The FDA in the Crosshairs-Science, Politics, and Abortion

In this Viewpoint, the Supreme Court case FDA v AHM is used to illustrate the tension the FDA faces between science and politics, and state authority over abortion vs federal authority over which drugs may be marketed nationwide.

Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval

Importance

The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) accelerated approval pathway allows approval of investigational drugs treating unmet medical needs based on changes to surrogate measures considered "reasonably likely" to predict clinical benefit. Postapproval clinical trials are then required to confirm whether these drugs offer clinical benefit.

Objective

To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately demonstrate clinical benefit and to evaluate the basis of conversion to regular approval.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study, publicly available FDA data were used to identify cancer drugs granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Demonstrated improvement in quality of life or overall survival in accelerated approvals with more than 5 years of follow-up, as well as confirmatory trial end points and time to conversion for drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval.

Results

A total of 129 cancer drug-indication pairs were granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Among 46 indications with more than 5 years of follow-up (approved 2013-2017), approximately two-thirds (29, 63%) were converted to regular approval, 10 (22%) were withdrawn, and 7 (15%) remained ongoing after a median of 6.3 years. Fewer than half (20/46, 43%) demonstrated a clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Time to withdrawal decreased from 9.9 years to 3.6 years, and time to regular approval increased from 1.6 years to 3.6 years. Among 48 drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval, 19 (40%) were converted based on overall survival, 21 (44%) on progression-free survival, 5 (10%) on response rate plus duration of response, 2 (4%) on response rate, and 1 (2%) despite a negative confirmatory trial. Comparing accelerated and regular approval indications, 18 of 48 (38%) were unchanged, while 30 of 48 (63%) had different indications (eg, earlier line of therapy).

Conclusions and Relevance

Most cancer drugs granted accelerated approval did not demonstrate benefit in overall survival or quality of life within 5 years of accelerated approval. Patients should be clearly informed about the cancer drugs that use the accelerated approval pathway and do not end up showing benefits in patient-centered clinical outcomes.

Changes in Use of Hepatitis C Direct-Acting Antivirals After Access Restrictions Were Eased by State Medicaid Programs

Importance

Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are safe and highly effective for curing hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, but their high cost led certain state Medicaid programs to impose coverage restrictions. Since 2015, many of these restrictions have been lifted voluntarily in response to advocacy or because of litigation.

Objective

To estimate how the prescribing of DAAs to Medicaid patients changed after states eased access restrictions.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This modified difference-in-differences analysis of 39 state Medicaid programs included Medicaid beneficiaries who were prescribed a DAA from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. DAA coverage restrictions were measured based on a series of cross-sectional assessments performed from 2014 through 2022 by the US National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable and the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation.

Exposure

Calendar quarter when states eased or eliminated 3 types of DAA coverage restrictions: limiting treatment to patients with severe liver disease, restricting use among patients with active substance use, and requiring prescriptions to be written by or in consultation with specialists. States with none of these restrictions at baseline were excluded.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Quarterly number of HCV DAA treatment courses per 100 000 Medicaid beneficiaries.

Results

Of 39 states, 7 (18%) eliminated coverage restrictions, 25 (64%) eased restrictions, and 7 (18%) maintained the same restrictions from 2015 to 2019. During this period, the average quarterly use of DAAs increased from 669 to 3601 treatment courses per 100 000 Medicaid beneficiaries. After states eased or eliminated restrictions, the use of DAAs increased by 966 (95% CI, 409-1523) treatment courses per 100 000 Medicaid beneficiaries each quarter compared with states that did not ease or eliminate restrictions.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this study suggest that there was greater use of DAAs after states relaxed coverage restrictions related to liver disease severity, sobriety, or prescriber specialty. Further reductions or elimination of these rules may improve access to a highly effective public health intervention for patients with HCV.

Clinical Value of Molecular Targets and FDA-Approved Genome-Targeted Cancer Therapies

Importance

The number of new genome-targeted cancer drugs has increased, offering the possibility of personalized therapy, often at a very high cost.

Objective

To assess the validity of molecular targets and therapeutic benefits of US Food and Drug Administration-approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on the outcomes of their corresponding pivotal clinical trials.

Design and Settings

In this cohort study, all genome-targeted cancer drugs that were FDA-approved between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed. From FDA drug labels and trial reports, key characteristics of pivotal trials were extracted, including the outcomes assessed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit for their approved indications was evaluated using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Substantial clinical benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for curative intent and 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. Molecular targets qualifying for ESCAT category level I-A and I-B associated with substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS were rated as high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

Results

A total of 50 molecular-targeted drugs covering 84 indications were analyzed. Forty-five indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or phase 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials, and 48 (57%) were approved on the basis of subgroup analyses. By each indication, 46 of 84 primary end points (55%) were overall response rate (median [IQR] overall response rate, 57% [40%-69%]; median [IQR] duration of response, 11.1 [9.2-19.8] months). Among the 84 pivotal trials supporting these 84 indications, 38 trials (45%) had I-A ESCAT targetability, and 32 (38%) had I-B targetability. Overall, 24 of 84 trials (29%) demonstrated substantial clinical benefit via ESMO-MCBS. Combining these ratings, 24 of 84 indications (29%) were associated with high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this cohort study demonstrate that among recently approved molecular-targeted cancer therapies, fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial patient benefits at approval. Benefit frameworks such as ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT can help physicians, patients, and payers identify therapies with the greatest clinical potential.

Spending on Targeted Therapies for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

This study estimates public and private spending on genetically targeted treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy during years in which the drugs were marketed without completed confirmatory studies.

Rates and costs of drug testing practices for private payors in the outpatient setting in the United States, 2015-2019

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines recommend drug testing patients who are receiving opioids chronically for pain or medication for a substance use disorder (SUD)-particularly opioid use disorder (OUD)-but practices vary due to a lack of consensus on testing frequency during follow-up. This study aimed to evaluate rates and costs of outpatient drug testing practices for patients receiving opioids for chronic pain or medication for an SUD.

METHODS

Using claims data from a large de-identified claims data warehouse, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of chronic opioid, buprenorphine, and naltrexone users between January 2015 and December 2019. We identified two cohorts-chronic opioid medication cohort (CO) and SUD-indicated medication cohort (SUD). We assessed drug testing rates during follow-up using procedure codes and costs using copayment, deductible, co-insurance, and out-of-pocket data.

RESULTS

Among 6,657,515 eligible claimants, 367,118 (5.5 %) received opioids chronically and 73,303 (1.1 %) received an SUD-indicated medication. The cumulative proportion of drug testing during follow-up was similar between cohorts (CO: 36 %; SUD: 35 %), but rate of testing was consistently twice as frequent for the SUD cohort. All cost variables for the first drug test were higher on average in the SUD cohort than the CO cohort except copay: deductible (SUD: $18.54; CO: $7.33); co-insurance (SUD: $10.36; CO: $2.53); out-of-pocket (SUD: $29.39; CO: $10.57); copay (CO: $0.71; SUD: $0.49) (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall proportion of drug testing was similar between cohorts, but testing frequency was at least double during follow-up in the SUD cohort. Most cost variables were higher in the SUD cohort. Whether the high cost of drug testing is a barrier to medication use or is associated with treatment discontinuation should be evaluated.

Use of Efficiency Frontiers to Align Prices and Clinical Benefits of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis

Importance

The US lacks a systematic approach for aligning drug prices with clinical benefit, and traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) faces political obstacles. The efficiency frontier (EF) method offers policymakers an alternative approach.

Objective

To assess how the EF approach could align prices and clinical benefits of biologic medications for plaque psoriasis and estimate price reductions in the US vs 4 peer countries: Australia, Canada, France, and Germany.

Design and Setting

This health economic evaluation used the EF approach to compare the prices and clinical benefits of 11 biologics and 2 biosimilars for plaque psoriasis in the US, Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Data were collected from February to March 2023 and analyzed from March to June 2023.

Main Outcome Measures

EFs were constructed based on each biologic's efficacy, measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rate, and annual treatment cost as of January 2023; US costs were net of estimated manufacturer rebates. Prices based on the EF were compared with traditional CEA-based prices calculated by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review at a threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

Results

Among 13 biologics, PASI 90 response rates ranged from 17.9% (etanercept) to 71.6% (risankizumab); US net annual treatment costs ranged from $1664 (infliximab-dyyb) to $79 277 (risankizumab). The median (IQR) net annual treatment cost was higher in the US ($34 965 [$20 493-$48 942]) than prerebate costs in Australia ($9179 [$6691-$12 688]), Canada ($15 556 [$13 017-$16 112]), France ($9478 [$6637-$11 678]), and Germany ($13 829 [$13 231-$15 837]). The US EF included infliximab-dyyb (PASI 90: 57.4%; annual cost: $1664), ixekizumab (PASI 90: 70.8%; annual cost: $33 004), and risankizumab (PASI 90: 71.6%; annual cost: $79 277). US prices for psoriasis biologics would need to be reduced by a median (IQR) of 71% (31%-95%) to align with those estimated using the EF; the same approach would yield smaller price reductions in Canada (41% [6%-57%]), Australia (36% [0%-65%]), France (19% [0%-67%]), and Germany (11% [8%-26%]). Except for risankizumab, the EF-based prices were lower than the prices based on traditional CEA.

Conclusions and Relevance

This economic evaluation showed that for plaque psoriasis biologics, using an EF approach to negotiate prices could lead to substantial price reductions and better align prices with clinical benefits. US policymakers might consider using EFs to achieve prices commensurate with comparative clinical benefits, particularly for drug classes with multiple therapeutic alternatives for which differences can be adequately summarized by a single outcome measurement.

Federal Enforcement of Pharmaceutical Fraud under the False Claims Act, 2006-2022

CONTEXT

The False Claims Act is the US federal government's primary tool for identifying and penalizing pharmaceutical fraud. The Department of Justice uses the False Claims Act to bring civil cases against drug manufacturers that allegedly obtain improper payment from federal programs.

METHODS

The authors searched the Department of Justice website for press releases published between 2006 and 2022 that announced fraud actions brought against drug companies. They then used the World Health Organization's Anatomical Therapeutic Classification index to identify the classes of prescription drugs implicated in fraud actions.

FINDINGS

During fiscal years 2006-2022, payments by six manufacturers amounted to more than 28% of total payments made as a result of federal False Claims Act actions. Nervous system and cardiovascular drugs were the classes of medications most commonly implicated in alleged fraud. Federal officials most frequently alleged that companies improperly promoted nervous system drugs and paid kickbacks to increase revenues from cardiovascular, antineoplastic and immunomodulating, and alimentary tract and metabolism drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite frequent pharmaceutical fraud settlements and penalties, incidence of alleged fraud among drug companies remains high. Alternative methods for preventing and deterring fraud could help safeguard our health systems and promote public health, and policy makers should ensure that effective fraud enforcement complements preventive public health regulation.

Patents on Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies for Prescription Drugs and Generic Competition

This cross-sectional study identifies the prevalence of patents on risk evaluation and mitigation strategies and their association with delaying generic competition.

The Constitutionality of Medicare Drug-Price Negotiation under the Takings Clause

In recent months, pharmaceutical manufacturers have brought legal challenges to a provision of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) empowering the federal government to negotiate the prices Medicare pays for certain prescription medications. One key argument made in these filings is that price negotiation is a "taking" of property and violates the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. Through original case law and health policy analysis, we show that government price negotiation and even price regulation of goods and services, including patented goods, are constitutional under the Takings Clause. Finding that the IRA violates the Takings Clause would radically upend settled constitutional law and jeopardize the US's most important state and federal health care programs.

Delivery Device Patents on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists

This study analyzed the US Food and Drug Administration–listed patents on glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists to determine their claim characteristics and the potential barriers they pose to generic entry.

Pathways and Challenges

The US government supports drug innovation. It is therefore crucial that it distinguish between high-value and low-value innovation in purchasing expensive prescription drugs and medical devices and ensure the continued discovery of transformative drugs and that patient and taxpayer funds are not wasted.

Administrative action on drug pricing: Lessons and opportunities for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation

BACKGROUND

In October 2022, the Biden administration issued an executive order to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to develop new health care payment and delivery models to lower prescription drug costs and promote access to innovative therapies. In response, the agency proposed 3 novel drug payment models for testing.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the impact that CMMI demonstration projects can have on the prescription drug market.

METHODS

We examined each of the models listed on the CMMI website and searched the Federal Register and news articles for additional models that contained interventions related to patient out-of-pocket drug costs, Medicare drug spending, or Medicaid drug spending. We excluded models with indirect effects on drug costs (for example, bundled payments). We comprehensively reviewed all previous cases in which CMMI has attempted models addressing prescription drug costs and spending and evaluated the circumstances, impact, and lessons learned that may aid policymakers in the design and implementation of new models.

RESULTS

We identified 9 CMMI models containing direct interventions related to drug costs. Among prior models addressing drug prices, nearly half (44%, 4/9) were not implemented because of their scope, voluntary nature, and procedural challenges. No implemented models met the CMMI standard for expansion, although key elements of the Senior Savings model limiting monthly insulin costs to $35 were later incorporated into the Inflation Reduction Act.

CONCLUSIONS

In future CMMI implementation efforts, we suggest maximizing voluntary collaboration when selection bias concerns are minimal, using mandatory models when not, ensuring that the geographic scope is not overly ambitious, and adhering closely to statutory authority and established administrative procedure to minimize legal challenges and maximize model demonstration utility.

Estimated Spending on Beremagene Geperpavec for Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa

Importance

New gene therapies can offer substantial benefits to patients, particularly those with rare diseases who have few therapeutic options. In May 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first topical gene therapy, beremagene geperpavec (B-VEC), for treating both autosomal recessive and autosomal dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB). However, FDA approval was based on limited data in patients with autosomal dominant disease, even though they comprise approximately 50% of all DEB cases.

Objective

To estimate projected spending in the US on B-VEC therapy for treating autosomal recessive and autosomal dominant DEB.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation used data from the National Epidermolysis Bullosa Registry to estimate the current population of US patients with autosomal dominant and autosomal recessive DEB, with the aim of estimating US spending on B-VEC therapy from an all-payers perspective during 1- and 3-year periods after FDA approval. A base-case cost of $300 000 per patient per year was assumed based on a report from the manufacturer (Krystal Biotech).

Exposure

Treatment with B-VEC.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Estimated overall spending on B-VEC in the first year and over a 3-year period after FDA approval. Several prespecified sensitivity analyses with different assumptions about the eligible patient population and the cost of therapy were performed, and lifetime total costs of treatment per patient were estimated.

Results

The estimated number of US patients with DEB who were eligible for treatment with B-VEC in the first year after FDA approval was 894. The estimated total expenditure for B-VEC therapy was $268 million (range, $179 million-$357 million). Over a 3-year period, estimated spending was $805 million (range, $537 million-$1.1 billion). Estimated lifetime total costs per patient were $15 million (range, $10 million-$20 million) per patient with autosomal recessive DEB and $17 million (range, $11 million-$22 million) for patients with autosomal dominant DEB.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this economic evaluation suggest that the FDA's broad indication for the use of B-VEC in treating both autosomal recessive and autosomal dominant DEB will have significant implications for payers.

Identifying therapeutic alternatives in Medicare drug price negotiation: The case of etanercept

As the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) navigates the process of negotiating drug prices, it plans to compare the cost, safety, and effectiveness of each drug with its therapeutic alternatives. How CMS selects therapeutic alternatives is a consequential decision, and there remains uncertainty about their methodology. To understand the challenges CMS will face in selecting therapeutic alternatives, we developed a methodology that leverages clinical guidelines by US medical professional associations to identify potential therapeutic alternatives for etanercept, one of the first 10 drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation. For each of etanercept's 5 US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications, we identified all drugs with the same mechanism of action as etanercept and considered drugs with different mechanisms if they were recommended in place of etanercept at the same treatment stage, or if there was no strong comparative safety or effectiveness evidence that the drug differed from etanercept. We identified 22 potential therapeutic alternatives to etanercept, including 4 drugs with the same mechanism, 10 biologics with different mechanisms, and 8 small-molecule drugs. We faced several challenges in selecting therapeutic alternatives using clinical guidelines, such as how to reconcile strong recommendations that were based on weak evidence and how to consider combination therapies. This exercise demonstrates the complex considerations that CMS will face as it negotiates drug prices based on therapies' cost, safety, and effectiveness relative to therapeutic alternatives.

Feldman Reply

The authors respond to a letter by Mitchell Berger in the March-April 2024 issue of the Hastings Center Report concerning their essay "Securing the Trustworthiness of the FDA to Build Public Trust in Vaccines."

Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Biologic Drugs After Biosimilar Competition

Importance

Biologic drugs account for a growing share of US pharmaceutical spending. Competition from follow-on biosimilar products (subsequent versions that have no clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic) has led to modest reductions in US health care spending, but these savings may not translate to lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients.

Objective

To investigate whether biosimilar competition is associated with lower OOP spending for patients using biologics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used a national commercial claims database (Optum Clinformatics Data Mart) to identify outpatient claims for 1 of 7 clinician-administered biologics (filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, epoetin alfa, bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab) from January 2009 through March 2022. Claims by commercially insured patients younger than 65 years were included.

Exposure

Year relative to first biosimilar availability and use of original or biosimilar version.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients' annual OOP spending on biologics for each calendar year was determined, and OOP spending per claim between reference biologic and biosimilar versions was compared. Two-part regression models assessed for differences in OOP spending, adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics (age, sex, US Census region, health plan type, diagnosis, and place of service) and year relative to initial biosimilar entry.

Results

Over 1.7 million claims from 190 364 individuals (median [IQR] age, 53 [42-59] years; 58.3% females) who used at least 1 of the 7 biologics between 2009 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Over 251 566 patient-years of observation, annual OOP costs increased before and after biosimilar availability. Two years after the start of biosimilar competition, the adjusted odds ratio of nonzero annual OOP spending was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.12; P < .001) and average nonzero annual spending was 12% higher (95% CI, 10%-14%; P < .001) compared with the year before biosimilar competition. After biosimilars became available, claims for biosimilars were more likely than reference biologics to have nonzero OOP costs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.11-1.16]; P < .001) but had 8% lower mean nonzero OOP costs (adjusted mean ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93; P < .001). Findings varied by drug.

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings of this cohort study suggest that biosimilar competition was not consistently associated with lower OOP costs for commercially insured outpatients, highlighting the need for targeted policy interventions to ensure that the savings generated from biosimilar competition translate into increased affordability for patients who need biologics.

How Do Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Impact Clinical Practice? A National Survey of Physicians

The US Food and Drug Administration can require risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programs for prescription drugs to ensure the benefits of use outweigh the risks. We conducted a national survey of physicians' experiences prescribing eight REMS-covered drugs: (1) ambrisentan; (2) bosentan; (3) clozapine; (4) isotretinoin; (5-7) the multiple myeloma (MM) drugs lenalidomide, pomalidomide, thalidomide; and (8) sodium oxybate. Between May 2022 and January 2023, we surveyed 5,331 physician prescribers of these drugs, and 1,295 (24%) returned surveys (range: 149 for bosentan to 226 for MM drugs). Although 765 (68%) respondents thought the certification process provided useful drug information, 757 (67%) wanted materials to include benefit data and 944 (84%) non-REMS-related risk data. A majority (704, 63%) thought the safe use requirements facilitated discussion with patients, but a similar number (637, 57%) attributed delayed medication access to these requirements. In multivariable modeling, MM drug and isotretinoin respondents were less likely than sodium oxybate respondents to agree that the certification process provided useful drug information (MM drug: odds ratio (OR) = 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.25-0.55; isotretinoin: OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.25-0.61), and isotretinoin, clozapine, and bosetan respondents were more likely than sodium oxybate respondents to agree that the safe use requirements often delayed medication access (isotretinoin: OR = 5.83, 95% CI = 3.70-9.19; clozapine: OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.08-2.54; bosentan: OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.12-2.85). Most physicians believe REMS programs convey useful drug safety information and facilitate discussion with patients but also seek information on benefits and non-REMS-related risks and better integration of REMS processes into clinical workflows.

Availability and Cost of Expensive and Common Generic Prescription Drugs: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Direct-to-Consumer Pharmacies

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmacies sell generic prescription drugs, often at lower prices than traditional retail pharmacies; however, not all drugs are available, and prices vary.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the availability and cost of generic drugs at DTC pharmacies.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Five national DTC pharmacies in April and May 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

Each qualifying form of 100 generic drugs with the highest cost-per-patient (expensive) and the 50 generic drugs with the highest number of patients (common) in Medicare Part D in 2020 MAIN MEASURES: Availability of these drugs and the lowest DTC pharmacy price for a standardized drug strength and supply (e.g., 30 pills), compared to GoodRx retail pharmacy prices.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 118 expensive generic dosage forms, 94 (80%) were available at 1 or more DTC pharmacies; out of 52 common generic dosage forms, 51 (98%) were available (p < 0.001). Of the 88 expensive generics available in comparable quantities and strengths across pharmacies, 42 (47%) had the lowest cost at Amazon, 23 (26%) at Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company, 13 (14%) at Health Warehouse, and 12 (13%) at Costco; for 51 common generic formulations, 16 (31%) had the lowest cost at Costco, 14 (27%) at Amazon, 10 (20%) at Walmart, 6 (12%) at Health Warehouse, and 5 (10%) at Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. For the 77 expensive generics with available GoodRx retail pharmacy prices, the median cost savings at DTC pharmacies were $231 (95% CI, $129-$792) or 76% (IQR, 53-91%); for 51 common generics, savings were $19 (95% CI, $10-$34) or 75% (IQR, 67-83%).

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the most expensive generic drugs are unavailable at direct-to-consumer pharmacies. Meanwhile, less expensive, commonly used generics are widely available, but drug prices vary by pharmacy and savings are modest, requiring patients to shop around for the lowest cost.

Association between changes in prices and out-of-pocket costs for brand-name clinician-administered drugs

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether annual changes in prices for clinician-administered drugs are associated with changes in patient out-of-pocket costs.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

National commercial claims database, 2009 to 2018.

STUDY DESIGN

In a serial, cross-sectional study, we calculated the annual percent change in manufacturer list prices and net prices after rebates. We used two-part generalized linear models to assess the relationship between annual changes in price with (1) the percentage of individuals incurring any out-of-pocket costs and (2) the percent change in median non-zero out-of-pocket costs.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We created annual cohorts of privately insured individuals who used one of 52 brand-name clinician-administered drugs.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

List prices increased 4.4%/yr (interquartile range [IQR], 1.1% to 6.0%) and net prices 3.3%/yr (IQR, 0.3% to 5.5%). The median percentage of patients with any out-of-pocket costs increased from 38% in 2009 to 48% in 2018, and median non-zero annual out-of-pocket costs increased by 9.6%/yr (IQR, 4.1% to 15.4%). There was no association between changes in prices and out-of-pocket costs for individual drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2009 to 2018, prices and out-of-pocket costs for brand-name clinician-administered drugs increased, but these were not directly related for individual drugs. This may be due to changes to insurance benefit design and private insurer drug reimbursement rates.

Characteristics of Patients Receiving Novel Muscular Dystrophy Drugs in Trials vs Routine Care

Importance

The US Food and Drug Administration approved eteplirsen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in 2016 based on a controversial pivotal study that demonstrated a limited effect on the surrogate measure of dystrophin production. Other DMD treatments in the same class followed.

Objective

To assess how patients receiving novel DMD treatments in postapproval clinical settings compare with patients in the clinical trials.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study collected data on patients who initiated 1 of 4 novel DMD treatments (eteplirsen, golodirsen, viltolarsen, and casimersen) using national claims databases of commercially insured (Merative MarketScan and Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart Database [CDM]) and Medicaid patients between September 19, 2016, and March 31, 2022. Patients were followed for 1 year after the date of first use of any novel DMD treatment. In addition, patients in pivotal DMD drug trials were identified for comparison.

Exposures

Age, sex, race and ethnicity, region, and DMD stage of patients receiving novel DMD treatment.

Main Outcome and Measures

The main outcome was health care costs and drug discontinuation as measured using descriptive statistics.

Results

A total of 223 routine care patients initiating novel DMD drugs (58 in MarketScan, 35 in CDM, and 130 in Medicaid) were identified. Among the 106 patients in the pivotal trials, the mean (SD) age was 8.5 (2.0) years (range, 4.0-13.0 years), which was younger than the mean age of patients in routine care (MarketScan: 13.7 [7.0] years [range, 1.8-33.3 years; P < .001]; CDM: 11.9 [5.7] years [range, 0.6-23.6 years; P < .001]; Medicaid: 13.4 [6.5] years [range, 1.8-46.1 years; P < .001]). The proportion of female patients identified in postapproval clinical settings was 2.9% (n = 1) in CDM (vs 34 male patients [97.1%]) and 1.5% (n = 2) in Medicaid (vs 128 male patients [98.5%]), which was not different from the pivotal trials. While nearly all patients in the pivotal trials had DMD disease stage 1 or 2 when initiating the DMD treatments (103 [97.2%]), in the postapproval clinical setting, slightly more than one-third of patients were in disease stage 3 or 4 (MarketScan, 17 [36.2%; P < .001]; CDM, 13 [41.9%; P < .001]; Medicaid, 54 [47.0%; P < .001]). The payer's cost for novel DMD treatments varied across the databases, with a mean (SD) of $634 764 ($607 101) in MarketScan, $482 749 ($582 350) in CDM, and $384 023 ($1 165 730) in Medicaid. Approximately one-third of routine care patients discontinued the treatments after approximately 7 months (mean [SD], 6.1 [4.4], 6.9 [3.9], and 7.2 [4.3] months in MarketScan, CDM, and Medicaid, respectively).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings raise questions about the translation of DMD drug trial findings to routine care settings, with patients in routine care discontinuing the treatment within 1 year and payers incurring substantial expenses for these medications. More data are needed on whether these high costs are accompanied by corresponding clinical benefits.

Cost of Exempting Sole Orphan Drugs From Medicare Negotiation

Importance

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) requires Medicare to negotiate prices for some high-spending drugs but exempts drugs approved solely for the treatment of a single rare disease.

Objective

To estimate Medicare spending and global revenues for drugs that might have been exempt from negotiation from 2012 to 2021.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study analyzed drugs that met the IRA threshold for price negotiation (Medicare spending >$200 million/y) in any year from 2012 to 2021 and had an Orphan Drug Act designation. We stratified drugs into 4 mutually exclusive categories: approved for a single rare disease (sole orphan), approved for multiple rare diseases (multiorphan), initially approved for a rare disease and subsequently approved for a nonrare disease (orphan first), and initially approved for a nonrare disease and subsequently approved for a rare disease (non-orphan first).

Outcomes

The primary outcomes were the number of sole orphan drugs, estimated Medicare spending on those drugs from 2012 to 2021, and global revenue since launch.

Results

Among 282 drugs, 95 (34%) were approved to treat at least 1 rare disease, including 25 sole orphan drugs (26%), 20 multiorphan drugs (21%), 13 orphan first drugs (14%), and 37 non-orphan first drugs (39%). From 2012 to 2021, Medicare spending on sole orphan drugs increased from $3.4 billion to $10.0 billion. Each year, a median (IQR) of $2.5 ($1.9-$2.6) billion in Medicare spending would have been excluded from price negotiation because of the sole orphan exemption. The cumulative global revenue of the median (IQR) sole orphan drug was $11 ($6.6-$19.2) billion.

Conclusions and Relevance

The sole orphan exemption will exclude billions of dollars of Medicare drug spending from price negotiation. The high level of global revenues achieved by these drugs, however, suggests that special exemption is unnecessary for them to achieve financial success. Congress could consider removing the sole orphan exemption to obtain additional savings for patients and taxpayers and to eliminate any potential disincentive for developing additional indications for these drugs.

Potential Medicare and Medicaid Savings on Anti-CD20 Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis

This cross-sectional study compares price data for ocrelizumab and rituximab to estimate the savings to Medicare and Medicaid if rituximab were used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis instead of the higher-priced ocrelizumab.

Physicians' Perspectives On FDA Regulation Of Drugs And Medical Devices: A National Survey

Physicians' knowledge of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval processes is important in informing clinical decisions and patient discussions. Among a randomly selected national sample of 509 internists, cardiologists, and oncologists, 41 percent reported moderate or better understanding of the FDA's drug approval process, and 17 percent reported moderate or better understanding of the FDA's medical device approval process. Nearly all physicians thought that randomized, blinded trials that met primary endpoints should be very important factors required to secure regulatory approval. Also, nearly all physicians thought that the FDA should revoke approval for accelerated-approval drugs or breakthrough devices that did not show benefit in postapproval studies. Our findings suggest that physicians commonly lack familiarity with drug and medical device regulatory practices and are under the impression that the data supporting FDA drug and high-risk device approvals are more rigorous than they often are. Physicians would value more rigorous premarket evidence, as well as regulatory action for drugs and devices that do not demonstrate safety and effectiveness in the postmarket setting.

Preserving Timely Generic Drug Competition with Legislation on "Skinny Labeling"

Patents prevent generic drug entry. Brand firms file new "method of use" patents for old drugs to prevent generic entry. Congress addressed this issue by creating the "skinny label" pathway, which allows generic firms to use the drug label to indicate that the old drug can only be used for non-patented uses. This pathway is now in jeopardy due to a recent court case. This paper outlines the issues and suggests possible legislative solutions.

Inequitable Conduct and Invalidation of Patents Related to Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Products

This study examines the frequency of drug patent invalidations based on inequitable conduct.

Outcomes of the 340B Drug Pricing Program: A Scoping Review

Importance

The 340B Drug Pricing Program requires manufacturers to offer discounted drug prices to support safety net hospitals and clinics (covered entities) providing care to low-income populations. Amid expansion, the program has received criticism and calls for reform.

Objective

To assess the literature on the foundations of and outcomes associated with the 340B program.

Evidence Review

The databases searched in this scoping review included PubMed, Embase, EconLit, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Westlaw, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG) website, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) website, and Google in February 2023 for peer-reviewed literature, legal publications, opinion pieces, and government agency and committee reports related to the 340B program.

Findings

Among a collected 900 documents, 289 met inclusion criteria: 83 articles from PubMed, 12 articles from Embase, 2 articles from EconLit, 1 article from NBER, 28 articles from Westlaw, 23 legislative history documents, 103 documents from Google, 11 GAO reports, and 26 HHS-OIG reports. Included literature pertained to 4 stakeholders in the 340B program: covered entities, pharmacies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and patients. This literature showed that hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies generated revenue and manufacturers have forgone revenue from 340B discounted drugs. Audits of covered entities found low rates of compliance with 340B program requirements, whereas mixed evidence was uncovered on how covered entities used their 340B revenue, with some studies suggesting use to expand health care services for low-income populations and others to acquire physician practices and open sites in higher-income neighborhoods. These studies were hampered by a lack of transparency and reporting on the use of 340B revenue. Studies revealed patient benefits from access to expanded health care services, but there was mixed evidence on patient cost savings. Although the review identified considerable research on 340B hospitals, pharmacies, and patients, less research was found evaluating the 340B program's effect on nonhospital covered entities, drug pricing, and racial and ethnic minority groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this scoping review of the 340B program, we found that the 340B program was associated with financial benefits for hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies; improved access to health care services for patients; and substantial costs to manufacturers. Increased transparency regarding the use of 340B program revenue and strengthened rulemaking and enforcement authority for the Health Resources and Services Administration would support compliance and help ensure the 340B program achieves its intended purposes.

Changes in Induced Medical and Procedural Abortion Rates in a Commercially Insured Population, 2018 to 2022 : An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to in-person care was limited, and regulations requiring in-person dispensing of mifepristone for medical abortions were relaxed. The effect of the pandemic and accompanying regulatory changes on abortion use is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate changes in the incidence rate of induced medical and procedural abortions.

DESIGN

Serial cross-sectional study with interrupted time-series analyses.

SETTING

Commercially insured persons in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Reproductive-aged women.

INTERVENTION

Onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 and subsequent regulatory changes affecting the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone.

MEASUREMENTS

Monthly age-adjusted incidence rates of medical and procedural abortions were measured among women aged 15 to 44 years from January 2018 to June 2022. Medical abortions were classified as in-person or telehealth. Linear segmented time-series regression was used to calculate changes in abortion rates after March 2020.

RESULTS

In January 2018, the estimated age-adjusted monthly incidence rate of abortions was 151 per million women (95% CI, 142 to 161 per million women), with equal rates of medical and procedural abortions. After March 2020, there was an immediate 14% decrease in the monthly incidence rate of abortions (21 per million women [CI, 7 to 35 per million women]; P = 0.004), driven by a 31% decline in procedural abortions (22 per million women [CI, 16 to 28 per million women]; P < 0.001). Fewer than 4% of medical abortions each month were administered via telehealth.

LIMITATION

Only abortions reimbursed by commercial insurance were measured.

CONCLUSION

The incidence rate of procedural abortions declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this lower rate persisted after other elective procedures rebounded to prepandemic rates. Despite removal of the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone, the use of telehealth for insurance-covered medical abortions remained rare. Amid increasing state restrictions, commercial insurers have the opportunity to increase access to abortion care, particularly via telehealth.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Health Resources and Services Administration.

Approval and therapeutic value of gene therapies in the US and Europe

Gene therapies are a fast-growing area of innovation and hold promise for the treatment of many diseases currently with unmet medical need. To better understand the clinical importance of the current landscape of approved gene therapies, we conducted a systematic analysis of the approved gene therapies and their added therapeutic value. Through December 2022, 13 gene therapies have been approved in the US, 15 in the EU, and 9 in Switzerland. Nine gene therapies have been approved in all three jurisdictions, and 11 in both the US and EU. Among the 11 gene therapies approved in more than one jurisdiction, there were differences in the approved indications among the regulatory agencies, mostly the European drug agencies (EMA and Swissmedic) being more restrictive. Among the gene therapies with available therapeutic ratings, approximately two-thirds had high added therapeutic value, which is substantially higher than the average prevalence of high added therapeutic value ratings among new drugs and biologics (approximately one-third). However, therapies with high added therapeutic value will not be useful for patients if excessive prices limit access to them. Drug pricing reforms should address gene therapies to ensure access to new gene therapies that can offer important therapeutic value to patients.

Patents and regulatory exclusivities on FDA-approved insulin products: A longitudinal database study, 1986-2019

BACKGROUND

Insulin is the primary treatment for type 1 and some type 2 diabetes but remains costly in the United States, even though it was discovered more than a century ago. High prices can lead to nonadherence and are often sustained by patents and regulatory exclusivities that limit competition on brand-name products. We sought to examine how manufacturers have used patents and regulatory exclusivities on insulin products approved from 1986 to 2019 to extend periods of market exclusivity.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used the publicly available Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) to identify all approved biosynthetic insulin products. Individual products approved under the same New Drug Application (NDA)-e.g., a vial and pen-were considered as separate products for the purposes of analysis. We recorded all patents and regulatory exclusivities listed in the Orange Book on each product and used Google Patents to extract the timing of patent application and whether patents were obtained on delivery devices or others aspects of the product. The primary outcome was the duration of expected protection, which was determined by subtracting the FDA approval date for each product from its last-to-expire patent or regulatory exclusivity (whichever occurred later). We performed a secondary analysis that considered overall protection on insulin lines-defined as groups of products approved under the same NDA with the same active ingredients manufactured by the same company. We also examined competition from follow-on insulin products-defined as products approved with the same active ingredients as originators but manufactured by different companies (approved via a specific drug approval pathway under section 505(b)(2) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). During the study period, the FDA approved 56 individual products across 25 different insulin lines and 5 follow-ons across 3 different insulin lines. Thirty-three (59%) of the 56 products were drug-device combinations. Manufacturers of 9 products approved during the study period obtained patents filed after FDA approval that extended their duration of expected protection (by a median of 6 years). Approximately 63% of all patents on drug-device combinations approved during the study period were related to delivery devices. The median duration of expected protection on insulin products was 16.0 years, and the median protection on insulin lines was 17.6 years. An important limitation of our analysis is that manufacturers may continue to add patents on existing insulin products while competitors may challenge patents; therefore, periods of protection may change over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Among several strategies that insulin manufacturers have employed to extend periods of market exclusivity on brand-name insulin products are filing patents after FDA approval and obtaining a large number of patents on delivery devices. Policy reforms are needed to promote timely competition in the pharmaceutical market and ensure that patients have access to low-cost drugs.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guideline Recommendations of Cancer Drugs With Accelerated Approval

Importance

Many cancer drugs are approved under the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval pathway based on preliminary evidence. It is unclear how this limited evidence is integrated into the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, which are common references for clinicians and are used by public and private payers to determine reimbursement for oncology treatments.

Objective

To analyze the NCCN guidelines' assessments for cancer drug indications that received FDA accelerated approval compared with cancer drug indications that received FDA regular approval.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study analyzes FDA-approved indications for cancer drugs that were granted accelerated approval from program inception in 1992 to June 30, 2022. For each drug, the FDA-approved labeling was reviewed to identify all indications. All analyses were performed at the drug-indication level.

Exposure

The exposure was FDA regulatory status as of October 2022, including regular approval, accelerated approval, accelerated approval converted to regular approval, and withdrawn accelerated approval.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The level of evidence and consensus (category 1, 2A, 2B, and 3) and treatment preference (preferred, alternative preferred, other recommended, and useful in certain circumstances) ratings assigned by NCCN committees as of February 2023.

Results

A total of 315 oncology indications for 100 drugs were analyzed. These indications included 156 (50%) with regular approval, 60 (38%) with accelerated approval, 78 (49%) with accelerated approval that was converted to regular approval, and 21 (13%) with withdrawn accelerated approvals. Among all indications, 105 (33%) were rated by the NCCN as having category 1 evidence, 185 (59%) with category 2A, 6 (2%) with category 2B, and 2 (1%) with category 3 evidence. Compared with indications with regular approval, those with accelerated approval were less frequently assigned category 1 evidence (47% vs 3%; P < .001) and were less often listed as preferred treatment options (58% vs 40%; P = .008). Among the 21 withdrawn accelerated approval indications, 8 (38%) remained in the NCCN guidelines, with most having level 2A evidence ratings.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that cancer drug indications with accelerated approval were less likely to be assigned high-level evidence ratings and preferred status in the NCCN guidelines compared with indications with regular approval; most accelerated and regular approval drugs had low-quality evidence ratings but high levels of consensus among oncologists on NCCN committees. Greater clarity on the thresholds and definitions of evidence levels would make the NCCN guidelines more useful to clinicians, patients, and payers.

Confronting High Costs And Clinical Uncertainty: Innovative Payment Models For Gene Therapies

Gene therapies offer potentially life-changing benefits for patients, but their unprecedented high prices exacerbate challenges for reimbursement. Payers must confront high budgetary impacts, as a large up-front payment for each patient makes it difficult to predict and absorb costs. Payers also face considerable clinical uncertainty, as evidence for efficacy and durability is limited at approval. Alternative payment models may address these reimbursement problems and ensure equitable patient access. We developed a taxonomy of possible payment mechanisms for gene therapies, including installments, risk pools, reinsurance, price-volume agreements, expenditure caps, subscriptions, outcomes-based payments and rebates, warranties, population outcomes-based agreements, and coverage with evidence development. We illustrate how these payment models take three main approaches: amortization, which mitigates initial budget impact by spreading payments over time; risk spreading, which makes budgets more predictable by pooling costs with other payers or capping costs based on expected volume; and performance-based payment, which addresses clinical uncertainty by tying prices to patient- or population-level outcomes. We discuss each payment model, its advantages and challenges, and considerations for US payers.

Infections following bispecific antibodies in myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Bispecific antibodies, a novel immunotherapy with promising efficacy against multiple myeloma, form immune synapses between T-cell surface marker CD3 and malignant cell markers, including B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), FcRH5, and G protein-coupled receptor GPRC5D. These bispecific antibodies so effectively deplete plasma cells (and to some extent T-cells) that patients are at increased risk of developing infections. A systematic review and meta-analysis of infections in published studies of patients with myeloma treated with bispecific antibodies was conducted to better characterize the infection risks. A literature search used MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane to identify relevant studies between inception and February 10, 2023, including major conference presentations. Phase 1b-3 clinical trials and observational studies were included. Sixteen clinical trials comprising 1666 patients were included. Median follow-up was 7.6 months and 38% of the cohort had penta-drug refractory disease. Pooled prevalence of all-grade infections was 56%, whereas the prevalence of grade ≥3 infections was 24%. Patients who were treated with BCMA-targeted bispecifics had significantly higher rates of grade ≥3 infections than non-BCMA bispecifics (25% vs 20%). Similarly, patients treated with bispecifics in combination with other agents had significantly higher rate of all-grade infection than those receiving monotherapy (71% vs 52%). In observational studies (n = 293), excluded from the primary analysis to ensure no overlap with patients in clinical trials, several infections classically associated with T-cell depletion were identified. This systematic review identifies BCMA-targeted bispecifics and bispecific combination therapy as having higher infection risk, requiring vigilant infection screening and prophylaxis strategies.

Regulatory Review Duration and Differences in Submission Times of Drugs in the United States and Europe, 2011 to 2020

The speed of drug regulatory agencies in the United States and Europe is often a source of discussion. The objective of this research was to assess regulatory review duration of first and supplementary indications approved between 2011 and 2020 in the United States and Europe (European Union [EU] and Switzerland) and differences in submission times between the United States and Europe. Descriptive statistics were applied to review times between the jurisdictions and across the therapeutic areas. A regression analysis was done to estimate the association between approval agency and review times. The primary analysis cohort included 241 drugs approved in the United States, the EU, and Switzerland. Of these, 128 drugs had supplemental indications (331 in total) in the United States and 87 had supplemental indications (206 in total) in the EU. Overall median review duration from submission to approval subtracting the clock stop period was 39 weeks in the United States, 44 weeks in the EU, and 44 weeks in Switzerland. When review times within each drug were compared, the European Medicines Agency took a median of 3.7 weeks (IQR, -6.7 to 14.9 weeks) longer than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Swissmedic a median of 0.3 weeks (IQR, -10.6 to 15.3 weeks) longer. Median total review duration for supplemental indications was 26 weeks in the United States and 40 weeks in the EU. Applications were submitted a median of 1.3 and 17.9 weeks later in the EU and Switzerland, respectively, than in the United States. The regression analysis showed small differences in submission times between the United States and the EU (-2.1 weeks [95% CI, -11.7 to 7.6 weeks]) and larger differences between the United States and Switzerland (33.0 weeks [CI, 23.1 to 42.8 weeks]). It would be beneficial for patients if differences in submission times between the United States and Europe continue to be minimized.

Trust and Regulation: Assuring Scientific Independence in the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization Process

Since 2004, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has had the authority to allow access to unapproved medical products via the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) pathway during times of emergency. It was rarely used until the COVID-19 pandemic, when concerns arose regarding the role of political pressure in the FDA's issuance of some EUAs, such as for hydroxychloroquine. Although US government officials should be responsive to the public, democratic accountability must be balanced against the need for thoughtful science-based decision-making. Inadequate agency independence can diminish public confidence in government leaders and the FDA. To consider whether reform of the EUA process might be appropriate, we considered three possible sources of inspiration for balancing independence and accountability in government scientific decision-making: models in other countries, models in other US agencies, and models within the FDA itself. Strategies used in these settings include: (1) expanding the role of advisory committees, (2) increasing transparency of the agency's decision-making process and supporting rationale, and (3) improving management of internal agency disagreement. Such reforms could improve public trust in public health regulation both related to and separate from future emergencies.

Protecting Medicare's Discretion to Say No to Unproven Therapies

In this Viewpoint, Kesselheim and coauthors discuss 2 bills in Congress that would curtail Medicare’s ability to decline, limit, or conditionally cover medical products that lack robust evidence and argue that officials should distinguish between better and worse therapies when determining reimbursement.

Variation in Endpoints in FDA Medication Approvals: A Review of Acute and Preventive Migraine Medications

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To assess the characteristics and extent of variation of the endpoints used in trials supporting the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of medications treating migraine.

METHODS

Using the Drugs@FDA online database, we identified novel prescription medications approved by the FDA between January 2001 and September 2022, for migraine with or without aura, for both acute and preventive treatment, and for episodic and chronic presentations. For each medication, we used the most recent FDA-approved labeling to identify indication, mechanism of action, mode of administration, manufacturer, approval year, number of pivotal trials, trial design, and primary endpoints.

RESULTS

Sixteen FDA-approved medications for the acute or preventive treatment of migraine were supported by 45 pivotal trials. There were 5 primary endpoint types: (1) change in mean monthly migraine days from baseline; (2) change in mean monthly migraine attacks from baseline; (3) change in mean monthly headache days from baseline; (4) mild to no pain After 2 hours; (5) pain free at 2 hours. There were 3 combinations of coprimary endpoints: (1) Headache Pain Free at 2 Hours and Most Bothersome Symptom Free at 2 Hours; (2) Pain Free at 2 Hours and Sustained Pain Free from 2-24 Hours Postdose; (3) Pain Free at 2 Hours and 2-24 Hours Sustained Pain Free and 2-Hour Pain Relief. Of the 8 preventive migraine medications, the timing of endpoint measurement included the full double-blind period, segments of the double-blind period, and the final month of the double-blind period.

DISCUSSION

Migraine medication trial endpoints were inconsistent within the same indication (episodic or chronic), mechanistic class, and route of administration, frustrating direct comparison among these medications. Furthermore, inconsistent definitions for the indications "episodic" and "chronic" migraine were also observed. Consistent endpoint selection for medications approved for preventive and acute migraine treatment would enhance the ability of patients, physicians, and payers to make informed choices among these medications.

Securing the Trustworthiness of the FDA to Build Public Trust in Vaccines

The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the need to examine public trust in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vaccine approval process and the role of political influence in the FDA's decisions. Ensuring that the FDA is itself trustworthy is important for justifying public trust in its actions, like vaccine approvals, thereby promoting public health. We propose five conditions of trustworthiness that the FDA should meet when it reviews vaccines, even during emergencies: consistency with rules, proper expert or political decision-makers, proper decision-making and noninterference, connection to public preference, and transparency of both reasons and procedures. The five conditions provide a road map of procedural and substantive requirements, which the FDA has variably implemented, focused on ensuring appropriate influence of political interests. While being a trustworthy agency cannot guarantee the public's trust, implementing these conditions builds a groundwork for public trust.

Battles Over Medication Abortion Threaten the Integrity of Drug Approvals in the U.S

Legal challenges to the FDA's approval of mifepristone have destabilized patients' ability to access controversial medicines like medication abortion. We argue that federal courts' receptiveness to this litigation undermines the coherence and integrity of prescription drug regulation in the U.S.

Physician Perspectives on the Food and Drug Administration's Decision to Grant Accelerated Approval to Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody indicated for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. The accelerated approval decision was controversial due to concerns about the use of an unvalidated surrogate measure, beta-amyloid, as the basis for approval and a lack of clinical outcome benefit. Between October 2021 and September 2022, we conducted a survey of a nationally representative group of internists, medical oncologists, and cardiologists to understand perspectives around aducanumab's approval and how this FDA decision may influence trust in other drugs approved through the accelerated approval program. Among 214 physician respondents familiar with the accelerated approval of aducanumab, 184 (86%) would not prescribe or recommend aducanumab. Further, 143 (67%) physicians reported losing trust in other drugs approved through the accelerated approval program due to the FDA's decision with aducanumab. As a growing number of similar novel Alzheimer's disease treatments are on the horizon, the first of which, lecanemab, already has received accelerated approval in January 2023, our survey findings provide insight into the impact of the FDA's regulatory decisions on the perspectives and prescribing behavior of physicians concerning these novel drug treatments.

The Regulatory Repercussions of Approving Muscular Dystrophy Medications on the Basis of Limited Evidence

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved eteplirsen (Exondys 51) for Duchenne muscular dystrophy in 2016 via its accelerated approval program on the basis of a study of 12 boys. After a contentious review process and a high-profile meeting of an external advisory committee, FDA leaders concluded that very small increases in treated patients' levels of dystrophin, a muscle protein, were reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The eteplirsen approval, which was followed by approvals of other drugs in the same class via the same pathway, has been controversial because of the questionable evidence underlying these decisions, delays in mandated postapproval testing, and high U.S. prices. Questions remain about the effectiveness and long-term safety of these products. Although the FDA initially set a November 2020 deadline for eteplirsen's manufacturer to complete a clinical trial determining whether the drug has clinical benefit, the company will not complete the trial until 2024 or later. The relationship between levels of truncated dystrophin, the muscle protein studied in eteplirsen's pivotal trial, and clinical outcomes remains uncertain. Despite recent legislative and regulatory changes to the FDA's accelerated approval pathway, the history of eteplirsen and similar drugs points to the need for additional reforms to better balance evidence generation with patient safety and access to promising medications. Lawmakers and regulators should take further action to limit excessive spending on unproven therapies and ensure that drug sponsors conduct robust and timely confirmatory trials after receiving accelerated approval.