From blockbuster to nichebuster
By Lucien Hordijk, Daan Marselis, | 29 July, 2020
Two decades of EU market protection of ‘orphan’ (rare disease) medicines have greatly benefitted the industry. According to research by The Investigative Desk, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Dutch Journal of Medicine (NTvG), many of these ‘orphan medicines’ make billions of euros.
Twenty years ago, the European Commission introduced a legislation to make the development of ‘orphan medicines’ – for the treatment of rare diseases – more attractive. Pharmaceutical companies would be awarded ‘market exclusivity’, not to be confused with patent protection, giving them a de facto 10 years monopoly on sales. The Investigative Desk analysed global sales data of 120 (of a total of 174) orphan medicines registered in the EU in the past 20 years. We found that pharma companies have reaped billions of euros on orphan sales.
This summer, the European Commission is expected to publish an – as yet confidential – review which suggests that without market exclusivity most of these medicines would have been launched anyway. These findings may raise voices for reform in the European Parliament.
The EU orphan legislation has stimulated the pharmaceutical industry to transform its ‘blockbuster’ model – which was based on medicines for widespread diseases – into a ‘nichebuster’ model in which medicines treating only small patient groups can still generate more than a billion euros annually. In 2019 alone, there were 20 such ‘nichebusters’ with an orphan designation in the European Union – up from 3 in 2009.
Since 2000, the average worldwide sales income of these orphan medicines has five folded to – on average – 723 million euros per medicine per year. Medicines for rare cancers are particularly lucrative, with an average turnover of 1.1 billion euros – twice the turnover of medicines for other rare diseases.
Experts say the excessive protection of orphan medicines is the result of flawed legislation. The European Commission cannot withdraw (or shorten) a market exclusivity once it has been granted – even if companies charge a disproportionately high price.
The complete findings of this research were published in the BMJ.
The Forever Pollution Project
Over a year ago, Tim Luimes, member of The Investigative Desk, came up with the idea to start a cross-border project about “forever chemicals” PFAS an
The Investigative Desk News Letter January 2023
Read the full newsletter here. Hi there, We’re a little late this year with our Q4 2022 newsletter, so we decided to include it in our January 2023 o
NATO in deep water because of Chinese port investments
Port terminals in European cities such as Gdynia, Rotterdam and Antwerpen-Zeebrugge are crucial logistic hubs for the arrival of US Armed Forces and e
Philip Morris pulls the strings in Indonesian production chain
From tobacco paradise Indonesia to tax paradise Switzerland: tobacco company Philip Morris makes hundreds of millions euros in profit by advantages it
Consumers left in the cold at Dutch Institute for Financial Disputes
Consumers and small entrepreneurs who have a complaint against their bank or insurer, can submit it to the Dutch Institute for Financial Disputes “Kla
The Investigative Desk Newsletter Q2
Read the full newsletter here. Dear reader, In this newsletter, we present you eight of the investigations we published in Q2 of this year. They are