↓ Skip to main content

Orphan Drugs for Rare Diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
Title
Orphan Drugs for Rare Diseases
Published in
Drugs, January 2012
DOI 10.2165/11635320-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven Simoens, David Cassiman, Marc Dooms, Eline Picavet

Abstract

Orphan drugs are intended for diseases with a very low prevalence, and many countries have implemented legislation to support market access of orphan drugs. We argue that it is time to revisit the special market access status of orphan drugs. Indeed, evidence suggests that there is no societal preference for treating rare diseases. Although society appears to assign a greater value to severity of disease, this criterion is equally relevant to many common diseases. Furthermore, the criterion of equity in access to treatment, which underpins orphan drug legislation, puts more value on health improvement in rare diseases than in common diseases and implies that population health is not maximized. Finally, incentives for the development, pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs have created market failures, including monopolistic prices and the artificial creation of rare diseases. We argue that, instead of awarding special market access status to orphan drugs, there is scope to optimize research and development (R&D) of orphan drugs and to control prices of orphan drugs by means of, for example, patent auctions, advance purchase commitments, pay-as-you-go schemes and dose-modification studies. Governments should consider carefully the right incentive strategy for R&D of orphan drugs in rare diseases.

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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 95 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 22%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 28 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 13%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 30 31%
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 31 August 2022.
All research outputs
#5,240,498
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#799
of 3,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,862
of 246,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#4
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. 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 246,786 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.