方面对美国和欧盟的罕用药研发激励政策进行对比,并为我国完善相关政策提供建议。结果与结论:美国与欧盟的罕用药激励政策分别始于1983年美国《罕用药法案》与1999年欧盟《罕用药管理规范》,之后通过不断完善,形成了较为完备的体系。美国与欧盟在罕用药的认定标准、认定程序、具体激励措施(研发资助、税收减免、费用减免、微型与中小企业额外激励、市场独占、特殊审批程序)等方面有所差异,如在费用减免方面,美国对处方申请费用、生产费用和药物确认费用进行减免,而欧盟对协议帮助费用、初始和后续要求费用,审批前的检查费用和首次上市申请费用依类型按一定比例进行减免。罕用药激励政策推行后,其资格认定数量及上市数量大幅增加、微型与中小型企业成为罕用药研发的生力军、研发投资涵盖各类疾病治疗领域、罕用药研发成为药物创新和生物技术发展的主要方向。我国应该尽快确定罕用药研发激励的相关立法、设立罕用药的资格认定、从多方面入手完善罕用药研发激励具体措施,同时加强与其他国家在罕用药资格认定和研发激励方面的合作。 相似文献
4.
罕见病无药可医的困境越来越多地被关注,而目前国内有关罕用药的相关政策还不完善,因此,通过从研发、审批、上市三个阶段介绍我国罕用药激励政策,同时介绍一些国际上相对成熟的罕用药政策,为我国罕用药物制度的完善提供参考。 相似文献
5.
6.
该文介绍了目前我国正式纳入优先审评审批的罕见病药物的研发和注册情况。自2016年施行优先审评政策以来,截至2022年第一季度,药品审评中心共正式纳入了137个罕见病药物的优先审评。从2018年开始,从受理到上市的审评时长开始缩短。纳入优先审评的罕见病药物涉及多种分子类型,治疗领域以肿瘤为主,但适应证属于《第一批罕见病目录》的国产药物依然以仿制为主。总体来看,优先审评政策加速了罕见病药物在中国的申报和上市,建议将更多优先审评药物的适应证纳入罕见病目录,并尽快出台罕见病的相关法规、配套出台相应的研发激励政策,促进国内企业投入罕见病创新药的研发,推动我国的自主研发药物上市,以满足罕见病患者的临床需求。 相似文献
7.
《中国食品药品监管》2012,(7):4-4
近日,欧洲药品管理局迎来了第1000个孤儿药设计。“孤儿药指定”是欧洲药品管理局孤儿药品委员会(Committeefor Orphan Medicinal Products,COMP)提出的概念。为了鼓励罕见病药物的研发,孤儿药品委员会于1999年提出了这一办法,为在欧盟研发孤儿药的公司提供协助与奖励,其中包括了研发方面的协助,监管费用的减少以及药品上市后竞争的保护。 相似文献
8.
《中国药房》2017,(26):3733-3737
目的:了解2010-2015年美国FDA批准的孤儿药的情况,为我国孤儿药的相关立法和新药研发提供参考。方法:查阅近年来国内外相关文献,对2010-2015年美国FDA批准的孤儿药进行统计和分析。结果与结论:2010-2015年美国FDA批准上市的孤儿药共77种,仅2015年就有21种,占该年获批新药的46.67%。获批孤儿药主要是治疗肿瘤、内分泌及代谢系统疾病、心血管疾病、感染性疾病、神经及精神疾病和血液系统疾病等全球高发疾病的药物,其中以抗肿瘤药物为主(38种,占49.35%),主要用于治疗黑色素瘤、非小细胞肺癌和白血病。美国FDA批准的孤儿药的研发企业以美国为主。我国尚无明确的罕见病和孤儿药的定义及相关立法,亟需加快相关立法进程,结合国情开展孤儿药的研发与审批。 相似文献
9.
10.
11.
《Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal》2023,31(9):101738
BackgroundRare diseases are chronic, serious, and life-threatening conditions that have not received sufficient attention from drug developers due to their rarity. Policies have been implemented to encourage research and incentivize the development of orphan drugs. However, the implementation of these policies has been inconsistent worldwide.ObjectiveThe primary aim of this study was to compare orphan drug policies in the United States, Europe, and Saudi Arabia (SA) and assess their impact on the number of approved indications.MethodLists of all drugs granted orphan designations and authorized for marketing in the United States, European Union, and SA were extracted using orphan drug lists available in regulatory body databases. The availability of these drugs, regarding their approval for orphan indication and designation, was assessed and classified using Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical codes.ResultA total of 792 orphan drug designations with at least one authorized indication were identified in this study. Of these, 92% were designated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and 27% were designated by the European Medicine Agency (EMA). The FDA, EMA, and Saudi Food and Drug Authority approved 753, 435, and 253 orphan drugs, respectively.ConclusionFewer orphan drug approvals were found in SA than in the United States and Europe. This highlights the need to focus on rare diseases and orphan drugs and for policies to be created in SA to attract pharmaceutical markets and fulfill unmet orphan drug approval needs. 相似文献
12.
Heemstra HE de Vrueh RL van Weely S Büller HA Leufkens HG 《Drug discovery today》2008,13(15-16):670-676
With the assignment of the 500th European Union orphan drug designation in 2007, the Regulation on Orphan Medicinal Products truly begins to show its potential for delivering new medicines to patients with rare diseases. Here, we analysed European orphan drug development at a national level and unveil a strong relationship between orphan drug development and pharmaceutical innovation performance in Europe. Moreover, we identify gaps in transition from science into orphan drug development as important bottlenecks that exist in several European countries. Our findings underline the importance of innovation-based policies to enhance the development of orphan drugs in Europe. 相似文献
13.
14.
15.
《Prescrire international》2007,16(87):36-42
(1) Worldwide, there are an estimated 6000 to 7000 rare diseases. Patients face special difficulties in obtaining an accurate diagnosis, adequate information about the disease, and access to qualified specialists. (2) Drug companies do not spontaneously conduct research on drugs for rare diseases, mainly because of the limited market for each indication. Only a few dozen of these drugs were available in France before 2000. (3) In 2000 the European Union adopted a Regulation, based on experience in the United States, aimed at promoting the development of drugs for patients suffering from rare diseases, i.e. 'orphan drugs'. (4) In Europe, orphan drug status can be granted when the prevalence of the disease does not exceed 5 cases per 10 000 inhabitants (or when it is more frequent but profitability is likely to be inadequate). (5) Companies that market an orphan drug receive a variety of financial assistance as well as a 10-year marketing monopoly. (6) Between April 2000 and April 2005, 268 medicinal products received European orphan drug status and 22 were granted European marketing authorization. (7) Access to these drugs varies greatly from one European Union Member State to another, mainly because of the high annual treatment costs (up to 300 000 euros per patient). Worldwide sales of the orphan drug imatinib reached more than two thousand million dollars in 2005. (8) Our systematic analyses (see the New Products column of our French edition la revue Prescrire) show that only 5 drugs which received European orphan drug status before May 2005 were for diseases for which there had previously been no treatment. (9) Clinical evaluation of orphan drugs is hindered by the small number of patients available for clinical trials. Some orphan drugs are adequately tested before being brought to market. Others are not compared to existing treatments. In many cases, surrogate criteria are used instead of clinical endpoints. These methodological flaws are in no way limited to orphan drugs. (10) Not all orphan drugs represent therapeutic advances. Clinical research and evaluation should continue after marketing authorization has been granted. (11) More drugs, with better-documented efficacy and safety, are now available for patients who previously had no effective treatment options. Yet there is too much duplication and too little evaluation, and too many drugs are extremely expensive, meaning that patients in many European countries cannot benefit. And many rare diseases are still neglected. 相似文献
16.
目的:汇总中国专家提出的罕见病和罕用药问题及其政策建议,为我国未来的罕见病和罕用药政策制定提供参考依据。方法:通过对近32年(1984~2016年)国内发表的文献进行检索,较全面地获取具有代表性的中国罕见病和罕用药问题研究资料,参考国际循证卫生服务中心制定的评价标准,对所纳入文献进行质量评价和研究内容进行系统的分析。结果:最终纳入359篇文献(24.95%),其中,271篇(75.49%)涉及我国专家关注的罕见病和罕用药问题,如罕见病缺乏明确定义,罕见病的诊断水平低,法律保障机制缺失,医药产业缺乏利润动机,罕用药的可负担性和供应及时性差等;251篇(69.91%)提出了对应的政策建议,包括明确罕见病和罕用药界定标准,提高医生的诊断水平,建立覆盖药品生命周期的激励制度,将可治疗的罕见病纳入大病医保范围,建立多元筹资机制和全国罕见病数据库。结论:罕用药蕴含着巨大市场潜力和社会价值,应促进建立罕见病与罕用药从研发到使用的激励与保障机制。 相似文献
17.
罕见病发病率低、病情复杂、诊断难度大,导致其治疗药物研发面临诸多困难。为满足临床迫切需求,鼓励罕见病药物研发,近年来国家出台一系列政策及技术指导原则。梳理了2015年至今的罕见病治疗药物研发激励政策,通过查阅文献及公开资料,整理2018—2023年批准上市的用于治疗第一批罕见病目录中罕见病治疗的药物信息,分析中国罕见病药物研发现状。建议定期更新罕见病目录,加强罕见病药物研发者权益保护,鼓励优质罕见病药物仿制,以推动罕见病药物研发产业创新发展、满足罕见病患者的用药需求。 相似文献
18.
目的:探索中美政府资助罕见病与罕用药科研基金项目差异性。方法:比较分析两国罕见病和罕用药科研项目的管理规定、数量、金额、研究机构和领域五大核心内容。结果:美国出台明确科研资助的罕用药和罕见病法案;2008-2013年间,美国NIH资助37826项罕见病及罕用药科研基金项目,共计约147.3亿美元;同期,中国NSFC资助3132项此类项目,共计约12.9亿元。中美的高校为罕见病及罕用药科研项目的主要承担机构。美国罕见病及罕用药项目的研究领域相对广泛,对重点研究采取持续性资助。结论:我国的罕见病和罕用药科研项目的管理存在定义界定不明确、缺乏专项科研基金项目、管理机构和激励机制,研究经费少和研究领域窄等问题,应针对性进行改进。 相似文献
19.