Seeking a Better Paper Trail of Federal Research Funding.

This work discusses initiatives designed to capture the value of public investment that will result in an accurate, comprehensive, and transparent paper trail of public funding.

Price and Variability in Hospital Charges for Generic Indomethacin Suppositories.

This cross-sectional study examines how list prices for indomethacin have changed since 2019 and characterizes variation in hospital charges for the drug, including gross charges and discounted cash prices.

Estimated Savings Under the Medicare High-Value Drug List Model.

This cross-sectional study describes potential reductions in out-of-pocket costs for generic medications among Medicare beneficiaries.

The RACE Act and Pediatric Trials of Adult Cancer Drugs.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adult cancer drugs have historically been exempted from pediatric testing requirements. In 2017, Congress passed the Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity (RACE) for Children Act to expand mandatory pediatric testing to cancer drugs; the law took effect in 2020. With this study, we sought to evaluate how the pediatric testing of molecularly targeted adult cancer drugs changed after the RACE Act. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used publicly available Food and Drug Administration data to compare pediatric post-approval requirements, trials, and trial characteristics, including timing, in adult cancer drugs before and after the RACE Act. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved 61 adult cancer drugs with molecular targets relevant to pediatric cancer; 40 were submitted before 2020, and 21 were submitted after 2020. The 40 pre-RACE Act drugs were associated with no pediatric post-approval requirements, whereas the 21 post-RACE Act drugs were associated with 15 pediatric post-approval testing requirements. Approximately two-thirds (26/40, 65%) of pre-RACE Act drugs and 57% (12/21) of post-RACE Act drugs were evaluated in pediatric trials. Among pre-RACE Act cancer drugs, pediatric trials were initiated a median of 0.04 years after approval (interquartile range: -3.3 to 1.9 years), whereas post-RACE Act trials were initiated a median of 2.8 years before approval (interquartile range: -4.3 to 0.3 years). CONCLUSIONS: The RACE Act has been associated with greater numbers of pediatric post- approval testing requirements and the earlier initiation of pediatric trials, although early pediatric trial rates appear unchanged. Formalizing pediatric testing requirements may lead to the timely completion of pediatric studies to the benefit of pediatric patients with cancer.

A Comparative Analysis of International Drug Price Negotiation Frameworks: An Interview Study of Key Stakeholders.

Policy Points Health care systems around the world rely on a range of methods to ensure the affordability of prescription drugs, including negotiating prices soon after drug approval and relying on formal clinical assessments that compare newly approved therapies with existing alternatives. The negotiation framework established under the Inflation Reduction Act is far more limited than other frameworks explored in this study. Adding elements from these frameworks could lead to more effective price negotiation in the United States. CONTEXT: In 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which allowed Medicare, for the first time, to begin negotiating the prices for certain high-cost brand-name prescription drugs. Many other industrialized countries negotiate drug prices, and we sought to compare and contrast key features of the negotiation process across several health systems. We focused, in particular, on the criteria for selecting drugs for price negotiation, procedures for negotiation, factors that influence negotiated prices, and how prices are implemented. METHODS: We included four G7 countries in our analysis (Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom [England]), two Benelux countries (Belgium and the Netherlands), and one Scandinavian country (Norway) with long-established frameworks for drug price negotiation. We also analyzed the Veterans Affairs Health System in the United States. For each system, we gathered relevant legislation, government publications, and guidelines to understand negotiation frameworks, and we reached out to key drug price negotiators in each system to conduct semistructured interviews. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded, and data were analyzed based on an internal assessment tool that we developed. FINDINGS: All eight systems negotiate the prices of brand-name prescription drugs soon after approval and rely on formal clinical assessments that compare newly approved drugs with existing therapies. Systems in our study differed on characteristics such as whether the body performing clinical assessments is separate from the negotiating authority, how added health benefit is assessed, whether explicit willingness-to-pay thresholds are employed, and how specific approaches for priority disease areas are taken. CONCLUSIONS: High-income countries around the world adopt different approaches to conducting price negotiations on brand-name drugs but coalesce around a set of practices that will largely be absent from the current Medicare negotiation framework. US policymakers might consider adding some of these characteristics in the future to improve negotiation outcomes.

The Patent Trial and Appeals Board: A Target for Prescription Drug Patent Reform?

This Viewpoint summarizes the role of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in reforming the drug patent process to avoid erroneously granted patents; highlights how other reform efforts, such as the PREVAIL Act, actually weaken the PTAB; and suggests changes to strengthen the PTAB and promote generic availability and reduced health care costs.

Clinical value of guideline recommended molecular targets and genome targeted cancer therapies: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical benefit and actionability of molecular targets for genome targeted cancer drugs recommended for clinical practice by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). DESIGN: Cross sectional study. PARTICIPANTS/SETTING: Genome targeted cancer drugs recommended by NCCN guidelines in the advanced setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Molecular target actionability was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit of genome targeted oncology therapies was evaluated using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Molecular targets at ESCAT category level I associated with studies showing substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS (grades 4-5) were designated as high benefit, and those linked to studies achieving an ESMO-MCBS grade of 3 were categorized as being of promising but unproven benefit. RESULTS: 411 recommendations related to 74 genome targeted drugs targeting 50 driver alterations were examined. Most recommendations (346/411; 84%) were associated with clinical trials of various phases, but 16% (65/411) relied on only case reports or pre-clinical studies. However, clinical trials mostly comprised phase I or phase II (271/346; 78%), single arm (262/346; 76%) studies. The primary endpoint assessed in most trials was overall response rate (271/346; 78%) rather than survival. ESCAT tier I targetability encompassed 60% (246/411) of target recommendations, 35% (142/411) were classified as tier II or III, and 6% (23/411) had their relevance yet to be determined (tiers IV to X). When ESMO-MCBS was applied to 267 scorable trials, only 12% (32/267) showed substantial clinical benefit (grades 4-5) and 45% (121/267) were grade 3. When both frameworks were combined, 12% (32/267) of trials supported a determination of high benefit and 33% (88/267) indicated promising but unproven benefit. Of the 118 interventions endorsed by NCCN authors as preferred, 62 (53%) applied to treatments with high or promising but unproven benefit. CONCLUSION: According to the ESCAT and ESMO-MCBS frameworks, about one eighth of genome based treatments for solid cancer were rated as likely to offer a high benefit to patients, whereas around a third were identified as offering a promising but unproven substantial benefit. Ensuring that NCCN recommendations are aligned with expected clinical benefits is crucial for promoting informed, evidence based, genomic guided treatment decisions.

Patient Assistance Programs-A New Era of Law and Policy.

This Viewpoint from authors at PORTAL discusses the importance of patient assistance programs in covering the cost of prescription drugs, highlights 2 recent rulings that illustrate the substantial barriers to regulating these programs, and calls for continued evaluation of these programs' effectiveness and costs.

Biosimilar Uptake In The US: Patient And Prescriber Factors.

Among 196,766 commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients who newly initiated biologic drugs with available biosimilar versions, biosimilar initiation increased from 1 percent in 2013 to 34 percent in 2022. Patients were less likely to initiate biosimilars if they were younger than age eighteen or the drug was prescribed by a specialist or administered in a hospital outpatient facility.

Extent of Drug Patents With Terminal Disclaimers and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejections.

This study evaluates the frequency of terminal disclaimers filed by drug patent holders to obviate obviousness-type double patenting rejections associated with drug patent thickets.

US Food and Drug Administration's Directive to Deal With Delayed Confirmatory Trials: Lessons From Pralatrexate and Belinostat for T-Cell Lymphoma.

The FDA's directive to deal with delayed confirmatory trials: lessons from pralatrexate and belinostat for T-cell lymphoma.

Impact of Priority Review Voucher Eligibility on Research and Development of Medical Countermeasures.

The priority review voucher was established to incentivize research and development of treatments for traditionally underfunded diseases and was extended to medical countermeasures from 2016 to 2023, despite limited evidence of an association between the voucher program and increased product development. To determine whether the voucher program has incentivized initiation of new medical countermeasures in clinical trials, we created three cohorts of material threats: (i) COVID-19, (ii) opioid pharmaceutical-based agents, and (iii) all others. Using the Citeline Trialtrove database, we determined the number of medical countermeasures initiated in clinical trials from 2009-2016 and 2017-2023. Eligibility of COVID-19 products for the voucher was confirmed with the issuance of a voucher for remdesivir in October 2020, so we compared January 2020-October 2020 to November 2020-July 2023. We fit two Poisson models-before and after voucher creation-within each cohort. Among COVID-19 medical countermeasures, there was a decrease in the proportion of drugs initiated before (4.5%; 95% CI, 1.0 to 8.3%) vs. after voucher eligibility (-5.1%; 95% CI, -6.1 to -4.0%) (P = 0.01). Among opioid pharmaceutical-based agents medical countermeasures, the rate of new drugs initiated did not change from 2009-2016 (8.1%, 95% CI, -4.4 to 22.6%) to 2017-2023 (5.6%; 95% CI, -3.2 to 15.2%) (P = 0.82). Among all other medical countermeasures, the rate of new drugs initiated also did not change from 2009-2016 (6.6%; 95% CI, -5.6 to 20.8%) to 2017-2023 (-14.8%; 95% CI, -29.2 to 2.0%) (P = 0.15). The priority review voucher program was not associated with stimulating new clinical testing of investigational medical countermeasures.

Removing the FDA's Boxed Hepatotoxicity Warning and Liver Function Testing Requirement for Ambrisentan.

Importance: Endothelin receptor antagonists are first-line therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The first 2 agents approved in the class, bosentan and ambrisentan, initially carried boxed warnings for hepatotoxicity and required monthly liver function tests (LFTs) as part of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS); however, in 2011, as further safety data emerged on ambrisentan, the boxed hepatotoxicity warning and LFT requirements were removed. Objective: To analyze changes in the use of and LFT monitoring for ambrisentan and bosentan after changes to the ambrisentan labeling and REMS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional study used data from 3 longitudinal health care insurance claims databases-Medicaid, Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart, and Merative Marketscan-to perform an interrupted time series analysis of prescription fills and LFTs for patients taking ambrisentan and bosentan. Participants were patients filling prescriptions for ambrisentan and bosentan from July 1, 2007, to December 31, 2018. Data analysis was performed from April 2021 to August 2023. Exposure: Removal of the boxed warning for hepatotoxicity and the REMS LFT monitoring requirements on ambrisentan in March 2011. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were use of ambrisentan (ie, individuals with at least 1 dispensing per 1 000 000 individuals enrolled in the 3 datasets) vs bosentan and LFT monitoring (ie, proportion of initiators with at least 1 ordered test) before initiation and before the first refill. Results: A total of 10 261 patients received a prescription for ambrisentan during the study period (7442 women [72.5%]; mean [SD] age, 52.6 [17.6] years), and 11 159 patients received a prescription for bosentan (7931 women [71.1%]; mean [SD] age, 47.7 [23.7] years). Removal of the ambrisentan boxed hepatotoxicity warning and LFT monitoring requirement was associated with an immediate increase in the use of ambrisentan (1.50 patients per million enrollees; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.92 patients per million enrollees) but no significant change in the use of bosentan. There were reductions in recorded LFTs before drug initiation (13.1% absolute decrease; 95% CI, -18.2% to -8.0%) and before the first refill (26.4% absolute decrease; 95% CI, -34.4% to -18.5%) of ambrisentan but not bosentan. Conclusions and Relevance: In this serial cross-sectional study of ambrisentan, labeling changes and removal of the REMS-related LFT requirement were associated with shifts in prescribing and testing behavior for ambrisentan but not bosentan. Further clinician education may be needed to maximize the benefits of REMS programs and labeling warnings designed to ensure the safe administration of high-risk medications.

Measuring and Understanding Market Exclusivity Length for New Prescription Drugs in France, Australia, and the USA.

BACKGROUND: Originator drug manufacturers use several strategies to delay generic competition in the USA, but it remains unclear whether this results in longer market exclusivity compared to other countries. OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand how drug market exclusivity lengths vary between the USA and two comparable countries. METHODS: We focused on drugs approved within 2 years of each other in the USA, France, and Australia from 1995 to 2005, and we compared the lengths of exclusivity from marketing approval through first generic competition or June 2023 using Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: Among 165 drugs in common between the USA and France, the median length of exclusivity was slightly longer in France (15.0 years, interquartile range [IQR]: 13.0-19.6) than the USA (14.5 years, IQR: 11.7-17.6). Among 100 drugs in common between the USA and Australia, the median length of exclusivity was longer in Australia (16.3 years, IQR: 13.9-22.4) than in the USA (14.4 years, IQR: 12.0-17.1). CONCLUSIONS: Market exclusivity lengths in the USA are not longer than in France and Australia. Potential reasons include the larger US market and incentives that offer transient high generic drug prices in the USA for manufacturers that successfully challenge originator market exclusivity.

Sales Revenues for New Therapeutic Agents Approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration From 1995 to 2014.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyze worldwide sales of new therapeutic agents and to estimate the time it takes for product sales to exceed industry-wide average drug development costs. METHODS: Data obtained from company reports were analyzed to track worldwide sales of new medicines approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 1995 to 2014. All sales figures were reported in 2019 US dollars. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate the time it took for discounted product sales to exceed the average costs associated with developing 1 new drug (accounting for the costs of failed trials), using published estimates of these costs. RESULTS: Based on data for 361 of 558 new therapeutic agents approved over the study period (median follow-up 13.2 years), mean sales revenue per product was $15.2 billion through the end of 2019; the median was $6.7 billion. These products jointly generated global sales of $5.5 trillion since approval. Revenues were highly skewed, with the 25 best selling products (7%, 25 of 361) accounting for 38% of this amount ($2.1 trillion of $5.5 trillion). Approximately 47% of products had discounted sales that exceeded the estimated industry-wide average costs of development within 5 years of approval, and 75% within 10 years. After attributing potential production, marketing, and other costs, these numbers dropped to 21% of products within 5 years of approval, and 46% within 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Sales of new medicines approved from 1995 to 2014 were highly skewed, but many products had net discounted sales that exceeded the industry-wide average costs of development within 10 years of approval. An understanding of how sales revenues accrue in the years after initial approval, alongside data on business costs, can inform discussions about how to incentivize private investment in innovation while ensuring affordable prices for patients and the healthcare system.