Trends in financial payments from industry to US cancer centers, 2014-2021.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2 481  million to $2 724  million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.

Current Trends of Practices in Nonclinical Toxicology: An Industry Survey.

The growth in drug development over the past years reflects significant advancements in basic sciences and a greater understanding of molecular pathways of disease. Benchmarking industry practices has been important to enable a critical reflection on the path to evolve pharmaceutical testing, and the outcome of past industry surveys has had some impact on best practices in testing. A survey was provided to members of SPS, ACT, and STP. The survey consisted of 37 questions and was provided to 2550 participants with a response rate of 24%. Most respondents (∼75%) came from the US and Europe. The survey encompassed multiple topics encountered in nonclinical testing of pharmaceuticals. The most frequent target indications were oncology (69%), inflammation (55%), neurology/psychiatry/pain (46%), cardiovascular (44%), and metabolic diseases (39%). The most frequent drug-induced toxicology issues confronted were hepatic, hematopoietic, and gastrointestinal. Toxicological effects that impacted the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) were most frequently based on histopathology findings. The survey comprised topics encountered in the use of biomarkers in nonclinical safety assessment, most commonly those used to assess inflammation, cardiac/vascular, renal, and hepatic toxicity as well as common practices related to the assessment of endocrine effects, carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, juvenile and male-mediated developmental and female reproductive toxicity. The survey explored the impact of regulatory meetings on program design, application of the 3 Rs, and reasons for program delays. Overall, the survey results provide a broad perspective of current practices based on the experience of the scientific community engaged in nonclinical safety assessment.

Opportunities in an Evolving Pharmaceutical Development Landscape: Product Differentiation of Biopharmaceutical Drug Products.

The current perspective reviews the biopharmaceutical market until end of 2020 and highlights the transforming biopharmaceutical landscape during the recent decade. In particular, the rise of biosimilars and the development of new therapeutic modalities through recent advancement in molecular biology research sustainably change the product scenery. The present manuscript describes opportunities for pharmaceutical technical development, highlighting concepts such as product differentiation to succeed in a competitive product landscape. Product differentiation offers the opportunity for numerous life-cycle options and market exclusivity through incremental improvements in standard of care treatment. In particular, different formulation options and formulation-device combinations are described, focusing on systemic delivery of monoclonal antibody products and patient-centered development. The concept of product differentiation is exemplified in a case study about HER2+ breast cancer therapy, underlining pharmaceutical technical solutions and major improvements for the patient.

Challenges for biosimilars: focus on rheumatoid arthritis.

Healthcare systems worldwide are struggling to find ways to fund the cost of innovative treatments such as gene therapies, regenerative medicine, and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). As the world's best known mAbs are close to facing patent expirations, the biosimilars market is poised to grow with the hope of bringing prices down for cancer treatment and autoimmune disorders, however, this has yet to be realized. The development costs of biosimilars are significantly higher than their generic equivalents due to therapeutic equivalence trials and higher manufacturing costs. It is imperative that academics and relevant companies understand the costs and stages associated with biologics processing. This article brings these costs to the forefront with a focus on biosimilars being developed for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). mAbs have remarkably changed the treatment landscape, establishing their superior efficacy over traditional small chemicals. Five blockbuster TNFα mAbs, considered as first line biologics against RA, are either at the end of their patent life or have already expired and manufacturers are seeking to capture a significant portion of that market. Although in principle, market-share should be available, withstanding that the challenges regarding the compliance and regulations are being resolved, particularly with regards to variation in the glycosylation patterns and challenges associated with manufacturing. Glycan variants can significantly affect the quality attributes requiring characterization throughout production. Successful penetration of biologics can drive down prices and this will be a welcome change for patients and the healthcare providers. Herein we review the biologic TNFα inhibitors, which are on the market, in development, and the challenges being faced by biosimilar manufacturers.

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

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

Trends in Financial Relationships Between Industry and Radiation Oncologists Versus Other Physicians in the United States from 2014 to 2018.

PURPOSE: The Open Payments transparency program publishes data on industry-physician payments, in part to discourage relationships considered inappropriate including gifts, meals, and speaker's bureau fees. We evaluated trends in physician-level payments to test whether implementation of Open Payments resulted in fewer industry-radiation oncologist (RO) interactions or shifted interactions toward those considered more appropriate compared with medical oncologists (MOs) and other hospital-based physicians (HBPs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study of practicing US ROs versus MOs and HBPs in 2014 matched to general (nonresearch) payments between 2014 and 2018. Trends in payments were analyzed and reported by nature of payment. Values of payments to ROs from the top 10 companies were identified. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2018, 3379 (90.3%) ROs accepted 106,930 payments totaling $40.8 million. The per-physician number and value of payments was lower in radiation oncology than in medical oncology and higher than HBPs. The proportion of ROs accepting payments increased from 61.8% in 2014 to 64.2% in 2018; the proportion of MOs accepting payments decreased from 78.7% to 77.7%; and the proportion of HBPs decreased from 40.8% to 37.5%, respectively. The annual per-physician value and number of payments accepted by ROs and MOs increased. Payments in entertainment, meals, travel and lodging, and gifts increased among ROs and remained stable or decreased among MOs and HBPs. Consulting payments increased across all groups. Top RO payors produced novel cancer therapeutics, hydrogel spacers, radiation treatment machines, and opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Industry payments to ROs have become more common since OP's inception, while becoming less common for MOs and HBPs. Payments to ROs and MOs have become more frequent and of modestly increasing value compared with other HBPs, for whom the value is decreasing. No large changes in the nature of relationships were seen in ROs. Increased engagement with financial conflicts of interest is needed in radiation oncology.

Drug development post COVID-19 pandemic: toward a better system to meet current and future global health challenges.

Introduction: Despite advances in drug research and development, our knowledge of the underlying molecular mechanisms of many diseases remains inadequate. This have led to limited effective medicines for several diseases. To address these challenges, efficient strategies, novel technologies, and policies are urgently needed. The main obstacles in drug discovery and development are the mounting cost, risk, and time frame needed to develop new medicines. Fair pricing and accessibility is another unmet global challenge.Areas covered: Here, the authors cover the pace, risks, cost, and challenges facing drug development processes. Additionally, they introduce disease-associated data which demand global attention and propose solutions to overcome these challenges.Expert opinion: The massive challenges encountered during drug development urgently call for a serious global rethinking of the way this process is done. A partial solution might be if many consortiums of multi-nations, academic institutions, clinicians, pharma companies, and funding agencies gather at different fronts to crowdsource resources, share knowledge and risks. Such an ecosystem can rapidly generate first-in-class molecules that are safe, effective, and affordable. We think that this article represents a wake-up call for the scientific community to immediately reassess the current drug discovery and development procedures.

A banalidade do mal psicofarmacológico em tempos de performance / La banalidad del mal psicofarmacológico en tiempos de performance / La banalité du mal psychopharmacologique en temps de performance / The banality of psychopharmacological evil in times of performance

Resumo Este artigo tem por objetivo percorrer um caminho que parte da identificação do fenômeno da medicalização da vida. O estudo será organizado dentro de uma perspectiva genealógica, na medida em que é importante localizar que este objeto de estudo não se restringe apenas a uma questão médica, mas exige um esforço de articulação com outras áreas do saber. Assim, esta genealogia articula questões médicas com a crítica social acerca desse fenômeno, aliando medicina, sociologia, psicologia, economia e teoria política. O desenvolvimento será organizado tendo como pano de fundo as exigências de autonomia e performance na atualidade, no contexto do aumento da demanda psicofarmacológica. Se os benefícios da administração medicamentosa podem propiciar bem-estar subjetivo, por outro lado, os excessos ou a banalidade do mal psicofarmacológico tornam opacas as fronteiras entre o normal e o patológico.

Resumen Este artículo pretende seguir un camino que parte de la identificación del fenómeno de la medicalización de la vida. El estudio se organizará dentro de una perspectiva genealógica, debido a la importancia de conocer que este objeto de estudio no se limita a un tema médico, sino que requiere un esfuerzo para articularse con otras áreas del conocimiento. Así, esta genealogía articula la problemática médica con la crítica social sobre este fenómeno, combinando la medicina, la sociología, la psicología, la economía y la teoría política. Esta trama se organizará en el contexto de las demandas de autonomía y desempeño de la actualidad, en el contexto de una mayor demanda psicofarmacológica. Si, por un lado, los beneficios de la administración de medicamentos pueden proporcionar un bienestar subjetivo, por otro, los excesos o la banalidad del mal psicofarmacológico hacen que los límites entre lo normal y lo patológico sean opacos.

Résumé Cet article retrace un chemin qui commence par l'identification du phénomène connu sous le nom de médicalisation de la vie. Puisque cet objet d'étude n'est pas seulement une question médicale, nécessitant une articulation avec d'autres domaines de connaissance, l'étude propose une généalogie qui articule la critique médicale et sociale sur ce phénomène, en combinant la médecine, la sociologie, la psychologie, l'économie et la théorie politique. Cette tapisserie est tissé sur fond d'exigences actuelles d'autonomie et de performance, dans un contexte de demandes psychopharmacologique croissantes. Si les bénéfices de l'administration de médicaments peuvent procurer un bien-être subjectif, les excès ou la banalité du mal psychopharmacologique, en revanche, brouille les frontières entre normal et pathologique.

Abstract This paper traces a path that begins by identifying the phenomenon known as medicalization of life. Since this object of study is not only a medical issue, requiring an articulation with other areas of knowledge, the study proposes a genealogy that articulates medical and social criticism on this phenomenon, combining medicine, sociology, psychology, economics, and political theory. Such tapestry is weaved against the backdrop of current demands for autonomy and performance, in the context of increasing psychopharmacological urges. If the benefits of drug administration can provide subjective well-being, the excesses or the banality of psychopharmacological evil, on the other hand, blur the boundaries between normal and pathological.

Nonclinical safety assessment of epigenetic modulatory drugs: Current status and industry perspective.

Pharmaceutic products designed to perturb the function of epigenetic modulators have been approved by regulatory authorities for treatment of advanced cancer. While the predominant effort in epigenetic drug development continues to be in oncology, non-oncology indications are also garnering interest. A survey of pharmaceutical companies was conducted to assess the interest and concerns for developing small molecule direct epigenetic effectors (EEs) as medicines. Survey themes addressed (1) general levels of interest and activity with EEs as therapeutic agents, (2) potential safety concerns, and (3) possible future efforts to develop targeted strategies for nonclinical safety assessment of EEs. Thirteen companies contributed data to the survey. Overall, the survey data indicate the consensus opinion that existing ICH guidelines are effective and appropriate for nonclinical safety assessment activities with EEs. Attention in the framework of study design should, on a case by case basis, be considered for delayed or latent toxicities, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, and the theoretical potential for transgenerational effects. While current guidelines have been appropriate for the nonclinical safety assessments of epigenetic targets, broader experience with a wide range of epigenetic targets will provide information to assess the potential need for new or revised risk assessment strategies for EE drugs.

QSP-IO: A Quantitative Systems Pharmacology Toolbox for Mechanistic Multiscale Modeling for Immuno-Oncology Applications.

Immunotherapy has shown great potential in the treatment of cancer; however, only a fraction of patients respond to treatment, and many experience autoimmune-related side effects. The pharmaceutical industry has relied on mathematical models to study the behavior of candidate drugs and more recently, complex, whole-body, quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) models have become increasingly popular for discovery and development. QSP modeling has the potential to discover novel predictive biomarkers as well as test the efficacy of treatment plans and combination therapies through virtual clinical trials. In this work, we present a QSP modeling platform for immuno-oncology (IO) that incorporates detailed mechanisms for important immune interactions. This modular platform allows for the construction of QSP models of IO with varying degrees of complexity based on the research questions. Finally, we demonstrate the use of the platform through two example applications of immune checkpoint therapy.

An overview of patents on therapeutic monoclonal antibodies in Europe: are they a hurdle to biosimilar market entry?

As patents on many high-selling biological medicines are expiring, non-innovator versions, such as biosimilars, may enter this multi-billion dollar market. This study aims to map patents and patent applications for innovator as well as biosimilar monoclonal antibodies in Europe, and investigates legal challenges associated with patenting the innovator product and alleged infringing activities, focusing on consequences for biosimilar developers. Via an exploratory literature review in PubMed and a database analysis in Darts-ip, Derwent Innovation, and Espacenet, an overview of basic patents and exclusivity rights for some of the best-selling biologicals is given, supplemented with a detailed analysis of patents taken during the medicine's life cycle via three specific case studies (trastuzumab, bevacizumab, cetuximab). Case law was used to determine which patents were viewed by biosimilar developers as blocking market entry. For the selected monoclonal antibodies, the key protection instruments appeared to be the basic patent and the additional protection provided by a supplementary protection certificate. We observed that additional patents filed after the basic patent are hard to obtain and often insufficient in blocking market entry of biosimilars, but can in some cases be a substantial hurdle for biosimilar developers to overcome in patent litigation cases or to invent around, creating uncertainty on the launch date of a biosimilar on the market. These hurdles, however, seem to be surmountable, given that many cases were won by biosimilar developers. Also, biosimilars can be protected by filing new patents and these mainly pertain to new formulations.

Single-cell genomic approaches for developing the next generation of immunotherapies.

Recent progress in single-cell genomics urges its application in drug development, particularly of cancer immunotherapies. Current immunotherapy pipelines are focused on functional outcome and simple cellular and molecular readouts. A thorough mechanistic understanding of the cells and pathways targeted by immunotherapy agents is lacking, which limits the success rate of clinical trials. A large leap forward can be made if the immunotherapy target cells and pathways are characterized at high resolution before and after treatment, in clinical cohorts and model systems. This will enable rapid development of effective immunotherapies and data-driven design of synergistic drug combinations. In this Perspective, we discuss how emerging single-cell genomic technologies can serve as an engine for target identification and drug development.

The Pharmaceutical Industry in 2019. An Analysis of FDA Drug Approvals from the Perspective of Molecules.

During 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 48 new drugs (38 New Chemical Entities and 10 Biologics). Although this figure is slightly lower than that registered in 2018 (59 divided between 42 New Chemical Entities and 17 Biologics), a year that broke a record with respect to new drugs approved by this agency, it builds on the trend initiated in 2017, when 46 drugs were approved. Of note, three antibody drug conjugates, three peptides, and two oligonucleotides were approved in 2019. This report analyzes the 48 new drugs of the class of 2019 from a strictly chemical perspective. The classification, which was carried out on the basis of chemical structure, includes the following: Biologics (antibody drug conjugates, antibodies, and proteins); TIDES (peptide and oligonucleotides); drug combinations; natural products; and small molecules.

Antibodies to watch in 2020.

This 2020 installment of the annual 'Antibodies to Watch' series documents the antibody therapeutics approved in 2019 and in regulatory review in the United States or European Union, as well as those in late-stage clinical studies, as of November 2019*. At this time, a total of 5 novel antibody therapeutics (romosozumab, risankizumab, polatuzumab vedotin, brolucizumab, and crizanlizumab) had been granted a first approval in either the US or EU, and marketing applications for 13 novel antibody therapeutics (eptinezumab, teprotumumab, enfortumab vedotin, isatuximab, [fam-]trastuzumab deruxtecan, inebilizumab, leronlimab, sacituzumab govitecan, satralizumab, narsoplimab, tafasitamab, REGNEB3 and naxituximab) were undergoing review in these regions, which represent the major markets for antibody therapeutics. Also as of November 2019, 79 novel antibodies were undergoing evaluation in late-stage clinical studies. Of the 79 antibodies, 39 were undergoing evaluation in late-stage studies for non-cancer indications, with 2 of these (ublituximab, pamrevlumab) also in late-stage studies for cancer indications. Companies developing 7 (tanezumab, aducanumab, evinacumab, etrolizumab, sutimlimab, anifrolumab, and teplizumab) of the 39 drugs have indicated that they may submit a marketing application in either the US or EU in 2020. Of the 79 antibodies in late-stage studies, 40 were undergoing evaluation as treatments for cancer, and potentially 9 of these (belantamab mafodotin, oportuzumab monatox, margetuximab, dostarlimab, spartalizumab, 131I-omburtamab, loncastuximab tesirine, balstilimab, and zalifrelimab) may enter regulatory review in late 2019 or in 2020. Overall, the biopharmaceutical industry's clinical pipeline of antibody therapeutics is robust, and should provide a continuous supply of innovative products for patients in the future. *Note on key updates through December 18, 2019: 1) the US Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to enfortumab vedotin-ejfv (Padcev) on December 18, 2019, bringing the total number of novel antibody therapeutics granted a first approval in either the US or EU during 2019 to 6; 2) the European Commission approved romosozumab on December 9, 2019; 3) the European Medicines Agency issued a positive opinion for brolucizumab; 4) Sesen Bio initiated a rolling biologics license application (BLA) on December 6, 2019; 5) GlaxoSmithKline submitted a BLA for belantamab mafodotin; and 6) the status of the Phase 3 study (NCT04128696) of GSK3359609, a humanized IgG4 anti-ICOS antibody, in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma was updated to recruiting from not yet recruiting.