Measuring the impact of monoclonal antibody therapies.

Objective: Monoclonal antibody (Mab) treatments have significantly improved the quality and quantity of life, but they are some of the most expensive treatments, resulting in a degree of hesitancy to introduce new Mab agents. A system for estimating the effect of Mab drugs, in general, would optimally inform health strategy and fully realize how a single scientific discovery can deliver health benefits. We evaluated such a method with several well-established Mab regimens. Methods: We selected five different Mab regimens in oncology and rheumatology in England. We carried out two systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses to assess health outcomes (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index for rheumatoid arthritis; overall mortality for melanoma) from real-world data and compared them to the outcomes from randomized control trials (RCTs). We applied economic modeling to estimate the net monetary benefits for health outcomes for the estimated patient population size for each Mab regimen. Results: Meta-analyses of 27 eligible real-world data (RWD) sets and 26 randomized controlled trial (RCT) sets found close agreement between the observed and expected health outcomes. A Markov model showed the net positive monetary benefit in three Mab regimens and the negative benefit in two regimens. However, because of limited access to NHS data, the economic model made several assumptions about the number of treated patients and the cost of treatment to the NHS, the accuracy of which may affect the estimation of the net monetary benefit. Conclusion: RCT results reliably inform the real-world experience of Mab treatments. Calculation of the net monetary benefit by the algorithm described provides a valuable overall measure of the health impact, subject to the accuracy of data inputs. This study provides a compelling case for building a comprehensive, systematized, and accessible database and related analytics, on all Mab treatments within health services.

Monoclonal antibodies and the transformation of blood typing.

Today, when monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have become one of the most important classes of therapeutic drugs, it is easy to forget how much they have transformed our healthcare in other ways. One of the first clinical areas, as this paper shows, where mAbs made their mark was in the field of blood typing. The adoption of mAbs for this purpose was done with little public fanfare or funding. Nonetheless, it radically transformed the accuracy and cost of blood typing and shifted the procedure away from a dependence on reagents made from human blood donated by volunteers. This paper argues that the development of mAbs as reagents for blood typing laid the foundation for the first large-scale production of mAbs thereby paving the way to the advent of mAb diagnostics and therapeutics.

The birth pangs of monoclonal antibody therapeutics: the failure and legacy of Centoxin.

This paper examines the development and termination of nebacumab (Centoxin®), a human IgM monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug frequently cited as one of the notable failures of the early biopharmaceutical industry. The non-approval of Centoxin in the United States in 1992 generated major concerns at the time about the future viability of any mAb therapeutics. For Centocor, the biotechnology company that developed Centoxin, the drug posed formidable challenges in terms of safety, clinical efficacy, patient selection, the overall economic costs of health care, as well as financial backing. Indeed, Centocor's development of the drug brought it to the brink of bankruptcy. This article shows how many of the experiences learned with Centoxin paved the way for the current successes in therapeutic mAb development.

Using technology to address recruitment issues in the clinical trial process.

It takes nearly ten years to get a drug through the discovery and development pipeline and onto the market; most of this time is spent in the clinical phase. Clinical development times vary widely from drug to drug, but a drug typically spends just over 6 years going through clinical trials and regulatory processes. At least 3 years of this time is spent recruiting patients. Every month by which the development process can be shortened is worth US $25 million in additional income for the average drug. Can the recruitment time be shortened?