How many people live with a rare disease, how rare is defined in the EU, US and Japan, why data are hard to collect and what the figures mean for developers.
Between 3.5% and 5.9% of the world population, an estimated 263 to 446 million people, live with a rare disease, according to an analysis of the Orphanet database (Nguengang Wakap et al., 2020): 71.9% of the 6,172 rare diseases it lists are genetic and 69.9% begin exclusively in childhood. Definitions differ by jurisdiction: in the EU a disease is rare when it affects no more than 5 in 10,000 people (Regulation (EC) No 141/2000).
Rare disease statistics begin with a range rather than a single number: an estimated 263 to 446 million people worldwide live with a rare disease (Nguengang Wakap et al., 2020), yet the vast majority of rare diseases still lack an approved treatment (Fermaglich & Miller, 2023). That gap between patient numbers and therapeutic options is one of the most persistent failures in modern medicine. Understanding rare disease epidemiology and statistics is the first step towards closing it: without reliable data on who is affected, where they live and how their conditions progress, drug developers, policymakers and clinicians are essentially working in the dark.
The numbers themselves tell a striking story. An analysis of the Orphanet database counted 6,172 distinct rare diseases, 71.9% of them genetic in origin, and collectively they affect between 3.5% and 5.9% of the global population (Nguengang Wakap et al., 2020). Despite these figures, people living with a rare disease in Europe wait an average of 4.7 years from their first symptoms to a confirmed diagnosis, according to a 2024 EURORDIS Rare Barometer study (Faye et al., 2024), and only around 5% of rare diseases have an FDA-approved drug (Fermaglich & Miller, 2023). These realities shape every decision in the rare disease market, from early-stage research priorities to commercialisation strategy and payer negotiations. What follows is a clear-eyed look at the data, the economics and the strategic pathways that define this space in 2026, written as part of Ideogen's condition market intelligence for partners and licensors.
The headline figures, each with its source:
The EU counts a disease as rare when it affects no more than 5 in 10,000 people.
The definition of "rare" varies by jurisdiction, and that inconsistency matters more than most people realise. In the United States, the Orphan Drug Act defines a rare disease as one that affects fewer than 200,000 people (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2018, 2026b). The European Union uses a prevalence threshold of no more than 5 per 10,000 inhabitants, set in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (Regulation (EC) No 141/2000). Japan sets its cutoff at fewer than 50,000 patients, and a disease on the list of designated intractable diseases also qualifies (Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, n.d.). These differing thresholds mean a condition can be classified as rare in one country and not in another, which directly influences regulatory incentives, funding and research attention.
| Jurisdiction | When a disease counts as rare | Source |
|---|---|---|
| European Union | No more than 5 in 10,000 people when the orphan designation application is made | Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, Article 3(1) |
| United States | Fewer than 200,000 people in the United States | Orphan Drug Act, section 526(a)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2018) |
| Japan | Fewer than 50,000 patients in Japan, or a designated intractable disease | Orphan drug designation criteria (Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, n.d.) |
National definitions range from 5 to 80 cases per 100,000 people, so they cover a variable number of patients even though they share most rare diseases within their scope (Nguengang Wakap et al., 2020).
Orphanet, the reference portal for rare diseases and orphan drugs, curates the prevalence data behind most of these figures and publishes them in its Orphanet Report Series (Orphanet, n.d.-a, n.d.-b). The underlying evidence is thin for many conditions: the 2020 global estimate drew on data for 67.6% of the prevalent rare diseases, and of the 5,304 diseases defined by point prevalence, 84.5% of those analysed affect fewer than 1 in 1,000,000 people (Nguengang Wakap et al., 2020). Many of these epidemiological profiles are based on small, geographically limited studies. Conditions like cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease have relatively well-characterised patient populations. Others, particularly ultra-rare diseases, rely on estimates drawn from case reports and specialist registries rather than population-level surveillance.
A country-specific strategy is only worth having if someone can execute it in each country. Ideogen provides the local access route, the regulatory filings, the supply model and the distribution across Europe, MENA, CIS and 94 markets worldwide, in orphan and rare disease. Talk to our experts about bridging access to unmet need in orphan and rare disease, where earlier access changes patient outcomes, at [email protected].
Accurate statistics for rare diseases remain frustratingly elusive. Most national health systems were not designed to track conditions that affect tiny fractions of the population. Diagnostic coding systems like ICD-10 and even the newer ICD-11 often lack the granularity needed to distinguish between closely related rare conditions, leading to misclassification and underreporting. Because each of them is rare, these diseases are under-represented in healthcare coding systems, which limits how often they are recognised and how much weight they carry in healthcare planning and resource allocation (Aymé et al., 2015).
Orphanet managed the topic advisory group for rare diseases in the World Health Organization's revision of the International Classification of Diseases. By 2015, 5,400 rare diseases from its database had an endorsed place in the foundation layer of the ICD-11 beta version, ten times more than in ICD-10, and in November 2014 the European Commission Expert Group on Rare Diseases had recommended that coding systems use ORPHA codes alongside ICD-10 codes for rare diseases with no specific code (Aymé et al., 2015).
Patient registries have helped, but they introduce their own biases. Registry data skews towards diagnosed patients in countries with strong healthcare infrastructure, missing those in low- and middle-income settings entirely. Even so, registries are recognised sources of data on epidemiology, standards of care and treatment patterns, and they support European regulatory decisions on medicines for rare diseases, for which the clinical evidence available at marketing authorisation is often limited (Jonker et al., 2022).
Whole-genome sequencing and newborn screening programmes are expanding the diagnostic net, but global adoption is uneven. In the pilot of England's 100,000 Genomes Project, genome sequencing gave a genetic diagnosis to 25% of the probands in 2,183 families with a broad range of rare diseases (100,000 Genomes Project Pilot Investigators et al., 2021). Across the EU, national newborn blood screening panels, including pilot programmes, cover 87 different rare conditions, yet only congenital hypothyroidism and phenylketonuria are screened for in every Member State (Koreimann-Özkan & Fernandes, 2026). Until data infrastructure catches up, epidemiological estimates for most rare diseases will remain approximations rather than precise counts.
The blood-brain barrier, the complexity of central nervous system biology and the difficulty of running clinical trials in small paediatric populations have made rare neurological diseases among the hardest to treat.
Neurological rare diseases represent one of the most challenging and underserved areas in medicine. Conditions spanning CNS orphan and rare disease categories, including spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), Dravet syndrome, Batten disease and dozens of rare epilepsies, often present in infancy or early childhood and carry devastating consequences. Many are progressive and neurodegenerative, meaning delayed diagnosis translates directly into irreversible harm.
The unmet need is large. A survey of pharmacological clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2010 and 2020 found that they covered only 7.3% (61 of 835) of the rare neurological diseases with onset in childhood, and 81.5% of those trials enrolled fewer than 100 participants (Chang et al., 2022). The blood-brain barrier, the complexity of CNS biology and the difficulty of running clinical trials in small paediatric populations have historically made these conditions among the hardest to treat. Patients and families often cycle through multiple specialists over years before receiving a diagnosis, let alone a targeted therapy: across all rare diseases, 22% of the Rare Barometer respondents in Europe had consulted at least eight healthcare professionals in their search for a diagnosis (Faye et al., 2024). Our article on the rare disease diagnostic odyssey looks at what shortens that search in Europe.
The past five years have shifted the outlook considerably. In SMA, a better understanding of the disease mechanism led to several therapeutic approaches. An approved gene therapy for spinal muscular atrophy was one of three treatments for the disease that had received regulatory approval by 2022, each designed to raise production of the survival motor neuron protein through a different molecular mechanism, administration route and distribution in the body, with others then in clinical development (Mercuri et al., 2022).
These therapies come at unprecedented high prices, usually charged as a large up-front payment for each patient, and the clinical evidence available at approval leaves payers with considerable uncertainty (Horrow & Kesselheim, 2023). They also mark a turning point for the field. The ability to target the genetic cause of a disease has attracted significant investment into neurogenetic pipelines, and regulators have responded with dedicated support schemes: in the US, the FDA's expedited programmes exist to speed the availability of medicines for serious diseases (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2023), and in the EU, EMA's PRIME scheme enhances support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs (European Medicines Agency, 2026b).
Several factors drive growth for rare disease treatments. Regulatory incentives remain a primary driver. In the US, orphan drug designation brings tax credits for qualified clinical testing, a waiver of the prescription drug user fee, currently almost $3 million for a new drug, and a potential seven years of market exclusivity after approval (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2026b). In the EU, designated orphan medicines receive protocol assistance, a form of scientific advice specific to them, fee reductions and ten years of market exclusivity once authorised (European Medicines Agency, 2026a; Regulation (EC) No 141/2000). Together, these incentives make development economically viable despite small patient populations.
Diagnostic improvements are expanding the addressable patient pool. Sequencing costs have fallen dramatically: in data from sequencing centres funded by the US National Human Genome Research Institute, the cost of sequencing a human genome fell from about $95.3 million in September 2001 to $46,774 in January 2010 and $525 in May 2022 (Wetterstrand, 2023). More diagnoses mean more patients eligible for treatment, which improves the commercial case for drug development.
The pipeline itself is robust in scale. In 2025, half of the FDA's novel drug approvals (23 of 46) had orphan drug designation (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2026a). Over the first 40 years of the Orphan Drug Act, from 1983 to 2022, the FDA granted 6,340 orphan drug designations covering 1,079 rare diseases, and 882 of those designations led to at least one approval, for use in 392 rare diseases (Fermaglich & Miller, 2023). Biotech firms, both large and small, continue to see rare diseases as an area where strong clinical data in small trials can support premium pricing and faster time to market.
Venture capital and pharma M&A activity in rare diseases has remained strong despite broader biotech market volatility. Acquisitions like those seen in 2024 and 2025, where large pharma companies paid significant premiums for rare disease-focused biotechs, signal sustained confidence in the commercial model.
Private investment is increasingly flowing towards platform technologies: gene editing (CRISPR-based and base editing), AAV gene therapy vectors and RNA-targeted approaches that can be adapted across multiple rare conditions. This platform logic is appealing because a single technology validated in one disease can potentially be redirected to dozens of others, reducing per-programme development risk.
Rare disease commercialisation demands a regulatory strategy that starts years before a product reaches the market. Orphan drug designation should be pursued early, as it unlocks protocol assistance, fee reductions and market exclusivity protections (European Medicines Agency, 2026a). In the US, the FDA runs four expedited programmes (fast track, breakthrough therapy, accelerated approval and priority review) to speed the availability of medicines for serious diseases (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2023). A sponsor that receives approval for a medicine for a rare paediatric disease may also qualify for a priority review voucher, redeemable for the priority review of a different product; following the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, the FDA may award these vouchers until 30 September 2029 (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2026c). For the European side of the pathway, see our guide to rare disease drug development in the EU.
The key challenge is evidence generation. In rare diseases, including rare cancers, where target populations are often very small, a proportion of marketing authorisation applications reach EMA with single-arm trials as the pivotal evidence, and the agency has published a reflection paper on such trials (European Medicines Agency, 2023). Because a single-arm trial has no randomised comparator, the quality of the natural history data used to interpret it matters enormously; FDA draft guidance describes how natural history studies can be designed to support the development of medicines for rare diseases (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2019). Companies that invest in prospective registries and real-world evidence collection early in development often find the regulatory conversation much smoother at the approval stage, and registries already contribute to European regulatory decision-making on rare disease medicines (Jonker et al., 2022).
Finding patients is arguably the hardest part of a rare disease launch. Traditional commercial models built around large sales forces calling on primary care physicians don't work when the target population is measured in hundreds or low thousands. Successful launches in 2025 and 2026 have relied on specialist centre networks, genetic testing partnerships and patient advocacy organisations to identify and reach eligible individuals.
In Europe, much of the relevant expertise sits in the 24 European Reference Networks, which by October 2025 brought together 1,606 specialised centres in 375 hospitals across the EU and Norway (European Commission, n.d.). In the Rare Barometer study, 60% of respondents had been referred to a centre of expertise during their search for a diagnosis, and referral was associated with a lower risk of diagnostic delay (Faye et al., 2024).
Pre-launch disease awareness campaigns, diagnostic support programmes and hub-and-spoke distribution models have become standard practice. Companies that treat patient identification as a core commercial capability rather than an afterthought consistently outperform those that don't. The difference between a strong and weak rare disease launch often comes down to how many diagnosed patients are identified and connected to treatment within the first 12 months.
Pricing rare disease therapies is a balancing act with no easy answers. Small patient populations and high per-patient development costs justify premium pricing from a manufacturer's perspective. But payers, particularly in single-payer systems, face budget impact concerns even when per-patient costs are high and patient numbers are low. For a one-time gene therapy paid up front, a handful of eligible patients can be enough to create a significant budget line item, which is why payers find such costs hard to predict and absorb (Horrow & Kesselheim, 2023).
Affordability also differs between countries. In a comparison of 120 orphan drugs across 12 European countries, median annual treatment costs varied little between countries, but once costs were adjusted for gross domestic product per capita, the lower-GDP countries faced three to six times higher relative costs (Young et al., 2017).
Market access for rare disease products increasingly depends on managed entry agreements. Across Europe, uncertainty and high prices have pushed payers and manufacturers towards two main types: finance-based agreements and performance-based agreements, the latter including individual performance-based schemes and coverage with evidence development (Dabbous et al., 2020). For gene therapies, the payment models discussed include instalments, risk pools, outcomes-based payments and rebates, warranties and coverage with evidence development (Horrow & Kesselheim, 2023). Pay-for-performance contracts, where full reimbursement depends on demonstrated clinical benefit over time, align manufacturer and payer incentives around what actually matters: whether the treatment works. In practice, many European countries have moved towards finance-based agreements because performance-based schemes are complex and burdensome to run (Dabbous et al., 2020).
Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies such as NICE in the UK, IQWiG in Germany and Canada's Drug Agency (CDA-AMC), the operating name CADTH adopted on 1 May 2024 (Canada's Drug Agency, 2024), apply frameworks that were originally designed for common diseases with large evidence bases. Rare diseases, by definition, rarely generate the volume of clinical data these frameworks expect. Small trial sizes, single-arm designs and surrogate endpoints are the norm, not the exception. In the EU, joint clinical assessment under the HTA Regulation will extend to medicines designated as orphan medicinal products from 13 January 2028 (Regulation (EU) 2021/2282).
Some HTA agencies have adapted. NICE's highly specialised technologies programme considers only drugs for very rare conditions (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, n.d.), and in France the Haute Autorité de Santé can grant early access, on an exceptional and temporary basis, to certain medicines not yet authorised in a given indication, for serious, rare or disabling diseases with no appropriate treatment (Haute Autorité de Santé, 2026). But global inconsistency remains a major barrier. A therapy approved and reimbursed in the US may face years of additional negotiation before reaching patients in Europe or Asia-Pacific: for 168 innovative medicines that received EU central marketing authorisation between 2021 and 2024, the median time to availability across Europe was 532 days, ranging from 56 days in Germany to 1,201 days in Romania (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, 2026). Companies pursuing global launches need country-specific access strategies from day one, not as an afterthought following US approval.
The next five to ten years will likely reshape how rare diseases are diagnosed, treated and managed at a population level. Newborn genomic screening is already being piloted. In England, the Generation Study run by Genomics England with the NHS will sequence the genomes of 100,000 newborn babies and looks for more than 200 rare conditions that typically appear in the first few years of life (Genomics England, n.d.). In the US, the Early Check programme in North Carolina offers voluntary screening of newborns, with a current panel of 182 genes for rare conditions that are highly actionable by the age of two (RTI International, 2026). In Italy, Genoma Puglia offers genomic newborn screening for 597 conditions to every newborn in the region, free of charge (Koreimann-Özkan & Fernandes, 2026). Programmes like these could identify affected children before symptoms appear, shifting care from reaction to anticipation.
AI-driven diagnostic tools are also being developed to shorten the diagnostic odyssey. In one study, a deep-learning framework trained on more than 17,000 facial images representing over 200 syndromes listed the correct syndrome among its top ten suggestions for 91% of 502 test images (Gurovich et al., 2019).
On the therapeutic side, the pipeline is deeper than it has ever been. Gene editing technologies are moving from proof-of-concept to registrational trials across dozens of conditions. RNA-based therapies offer the possibility of programmable medicines that can be tailored to individual mutations. And as rare disease epidemiology and related statistics improve through better registries and genomic databases, the commercial case for developing treatments for even the rarest conditions strengthens.
Between 3.5% and 5.9% of the world population, an estimated 263 to 446 million people, according to the Orphanet database analysis by Nguengang Wakap and colleagues (2020).
When it affects no more than 5 in 10,000 people, the prevalence threshold in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000.
The 2020 Orphanet database analysis counted 6,172 distinct rare diseases; other sources cite 7,000 or more (Nguengang Wakap et al., 2020; Fermaglich & Miller, 2023).
Through early access, compassionate use or named patient supply, where national rules allow, while authorisation or reimbursement progresses. The gap is wide: for innovative medicines centrally authorised in the EU between 2021 and 2024, the median time to availability was 532 days, ranging from 56 days in Germany to 1,201 days in Romania. Ideogen operates these routes for partners and licensors across Europe, MENA, CIS and 94 markets worldwide. Talk to our experts about bridging access to unmet need in orphan and rare disease, where earlier access changes patient outcomes, at [email protected].
The biggest remaining challenge is equity. With only around 5% of rare diseases having an FDA-approved drug (Fermaglich & Miller, 2023), access still depends on geography and income: high prices limit the uptake of orphan drugs, especially in low- and middle-income countries, where structural barriers span affordability, diagnostic capacity and fragmented governance (Alum et al., 2025). Closing that gap will require new pricing models, technology transfer agreements and international cooperation on data sharing. The science is advancing faster than access, and the most important work of the next decade may be ensuring that progress reaches every patient who needs it, not just those fortunate enough to live in the right country.
100,000 Genomes Project Pilot Investigators, Smedley, D., Smith, K. R., Martin, A., Thomas, E. A., McDonagh, E. M., Cipriani, V., Ellingford, J. M., Arno, G., Tucci, A., Vandrovcova, J., Chan, G., Williams, H. J., Ratnaike, T., Wei, W., Stirrups, K., Ibanez, K., Moutsianas, L., Wielscher, M., . . . Caulfield, M. (2021). 100,000 Genomes pilot on rare-disease diagnosis in health care: Preliminary report. The New England Journal of Medicine, 385(20), 1868-1880. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2035790
Alum, E. U., Ekpang, J. E., II, Ekpang, P. O., Ainebyoona, C., Nwagu, K. E., Nwuruku, O. A., & Muhammad, K. (2025). Toward an ethical future for orphan drugs: Balancing access, affordability, and innovation. Journal of Medical Economics, 28(1), 1869-1886. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2025.2577514
Aymé, S., Bellet, B., & Rath, A. (2015). Rare diseases in ICD11: Making rare diseases visible in health information systems through appropriate coding. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 10, Article 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-015-0251-8
Canada's Drug Agency. (2024, May 1). CADTH is now Canada's Drug Agency. https://www.cda-amc.ca/news/cadth-now-canadas-drug-agency
Chang, X., Zhang, J., Jiang, Y., Shang, M., & Wu, Y. (2022). A survey of registered pharmacological clinical trials on rare neurological diseases in children in 2010-2020. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 10, Article 963601. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.963601
Dabbous, M., Chachoua, L., Caban, A., & Toumi, M. (2020). Managed entry agreements: Policy analysis from the European perspective. Value in Health, 23(4), 425-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.12.008
European Commission. (n.d.). European Reference Networks. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://health.ec.europa.eu/rare-diseases-and-european-reference-networks/european-reference-networks_en
European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. (2026, May 19). Patients in Europe waiting longer for new medicines as inequality grows between Member States [Press release]. https://www.efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/statements-press-releases/patients-in-europe-waiting-longer-for-new-medicines-as-inequality-grows-between-member-states/
European Medicines Agency. (2023, April 21). Single-arm trials as pivotal evidence for the authorisation of medicines in the EU. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/single-arm-trials-pivotal-evidence-authorisation-medicines-eu
European Medicines Agency. (2026a, March 6). Orphan designation: Overview. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/orphan-designation-overview
European Medicines Agency. (2026b, August 10). PRIME: Priority medicines. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/research-development/prime-priority-medicines
Faye, F., Crocione, C., Anido de Peña, R., Bellagambi, S., Escati Peñaloza, L., Hunter, A., Jensen, L., Oosterwijk, C., Schoeters, E., de Vicente, D., Faivre, L., Wilbur, M., Le Cam, Y., & Dubief, J. (2024). Time to diagnosis and determinants of diagnostic delays of people living with a rare disease: Results of a Rare Barometer retrospective patient survey. European Journal of Human Genetics, 32(9), 1116-1126. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01604-z
Fermaglich, L. J., & Miller, K. L. (2023). A comprehensive study of the rare diseases and conditions targeted by orphan drug designations and approvals over the forty years of the Orphan Drug Act. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 18(1), Article 163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-023-02790-7
Genomics England. (n.d.). Newborn Genomes Programme. Retrieved October 5, 2026, from https://www.genomicsengland.co.uk/initiatives/newborns
Gurovich, Y., Hanani, Y., Bar, O., Nadav, G., Fleischer, N., Gelbman, D., Basel-Salmon, L., Krawitz, P. M., Kamphausen, S. B., Zenker, M., Bird, L. M., & Gripp, K. W. (2019). Identifying facial phenotypes of genetic disorders using deep learning. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 60-64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0279-0
Haute Autorité de Santé. (2026, September 1). Accès précoce à un médicament [Early access to a medicine]. https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/r_1500918/fr/acces-precoce-a-un-medicament
Horrow, C., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2023). Confronting high costs and clinical uncertainty: Innovative payment models for gene therapies. Health Affairs, 42(11), 1532-1540. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2023.00527
Jonker, C. J., Bakker, E., Kurz, X., & Plueschke, K. (2022). Contribution of patient registries to regulatory decision making on rare diseases medicinal products in Europe. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 13, Article 924648. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.924648
Koreimann-Özkan, C., & Fernandes, M. (2026, March). What if the EU had guidelines for newborn screening? (PE 774.727). European Parliamentary Research Service. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2026/774727/EPRS_BRI(2026)774727_EN.pdf
Mercuri, E., Sumner, C. J., Muntoni, F., Darras, B. T., & Finkel, R. S. (2022). Spinal muscular atrophy. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 8(1), Article 52. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-022-00380-8
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (n.d.). About highly specialised technologies guidance. Retrieved October 5, 2026, from https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/nice-highly-specialised-technologies-guidance
Nguengang Wakap, S., Lambert, D. M., Olry, A., Rodwell, C., Gueydan, C., Lanneau, V., Murphy, D., Le Cam, Y., & Rath, A. (2020). Estimating cumulative point prevalence of rare diseases: Analysis of the Orphanet database. European Journal of Human Genetics, 28(2), 165-173. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0508-0
Orphanet. (n.d.-a). Orphanet: Knowledge on rare diseases and orphan drugs. Retrieved September 25, 2026, from https://www.orpha.net/
Orphanet. (n.d.-b). Orphanet Reports Series. Retrieved September 25, 2026, from https://www.orpha.net/en/other-information/reports
Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency. (n.d.). Overview of orphan drug designation. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.pmda.go.jp/english/review-services/reviews/0011.html
Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products. (2000). Official Journal of the European Communities, L 18, 1-5. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2000/141/oj
Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2021 on health technology assessment and amending Directive 2011/24/EU. (2021). Official Journal of the European Union, L 458, 1-32. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2282/oj
RTI International. (2026, July 1). Early Check: A collaborative innovation to facilitate pre-symptomatic clinical trials in newborns (Identifier NCT03655223). ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03655223
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2018, March 9). Orphan Drug Act: Relevant excerpts. https://www.fda.gov/industry/designating-orphan-product-drugs-and-biological-products/orphan-drug-act-relevant-excerpts
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019, March). Rare diseases: Natural history studies for drug development [Draft guidance for industry]. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/rare-diseases-natural-history-studies-drug-development
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023, June 12). Fast track, breakthrough therapy, accelerated approval, priority review. https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-drug-and-device-approvals/fast-track-breakthrough-therapy-accelerated-approval-priority-review
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2026a, January). Advancing health through innovation: New drug therapy approvals 2025. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. https://www.fda.gov/media/190705/download
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2026b, September 10). Rare diseases at FDA. https://www.fda.gov/patients/rare-diseases-fda
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2026c, April 29). Rare pediatric disease designation and priority review voucher programs. https://www.fda.gov/industry/medical-products-rare-diseases-and-conditions/rare-pediatric-disease-designation-and-priority-review-voucher-programs
Wetterstrand, K. A. (2023, May 16). DNA sequencing costs: Data. National Human Genome Research Institute. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/DNA-Sequencing-Costs-Data
Young, K. E., Soussi, I., & Toumi, M. (2017). The perverse impact of external reference pricing (ERP): A comparison of orphan drugs affordability in 12 European countries. A call for policy change. Journal of Market Access & Health Policy, 5(1), Article 1369817. https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2017.1369817
