Estimating cumulative point prevalence of rare diseases: analysis of the Orphanet database

By Stéphanie Nguengang Wakap, D. Lambert, Annie Olry, C. Rodwell, Charlotte Gueydan, V. Lanneau, D. Murphy, Y. le Cam, Ana Rath. European Journal of Human Genetics, 2019

1,322 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Rare diseases, an emerging global public health priority, require an evidence-based estimate of the global point prevalence to inform public policy. We used the publicly available epidemiological data in the Orphanet database to calculate such a prevalence estimate. Overall, Orphanet contains information on 6172 unique rare diseases; 71.9% of which are genetic and 69.9% which are exclusively pediatric onset. Global point prevalence was calculated using rare disease prevalence data for predefined geographic regions from the ‘Orphanet Epidemiological file’ (http://www.orphadata.org/cgi-bin/epidemio.html). Of the 5304 diseases defined by point prevalence, 84.5% of those analysed have a point prevalence of <1/1 000 000. However 77.3–80.7% of the population burden of rare diseases is attributable to the 4.2% (n = 149) diseases in the most common prevalence range (1–5 per 10 000). Consequently national definitions of ‘Rare Diseases’ (ranging from prevalence of 5 to 80 per 100 000) represent a variable number of rare disease patients despite sharing the majority of rare disease in their scope. Our analysis yields a conservative, evidence-based estimate for the population prevalence of rare diseases of 3.5–5.9%, which equates to 263–446 million persons affected globally at any point in time. This figure is derived from data from 67.6% of the prevalent rare diseases; using the European definition of 5 per 10 000; and excluding rare cancers, infectious diseases, and poisonings. Future registry research and the implementation of rare disease codification in healthcare systems will further refine the estimates.

Subfields: Genetics, Immunology, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab3ad77881de78116071150c82f9b044cb09fdf1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

  1. Martina Kutmon
  2. Marvin Martens
  3. Anders Riutta
  4. Kristina Hanspers
  5. D. Slenter
  6. A. Ammar
  7. Chris T. A. Evelo
  8. A. Waagmeester

Citations in the corpus