Low-value approvals and high prices might incentivize ineffective drug development

Can Machine Learning Overcome the 95% Failure Rate and Reality that Only 30% of Approved Cancer Drugs Meaningfully Extend Patient Survival?

Despite implementing hundreds of strategies, cancer drug development suffers from a 95% failure rate over 30 years, with only 30% of approved cancer drugs extending patient survival beyond 2.5 months. Adding more criteria without eliminating nonessential ones is impractical and may fall into the "survivorship bias" trap. Machine learning (ML) models may enhance efficiency by saving time and cost. Yet, they may not improve success rate without identifying the root causes of failure. We propose a "STAR-guided ML system" (structure-tissue/cell selectivity-activity relationship) to enhance success rate and efficiency by addressing three overlooked interdependent factors: potency/specificity to the on/off-targets determining efficacy in tumors at clinical doses, on/off-target-driven tissue/cell selectivity influencing adverse effects in the normal organs at clinical doses, and optimal clinical doses balancing efficacy/safety as determined by potency/specificity and tissue/cell selectivity. STAR-guided ML models can directly predict clinical dose/efficacy/safety from five features to design/select the best drugs, enhancing success and efficiency of cancer drug development.

The value of anticancer drugs - a regulatory view

The high prices of new anticancer drugs and the marginal added benefit perceived by some stakeholders have fuelled a debate on the value of anticancer drugs in the European Union, even though an agreed definition of what constitutes a drug's value does not exist. In this Perspective, we discuss the value of drugs from different viewpoints and objectives of decision makers: for regulators, assessment of the benefit-risk balance of a drug is a cornerstone for approval; payers rely on cost-effectiveness analyses carried out by health technology assessment agencies for reimbursement decisions; for patients, treatment choices are based on personal preferences and attitudes to risk; and clinicians can use several scales (such as the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS)) that have been developed as an attempt to measure value objectively. Although a unique definition that fully captures the concept of value is unlikely to emerge, herein we discuss the importance of understanding different perspectives, and how regulators can help to inform different decision makers.

Peptide-Based Drug Delivery Systems

Peptide-based drug delivery systems have many advantages when compared to synthetic systems in that they have better biocompatibility, biochemical and biophysical properties, lack of toxicity, controlled molecular weight via solid phase synthesis and purification. Lysosomes, solid lipid nanoparticles, dendrimers, polymeric micelles can be applied by intravenous administration, however they are of artificial nature and thus may induce side effects and possess lack of ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier. An analysis of nontoxic drug delivery systems and an establishment of prospective trends in the development of drug delivery systems was needed. This review paper summarizes data, mainly from the past 5 years, devoted to the use of peptide-based carriers for delivery of various toxic drugs, mostly anticancer or drugs with limiting bioavailability. Peptide-based drug delivery platforms are utilized as peptide–drug conjugates, injectable biodegradable particles and depots for delivering small molecule pharmaceutical substances (500 Da) and therapeutic proteins. Controlled drug delivery systems that can effectively deliver anticancer and peptide-based drugs leading to accelerated recovery without significant side effects are discussed. Moreover, cell penetrating peptides and their molecular mechanisms as targeting peptides, as well as stimuli responsive (enzyme-responsive and pH-responsive) peptides and peptide-based self-assembly scaffolds are also reviewed.

Pharmacology-based ranking of anti-cancer drugs to guide clinical development of cancer immunotherapy combinations

The success of antibodies targeting Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand L1 (PD-L1) in cancer treatment and the need for improving response rates has led to an increased demand for the development of combination therapies with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 blockers as a backbone. As more and more drugs with translational potential are identified, the number of clinical trials evaluating combinations has increased considerably and the demand to prioritize combinations having potential for success over the ones that are unlikely to be successful is rising. This review aims to address the unmet need to prioritize cancer immunotherapy combinations through comprehensive search of potential drugs and ranking them based on their mechanism of action, clinical efficacy and safety. As lung cancer is one of the most frequently studied cancer types, combinations that showed potential for the treatment of lung cancer were prioritized. A literature search was performed to identify drugs with potential in combination with PD-1/PD-L1 blockers and the drugs were ranked based on their mechanism of action and known clinical efficacy. Nineteen drugs or drug classes were identified from an internal list of lead molecules and were scored for their clinical potential. Efficacy and safety data from pivotal studies was summarized for the selected drugs. Further, overlap of mechanisms of action and adverse events was visualized using a heat map illustration to help screen drugs for combinations. The quantitative scoring methodology provided in this review could serve as a template for preliminary ranking of novel combinations.

Robustness and pragmatism of the evidence supporting the European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of follicular lymphoma

Background: Results of randomized clinical trials may not be entirely applicable to clinical practice. The present manuscript aims to explore the pragmatism and robustness of the evidence that supports the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) follicular lymphoma (FL) guidelines.Methods & design: Analysis of all trials used to support positive, therapeutic, oncological recommendations in the 2020 ESMO FL guidelines. Predefined data points were extracted from each trial. Pragmatism was assessed by means of the PRECIS-2 tool, the difference in overall survival in the interventions compared and the source of funding. Robustness was assessed by means of the fragility index and the p value.Results: 28 trials were included. The full protocol or a protocol summary was provided for 12 (43%). Based on the PRECIS-2 domains, trials were considered pragmatic in organization, analysis and flexibility and explanatory in eligibility. Robustness was high, with 4/24 (17%) trials with p values between 0.05 and 0.005 and a median fragility index of 18.Conclusions: Results of trials to support ESMO recommendations in FL were robust. Pragmatism was high in some domains but modest to low in others and the pattern was similar across trials. Transparency in the publication of trial protocols was suboptimal.

Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda

BACKGROUND

Conflicts of interest in biomedical research can influence research results and drive research agendas away from public health priorities. Previous agenda-setting studies share two shortfalls: they only account for direct connections between academic institutions and firms, as well as potential bias based on researchers' personal beliefs. This paper's goal is to determine the key actors and contents of the prevailing health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) research agenda, overcoming these shortfalls.

METHODS

We performed a bibliometric and lexical analysis of 95,415 scientific articles published between 1999 and 2018 in the highest impact factor journals within HBMS, using the Web of Science database and the CorText platform. HBMS's prevailing knowledge network of institutions was proxied with network maps where nodes represent affiliations and edges the most frequent co-authorships. The content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda was depicted through network maps of prevalent multi-terms found in titles, keywords, and abstracts.

RESULTS

The HBMS research agendas of large private firms and leading academic institutions are intertwined. The prevailing HBMS agenda is mostly based on molecular biology (40% of the most frequent multi-terms), with an inclination towards cancer and cardiovascular research (15 and 8% of the most frequent multi-terms, respectively). Studies on pathogens and biological vectors related to recent epidemics are marginal (1% of the most frequent multi-terms). Content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda prioritizes research on pharmacological intervention over research on socio-environmental factors influencing disease onset or progression and overlooks, among others, the study of infectious diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmaceutical corporations contribute to set HBMS's prevailing research agenda, which is mainly focused on a few diseases and research topics. A more balanced research agenda, together with epistemological approaches that consider socio-environmental factors associated with disease spreading, could contribute to being better prepared to prevent and treat more diverse pathologies and to improve overall health outcomes.

Potential Cost Implications for All US Food and Drug Administration Oncology Drug Approvals in 2018

Importance

The growth of cancer drug spending in the US has outpaced spending in nearly all other sectors, and an increasing proportion of the drug development pipeline is devoted to oncology. In 2018, there was a record number of drugs entering the US market.

Objective

To estimate the number of patients with cancer who are eligible for the newly approved drug-indication pairs, and project potential spending and use of the approvals in the US.

Design, Setting, Participants

This is a retrospective review of 2018 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology drug approvals with estimation of the eligible population. The cost of new therapy was estimated, and savings from displaced therapies were subtracted. Two-way sensitivity analysis explored uncertainty in pricing and market diffusion. Data were collected between March 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019.

Exposures

Data related to the cancer drug approval (ie, indications, approval pathway, basis for approval), cancer incidence, and drug price were extracted from publicly available sources, including the FDA, National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer Society websites, as well as the RED BOOK database.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the projected net expenditure in the US associated with the new therapies. The secondary outcome described how variable market diffusion and pricing permit expected levels of spending.

Results

A total of 46 oncology approvals were included in the analysis, with 17 novel drugs and 29 new indications. The average price per patient per treatment course was $150 384. From a national perspective and with 100% market diffusion, the projected net expenditure for newly approved drugs was $39.5 billion per year. To maintain the recent trend of cancer drug spending, the 2018 cancer drug approvals need to be used in fewer than 20% of eligible patients.

Conclusions and Relevance

New cancer drugs approved by the FDA in 2018 would drastically increase cancer drug spending in the US if used widely. Alternatively, only low-level use of the new drugs is consistent with market forecasting.

Association between FDA and EMA expedited approval programs and therapeutic value of new medicines: retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the therapeutic value of new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the association between these ratings and regulatory approval through expedited programs.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

New drugs approved by the FDA and EMA between 2007 and 2017, with follow-up through 1 April 2020.

DATA SOURCES

Therapeutic value was measured using ratings of new drugs by five independent organizations (Prescrire and health authorities of Canada, France, Germany, and Italy).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of new drugs rated as having high therapeutic value; association between high therapeutic value rating and expedited status.

RESULTS

From 2007 through 2017, the FDA and EMA approved 320 and 268 new drugs, respectively, of which 181 (57%) and 39 (15%) qualified for least one expedited program. Among 267 new drugs with a therapeutic value rating, 84 (31%) were rated as having high therapeutic value by at least one organization. Compared with non-expedited drugs, a greater proportion of expedited drugs were rated as having high therapeutic value among both FDA approvals (45% (69/153) v 13% (15/114); P<0.001) and EMA approvals (67% (18/27) v 27% (65/240); P<0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of expedited program for a drug being independently rated as having high therapeutic value were 82% (95% confidence interval 72% to 90%) and 54% (47% to 62%), respectively, for the FDA, compared with 25.3% (16.4% to 36.0%) and 90.2% (85.0% to 94.1%) for the EMA.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than a third of new drugs approved by the FDA and EMA over the past decade were rated as having high therapeutic value by at least one of five independent organizations. Although expedited drugs were more likely than non-expedited drugs to be highly rated, most expedited drugs approved by the FDA but not the EMA were rated as having low therapeutic value.

Real-World Evidence of Clinical Outcomes in Precision Radionuclide Oncology: The NIGHTCAP Study of 177Lu-PSMA in Metastatic Prostate Cancer

A novel approach to current radiopharmaceutical study design to document the efficiency of 177Lu- PSMA-radioligand therapy of metastatic prostate cancer is described in a proposed prospective, real-time, realworld audit of a large patient population worldwide. The NIGHTCAP (National Investigators Global Harmonisation Theragnostics of Cancer of Prostate) Study will establish real-world evidence (RWE) of overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing routine 177Lu-PSMA-radioligand therapy on harmonised compassionate patient-usage protocols throughout the world. Such long-term efficiency data will be contrasted with the short-term randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessments of efficacy predicated upon surrogate markers of survival outcomes, such as progression-free survival (PFS). The shortcomings of RCT evaluation of the clinical benefit of new anticancer agents are detailed in this review, which advocates RWE to determine efficiency. The real-time monitoring of QoL in the NIGHTCAP Study is independent of questionnaires, language differences, or oncologist bias, and relies upon individual patient self-assessment by choice of one of five emoji which best reflects their mood each day.

ImmunoPET Predicts Response to Met-targeted Radioligand Therapy in Models of Pancreatic Cancer Resistant to Met Kinase Inhibitors

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has limited standard of care therapeutic options. While initially received with enthusiasm, results from targeted therapy with small molecule tyrosine kinases inhibitors (TKIs) have been mixed, in part due to poor patient selection and compensatory changes in signaling networks upon blockade of one or more kinase of tumors. Here, we demonstrate that in PDACs otherwise resistant to rational kinase inhibition, Met-directed immuno-positron emission tomography (immunoPET) can identify targets for cell-signaling independent targeted radioligand therapy (RLT). In this study, we use Met-directed immunoPET and RLT in models of human pancreatic cancer that are resistant to Met- and MEK-selective TKIs, despite over-expression of Met and KRAS-pathway activation. Methods: We assessed cell membrane Met levels in human patient samples and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) cell lines (BxPC3, Capan2, Suit2, and MIA PaCa-2) using immunofluorescence, flow cytometry and cell-surface biotinylation assays. To determine whether Met expression levels correlate with sensitivity to Met inhibition by tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), we performed cell viability studies. A Met-directed imaging agent was engineered by labeling Met-specific onartuzumab with zirconium-89 (Zr-89) and its in vivo performance was evaluated in subcutaneous and orthotopic PDAC xenograft models. To assess whether the immunoPET agent would predict for targeted RLT response, onartuzumab was then labeled with lutetium (Lu-177) as the therapeutic radionuclide to generate our [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DTPA-onartuzumab RLT agent. [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DTPA-onartuzumab was administered at 9.25MBq (250μCi)/20μg in three fractions separated by three days in mice subcutaneously engrafted with BxPC3 (high cell-membrane Met) or MIA PaCa-2 (low cell-membrane Met). Primary endpoints were tumor response and overall survival. Results: Flow cytometry and cell-surface biotinylation studies showed that cell-membrane Met was significantly more abundant in BxPC3, Capan2, and Suit2 when compared with MIA PaCa-2 pancreatic tumor cells. Crizotinib and cabozantinib, TKIs with known activity against Met and other kinases, decreased PDAC cell line viability in vitro. The TKI with the lowest IC₅₀ for Met, capmatinib, had no activity in PDAC lines. No additive effect was detected on cell viability when Met-inhibition was combined with MEK1/2 inhibition. We observed selective tumor uptake of [⁸⁹Zr]Zr-DFO-onartuzumab in mice subcutaneously and orthotopically engrafted with PDAC lines containing high cell-surface levels of Met (BxPC3, Capan2, Suit2), but not in mice engrafted with low cell-surface levels of Met (MIA PaCa-2). Significant tumor growth delay and overall survival benefit were observed in both BxPC3 and MIA PaCa-2 engrafted animals treated with RLT when compared to controls, however, the benefit was more pronounced and more durable in the BxPC3 engrafted animals treated with [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DTPA-onartuzumab RLT. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that while over-expression of Met is not predictive of Met-directed TKI response, immunoPET can detect Met over-expression in vivo and predicts for therapeutic response to Met-selective RLT. This phenomenon can be exploited for other Met-overexpressing tumor types specifically, and to any differentially overexpressed surface molecule more broadly.

Patients with FLT3-mutant AML needed to enroll on FLT3-targeted therapeutic clinical trials

We sought to identify the total number of therapeutic trials targeting FLT3-mutant acute myeloid leukemia (AML) to estimate the number of patients needed to satisfy recruitment when compared with the incidence of this mutation in the US AML population. A systematic review of all therapeutic clinical trials focusing on adult FLT3-mutated AML was conducted from 2000 to 2017. An updated search was performed using ClinicalTrials.gov for trials added between October 2017 and December 2018. Analysis was performed for ClinicalTrials.gov search results from 2000 to 2017 to provide descriptive estimates of discrepancies between anticipated clinical trial enrollment using consistently cited rates of adult participation of 1%, 3%, and 5%, as well as 10% participation identified by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2008. Twenty-five pharmaceutical or biological agents aimed at treating FLT3-mutant AML were identified. Pharmaceutical vs cooperative group/nonprofit support was 2.3:1, with 30 different pharmaceutical collaborators and 13 cooperative group/nonprofit collaborators. The number of patients needed to satisfy study enrollment begins to surpass the upper bound of estimated participation in 2010, noticeably surpassing projected participation rates between 2015 and 2016. The number of patients needed to satisfy study enrollment surpasses 3% and 5% rates of historical participation for US-only trials in 2017. We estimate that 15% of all US patients with FLT3-mutant AML would have to enroll in US and internationally accruing trials to satisfy requirements in 2017, or approximately 3 times the upper level of historical participation rates in the United States. The current clinical trial agenda in this space requires high percentage enrollment for sustainability.

Health-related quality of life in oncology drug reimbursement submissions in Canada: A review of submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review

BACKGROUND

In Canada, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) evaluates and makes recommendations for the reimbursement of cancer drugs. One component of its recommendation is based on an economic evaluation, which typically takes the form of a cost-utility analysis. A cost-utility analysis measures the effects of competing therapies with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The data for this calculation typically come from generic, preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The objective of this review is to determine the frequency at which HRQOL data are collected alongside cancer drug trials and used in the cost-utility analysis submitted to the CADTH pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR).

METHODS

Submissions between 2015 and 2018 to pCODR, the group charged with evaluating cancer drug submissions at CADTH, were reviewed. All pCODR submissions, either in progress or completed, were publicly available online. The search was restricted to completed evaluations.

RESULTS

Forty-three submissions met the inclusion criteria. The incremental gain in QALYs in most submissions from the new technology was small (median incremental gain, 0.86; interquartile range, 0.6-1.39). More than half of the submissions (56%) did not include original data on HRQOL, with most relying on previous studies of variable relevance and quality. Re-analyses by pCODR based on concerns over HRQOL data used in the submitted model were common (52%).

CONCLUSIONS

Drug manufacturers do not consistently collect data on HRQOL alongside clinical trials and instead rely on evidence generated in previous studies to inform cost-utility analyses. These findings should induce manufacturers to collect original HRQOL data that are simultaneously relevant to patients and decision makers.

Association of Industry and Academic Sponsorship With Negative Phase 3 Oncology Trials and Reported Outcomes on Participant Survival: A Pooled Analysis

Importance

Only 3.4% of cancer drugs evaluated in phase 1 trials are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, with most failing in phase 3 trials.

Objective

To investigate whether an association exists between the sponsorship and conduct of a negative phase 3 randomized clinical trial (RCT) investigating a cancer drug that lacked supporting phase 2 trial evidence for that drug, and to evaluate the association with overall survival among patients randomized to the experimental arm of such phase 3 trials.

Data Sources

Articles in the Lancet, Lancet Oncology, JAMA, JAMA Oncology, and Journal of Clinical Oncology published between January 2016 and June 2018 were searched.

Study Selection

Phase 3 RCTs of cancer drugs that failed to improve the primary end point were selected and any prior phase 2 trial of the same drug that supported the phase 3 trial was selected without any date or journal restrictions.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Percentages of negative phase 3 RCTs of cancer drugs that lacked any phase 2 evidence, had a negative phase 2 trial, or had a positive phase 2 study were extracted. Associations were assessed using the Fisher exact test. Pooled hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the overall survival of patients enrolled in these negative phase 3 RCTs were estimated using a random-effects model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Negative phase 3 RCTs with a lack of a phase 2 trial or the presence of a negative phase 2 trial and overall survival of enrolled patients in the phase 3 RCTs.

Results

In this meta-epidemiological study, 67 negative phase 3 RCTs on cancer drugs, which included 64 600 patients, met the criteria of being sponsored by industry or academic groups, of which 42 RCTs (63%) were industry sponsored and the remaining 25 RCTs (37%) were academic. A phase 2 trial was not available for 28 of these trials (42%). Of 29 trials (43%) with a phase 2 trial available, 8 trials (28%) failed to meet their primary end points and 5 of those were industry sponsored. There was no association with overall survival for patients participating in these negative phase 3 RCTs (pooled hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02). When the pooled analysis was limited to the 27 RCTs with a hazard ratio above 1.00, the overall pooled hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.16). No association between having a negative or undefined phase 2 trial and trial sponsorship was found using the Fisher exact test.

Conclusions and Relevance

More than 40% of the negative phase 3 RCTs in oncology published in these 5 journals were conducted without a supporting phase 2 trial and were sponsored by both academia and industry. Running such trials not only may risk loss of resources owing to a failed trial but also may be associated with decreased patient survival. Further research and regulations in this area appear warranted.

Comparison of Sales Income and Research and Development Costs for FDA-Approved Cancer Drugs Sold by Originator Drug Companies

IMPORTANCE

High costs and risks of research and development (R&D) have been used to justify the high prices of cancer drugs. However, what the return on R&D investment is, and by extension what a justifiable price might be, is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To compare incomes from the sales of cancer drugs with the estimated R&D costs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This observational study used global pharmaceutical industry sales data to quantify the cumulative incomes generated from the sales of cancer drugs for companies that have held patents or marketing rights (originator companies). All cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 1989 to 2017 were identified from the United States Food and Drug Administration's website and literature. Itemized product sales data were extracted from the originator companies' consolidated financial reports. For drugs with data missing in specific years, additional data was sought from other public sources, or where necessary, estimated values from known reported values. Drugs were excluded if there were missing data for half or more of the years since approval. Data analysis was conducted from May 2018 to October 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Sales data were expressed in 2017 US dollars with adjustments for inflation. Cumulative incomes from the sales of these drugs were compared against the R&D costs estimated in the literature, which had been adjusted for the costs of capital and trial failure (risk adjusted).

RESULTS

Of the 156 US Food and Drug Administration-approved cancer drugs identified, 99 drugs (63.5%) had data for more than half of the years since approval and were included in the analysis. There was a median of 10 years (range, 1-28 years) of sales data with 1040 data points, 79 (7.6%) of which were estimated. Compared with the total risk-adjusted R&D cost of $794 million (range, $2827-$219 million) per medicine estimated in the literature, by the end of 2017, the median cumulative sales income was $14.50 (range, $3.30-$55.10) per dollar invested for R&D. Median time to fully recover the maximum possible risk-adjusted cost of R&D ($2827 million) was 5 years (range, 2-10 years; n = 56). Cancer drugs continued to generate billion-dollar returns for the originator companies after the end-of-market exclusivity, particularly for biologics.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Cancer drugs, through high prices, have generated returns for the originator companies far in excess of possible R&D costs. Lowering prices of cancer drugs and facilitating greater competition are essential for improving patient access, health system's financial sustainability, and future innovation.