New drugs: where did we go wrong and what can we do better?

Are Drug Novelty Characteristics Associated With Greater Health Benefits?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the association between characteristics of novel drugs and incremental health gains relative to standard of care, in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

METHODS

This study's unit of analysis is the drug-indication pair. For pairs approved by the US FDA from 1999 to 2018, we quantified incremental health gains using QALYs from the published literature and characterized each pair's novelty in terms of a series of six binary (yes/no) characteristics of novel drugs given special consideration by Health Technology Assessment agencies: Novel mechanism of action, Indicated for a rare disease, Indicated for a pediatric population, Treats a serious condition, Offers meaningful improvement over available therapies, and Potential to address unmet clinical needs. We analyzed measures of bivariate association (Mann-Whitney U and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests) and multivariable regression, accounting for the influence of multiple novelty characteristics simultaneously.

RESULTS

Our sample of 146 drugs represents 21% of drugs approved the FDA in the time period (1999-2018). Median and mean QALY gains for 'novel' drug-indication pairs exceeded corresponding QALY gains for non-novel drug-indication pairs. For most comparisons, the bivariate relationships between QALY gains and novelty characteristics were significant at p < 0.05 except for novel mechanism of action (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) and pediatric indication (both bivariate tests). Multivariable models revealed an independent association between novelty characteristics and QALY gain except for unmet clinical need and indicated for a rare disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Drugs with novelty characteristics conferred larger health gains than drugs without these characteristics in bivariate analysis, multivariable models, or both. Future research should examine other aspects of drug novelty, such as patient and health system costs and equitable access.

List prices and clinical value of anticancer drugs in China, Japan, and South Korea: a retrospective comparative study

Background

High prices of anticancer drugs have raised concerns due to their financial impact on patients and healthcare systems. This study aimed to assess the initial and latest list prices and clinical value of reimbursed anticancer drugs in China, Japan, and South Korea.

Methods

We identified anticancer drugs newly approved by the National Medical Products Administration of China from January 2012 to June 2022, and by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency of Japan and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of South Korea up until June 2022. We compared initial and latest treatment prices between countries and assessed clinical value using patients' survival, quality of life (QoL), and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We calculated Spearman rank correlation coefficients of treatment prices with clinical value for individual countries and employed regression analyses to investigate whether the relationship between prices and clinical value was modified by the country setting.

Findings

Our cohort included 91 anticancer drug indications, with 60 listed for reimbursement in China, 91 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea. Median treatment prices were highest in Japan, followed by South Korea, and lowest in China, both for initial prices (US$64082 vs. US$45529 vs. US$19144, p < 0.0001) and latest prices (US$50859 vs. US$31611 vs. US$18666, p < 0.0001). Over time, China (β = -0.047, p < 0.0001) and South Korea (β = -0.049, p < 0.0001) witnessed more significant price reductions compared to Japan (β = -0.013, p = 0.011). The correlations between both initial and latest treatment prices and clinical value (QoL and ESMO-MCBS) were more significant and stronger in China and South Korea than in Japan, although Japan exhibited slightly stronger correlations in terms of survival compared to China and South Korea. The relationship between clinical value and treatment prices may not be modified by the country setting.

Interpretation

In comparison, South Korea's list prices and their correlations with clinical value appear reasonable. Policymakers in Japan could enhance efficiency by controlling prices and aligning them with clinical value, while China would need to take substantial steps to expand anticancer drug coverage.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (72374149 and 72074163), and China Center for South Asian Studies, Sichuan University.

A patient-centred and multi-stakeholder co-designed observational prospective study protocol: Example of the adolescent experience of treatment for X-linked hypophosphataemia (XLH)

The importance of patient centricity and keeping the patient at the heart of research design is now well recognised within the healthcare community. The involvement of patient, caregiver and clinician representatives in the study design process may help researchers to achieve this goal and to ensure robust and meaningful data generation. Real-world data collection allows for a more flexible and patient-centred research approach for gaining important insights into the experience of disease and treatments, which is acutely relevant for rare diseases where knowledge about the disease is more likely to be limited. Here, we describe a practical example of a patient-centric, multi-stakeholder approach that led to the co-design of a prospective observational study investigating the lived experience of adolescents with the rare disease, X-linked hypophosphataemia. Specifically, we describe how the knowledge and expertise of a diverse research team, which included expert physicians, research and technology specialists, patients and caregivers, were applied in order to identify the relevant research questions and to ensure the robustness of the study design and its appropriateness to the population of interest within the context of the current clinical landscape. We also demonstrate how a structured patient engagement exercise was key to informing the selection of appropriate outcome measures, data sources, timing of data collection, and to assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed data collection approach.

Provenance and Clinical Benefit of Medicines Introduced to the French Market, 2008 to 2018

Importance

Both the commercial sector and academia play a vital role in medicine development. Ongoing debates exist on their contribution and the value of medicinal products entering the market.

Objective

To identify the provenance and clinical benefit of medicines that entered the French market between 2008 and 2018.

Design and Setting

In this cross-sectional study, the provenance of each medicine in the French market was established via a review of multiple sources documenting at least 2 matching findings per product. The clinical benefit was assigned using the matched scale developed from the Prescrire and Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) gradings. The χ2 test was used to analyze the proportions and frequencies of medicines graded by Prescrire and HAS by origin, therapeutic category, and clinical benefit.

Main outcomes and measures

The origins and therapeutic categories of medicines. Clinical benefit based on Prescrire and HAS grading. Concordance of Prescrire and HAS grading.

Results

Of the 632 medicines that entered the French market between 2008 and 2018, 464 originated (73%) in the commercial sector, and 168 originated (27%) in the academic setting or in collaboration with commercial enterprises. Prescrire graded psychotropic agents (13/14 [93%]), whereas HAS graded respiratory agents (24/25 [96%]) as the highest percentage of medicines that provided no added benefit. Prescrire graded 360 medicines (77.6%) that originated in the industry and 108 medicines (64.3%) that originated in the academic setting (P = .001) to have no added clinical benefit. HAS assigned such grading to 331 ([71.3%] industry) vs 104 ([61.9%] academia) (P = .02). Based on the Prescrire grading, academia invented more medicines delivering some added benefit 57 (33.9%) vs 98 (21.1%) invented by industry (P = .001). HAS grading on some added benefit 51 ([30.4%] academia) vs 121 ([26.1%] industry) did not reach statistical significance (P = .29). However, HAS grading on substantial added clinical benefit reached statistical significance in favor of academia (13 [7.7%] vs 12 [2.6%] in the industry; P = .003), whereas Prescrire grading did not (1.8% academia vs 1.3% industry; P = .64).

Conclusions and Relevance

More than 70% of medicines that entered the French market during the 10-year period originated in the commercial sector. Although most medicines were not graded as providing clinical benefit, medicines originating in the academic setting were more likely to be graded as conferring clinical benefit than those originating in the commercial setting.

Is Target-Based Drug Discovery Efficient? Discovery and "Off-Target" Mechanisms of All Drugs

Target-based drug discovery is the dominant paradigm of drug discovery; however, a comprehensive evaluation of its real-world efficiency is lacking. Here, a manual systematic review of about 32000 articles and patents dating back to 150 years ago demonstrates its apparent inefficiency. Analyzing the origins of all approved drugs reveals that, despite several decades of dominance, only 9.4% of small-molecule drugs have been discovered through "target-based" assays. Moreover, the therapeutic effects of even this minimal share cannot be solely attributed and reduced to their purported targets, as they depend on numerous off-target mechanisms unconsciously incorporated by phenotypic observations. The data suggest that reductionist target-based drug discovery may be a cause of the productivity crisis in drug discovery. An evidence-based approach to enhance efficiency seems to be prioritizing, in selecting and optimizing molecules, higher-level phenotypic observations that are closer to the sought-after therapeutic effects using tools like artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Marketing of medicines in primary care: An analysis of direct marketing mailings and advertisements

INTRODUCTION

Marketing materials from pharmaceutical companies attempt to create a positive image of marketed, often new, medicines. To gain more insight in strategies pharmaceutical companies use to influence primary care practitioners' attitudes towards marketed medicines, we investigated the use of persuasion strategies in direct marketing mailings and advertisements from pharmaceutical companies sent to general practitioners.

METHODS

General practitioners in the Netherlands were recruited to collect all direct marketing mailings, meaning all leaflets, letters and other information sent by pharmaceutical industries to the practice during one month (June 2022). Direct marketing mailings and advertisements in collected medical journals concerning medicines or diseases (together called marketing materials) were analysed according to presence of one of the seven common persuasion strategies, i.e. reciprocity, consistency/commitment, social proof, liking, authority, scarcity and unity; as well as marketed medicine and year of introduction.

RESULTS

Twenty general practices collected 68 unique marketing materials concerning 37 different medicines. Direct factor Xa inhibitors (n = 12), glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues (n = 5) and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (n = 4) were the most frequently marketed medicines. The median year of introduction of all marketed medicines was 2012. All seven persuasion strategies were identified, with liking (64.7% of all materials) and authority (29.4%) as most prominent strategies, followed by social proof (17.6%), unity (14.7%), scarcity (13.2%), reciprocity (11.8%) and consistency/commitment (2.9%). In addition to those strategies, we identified emotional pressure (30.9%) as one commonly used new strategy.

CONCLUSION

Marketing materials sent to general practices use a wide range of persuasion strategies in an attempt to influence prescription behaviour. Primary care practitioners should be aware of these mechanisms through which pharmaceutical companies try to influence their attitudes towards new medicines.

Do France, Germany, and Italy agree on the added therapeutic value of medicines?

OBJECTIVES

The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medicines is performed separately at the country level with some differences, but Italy, France, and Germany have implemented price and reimbursement systems strongly focused on the Added Therapeutic Value (ATV). This study investigates the level of agreement on ATV assessments by Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), and Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA).

METHODS

A database was created collecting all information about drugs with innovativeness status requests in Italy from July 2017 to December 2022 and populated with the corresponding HAS and G-BA ATV assessments. The primary comparative analysis was conducted by grouping the ATV ratings into "higher added value" and "lower or no added value", while a secondary analysis considered the Italian innovativeness status as a criterion to include the quality of evidence assessment. The concordance between ATV assessments was investigated through percentage agreement and unweighted Cohen k-value.

RESULTS

189 medicines/indications were included. The greatest agreement was found when comparing G-BA versus HAS (82 percent; k = 0.61, substantial agreement). Lower levels of agreements were observed for AIFA versus HAS and AIFA versus G-BA (respectively 52 percent; k = 0.17 and 57 percent; k = 0.25). The secondary analysis led to a reconciliation to moderate agreement for AIFA versus HAS (72 percent; k = 0.45) and AIFA versus G-BA (74 percent; k = 0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

A high degree of concordance between HTA organizations is reached when considering jointly ATV and quality of evidence, suggesting that the system is extensively mature to make a Joint Clinical Assessment, avoiding duplications and reducing access inequalities.

Therapeutic value of first versus supplemental indications of drugs in US and Europe (2011-20): retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the therapeutic value of supplemental indications compared with first indications for drugs approved in the US and Europe.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

New and supplemental indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2011 and 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of first and supplemental indications rated as having high therapeutic value using ratings from the French and German national, independent health authorities.

RESULTS

The cohort study included 124 first and 335 supplemental indications approved by the FDA and 88 first and 215 supplemental indications approved by the EMA between 2011 and 2020; the largest subset was for cancer disorders. Therapeutic ratings were available for 107 (86%) first and 179 (53%) supplemental indications in the US and for 87 (99%) first and 184 (86%) supplemental indications in Europe. Among FDA approved indications with available ratings, 41% (44/107) had high therapeutic value ratings for first indications compared with 34% (61/179) for supplemental indications. In Europe, 47% (41/87) of first and 36% (67/184) of supplemental indications had high therapeutic value ratings. Among FDA approvals, when the sample was restricted to the first three approved indications, second indication approvals were 36% less likely to have a high value rating (relative ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.96) and third indication approvals were 45% less likely (0.55, 0.29 to 1.01) compared with the first indication approval. Similar findings were observed for Europe and when weighting by the inverse number of indications for each drug.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of supplemental indications rated as having high therapeutic value was substantially lower than for first indications. When first or supplemental indications do not offer added therapeutic value over other available treatments, that information should be clearly communicated to patients and physicians and reflected in the price of the drugs.

Cutting Edge Research? Realistic Expectations of Priorities, Scope and Engagement Comment on "'We're Not Providing the Best Care If We Are Not on the Cutting Edge of Research': A Research Impact Evaluation at a Regional Australian Hospital and Health Service"

While research is linked with informed decision-making and improved healthcare delivery and patient outcomes, the process of generating and translating research evidence in practice and capturing its impact can often be challenging. Based on document and database reviews and interviews in a regional Australian health system, Brown et al discuss the challenges of assessing the impact of research investments over a ten-year period. This commentary explores three inter-related lessons from this article for developing and sustaining a research culture and supporting translation in a health system: (i) achieving a shared definition and expectation of research; (ii) the importance of stakeholder engagement particularly for research prioritisation; and (iii) enabling research across a system. In doing so, it highlights the role and value of engaging knowledge generators and end-users from clinical, management and community domains not only in research development but most importantly in research prioritisation.

Assessing US Pharmaceutical Policy and Pricing Reform Legislation in Light of European Price and Cost Control Strategies

This article compares the pharmaceutical pricing policies employed by public and private insurers in the United States with seven price and spending control strategies employed in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Differences between American and European policies explain why American pharmaceutical prices and per capita spending are higher than in European nations. The article then analyzes two recent bills as examples of significant American reform ideas-H.R. 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act (introduced in 2019) and the Build Back Better Act (BBBA, introduced in 2021)-and compares them with European cost control strategies. Key drug price provisions of the BBBA were incorporated into the recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). H.R. 3 would have used an international (mostly European) price index to cap U.S. prices; the BBBA would cap Medicare prices at a discount from average U.S. market prices. Neither bill would employ the key cost control strategies that European nations do. Both bills would have significantly less impact on prices than legislation that employs European-style cost controls. This article proposes steps that Congress could take in line with European strategies to lower purchase prices and costs for patients. These measures would have to overcome political obstacles that currently stymie reform.

The 'false hope' argument in discussions on expanded access to investigational drugs: a critical assessment

When seriously ill patients reach the end of the standard treatment trajectory for their condition, they may qualify for the use of unapproved, investigational drugs regulated via expanded access programs. In medical-ethical discourse, it is often argued that expanded access to investigational drugs raises 'false hope' among patients and is therefore undesirable. We set out to investigate what is meant by the false hope argument in this discourse. In this paper, we identify and analyze five versions of the false hope argument which we call: (1) the limited chance at benefit argument, (2) the side effects outweighing benefits argument, (3) the opportunity costs argument, (4) the impossibility of making informed decisions argument, and (5) the difficulty of gaining access argument. We argue that the majority of these five versions do not provide normative ground for disqualifying patients' hopes as false. Only when hope is rooted in a mistaken belief, for example, about the likelihood of benefits or chances on medical risks, or when hope is directed at something that cannot possibly be obtained, should it be considered false. If patients are adequately informed about their odds of obtaining medical benefit, however small, and about the risks associated with an investigational treatment, it is unjustified to consider patients' hopes to be false, and hence, to deny them access to investigational drug based on that argument.

Project rebuild the evidence base (REB): A method to interpret randomised clinical trials and their meta-analysis to present solid benefit-risk assessments to patients

Evidence-based medicine is the cornerstone of shared-decision making in healthcare today. The public deserves clear, transparent and trust-worthy information on drug efficacy. Yet today, many drugs are prescribed and used without solid evidence of efficacy. Clinical trials and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are the best method to evaluate drug efficacy and side effects. In a shared medical decision-making approach, general practitioners need drug assessment based on patient-important outcomes. The aim of project rebuild the evidence base (REB) is to bridge the gap between the data needed in clinical practice and the data available from clinical research. The drugs will be assessed on clinical patient important outcomes and for a population. Using the Cochrane tools, we propose to analyse for each population and outcome: 1) a meta-analysis based on RCTs with a low risk of bias overall; 2) an evaluation of results of confirmatory RCTs; 3) a statistical analysis of heterrogeneity between RCTs and 4) an analysis of publication bias. Depending on the results of these analyses, the evidence will be categorized in 4 different levels: firm evidence, evidence (to be confirmed), signal or absence of evidence. Project REB proposes a method for reading and interpreting RCTs and their meta-analysis to produce quality data for general practitioners to focus on risk-benefit assessment in the interest of patients. If this data does not exist, it could enable clinical research to better its aim.

Exploratory analyses of clinical trial data used for health technology assessments: a retrospective evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To examine the validity and statistical limitations of exploratory analyses of clinical trial data commonly requested by agencies responsible for determining which medical products may be financed or reimbursed by a healthcare system.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review of efficacy and safety analyses conducted for German Health Technology Assessment (HTA) evaluations with a decision date between 2015 and 2020, and an illustrative safety-related exploratory analysis of data from two phase III clinical trials of verubecestat (an anti-amyloid drug whose development was stopped for lack of efficacy) as would be mandated by the German HTA agency.

RESULTS

We identified 422 HTA evaluations of 404 randomised controlled clinical trials. For 140 trials (34.7%), the evaluation was based on subpopulations of participants in the originating confirmatory trial (175 subpopulations were assessed). In 57% (100 of 175), the subpopulation sample size was 50% or less of the original study population. Detailed analysis of five evaluations based on subpopulations of the original trial is presented. The safety-related exploratory analysis of verubecestat led to 206 statistical analyses for treatments and 812 treatment-by-subgroup interaction tests. Of 31 safety endpoints with an elevated HR (suggesting association with drug treatment), the HR for 81% of these (25 of 31) was not elevated in both trials. Of the 812 treatment-by-subgroup interactions evaluated, 26 had an elevated HR for a subgroup in one trial, but only 1 was elevated in both trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Many HTA evaluations rely on subpopulation analyses and numerous post hoc statistical hypothesis tests. Subpopulation analysis may lead to loss of statistical power and uncontrolled influences of random imbalances. Multiple testing may introduce spurious findings. Decisions about benefits of medical products should therefore not rely on exploratory analyses of clinical trial data but rather on prospective clinical studies and careful synthesis of all available evidence based on prespecified criteria.

Reversal and Remission of T2DM - An Update for Practitioners

Over the past 50 years, many countries around the world have faced an unchecked pandemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). As best practice treatment of T2DM has done very little to check its growth, the pandemic of diabesity now threatens to make health-care systems economically more difficult for governments and individuals to manage within their budgets. The conventional view has been that T2DM is irreversible and progressive. However, in 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) global report on diabetes added for the first time a section on diabetes reversal and acknowledged that it could be achieved through a number of therapeutic approaches. Many studies indicate that diabetes reversal, and possibly even long-term remission, is achievable, belying the conventional view. However, T2DM reversal is not yet a standardized area of practice and some questions remain about long-term outcomes. Diabetes reversal through diet is not articulated or discussed as a first-line target (or even goal) of treatment by any internationally recognized guidelines, which are mostly silent on the topic beyond encouraging lifestyle interventions in general. This review paper examines all the sustainable, practical, and scalable approaches to T2DM reversal, highlighting the evidence base, and serves as an interim update for practitioners looking to fill the practical knowledge gap on this topic in conventional diabetes guidelines.

Importance of public health tools in emerging infectious diseases

Jin-Ling Tang and Li-Ming Li argue that despite the lure of vaccines and new drugs, established public health measures will remain our best tool to control covid-19 and future epidemics

Audit of data redaction practices in NICE technology appraisals from 1999 to 2019

OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent and type of data redaction in all active technology appraisals (TA) and highly specialised technology (HST) evaluations issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) from its conception of the institute to September 2019. To propose policy recommendations for transparency.

METHODS

Structured audit to establish extent of data redaction-proportion of appraisals and specific data categories and assess redaction by: indication, appraisal process, manufacturer, type of data-price, adverse events (AEs), clinical (excluding AEs), incremental quality-adjusted life-years. Longitudinal analysis over 20 years.

RESULTS

All TAs with available documentation and active recommendations (n=408) and HSTs (n=10) published from March 2000 to 11 September 2019 have been assessed for data redaction. Overall, 333 TAs (81.6%) have data redaction, 86 (25.8%) of them are heavily redacted. Clinical data (excluding AEs) are redacted in 268 (65.7%) appraisals, AE data in 128 (31.4%), price in 238 (58.3%). In total, 87% of oncology appraisals have redacted data vs 78% of non-oncology appraisals. 91% of single TAs have redacted data vs 59% of multiple TAs. 25% of final guidance documents (e.g. Final Appraisal Determination - FAD) do not report one or more instance of clinical data. Data redaction increased substantially over time, and is currently at its highest level with 100% of TAs having at least some data redaction in 2019/2020, 96% of appraisals in 2018/2019% and 94% of appraisals in 2017/2018. All 10 HST evaluations have redacted data, with 4 of them being heavily redacted.

CONCLUSIONS

Documents supporting NICE TA and HST recommendations are significantly redacted, thereby concealing clinical and economic data of importance to patients, clinicians and researchers. Documents remain redacted on the NICE website for years. Policy change is required to ensure transparency of data underpinning NICE's decisions.

The Porto European Cancer Research Summit 2021

Key stakeholders from the cancer research continuum met in May 2021 at the European Cancer Research Summit in Porto to discuss priorities and specific action points required for the successful implementation of the European Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). Speakers presented a unified view about the need to establish high-quality, networked infrastructures to decrease cancer incidence, increase the cure rate, improve patient's survival and quality of life, and deal with research and care inequalities across the European Union (EU). These infrastructures, featuring Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) as key components, will integrate care, prevention and research across the entire cancer continuum to support the development of personalized/precision cancer medicine in Europe. The three pillars of the recommended European infrastructures - namely translational research, clinical/prevention trials and outcomes research - were pondered at length. Speakers addressing the future needs of translational research focused on the prospects of multiomics assisted preclinical research, progress in Molecular and Digital Pathology, immunotherapy, liquid biopsy and science data. The clinical/prevention trial session presented the requirements for next-generation, multicentric trials entailing unified strategies for patient stratification, imaging, and biospecimen acquisition and storage. The third session highlighted the need for establishing outcomes research infrastructures to cover primary prevention, early detection, clinical effectiveness of innovations, health-related quality-of-life assessment, survivorship research and health economics. An important outcome of the Summit was the presentation of the Porto Declaration, which called for a collective and committed action throughout Europe to develop the cancer research infrastructures indispensable for fostering innovation and decreasing inequalities within and between member states. Moreover, the Summit guidelines will assist decision making in the context of a unique EU-wide cancer initiative that, if expertly implemented, will decrease the cancer death toll and improve the quality of life of those confronted with cancer, and this is carried out at an affordable cost.

Impact of drug diversity on treatment effectiveness in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Germany between 2010 and 2018: real-world data from the German NeuroTransData multiple sclerosis registry

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of drug diversity on treatment effectiveness in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Germany.

DESIGN

This study employs real-world data captured in-time during clinical visits in 67 German neurology outpatient offices of the NeuroTransData (NTD) multiple sclerosis (MS) registry between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2019, including 237 976 visits of 17 553 patients with RRMS. Adherence and clinical effectiveness parameters were analysed by descriptive statistics, time-to-event analysis overall and by disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) stratified by administration modes (injectable, oral and infusion). Three time periods were compared: 2010-2012, 2013-2015 and 2016-2018.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2018, an increasing proportion of patients with RRMS were treated with DMTs and treatment was initiated sooner after diagnosis of MS. Introduction of oral DMT temporarily induced higher readiness to switch. Comparing the three index periods, there was a continuous decrease of annualised relapse rates, less frequent Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) progression and increasing periods without relapse, EDSS worsening and with stability of no-evidence-of-disease-activity 2 and 3 criteria, lower conversion rates to secondary progressive MS on oral and on injectable DMTs.

CONCLUSION

Sparked by the availability of new mainly oral DMTs, RRMS treatment effectiveness improved clinically meaningful between 2010 and 2018. As similar effects were seen for injectable and oral DMTs more than for infusions, a better personalised treatment allocation in many patients is likely. These results indicate that there is an overall beneficial effect for the whole patient with MS population as a result of the greater selection of available DMTs, a benefit beyond the head-to-head comparative efficacy, resulting from an increased probability and readiness to individualise MS therapy.

"Drugs to avoid" to improve quality use of medicines: how is Australia faring?

BACKGROUND

Each year, the French independent bulletin Prescrire publishes a list of medicines, "Drugs to avoid", that should not be used in clinical practice as their risk-to-benefit ratio is unfavourable. This study assessed the market approval, reimbursement and use of these medicines in Australia.

METHODS

The approval status of the medicines included in 2019 Prescrire "Drugs to avoid" list was assessed by searching the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods website. Funding status was assessed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) website, the Australian public insurance system. Use levels were determined by examining governmental reports on prescribing rates including the Australian Statistics on Medicines (ASM) reports, drug use reports released by the Drug Utilisation Sub Committee (DUSC) and PBS statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 93 medicines included in the Prescrire 2019 "Drug to avoid" list included, 57 (61%) were approved in Australia in 2019 including 9 (16%) that were sold as over-the-counter medicines, 35 (38%) were listed on the PBS, 22 (24%) were registered but not listed on the PBS. Although most of these medicines were used infrequently, 16 (46%) had substantial use despite serious safety concerns. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors were used by 22% of patients receiving a treatment for diabetes in 2016. More than 50,000 patients received an anti-dementia medicine in 2014, a 19% increase since 2009. Denosumab became the 8th medicine, in terms of total sales, funded by the Australian Government in 2017-2018.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescrire's assessments provide a reliable external benchmark to assess the current use of medicines in Australia. Sixteen "drugs to avoid", judged to be more harmful than beneficial based on systematic, independent evidence reviews, are in substantial use in Australia. These results raise serious concerns about the awareness of Australian clinicians of medicine safety and efficacy. Medicines safety has become an Australian National Health Priority. Regulatory and reimbursement agencies should review the marketing and funding status of medicines which have not been shown to provide an efficacy and safety at least similar to alternative therapeutic options.

A decade of early benefit assessment of ophthalmic drugs in Germany: success story or not?

OBJECTIVE

To analyze how ophthalmic drugs fared in the early benefit assessment (EBA) after its introduction in Germany up to 2020 and to quantify its impact on their negotiated prices.

METHODS

Relevant documents were screened and essential content on added benefit outcomes and the underlying evidence was extracted next to pricing information. In addition to descriptive statistics, cross-stakeholder analyses and agreement statistics were implemented.

RESULTS

Thirteen completed EBA were identified involving eight drugs. Only four drugs (30.8%) received an added benefit. The OR for no added benefit of ophthalmic drugs versus all other drugs was 2.971 (0.902-9.781). The agreement between manufacturers' claims and decision-maker appraisals is fair (kappa 0.435). In all cases, evidence was derived for RCTs, but for different reasons, not all of them allowed direct comparisons with the comparator as defined by the decision-maker. The negotiated rebates on manufacturer's selling prices varied from 6.8% up to 47.4%. Nevertheless, the rebates for ophthalmic drugs (median 14.5%) were lower than those for all negotiated drugs (median 24%).

CONCLUSION

Over the past decade, the EBA of ophthalmic drugs was not necessarily a success story, but in most of the cases, the drugs were successful in the market.

Comparing direct acting antivirals for hepatitis C using observational data - Why and how?

The World Health Organisation's goal of hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination by 2030 will require lower drug prices. Estimates of comparative efficacy promote competition between pharmaceutical companies but direct acting antivirals have been approved for the treatment of HCV without comparative trials. We emulated a randomized trial to answer the question of whether easy to treat patients with genotype 1 HCV could be treated with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) rather than sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL). Patients without comorbidities or end stage liver disease were selected from the British Colombia Hepatitis Testers Cohort. To create a conceptual trial, we matched each patient starting SOF/VEL (a ‘case’) to the patient starting SOF/LDV with the closest propensity score (a ‘control’). We estimated the probability of treatment failure under a Bayesian logistic model with a random effect for each case‐control set and used that model to give an estimate of a risk difference for the conceptual trial. Treatment failure was recorded for 27 of 825 (3%) cases and for 29 of 602 (5%) matched controls. Estimates from our model were treatment success rates of 97% (95% credible interval, CrI, 95%‐98%) for treatment with SOF/VEL, 95% (95% CrI 93%‐97%) for treatment with SOF/LDV and a risk difference between treatments of 2% (95% CrI 0%‐4%). This risk difference is evidence that SOF/LDV is not inferior to SOF/VEL for easy to treat patients with genotype 1 HCV. The approach is a template for comparing drugs when there are no data from comparative trials.

Assessing the pricing and benefits of oncology products: an update

Introduction: Oncology expenditure is outperforming all other health care sectors. In particular, the cost of oncology pharmaceuticals is soaring as it is fueled both by incremental costs and the introduction rate of new products. Due to the particularities of cancer as a disease, a significant multilayer of pressure is exerted toward the reimbursement of new treatments. Nevertheless, if the expenditure increase is left unattended, it may hamper the viability of any health care system worldwide.Areas covered: A literature review of the expenditure on oncology pharmaceuticals and the exploration of the root causes for the increase in expenditure was performed.Expert commentary: The surging oncology expenditure demonstrates a multi-layer causality that encompasses prices, the uncertainty of clinical trials, the specificities of cancer as a disease, and the artificial monopoly of oncology modalities. Moreover, laxity in the regulatory approval of new products was noted. In addition, the study design should be adequately justified. Finally, new reimbursement schemes, that explicitly reward and promote clinically meaningful and measurable outcomes, are also imperative.

Continual proteomic divergence of HepG2 cells as a consequence of long-term spheroid culture

Three-dimensional models are considered a powerful tool for improving the concordance between in vitro and in vivo phenotypes. However, the duration of spheroid culture may influence the degree of correlation between these counterparts. When using immortalised cell lines as model systems, the assumption for consistency and reproducibility is often made without adequate characterization or validation. It is therefore essential to define the biology of each spheroid model by investigating proteomic dynamics, which may be altered relative to culture duration. As an example, we assessed the influence of culture duration on the relative proteome abundance of HepG2 cells cultured as spheroids, which are routinely used to model aspects of the liver. Quantitative proteomic profiling of whole cell lysates labelled with tandem-mass tags was conducted using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). In excess of 4800 proteins were confidently identified, which were shared across three consecutive time points over 28 days. The HepG2 spheroid proteome was divergent from the monolayer proteome after 14 days in culture and continued to change over the successive culture time points. Proteins representing the recognised core hepatic proteome, cell junction, extracellular matrix, and cell adhesion proteins were found to be continually modulated.

Design, organisation and impact of treatment optimisation studies in breast, lung and colorectal cancer: The experience of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment optimisation studies (TOSs) are clinical trials which aim to tackle research questions that are often left unaddressed within the current drug development paradigm due to a lack of financial and regulatory incentives to undertake them. Examples include comparative effectiveness, therapeutic sequencing and dose de-escalation studies. Trials of this nature have historically been primarily carried out by academic institutions and not-for-profit organisations such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to conduct an in-depth analysis of the breast, lung and colorectal cancer TOSs that have been performed by the EORTC in the past four decades.

METHODS

We searched the EORTC clinical trials database for relevant studies and subsequently analysed them based on a number of predefined criteria relating to their design, organisation and scientific impact.

RESULTS

The 113 EORTC TOSs examined in this analysis were mainly standard-sized, international, multicentre phase III trials using a relatively simple, randomised, open-label design and comparing pharmacological combination regimens against standard-of-care treatments in terms of their potential to improve overall survival of patients with cancer. Although they were typically financially and/or materially supported by the industry, their legal sponsor was nearly always an independent party that did not benefit monetarily from their outcomes. If meaningful findings were obtained, their results, regardless of whether positive or negative, were published in high-impact journals, and the corresponding articles usually received a considerable number of citations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis provides an empirical framework for setting up future TOSs based on the EORTC experience in oncology.

Precision medicine and the principle of equal treatment: a conjoint analysis

BACKGROUND

In precision medicine biomarkers stratify patients into groups that are offered different treatments, but this may conflict with the principle of equal treatment. While some patient characteristics are seen as relevant for unequal treatment and others not, it is known that they all may influence treatment decisions. How biomarkers influence these decisions is not known, nor is their ethical relevance well discussed.

METHODS

We distributed an email survey designed to elicit treatment preferences from Norwegian doctors working with cancer patients. In a forced-choice conjoint analysis pairs of hypothetical patients were presented, and we calculated the average marginal component effect of seven individual patient characteristics, to estimate how each of them influence doctors' priority-setting decisions.

RESULTS

A positive biomarker status increased the probability of being allocated the new drug, while older age, severe comorbidity and reduced physical function reduced the probability. Importantly, sex, education level and smoking status had no significant influence on the decision.

CONCLUSION

Biomarker status is perceived as relevant for priority setting decisions, alongside more well-known patient characteristics like age, physical function and comorbidity. Based on our results, we discuss a framework that can help clarify whether biomarker status should be seen as an ethically acceptable factor for providing unequal treatment to patients with the same disease.

Cross-sectional study of medical advertisements in a national general medical journal: evidence, cost, and safe use of advertised versus comparative drugs

Background

Healthcare professionals are exposed to advertisements for prescription drugs in medical journals. Such advertisements may increase prescriptions of new drugs at the expense of older treatments even when they have no added benefits, are more harmful, and are more expensive. The publication of medical advertisements therefore raises ethical questions related to editorial integrity.

Methods

We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study of all medical advertisements published in the Journal of the Danish Medical Association in 2015. Drugs advertised 6 times or more were compared with older comparators: (1) comparative evidence of added benefit; (2) Defined Daily Dose cost; (3) regulatory safety announcements; and (4) completed and ongoing post-marketing studies 3 years after advertising.

Results

We found 158 medical advertisements for 35 prescription drugs published in 24 issues during 2015, with a median of 7 advertisements per issue (range 0 to 11). Four drug groups and 5 single drugs were advertised 6 times or more, for a total of 10 indications, and we made 14 comparisons with older treatments. We found: (1) ‘no added benefit’ in 4 (29%) of 14 comparisons, ‘uncertain benefits’ in 7 (50%), and ‘no evidence’ in 3 (21%) comparisons. In no comparison did we find evidence of ‘substantial added benefit’ for the new drug; (2) advertised drugs were 2 to 196 times (median 6) more expensive per Defined Daily Dose; (3) 11 safety announcements for five advertised drugs were issued compared to one announcement for one comparator drug; (4) 20 post-marketing studies (7 completed, 13 ongoing) were requested for the advertised drugs versus 10 studies (4 completed, 6 ongoing) for the comparator drugs, and 7 studies (2 completed, 5 ongoing) assessed both an advertised and a comparator drug at 3 year follow-up.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cross-sectional study of medical advertisements published in the Journal of the Danish Medical Association during 2015, the most advertised drugs did not have documented substantial added benefits over older treatments, whereas they were substantially more expensive. From January 2021, the Journal of the Danish Medical Association no longer publishes medical advertisements.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41073-021-00111-9.

EMA and FDA psychiatric drug trial guidelines: assessment of guideline development and trial design recommendations

AIMS

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) produce guidelines for the design of pivotal psychiatric drug trials used in new drug applications. It is unknown who are involved in the guideline development and what specific trial design recommendations they give.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of EMA Clinical Efficacy and Safety Guidelines and FDA Guidance Documents. Study outcomes: (1) guideline committee members and declared conflicts of interest; (2) guideline development and organisation of commenting phases; (3) categorisation of stakeholders who comment on draft and final guidelines according to conflicts of interest ('industry', 'not-industry but with industry-related conflicts', 'independent', 'unclear'); and (4) trial design recommendations (trial duration, psychiatric comorbidity, 'enriched design', efficacy outcomes, comparator choice). Protocol registration https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.22.20018499 (27 January 2020).

RESULTS

We included 13 EMA and five FDA guidelines covering 15 psychiatric indications. Eleven months after submission, the EMA had not processed our request regarding committee member disclosures. FDA offices draft the Guidance Documents, but the Agency is not in possession of employee conflicts of interest declarations because FDA employees generally may not hold financial interests (although some employees may hold interests up to $15,000). The EMA and FDA guideline development phases are similar; drafts and final versions are publicly announced and everybody can submit comments. Seventy stakeholders commented on ten guidelines: 38 (54%) 'industry', 18 (26%) 'not-industry but with industry-related conflicts', six (9%) 'independent' and eight (11%) 'unclear'. They submitted 1014 comments: 640 (68%) 'industry', 243 (26%) 'not-industry but with industry-related conflicts', 44 (5%) 'independent' and 20 (2%) 'unclear' (67 could not be assigned to a specific stakeholder). The recommended designs were generally for trials of short duration; with restricted trial populations; allowing previous exposure to the drug; and often recommending rating scale efficacy outcomes. EMA mainly recommended three arm designs (both placebo and active comparators), whereas FDA mainly recommended placebo-controlled designs. There were also other important differences and FDA's recommendations regarding the exclusion of psychiatric comorbidity seemed less restrictive.

CONCLUSIONS

The EMA and FDA clinical research guidelines for psychiatric pivotal trials recommend designs that tend to have limited generalisability. Independent and non-conflicted stakeholders are underrepresented in the guideline development. It seems warranted with more active involvement of scientists and independent organisations without conflicts of interest in the guideline development process.

Common Pharmaceutical Price and Cost Controls in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany: Lessons for the United States

To identify pharmaceutical spending-control options for the United States, we analyzed the policies of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, which encourage drugmakers to undertake innovations that improve health while controlling spending. Their main strategies today include: using legislation to set default rules that increase the insurer's bargaining position, employing health technology assessment that measures cost-effectiveness or comparative effectiveness and caps the purchase or reimbursement price, setting a single maximum price for similar drugs (reference group pricing), capping prices near prices in other European countries (external reference pricing), prohibiting price increases, contracting to obtain discounts as sales volume rises, procuring drugs through competitive bids, and requiring manufacturers to pay rebates when spending exceeds a global budget. Each strategy addresses a distinct cause of high spending and supports overall goals. Most recent US reform proposals recommend incremental changes that would not address the major sources of high and increasing pharmaceutical prices. However, some US reform proposals resemble certain European strategies and could bring more significant change. US policymakers should consider adopting each of the strategies employed in these countries.

Added Therapeutic Value of Medicinal Products for French and German Health Technology Assessment Organizations: A Systematic Comparison

OBJECTIVES

Determining the price and reimbursement of a new medicine is a national competence within the Member States of the European Union that is carried out by health technology authorities and is based mainly on the added therapeutic value (ATV). The primary objective of this study was to compare the ATVs granted by the French (Haute Autorité de Santé, HAS) and the German (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, IQWIG) authorities. The secondary objective was to analyze the reasons for the discrepancies observed.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort of all ATVs assigned by HAS and IQWIG for the period 2011 to 2017. ATV assessments were classified as major, considerable, minor, no benefit, or not quantifiable. The concordance between the authorities was evaluated, and a qualitative analysis of highly discordant assessments was performed.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-one drugs were evaluated by both agencies. The overall percentage of agreement was 50.3%. It was 73.1% for no benefit of ATVs, 37.5% for minor ATVs, 31.2% for considerable ATVs, and 5% for major ATVs. Highly conflicting assessments (n = 35) mainly concerned antineoplastic drugs (n = 14) and anti-infectives (n = 14). The main reasons for inconsistency concerned the following: a different appreciation of the subgroup analysis of efficacy data (n = 15), the appropriateness of comparators (n = 15), the surrogate endpoints (n = 10), methodological differences (n = 8), and the benefit/risk criteria that were used (n = 6).

CONCLUSION

In the context of the common assessment of ATVs promoted by the European Commission, the harmonization between member states regarding the way evaluation criteria are assessed deserves to be addressed.

Are patients more adherent to newer drugs?

The annual preventable cost from non-adherence in the US health care system amounts to $100 billion. While the relationship between adherence and the health system, the condition, patient characteristics and socioeconomic factors are established, the role of the heterogeneous productivity of drug treatment remains ambiguous. In this study, we perform cross-sectional retrospective analyses to study whether patients who use newer drugs are more adherent to pharmacotherapy than patients using older drugs within the same therapeutic class, accounting for unobserved heterogeneity at the individual level (e.g. healthy adherer bias). We use US Marketscan commercial claims and encounters data for 2008-2013 on patients initiating therapy for five chronic conditions. Productivity is captured by a drug's earliest Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval year ("drug vintage") and by FDA" therapeutic potential" designation. We control for situational factors as promotional activity, copayments and distribution channel. A 10-year increase in mean drug vintage is associated with a 2.5 percentage-point increase in adherence. FDA priority status, promotional activity and the share of mail-order prescription fills positively influenced adherence, while co-payments had a negative effect. Newer drugs not only may be more effective in terms of clinical benefits, on average. They provide means to ease drug therapy to increase adherence levels as one component of drug quality, a notion physicians and pharmacy benefit managers should be aware of.

Leading Causes of Mortality and Prescription Drug Coverage in Canada and New Zealand

Introduction: Canada may soon see the introduction of a national pharmaceutical insurance system. New Zealand has a government-funded healthcare system used by all residents that operates within a tight cost-containment budget. The objective of this analysis was to compare the main mortality causes in Canada and New Zealand and examine listings in current Canadian provincial public drug plans and the New Zealand national drug formulary. Materials and Methods: Age-standardized mortality rates from 2000 to 2015 and data on hospital discharges and average length of stay in hospital for Canada and New Zealand were obtained from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's website. Information on insured medications was obtained from Canadian provincial drug plan lists and the New Zealand Pharmaceutical Schedule current in mid-2019. Results: Hospital discharge rates for cardiovascular disorders, malignancies and respiratory disorders and mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease were higher, on average over the observation period, in New Zealand than in Canada, but mortality rates for malignancies and respiratory disorders were similar. Reimbursement listing rates for cancer drugs and some cardiovascular medications were lower in New Zealand than in Canada. Discussion: Higher hospital discharge and mortality rates suggest poorer patient health in New Zealand compared with Canada. This may be due to lower reimbursement listing rates for some medications in New Zealand. New Zealand's drug coverage system has contained costs, but it restricts or denies access to new innovative medicines with the potential to improve patients' lives. Although a New Zealand-style national pharmacare scheme in Canada would offer the opportunity to restrain drug expenditure, it would likely fail to satisfy patients and healthcare providers and could diminish health outcomes, resulting in higher costs in other healthcare sectors.

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.

The impact of drug quality ratings from health technology assessments on the adoption of new drugs by physicians in Germany

Payers are increasingly calling for the value of new drugs to be measured explicitly. We analyze how the availability of drug quality ratings by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies affects the adoption of new drugs by physicians in Germany. We combine data from drug quality ratings, promotional spending, and a physician panel. In a latent utility model, time to adoption is specified as a function of quality rating, promotional spending by manufacturers, and physician-specific variables. As expected, drugs with a positive rating were adopted faster (p < 0.001) than those without. However, our results suggest that it was the publication of the quality rating itself that affected adoption. Indeed, before a quality rating was published, drugs that went on to receive a positive quality rating were not adopted significantly faster than drugs that went on to receive a negative quality rating. In contrast, after the publication of the HTA quality rating, drugs with a positive rating were adopted significantly faster than those without (p < 0.05). The per physician value of a positive quality rating was EUR 393.50. Our results suggest that there are returns from HTAs beyond their use in price negotiations.

Past, Current, and Future Cancer Clinical Research Collaborations: The Case of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

Although collaborations between academic institutions and industry have led to important scientific breakthroughs in the discovery stage of the pharmaceutical research and development process, the role of multistakeholder partnerships in the clinical development of anticancer medicines necessitates further clarification. The benefits associated with such cooperation could be undercut by the conflicting goals and motivations of the actors included. The aim of this review was to identify and characterize past, present, and future stakeholder partnership models in cancer clinical research through the lens of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Based on the analysis of several landmark EORTC trials performed across the span of three decades, four existing models of stakeholder cooperation were delineated and characterized. Additionally, a hypothetical fifth model representing a potential future collaborative framework for cancer clinical research was formulated. These models mainly differ in terms of the nature and responsibilities of the partners included and show that clinical research partnerships in oncology have evolved over time from small‐scale academia‐industry collaborations to complex interdisciplinary cooperation involving many different stakeholders.