Trust in the Food and Drug Administration: A National Survey Study

Building trust in public health agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has become a key government priority. Understanding the roots of FDA mistrust is important if the agency is to develop targeted messaging and reforms aimed at building confidence in the agency. We conducted a survey of 2,021 respondents in the US probing attitudes toward the FDA. The primary outcome was FDA trust, defined as the mean score that each respondent assigned to the FDA across four prespecified axes: (1) competence and effectiveness; (2) commitment to acting in the best interests of the American public; (3) abiding by the rules and regulations set forth by policy or law; and (4) expertise in health, science, and medicine. On multivariable ordinal logistic regression, FDA mistrust was associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.88), rural community (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.96), conservative political views (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.74-0.81), worse self-reported health (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.98), lower satisfaction with health care received (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56-0.71), less attention to health and science news (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.80), and not having children under the age of 18 (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.86). These findings underscore the challenges faced by US political leaders in convincing a heterogeneous American public to trust the FDA. The FDA should develop and deploy targeted outreach strategies to populations with lower levels of trust and strengthen internal processes that minimize biases and ensure sound decision-making.

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.

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.

Leah Z. Rand, Daniel P. Carpenter, Aaron S. Kesselheim, Anushka Bhaskar, Jonathan J. Darrow, and William B. 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."

Biologic Patent Thickets and Terminal Disclaimers

This study analyzes the use and timing of terminal disclaimers in all biologic patents involved in litigation from 2010 to 2023.

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.

Ancillary Product Patents to Extend Biologic Patent Life

This study examines all patents associated with biologic litigation to understand how manufacturers use ancillary product patents to delay biosimilar market entry.

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.

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.

The Problem of Limited-Supply Agreements for Medicare Price Negotiation

This Viewpoint discusses how limited-supply agreements (introduction of generic products in reduced volumes) might thwart efforts to negotiate lower prices on prescription drugs in the US.

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.

Ensuring Ethical Postprogression Therapy for Patients in Randomized Trial Control Arms

@Eddie_Cliff et al explore the scientific & ethical reasons why patients randomized to the control arm of trials should 'crossover' to receive the investigational therapy if their disease progresses

Patents and Regulatory Exclusivities on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists

Importance

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists were first approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in 2005. Demand for these drugs has increased rapidly in recent years, as indications have expanded, but they remain expensive.

Objective

To analyze how manufacturers of brand-name GLP-1 receptor agonists have used the patent and regulatory systems to extend periods of market exclusivity.

Evidence Review

The annual US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations was used to identify GLP-1 receptor agonists approved from 2005 to 2021 and to record patents and nonpatent statutory exclusivities listed for each product. Google Patents was used to extract additional data on patents, including whether each was obtained on the delivery device or another aspect of the product. The primary outcome was the duration of expected protection from generic competition, defined as the time elapsed from FDA approval until expiration of the last-to-expire patent or regulatory exclusivity.

Findings

On the 10 GLP-1 receptor agonists included in the cohort, drug manufacturers listed with the FDA a median of 19.5 patents (IQR, 9.0-25.8) per product, including a median of 17 patents (IQR, 8.3-22.8) filed before FDA approval and 1.5 (IQR, 0-2.8) filed after FDA approval. Fifty-four percent of all patents listed on GLP-1 receptor agonists were on the delivery devices rather than active ingredients. Manufacturers augmented patent protection with a median of 2 regulatory exclusivities (IQR, 0-3) obtained at approval and 1 (IQR, 0.3-4.3) added after approval. The median total duration of expected protection after FDA approval, when accounting for both preapproval and postapproval patents and regulatory exclusivities, was 18.3 years (IQR, 16.0-19.4). No generic firm has successfully challenged patents on GLP-1 receptor agonists to gain FDA approval.

Conclusions and Relevance

Patent and regulatory reform is needed to ensure timely generic entry of GLP-1 receptor agonists to the market.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Generic Versus Brand-Name Fluticasone-Salmeterol to Treat Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

BACKGROUND

In 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first generic maintenance inhaler for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The inhaler, Wixela Inhub (fluticasone-salmeterol; Viatris), is a substitutable version of the dry powder inhaler Advair Diskus (fluticasone-salmeterol; GlaxoSmithKline). When approving complex generic products like inhalers, the FDA applies a special "weight-of-evidence" approach. In this case, manufacturers were required to perform a randomized controlled trial in patients with asthma but not COPD, although the product received approval for both indications.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of generic (Wixela Inhub) and brand-name (Advair Diskus) fluticasone-salmeterol among patients with COPD treated in routine care.

DESIGN

A 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort study.

SETTING

A large, longitudinal health care database.

PATIENTS

Adults older than 40 years with a diagnosis of COPD.

MEASUREMENTS

Incidence of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (effectiveness outcome) and incidence of first pneumonia hospitalization (safety outcome) in the 365 days after cohort entry.

RESULTS

Among 45 369 patients (27 305 Advair Diskus users and 18 064 Wixela Inhub users), 10 012 matched pairs were identified for the primary analysis. Compared with Advair Diskus use, Wixela Inhub use was associated with a nearly identical incidence of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.04]) and first pneumonia hospitalization (HR, 0.99 [CI, 0.86 to 1.15]).

LIMITATIONS

Follow-up times were short, reflecting real-world clinical practice. The possibility of residual confounding cannot be completely excluded.

CONCLUSION

Use of generic and brand-name fluticasone-salmeterol was associated with similar outcomes among patients with COPD treated in routine practice.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Patenting Strategies on Inhaler Delivery Devices

BACKGROUND

Patients with asthma and COPD rely on inhalers to control symptoms. Yet, these products remain expensive, in part because brand-name manufacturers have obtained numerous patents on inhalers, including on their delivery devices. Recent antitrust litigation has raised questions about the boundaries of listing device patents with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), particularly when patents do not claim any active ingredients.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How have manufacturers relied on device patents to preserve market exclusivity on brand-name inhalers?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We identified patents on brand-name inhalers approved for asthma and COPD between 1986 and 2020 using the FDA's Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book). We extracted information about patents from LexisNexis TotalPatent One and Google Patents and searched device patents for mention of active ingredients or other prespecified features linking the patent to the relevant drug. For each inhaler, we determined the duration of protection added by device patents.

RESULTS

The FDA approved 53 brand-name inhalers for asthma and COPD from 1986 through 2020, 39 of which had at least one device patent. One hundred thirty-seven distinct device patents were in the final cohort, representing 49% of all patents listed on inhalers. Seventy-seven percent of device patents made no mention of active ingredients or their molecular structures, and 72% made no mention of any relevant prespecified feature connecting the device patent to the drug product. For the 39 brand-name inhalers with one or more device patents listed in the Orange Book, device patents extended the duration of market protection by a median of 5.5 years (interquartile range, 0.0-10.5 years) beyond the last-to-expire nondevice patent.

INTERPRETATION

Patent and regulatory reform is needed to promote generic competition and to ensure that patients with asthma and COPD have access to affordable medications.

Changes in the Number of Continuation Patents on Drugs Approved by the FDA

This study assesses the frequency of continuation patents on brand-name drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2000 to 2015.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations and Pneumonia Hospitalizations Among New Users of Combination Maintenance Inhalers

Importance

Clinical guidelines on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend inhalers containing long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) over inhalers containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs. However, data from randomized clinical trials comparing these combination inhalers (LAMA-LABAs vs ICS-LABAs) have been conflicting and raised concerns of generalizability.

Objective

To assess whether LAMA-LABA therapy is associated with reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with ICS-LABA therapy in routine clinical practice.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort study using Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart, a large commercial insurance-claims database. Patients must have had a diagnosis of COPD and filled a new prescription for a combination LAMA-LABA or ICS-LABA inhaler between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019. Patients younger than 40 years were excluded, as were those with a prior diagnosis of asthma. The current analysis was performed from February 2021 to March 2023.

Exposures

Combination LAMA-LABA inhalers (aclidinium-formoterol, glycopyrronium-formoterol, glycopyrronium-indacaterol, tiotropium-olodaterol, or umeclidinium-vilanterol) and combination ICS-LABA inhalers (budesonide-formoterol, fluticasone-salmeterol, fluticasone-vilanterol, or mometasone-formoterol).

Main Outcome

The primary effectiveness outcome was first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and the primary safety outcome was first pneumonia hospitalization. Propensity score matching was used to control for confounding between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate propensity scores. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models stratified on matched pairs.

Results

Among 137 833 patients (mean [SD] age, 70.2 [9.9] years; 69 530 [50.4%] female) (107 004 new ICS-LABA users and 30 829 new LAMA-LABA users), 30 216 matched pairs were identified for the primary analysis. Compared with ICS-LABA use, LAMA-LABA use was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.96) and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.86). These findings were robust across a range of prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

In this cohort study, LAMA-LABA therapy was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with ICS-LABA therapy, suggesting that LAMA-LABA therapy should be preferred for patients with COPD.

High Cost of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cells: Challenges and Solutions

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells are a cellular immunotherapy with remarkable efficacy in treating multiple hematologic malignancies but they are associated with extremely high prices that are, for many countries, prohibitively expensive. As their use increases both for hematologic malignancies and other indications, and large numbers of new cellular therapies are developed, novel approaches will be needed both to reduce the cost of therapy, and to pay for them. We review the many factors that lead to the high cost of CAR T-cells and offer proposals for reform.

Patent Challenges And Litigation On Inhalers For Asthma And COPD

Between 1986 and 2020 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved fifty-three brand-name inhalers for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but by the end of 2022 only three of those inhalers faced independent generic competition. Manufacturers of brand-name inhalers have created long periods of market exclusivity by obtaining multiple patents, many on the delivery devices rather than the active ingredients, and by introducing new devices that contain old active ingredients. Limited generic competition for inhalers has raised questions about whether the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, for challenging patents is adequately facilitating the entry of complex generic drug-device combinations. For the fifty-three brand-name inhalers approved during the period 1986-2020, generic manufacturers filed challenges authorized by the Hatch-Waxman Act, which are known as paragraph IV certifications, on only seven products (13 percent). The median time from FDA approval to first paragraph IV certification was fourteen years. Paragraph IV certifications resulted in approved generics for only two products, each of which experienced fifteen years of market exclusivity before generic approval. Reform of the generic drug approval system is critical to ensuring the timely availability of competitive markets for generic drug-device combinations such as inhalers.

Simulated Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

Importance

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 gives Medicare the authority to negotiate prices for certain prescription drugs. Which drugs will be selected and how prices will be negotiated remain unclear.

Objective

To simulate drug selection and the minimum savings that would have been achieved at statutory ceiling prices if Medicare drug price negotiation had been implemented from 2018 to 2020.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, a policy simulation analysis of high-spending prescription drugs in Medicare Part B and Part D that were eligible for negotiation from January 2018 to December 2020 was performed from August 5 to November 20, 2022.

Exposures

Eligibility criteria for selection and discounts afforded by the statutory ceiling prices for negotiation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were characteristics of drugs subject to negotiation and estimated Medicare savings from 2018 to 2020 that would have been achieved through spending at ceiling prices compared with existing net prices accounting for price concessions.

Results

Among the 40 selected drugs, 35 were primarily reimbursed through Medicare Part D and 5 through Part B and 10 were biologics. The most common therapeutic classes were endocrine (11), neurologic or psychiatric (5), pulmonary (4), rheumatologic or immunologic (4), and cardiovascular (4). Median time from US Food and Drug Administration approval to selection was 12 years (IQR, 10-14 years). Three drugs faced generic competition in the 2 years between selection and price negotiation. For the remaining 37 drugs, estimated net Medicare spending from 2018 to 2020 was $55.3 billion; spending at ceiling prices would have been reduced by an estimated $26.5 billion, which represented 5% of estimated net Medicare drug spending during those 3 years.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, simulating the drug price negotiation provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 revealed important limitations, including strict selection criteria and the potential for drugs to become ineligible for negotiation during the 2 years between selection and prices taking effect. Despite these limitations, the policy still delivered substantial savings because ceiling prices offered steep discounts, in part, by erasing excess spending from price increases faster than inflation.

Manufacturer Revenue on Inhalers After Expiration of Primary Patents, 2000-2021

This study quantifies the revenue earned on all brand-name inhalers approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2000 to 2021 and compared earnings before and after expiration of primary patents on these products.

Gastrointestinal prophylaxis for COVID-19: an illustration of severe bias arising from inappropriate comparators in observational studies

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to use setting-appropriate comparisons to estimate the effects of different gastrointestinal (GI) prophylaxis pharmacotherapies for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and setting-inappropriate comparisons to illustrate how improper design choices could result in biased results.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We identified 3,804 hospitalized patients aged ≥ 18 years with COVID-19 from March to November 2020. We compared the effects of different gastroprotective agents on clinical improvement of COVID-19, as measured by a published severity scale. We used propensity score-based fine-stratification for confounding adjustment. Based on guidelines, we prespecified comparisons between agents with clinical equipoise and inappropriate comparisons of users vs. nonusers of GI prophylaxis in the intensive care unit (ICU).

RESULTS

No benefit was detected when comparing oral famotidine to omeprazole in patients treated in the general ward or ICUs. We also found no associations when comparing intravenous famotidine to intravenous pantoprazole. For inappropriate comparisons of users vs. nonusers in the ICU, the probability of improvement was reduced by 32%-45% in famotidine users and 21%-48% in omeprazole or pantoprazole users.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence that GI prophylaxis improved outcomes for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in setting-appropriate comparisons. An improper comparator choice can lead to spurious associations in critically ill patients.

Assessment of Prices for Cardiovascular Tests and Procedures at Top-Ranked US Hospitals

This cross-sectional study describes variation in prices for common cardiovascular tests and procedures, both between and within top-ranked US hospitals.

Brand-name market exclusivity for nebulizer therapy to treat asthma and COPD

Nebulizer therapy is a cornerstone treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We collected and analyzed all patents and regulatory exclusivities on brand-name nebulizer solutions approved for asthma and COPD from 1986–2020, quantified periods of protection from generic competition, and compared the patenting strategies employed by manufacturers of nebulizer versus inhaler therapy. The median duration of expected protection from generic competition for brand-name nebulizer solutions (n=13) was 7 years (after subtracting time lost to early generic entry), compared to 14 years for inhalers (n=53). Through the end of 2020, brand-name nebulizers faced generic competition for 62% of all follow-up time compared to 0.5% for inhalers. Unlike inhaler manufacturers, which relied heavily on device patents to build extensive patent thickets, manufacturers of nebulizer solutions listed fewer patents overall and relied more on non-device patents. Regulatory reform is critical to help ensure that patients have access to affordable inhaled medications.

Patents And Regulatory Exclusivities On Inhalers For Asthma And COPD, 1986-2020

Inhalers are the mainstay of treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These products face limited generic competition in the US and remain expensive. To better understand the strategies that brand-name inhaler manufacturers have employed to preserve their market dominance, we analyzed all patents and regulatory exclusivities granted to inhalers approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1986 and 2020. Of the sixty-two inhalers approved, fifty-three were brand-name products, and these brand-name products had a median of sixteen years of protection from generic competition. Only one inhaler contained an ingredient with a new mechanism of action. More than half of all patents were on the inhaler devices, not the active ingredients or other aspects of these drug-device combinations. Manufacturers augmented periods of brand-name market exclusivity by moving active ingredients from one inhaler device into another ("device hops"). The median time from approval of an originator product to the last-to-expire patent or regulatory exclusivity of branded follow-ons was twenty-eight years (across device hops on fourteen originator products). Regulatory and patent reform is critical to ensure that the rewards bestowed on brand-name inhaler manufacturers better reflect the added clinical benefit of new products.

Coverage of New Drugs in Medicare Part D

Policy Points Only a small minority of new drugs in "nonprotected" classes are widely covered by Part D plans nationwide in the year after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Part D plans frequently apply utilization management restrictions such as prior authorizations to newly approved drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. Drug price influences both formulary inclusion (in nonprotected classes) and coverage restrictions (in both protected and nonprotected classes), while other drug characteristics such as therapeutic benefits are not consistently associated with formulary design. Plans do not seem to favor the minority of drugs that are determined to offer added therapeutic benefit over existing alternatives.

CONTEXT

Medicare Part D is an outpatient prescription drug benefit for older Americans covering more than 46 million beneficiaries. Except for mandatory coverage for essentially all drugs in six protected classes, plans have substantial flexibility in how they design their formularies: which drugs are covered, which drugs are subject to restrictions, and what factors determine formulary placement. Our objective in this paper was to document the extent to which Part D plans limit coverage of newly approved drugs.

METHODS

We examined the formulary design of 4,582 Part D plans from 2014 through 2018 and measured (1) the decision to cover newly approved drugs in nonprotected classes, (2) use of utilization management tools in protected and nonprotected classes, and (3) the association between plan design and drug-level characteristics such as 30-day cost, therapeutic benefit, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expedited regulatory pathway.

FINDINGS

The FDA approved 109 new drugs predominantly used in outpatient settings between 2013 and 2017. Of these, 75 fell outside of the six protected drug classes. One-fifth of drugs in nonprotected classes (15 out of 75) were covered by more than half of plans during the first year after approval. Coverage was often conditional on utilization management strategies in both protected and nonprotected classes: only seven drugs (6%) were covered without prior authorization requirements in more than half of plans. Higher 30-day drug costs were associated with more widespread coverage in nonprotected classes: drugs that cost less than $150 for a 30-day course were covered by fewer than 20% of plans while those that cost more than $30,000 per 30 days were covered by more than 50% of plans. Plans were also more likely to implement utilization management tools on high-cost drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. A higher proportion of plans implemented utilization management strategies on covered drugs with first-in-class status than drugs that were not first in class. Other drug characteristics, including availability of added therapeutic benefit and inclusion in FDA expedited regulatory approval, were not consistently associated with plan coverage or formulary restrictions.

CONCLUSIONS

Newly approved drugs are frequently subject to formulary exclusions and restrictions in Medicare Part D. Ensuring that formulary design in Part D is linked closely to the therapeutic value of newly approved drugs would improve patients' welfare.

Practicalities of Impracticability: An Interim Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Impracticability is an ethical standard for waiver of informed consent in research. We examine how well the criterion of impracticability appears to have been fulfilled in a set of 36 completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that secured consent from some subjects or LARs and employed waivers to enroll others. These trials were identified among 155 RCTs using waivers of consent in a convenience sample drawn from 7 systematic reviews. Recruitment data were available for 19 of the 36 trials, revealing an average of 41.6% of subjects (range 0.2-98.7%, 95% CI: 24.8-58.4%) were enrolled without consent. Six trials enrolled less than 10% of subjects without consent and an overlapping set of 9 trials sought consent from all subjects or LARs at some sites while waiving consent at other sites. We question whether these trials were practicable without waivers and identify issues for consideration by investigators and ethics review boards.

Payer-Specific Negotiated Prices for Prescription Drugs at Top-Performing US Hospitals

This cross-sectional study analyzes a group of top-performing hospitals to quantify drug pricing variation across insurers.

Competition law and pricing among biologic drugs: the case of VEGF therapy for retinal diseases

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a progressive eye disease and is a leading cause of vision loss in the Western world. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors have become a mainstay of treatment for this disease. Currently, treatment options include three originator biologics with approvals for neovascular AMD (aflibercept, ranibizumab, and brolucizumab-dbll) and one biologic that is commonly used off-label for the condition (bevacizumab). In the USA, Medicare spending on these drugs consistently surpassed $4 billion per year between 2015 and 2019, driven by high prices and varying off-label use of bevacizumab, which is substantially cheaper than the other biologics used to treat neovascular AMD. In this article, we discuss how legal reform can improve market competition for biologic drugs, using AMD therapies as a case study. We chose this group of drugs for their significant contribution to Medicare spending, the price difference between approved therapies and intravitreal bevacizumab, and because there currently exists a large biosimilar pipeline with many drug candidates in the final stage of development. We propose mechanisms for anticipating and facilitating the market introduction of biosimilars, as well as changes to the pricing model in Medicare that can promote use of cost-effective therapies. Reforms such as empowering Medicare to negotiate drug prices may help ensure that introduction of new biologics and biosimilars for AMD will lower spending and increase patient access.

Association Between USMLE Step 1 Scores and In-Training Examination Performance: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

On February 12, 2020, the sponsors of the United States Medical Licensing Examination announced that Step 1 will transition to pass/fail scoring in 2022. Step 1 performance has historically carried substantial weight in the evaluation of residency applicants and as a predictor of subsequent subject-specific medical knowledge. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis, the authors sought to determine the association between Step 1 scores and in-training examination (ITE) performance, which is often used to assess knowledge acquisition during residency.

METHOD

The authors systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science for observational studies published from 1992 through May 10, 2020. Observational studies reporting associations between Step 1 and ITE scores, regardless of medical or surgical specialty, were eligible for inclusion. Pairs of researchers screened all studies, evaluated quality assessment using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and extracted data in a standardized fashion. The primary endpoint was the correlation of Step 1 and ITE scores.

RESULTS

Of 1,432 observational studies identified, 49 were systematically reviewed and 37 were included in the meta-analysis. Overall study quality was low to moderate. The pooled estimate of the correlation coefficient was 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36, 0.48; P < .001), suggesting a weak-to-moderate positive correlation between Step 1 and ITE scores. The random-effects meta-regression found the association between Step 1 and ITE scores was weaker for surgical (versus medical) specialties (beta -0.25 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.09; P = .003]) and fellowship (versus residency) training programs (beta -0.25 [95% CI: -0.47, -0.03; P = .030]).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors identified a weak-to-moderate positive correlation between Step 1 and ITE scores based on a meta-analysis of low-to-moderate quality observational data. With Step 1 scoring transitioning to pass/fail, the undergraduate and graduate medical education communities should continue to develop better tools for evaluating medical students.

Medicare Spending on Drugs With Accelerated Approval, 2015-2019

This article examines the budgetary implications of high-priced accelerated approval drugs by estimating Medicare spending on these drugs from 2015 through 2019.

Influenza Vaccine Uptake in the Year After Concurrent vs Separate Influenza and Zoster Immunization

IMPORTANCE

Fewer than half of US adults receive the influenza vaccine each year; many cite concerns about side effects, which occur infrequently. By contrast, the recombinant zoster vaccine causes systemic side effects in a large proportion of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether concurrent administration of the influenza and zoster vaccines was associated with a reduced likelihood of influenza vaccination in the subsequent year.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included patients aged 50 years or older who received the influenza vaccine between August 1, 2018, and March 31, 2019, and received the zoster vaccine on the same day or separately (within the prior 180 days). Data were gathered from a national claims database of patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage plans. Logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for baseline demographic characteristics, comorbidities, influenza vaccine month and location (pharmacy vs medical office), and health care use (including influenza vaccination in the prior year).

EXPOSURES

Concurrent vs separate influenza and zoster vaccine administration.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Receipt of the influenza vaccine in the subsequent year (August 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020).

RESULTS

Among 89 237 individuals included in this study, the median age was 72 years (IQR, 67-77 years), 58.3% were women, 70.1% were White, and 85.7% had at least 1 comorbidity. Influenza vaccine uptake in 2019-2020 was lower among 27 161 individuals who received concurrent influenza and zoster vaccines compared with the 62 076 individuals who received the vaccines on separate days (87.3% vs 91.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.78; P < .001). Results were similar across subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this cohort study suggest that concurrent administration of influenza and zoster vaccines was associated with a reduction in receipt of the influenza vaccine the following year. One possible explanation is that some patients could have misattributed systemic side effects caused by the zoster vaccine to the influenza vaccine. It may be preferable to administer these 2 vaccines separately or enhance patient counseling about expected vaccine side effects.

Correlation Between Changes in Brand-Name Drug Prices and Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs

IMPORTANCE

List prices set by manufacturers for brand-name prescription drugs in the US have been increasing faster than inflation, although confidential manufacturer rebates offset some of these increases. Most commercially insured patients pay at least some out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, and higher patient spending is associated with lower adherence and worse health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether price changes for brand-name drugs are correlated with changes in patient out-of-pocket spending and whether this association varies by insurance benefit design.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cohort study of 79 brand-name drugs with available pricing data from January 2015 to December 2017 was conducted, with data obtained from a national commercial insurance claims database.

EXPOSURES

Change in the list prices set by manufacturers and estimated net prices after rebates among non-Medicaid payers.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Change in median out-of-pocket spending among all patients and stratified by insurance pharmacy benefit design, including high-deductible insurance plans and plans with any amount of deductibles or coinsurance.

RESULTS

Among 79 drugs, median increases were 16.7% (interquartile range [IQR], 13.6%-21.1%) for list prices, 5.4% (IQR, -3.9% to 11.7%) for net prices, and 3.5% (IQR, 1.4%-9.1%) for out-of-pocket spending from 2015 to 2017. Changes in list prices were correlated with changes in net prices (r = 0.34; P = .002). Overall, changes in out-of-pocket spending were not correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.14; P = .22) or net prices (r = 0.04; P = .71). Among 53.7% of patients who paid any drug deductible or coinsurance, median out-of-pocket spending increased by 15.0%, and changes were moderately correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.38; P = .001) but not net prices (r = 0.06; P = .62).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Some commercially insured patients who pay only prescription drug copayments appear to be insulated from increases in drug prices. However, more than half of patients pay deductibles or coinsurance and may experience substantial increases in out-of-pocket spending when drug prices increase. Among these patients, there was no evidence that manufacturer rebates to insurers are associated with patients' out-of-pocket spending. Policies to rein in unregulated annual increases in list prices for brand-name drugs may have important consequences for patient out-of-pocket spending.

A Multi-modal Approach to Evaluate the Impact of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Programs

INTRODUCTION

Since 2007, the US Food and Drug Administration has had the authority to require risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programs for certain medications with serious safety concerns to help ensure the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. Such programs can include requirements for patient monitoring, restrictions on dispensing or administration, and physician and pharmacy training and certification. However, there has been only scattered evidence on the impact of REMS programs on informed decision making, medication access, or patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article was to describe a study that researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School will conduct in partnership with the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology to investigate systematically how REMS programs have operated in practice.

METHODS

Investigations include health insurance claims-based analyses to understand patterns of drug use, adherence to safety requirements, and patient outcomes under REMS programs; surveys and interviews to understand physician and patient experiences with REMS; and REMS program material-based and interview-based analyses to understand the effectiveness of risk communication in REMS programs.

CONCLUSIONS

These research activities will evaluate the performance of REMS programs, provide information on the benefits and burdens to patients and healthcare providers, and generate recommendations for actionable steps to improve REMS programs overall.

Projected spending for brand-name drugs in English primary care given US prices: a cross-sectional study

Objectives

To estimate additional spending if NHS England paid the same prices as US Medicare Part D for the 50 single-source brand-name drugs with the highest expenditure in English primary care in 2018.

Design

Retrospective analysis of 2018 drug prescribing and spending in the NHS England prescribing data and the Medicare Part D Drug Spending Dashboard and Data. We examined the 50 costliest drugs in English primary care available as brand-name-only in the US and England. We performed cost projections of NHS England spending with US Medicare Part D prices. We estimated average 2018 US rebates as 1 minus the quotient of net divided by gross Medicare Part D spending.

Setting

England and US

Participants

NHS England and US Medicare systems

Main outcome measures

Total spending, prescriptions and claims in NHS England and Medicare Part D. All spending and cost measures were reported in 2018 British pounds.

Results

NHS England spent £1.39 billion on drugs in the cohort. All drugs were more expensive under US Medicare Part D than NHS England. The US–England price ratios ranged from 1.3 to 9.9 (mean ratio 4.8). Accounting for prescribing volume, if NHS England had paid US Medicare Part D prices after adjusting for estimated US rebates, it would have spent 4.6 times as much in 2018 on drugs in the cohort (£6.42 billion).

Conclusions

Spending by NHS England would be substantially higher if it paid US Medicare Part D prices. This could result in decreased access to medicines and other health services.

Empirical Assessment of COVID-19 Crisis Standards of Care Guidelines

Background

Several states have released Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) guidelines for the allocation of scarce critical care resources. Most guidelines rely on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores to maximize lives saved, but states have adopted different stances on whether to maximize long-term outcomes (life-years saved) by accounting for patient comorbidities.

Methods

We compared 4 representative state guidelines with varying approaches to comorbidities and analyzed how CSC prioritization correlates with clinical outcomes. We included 27 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs at Brigham and Women's Hospital from March 12 to April 3, 2020. We compared prioritization algorithms from New York, which assigns priority based on SOFA alone; Maryland, which uses SOFA plus severe comorbidities; Pennsylvania, which uses SOFA plus major and severe comorbidities; and Colorado, which uses SOFA plus a modified Charlson comorbidity index.

Results

In pairwise comparisons across all possible pairs, we found that state guidelines frequently resulted in tie-breakers based on age or lottery: New York 100% of the time (100% resolved by lottery), Pennsylvania 86% of the time (18% by lottery), Maryland 93% of the time (35% by lottery), and Colorado: 32% of the time (10% by lottery). The prioritization algorithm with the strongest correlation with 14-day outcomes was Colorado (r_s = -0.483. p = 0.011) followed by Maryland (r_s = -0.394, p =0.042), Pennsylvania (r_s = -0.382, p = 0.049), and New York (r_s = 0). An alternative model using raw SOFA scores alone was moderately correlated with outcomes (r_s = -0.448, p = 0.019).

Conclusions

State guidelines for scarce resource allocation frequently resulted in identical priority scores, requiring tie-breakers based on age or lottery. These findings suggest that state CSC guidelines should be further assessed empirically to understand whether they meet their goals.

Estimation of Medicare Part D Spending on Insulin for Patients With Diabetes Using Negotiated Prices and a Defined Formulary

This economic evaluation estimates insulin savings that would result if Medicare Part D used US Department of Veterans Affairs–negotiated prices and the Veterans Affairs formulary for patients with diabetes.

Potential Medicare Savings on Inhaler Prescriptions Through the Use of Negotiated Prices and a Defined Formulary

This study examines the estimated cost of asthma inhalers for individuals treated under Medicare Part B compared with those treated under the Veterans Affairs Health System, taking into account separate approaches to price negotiation.

Surrogate Endpoints and Drug Regulation: What Is Needed to Clarify the Evidence

The FDA's new table of surrogate endpoints used for drug approvals is an important step forward for overseeing the use of biomarkers in clinical trials. Nevertheless, we present several ways in which the table can be improved.