↓ Skip to main content

Review and comparison of clinical evidence submitted to support European Medicines Agency market authorization of orphan-designated oncological treatments

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Review and comparison of clinical evidence submitted to support European Medicines Agency market authorization of orphan-designated oncological treatments
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13023-015-0349-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Winstone, Shkun Chadda, Stephen Ralston, Peter Sajosi

Abstract

Clinical trials for treatments indicated for orphan diseases may be limited due to the low prevalence of such diseases; this can result in implications for both regulatory and health economic perspectives. This study assessed the pivotal clinical evidence packages submitted to support applications for European Medicines Agency (EMA) marketing authorizations for treatments for orphan conditions, in relation to the size of the eligible patient population. Approved treatments for EMA-designated orphan conditions (defined as life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions that affect ≤5/10,000 people) were identified from the EMA web site. All treatments reviewed were included in anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) category L (antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs): this category was selected because it is the largest ATC category, containing almost 50 % of all approved orphan-designated products. Treatments were reviewed if they had been approved within the past 7 years and had been evaluated in a controlled trial using at least one survival-based clinical endpoint. Treatments were compared in terms of patient-years (accumulated duration of follow-up), the number of patients in the pivotal trials and disease prevalence. As of 1 February 2014, 68 treatments had been approved for orphan-designated conditions, of which 30 belonged to ATC category L and 14 met all inclusion criteria. The number of patients in the pivotal trials ranged from 162 to 846 (median 485). In terms of patient-years, the longest duration of follow-up was seen in the pivotal trial of mifamurtide in osteosarcoma, which had 4068 patient-years; excluding this trial, follow-up ranged from 308 to 2906 patient-years (median 1796 years). Osteosarcoma had the second smallest eligible patient population (0.5/10,000 persons) of the reviewed treatments. Clinical trials of orphan treatments are often limited by low patient numbers and inadequate follow-up. Pooling of expertise in single centres and the establishment of rare disease reference networks and patient registries may facilitate appropriate trial design for orphan-designated treatments. This analysis found that the pivotal clinical trial for mifamurtide in osteosarcoma had the largest number of patient-years of follow-up, despite a small eligible patient population, showing that it is possible to conduct studies with an adequate patient population size and duration of follow-up in patient-years, and a comparative design with clinical, survival-based, endpoints.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
France 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 49 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Other 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 31%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2022.
All research outputs
#4,588,019
of 23,347,114 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#616
of 2,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,306
of 285,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#10
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,347,114 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.