Precision Medicines' Impact on Orphan Drug Designation

Pharmacogenomics: Driving Personalized Medicine

Personalized medicine tailors therapies, disease prevention, and health maintenance to the individual, with pharmacogenomics serving as a key tool to improve outcomes and prevent adverse effects. Advances in genomics have transformed pharmacogenetics, traditionally focused on single gene-drug pairs, into pharmacogenomics, encompassing all "-omics" fields (e.g., proteomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics, and metagenomics). This review summarizes basic genomics principles relevant to translation into therapies, assessing pharmacogenomics' central role in converging diverse elements of personalized medicine. We discuss genetic variations in pharmacogenes (drug-metabolizing enzymes, drug transporters, and receptors), their clinical relevance as biomarkers, and the legacy of decades of research in pharmacogenetics. All types of therapies, including proteins, nucleic acids, viruses, cells, genes, and irradiation, can benefit from genomics, expanding the role of pharmacogenomics across medicine. Food and Drug Administration approvals of personalized therapeutics involving biomarkers increase rapidly, demonstrating the growing impact of pharmacogenomics. A beacon for all therapeutic approaches, molecularly targeted cancer therapies highlight trends in drug discovery and clinical applications. To account for human complexity, multicomponent biomarker panels encompassing genetic, personal, and environmental factors can guide diagnosis and therapies, increasingly involving artificial intelligence to cope with extreme data complexities. However, clinical application encounters substantial hurdles, such as unknown validity across ethnic groups, underlying bias in health care, and real-world validation. This review address the underlying science and technologies germane to pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine, integrated with economic, ethical, and regulatory issues, providing insights into the current status and future direction of health care. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Personalized medicine aims to optimize health care for the individual patients with use of predictive biomarkers to improve outcomes and prevent adverse effects. Pharmacogenomics drives biomarker discovery and guides the development of targeted therapeutics. This review addresses basic principles and current trends in pharmacogenomics, with large-scale data repositories accelerating medical advances. The impact of pharmacogenomics is discussed, along with hurdles impeding broad clinical implementation, in the context of clinical care, ethics, economics, and regulatory affairs.

Exploring the Potential Challenges for Developing Generic Orphan Drugs for Rare Diseases: A Survey of US and European Markets

OBJECTIVES

The US Food and Drug Administration in 1983 and the European Union's European Medicines Agency in 2000 implemented the orphan drug development program for rare diseases. The study aimed to find the potential challenges encountered by generic companies in developing generics for rare diseases.

METHODS

We performed a thematic analysis, which consists of qualitative and quantitative research. For data analysis of approved orphan drugs, we used statistical methods, and for the industrial case study, we selected 14 generic companies and conducted semistructured interviews related to 10 critical areas of drug development.

RESULTS

The orphan drug approvals were classified into 4 categories: the number of orphan approvals, pediatric claims, formulation, and therapeutic areas. We analyzed the approvals from 2001 to 2021; the Food and Drug Administration approved 815 drugs and European Medicines Agency approved 258 drugs. The pediatric orphan approvals were analyzed from 2010 to 2021; the average percentage of orphan drugs claim pediatric exclusivity during this period was found to be 31.8%. In formulation, we found the highest percentage of drugs belong to small molecules at 71%. In the therapeutic class, oncology drugs have a majority of approvals at 25%. The industrial case study responses revealed that the major challenge for drug development is the complexity of the disease at 21%, followed by the limited market at 17%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high need for generic orphan drugs in the developing countries. The generic companies can use the opportunities provided by health authorities for the benefit of both the company and the patient perspective.

Real-world data in drug development strategies for orphan drugs: tafasitamab in B cell lymphoma, a case study for approval based on a single-arm combination trial

Tafasitamab (TAF) plus lenalidomide (LEN) is a novel treatment option for patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma (rrDLBCL) who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. The initial US/EU approvals for TAF represent precedents because this is the first time that approval of a novel combination therapy was granted based on a pivotal single-arm trial (SAT). Matching real world-data (RWD) helped to disentangle the contribution of individual agents. In this review, we present the TAF development strategy, the prospective incorporation of RWD within the clinical development plan, the corresponding regulatory hurdles of this strategy, and the prior regulatory actions for other cancer drugs that previously incorporated RWD and propensity score matching in EU and US regulatory submissions. We also outline how RWD could further advance and impact orphan drug development.

Healthcare policy by other means: Cancer clinical research as "oncopolicy"

Social studies of biomedicine often focus on how exogenous policies shape the medical domain. While policy agendas no doubt affect complex biomedical projects, in the present paper we analyze a different dynamic, namely how oncologists enact policy as part of several flagship precision oncology endeavors. Empirically, the article focuses on the U.S. TAPUR trial, the Dutch DRUP trial, and the Canadian CAPTUR trial, which have recently been joined by similar Scandinavian studies. Taken together, these trials represent innovative forms of clinical research that, beyond their varying experimental nature, have been designed to transform the evidential processes to provide access to biomarker-driven treatments. Along with gathering evidence on effectiveness of off-label targeted therapies, their explicit goals include the recentering of a major professional organization around research, and the reframing of healthcare as a learning system seamlessly connecting epistemic, organizational, and economic issues. Accordingly, we analyze the design and implementation of these trials as a form of (onco)policy by other means.

The costs of developing treatments for Alzheimer's disease: A retrospective exploration

Introduction

With the exception of the recent accelerated approval of aducanumab, in over 26 years of research and development (R&D) investment in Alzheimer's disease (AD), only five novel drugs—all for symptomatic treatment only—have reached FDA approval. Here, we estimate the costs of AD drug development during this period in the private sector.

Methods

To estimate private R&D funding, we collected information on AD clinical trials (n = 1099; phases 1–4) conducted between January 1, 1995 and June 21, 2021 from various databases. Costs were derived using previously published methodologies and adjusted for inflation.

Results

Since 1995, cumulative private expenditures on clinical stage AD R&D were estimated at $42.5 billion, with the greatest costs (57%; $24,065 million) incurred during phase 3; approximately 184,000 participants were registered or are currently enrolled in clinical trials.

Discussion

Measures to reduce expenditures while moving toward disease‐modifying therapies that alleviate the rising burden of AD require continued investment from industry, government, and academia.

A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement

BACKGROUND

The number of market approvals of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) has been increasing steadily in the last 3 decades. While OMPs can offer a unique chance for patients suffering from rare diseases, they are usually very expensive. The growing number of approved OMPs increases their budget impact despite their low prevalence, making it pressing to find solutions to ethical challenges on how to fairly allocate scarce healthcare resources under this context. One potential solution could be to grant OMPs special status when considering them for reimbursement, meaning that they are subject to different, and less stringent criteria than other drugs. This study aims to provide a systematic analysis of moral reasons for and against such a special status for the reimbursement of OMPs in publicly funded healthcare systems from a multidisciplinary perspective.

RESULTS

With a systematic review of reasons, we identified 39 reasons represented in 243 articles (scientific and grey literature) for and against special status for the reimbursement of OMPs, then categorized them into nine topics. Taking a multidisciplinary perspective, we found that most articles came from health policy (n = 103) and health economics (n = 49). More articles took the position for a special status of OMPs (n = 97) than those against it (n = 31) and there was a larger number of reasons identified in favour (29 reasons) than against (10 reasons) this special status.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that OMP reimbursement issues should be assessed and analysed from a multidisciplinary perspective. Despite the higher occurrence of reasons and articles in favour of a special status, there is no clear-cut solution for this ethical challenge. The binary perspective of whether or not OMPs should be granted special status oversimplifies the issue: both OMPs and rare diseases are too heterogeneous in their characteristics for such a binary perspective. Thus, the scientific debate should focus less on the question of disease prevalence but rather on how the important variability of different OMPs concerning e.g. target population, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence or mechanism of action could be meaningfully addressed and implemented in Health Technology Assessments.

Assessment of Clinical Trials Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents, 1995-2017

IMPORTANCE

Since the introduction of the Fast Track designation in 1988, the number of special regulatory programs available for the approval of new drugs and biologics by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increased, offering the agency flexibility with respect to evidentiary requirements.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize pivotal efficacy trials supporting the approval of new drugs and biologics during the past 3 decades.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study included 273 new drugs and biologics approved by the FDA for 339 indications from 1995 to 1997, from 2005 to 2007, and from 2015 to 2017.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Therapeutics were classified by product type and therapeutic area as well as orphan designation and use of special regulatory programs, such as Priority Review and Accelerated Approval. Pivotal trials were characterized by use of randomization, blinding, types of comparators, primary end points, number of treated patients, and trial duration, both individually and aggregated by each indication approval.

RESULTS

A total of 273 new drugs and biologics were approved by the FDA in these 3 periods (107 [39.2%] in 1995-1997; 57 [20.9%] in 2005-2007; and 109 [39.9%] in 2015-2017), representing 339 indications (157 [46.3%], 64 [18.9%], and 118 [34.8%], respectively). The proportion of therapeutic approvals using at least 1 special regulatory program increased (37 [34.6%] in 1995-1997; 33 [57.9%] in 2005-2007; and 70 [64.2%] in 2015-2017), as did indication approvals receiving an orphan designation (20 [12.7%] in 1995-1997; 17 [26.6%] in 2005-2007, and 45 [38.1%] in 2015-2017). The most common therapeutic areas differed over time (infectious disease, 53 [33.8%] in 1995-1997 vs cancer, 32 [27.1%] in 2015-2017). When considering the aggregate pivotal trials supporting each indication approval, the proportion of indications supported by at least 2 pivotal trials decreased (80.6% [95% CI, 72.6%-87.2%] in 1995-1997; 60.3% [95% CI, 47.2%-72.4%] in 2005-2007; and 52.8% [95% CI, 42.9%-62.6%] in 2015-2017; P < .001). The proportion of indications supported by only single-group pivotal trials increased (4.0% [95% CI, 1.3%-9.2%] in 1995-1997; 12.7% [95% CI, 5.6%-23.5%] in 2005-2007; and 17.0% [95% CI, 10.4%-25.5%] in 2015-2017; P = .001), whereas the proportion supported by at least 1 pivotal trial of 6 months' duration increased (25.8% [95% CI, 18.4%-34.4%] in 1995-1997; 34.9% [95% CI, 23.3%-48.0%] in 2005-2007; and 46.2% [95% CI, 36.5%-56.2%] in 2015-2017; P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, more recent FDA approvals of new drugs and biologics were based on fewer pivotal trials, which, when aggregated by indication, had less rigorous designs but longer trial durations, suggesting an ongoing need for continued evaluation of therapeutic safety and efficacy after approval.