Pediatric Drug Development Studies for Familial Hypercholesterolemia Submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration Between 2007 and 2020.

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an autosomal dominant genetic disorder of lipoprotein metabolism that leads to an increased risk of developing atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease. Hypercholesterolemia in pediatric patients is typically due to FH. Treatment of pediatric FH is achieved through lifestyle modifications, lipid-modifying pharmacotherapy, and/or apheresis. The primary objective of this review is to describe the characteristics of clinical trials conducted in pediatric patients with FH with data submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration from 2007 to 2020. Of 10 trials with 8 products in pediatric FH submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, 1 product was studied in both the heterozygous and the homozygous phenotypes, 5 were studied for heterozygous hypercholesterolemia only, and 2 were studied for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia only. Most of the trials included pediatric patients ≥10 years of age and older. Clinical trial characteristics including the primary efficacy end points between pediatric and adult trials were mostly identical. Many lipid-lowering drugs with novel mechanisms of action have been recently approved or are currently being studied. In summary, the drug treatment of hypercholesterolemia in pediatric patients is expanding beyond the use of statins, and now involves multiple mechanisms of action involving cholesterol metabolism. As younger pediatric patients are diagnosed and treated for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, optimizing the doses of these agents and safety studies specific to younger pediatric patients will be necessary.

Reforms of regulatory pathways for approval of new antineoplastic drugs in Japan from 2004 to 2019 and accompanying changes in pivotal clinical trial designs.

Background The Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) was established in 2004. Since then, various pieces of legislation, notices, and guidelines have been issued, and the regulatory approval pathways for domestic drugs have been diversified. However, the effects of these measures have not been fully examined. We examined the impact of these measures on the approval of antineoplastic drugs and the design of pivotal clinical trials for efficacy assessment by the PMDA. Methods We collected data on the antineoplastic drugs approved by the PMDA in fiscal years 2004-2019. We extracted the approval review pathways and the pivotal clinical trial designs from the PMDA review reports, and analyzed them to identify patterns. Results In total, 387 indications in oncology were approved by the PMDA in fiscal years 2004-2019, or 365 indications excluding multiple regulatory pathways. The number of approved indications generally increased year on year (p < 0.001). The largest number of approved indications was under the Orphan Drug Designation (31%, 114/365) and this continues to increase (p < 0.001). In the 288 indications for which clinical trial data were submitted for review, the pivotal clinical trial designs changed significantly (p < 0.001) after the guideline on clinical evaluation for antineoplastic drugs was revised in 2006. Conclusion The number of indications in oncology approved by the PMDA has been increasing over the past 16 years, alongside changes in regulatory pathways. The 2006 guideline on clinical evaluation had a particular impact on pivotal clinical trial designs.

The drug development pipeline for glioblastoma-A cross sectional assessment of the FDA Orphan Drug Product designation database.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common malignant brain tumour among adult patients and represents an almost universally fatal disease. Novel therapies for GBM are being developed under the orphan drug legislation and the knowledge on the molecular makeup of this disease has been increasing rapidly. However, the clinical outcomes in GBM patients with currently available therapies are still dismal. An insight into the current drug development pipeline for GBM is therefore of particular interest. OBJECTIVES: To provide a quantitative clinical-regulatory insight into the status of FDA orphan drug designations for compounds intended to treat GBM. METHODS: Quantitative cross-sectional analysis of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Orphan Drug Product database between 1983 and 2020. STROBE criteria were respected. RESULTS: Four orphan drugs out of 161 (2,4%) orphan drug designations were approved for the treatment for GBM by the FDA between 1983 and 2020. Fourteen orphan drug designations were subsequently withdrawn for unknown reasons. The number of orphan drug designations per year shows a growing trend. In the last decade, the therapeutic mechanism of action of designated compounds intended to treat glioblastoma shifted from cytotoxic drugs (median year of designation 2008) to immunotherapeutic approaches and small molecules (median year of designation 2014 and 2015 respectively) suggesting an increased focus on precision in the therapeutic mechanism of action for compounds the development pipeline. CONCLUSION: Despite the fact that current pharmacological treatment options in GBM are sparse, the drug development pipeline is steadily growing. In particular, the surge of designated immunotherapies detected in the last years raises the hope that elaborate combination possibilities between classical therapeutic backbones (radiotherapy and chemotherapy) and novel, currently experimental therapeutics may help to provide better therapies for this deadly disease in the future.

Independent Registries Are Cost-Effective Tools to Provide Mandatory Postauthorization Surveillance for Orphan Medicinal Products.

OBJECTIVES: Orphan medicinal products (OMPs) often receive market authorization under conditions imposed by regulators for ongoing postauthorization surveillance (PAS) to answer questions that remain at the time of market entry. This surveillance may be provided through industry-funded registries (IFRs). Nevertheless, data in these registries may not be of sufficient quality to answer these questions and may not always be accessible for regulatory review. We propose that a mandatory independent registry is an efficient and cost-effective tool for PAS for OMPs. METHODS: Using data from the Canadian Fabry Disease Initiative, we reviewed costs per unique patient from sites participating in both the independent national registry and IFRs for Fabry disease and compared data completeness from the Canadian Fabry Disease Initiative to that in published documents from IFRs. RESULTS: The costs of data collection through the independent registry were 17% to 36% (depending on site) lower than costs to collect data in the IFRs, and completeness of data collected through the independent registry was higher than that through the IFRs. Data from the independent registry were reviewed annually to guide indications for publicly funded Fabry disease therapy. Even when enrollment ceased to be a requirement to receive therapy, 77% of patients continued to enroll in the registry, suggesting the structure was acceptable to patients. CONCLUSIONS: Independent registries are cost-effective and efficient tools and should be mandated by regulatory agencies as the preferred tool for PAS for OMPs. Countries with publicly funded health systems should consider investment in registry infrastructure for OMPs.

Removal of the EMA orphan designation upon request of the sponsor: cui prodest?

PURPOSE: Various incentives are provided by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to facilitate the development and marketing of orphan drugs. A 10-year period of market exclusivity is reserved to an orphan medicinal product. Sometimes, the sponsor renounces the designation before the expiration of that standard period. Our aim was to focus on these premature withdrawals. METHODS: We retrieved all the molecules included in the Community Register of Orphan Medicinal Products for Human Use from 2000 to November 2020. We considered the active substance, therapeutic indication, sponsor, year of designation, year of approval of the corresponding medicinal product, and that of the withdrawal of the orphan designation, if occurred. RESULTS: Overall, 2350 orphan designations were approved from 2000 to November 2020. Of these, 141 have been marketed. Premature withdrawal of orphan designation concerned 23 drugs (20 being antineoplastic agents), corresponding to 16 medicinal products. These withdrawals occurred after almost 2 years (range <1-7 years). CONCLUSIONS: A not negligible fraction of marketed orphan medicinal products underwent premature removal of their orphan designation. No motivation is requested by the EMA for this renouncement, although the peculiarity of the orphan medicinal products would need a greater transparency. We can only speculate about possible compensations in support of this decision, for instance in terms of commercial agreements between pharmaceutical companies, giving way to alternative products, as a couple of examples suggest. An open debate on this topic among members of academia, regulatory bodies, price and reimbursements committees, and pharmaceutical industry representatives will be welcome.

FDA orphan drug designations for lysosomal storage disorders - a cross-sectional analysis.

PURPOSE: To provide a quantitative clinical-regulatory insight into the status of FDA orphan drug designations for compounds intended to treat lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs). METHODS: Assessment of the drug pipeline through analysis of the FDA database for orphan drug designations with descriptive and comparative statistics. RESULTS: Between 1983 and 2019, 124 orphan drug designations were granted by the FDA for compounds intended to treat 28 lysosomal storage diseases. Orphan drug designations focused on Gaucher disease (N = 16), Pompe disease (N = 16), Fabry disease (N = 10), MPS II (N = 10), MPS I (N = 9), and MPS IIIA (N = 9), and included enzyme replacement therapies, gene therapies, and small molecules, and others. Twenty-three orphan drugs were approved for the treatment of 11 LSDs. Gaucher disease (N = 6), cystinosis (N = 5), Pompe disease (N = 3), and Fabry disease (N = 2) had multiple approvals, CLN2, LAL-D, MPS I, II, IVA, VI, and VII one approval each. This is an increase of nine more approved drugs and four more treatable LSDs (CLN2, MPS VII, LAL-D, and MPS IVA) since 2013. Mean time between orphan drug designation and FDA approval was 89.7 SD 55.00 (range 8-203, N = 23) months. CONCLUSIONS: The drug development pipeline for LSDs is growing and evolving, with increased focus on diverse small-molecule targets and gene therapy. CLN2 was the first and only LSD with an approved therapy directly targeted to the brain. Newly approved products included "me-too"-enzymes and innovative compounds such as the first pharmacological chaperone for the treatment of Fabry disease.

The impact of the Orphan Drug Act on Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies for rare skin diseases and skin-related cancers.

The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 (ODA) put in place a set of financial and marketing incentives to stimulate the development of drugs to treat rare diseases, and since its passage, more than 600 orphan drug and biologic products have been brought to market in the United States. Rapid growth in orphan drug approvals in conjunction with high orphan drug prices have triggered concern that drug makers are exploiting certain aspects of the ODA for financial gain and that some pharmaceutical drugs are receiving orphan status where it is not warranted. The landscape of approved therapies for rare skin diseases has not been well described. In this article, we provide a descriptive analysis of the United States Food and Drug Administration-approved orphan drugs for the treatment of rare dermatologic conditions and skin-related cancers since the enactment of the ODA. We discuss policy issues that emerge from the analysis and suggest areas for future research. Next, we elucidate ODA loopholes using dermatologic drugs as examples and propose potential reforms. Finally, we consider future directions for orphan drug development in the field of dermatology.

The drug lag and associated factors for orphan anticancer drugs in Japan compared to the United States.

The approval of orphan anticancer drugs in Japan has increased to meet high social demand. Drug lag, namely the approval lag of new drugs, is recognized as a social issue in Japan. We investigated the approval lag and its components, submission lag and review-time lag, between Japan and the United States (US) to reveal whether an approval lag still exists, and to identify potential factors that may contribute to reducing the approval lag. Anticancer drugs approved in Japan between April 2004 and November 2017 were investigated using publicly available information. Results showed that the median approval lag of orphan anticancer drugs in 2016-2017 was 727.0 days (interquartile range, IQR, 310.0-1054.3). The approval lag was significantly correlated with the submission lag (correlation coefficient = 1.00, P < 0.001) but not with the review-time lag (correlation coefficient = -0.16, P = 0.22). The submission lag was significantly longer for orphan anticancer drugs than non-orphan drugs (median, 712.5 days [IQR, 186.0-1448.3] vs. 387.0 days [92.8-1096.0], P = 0.023). External collaboration in drug development was associated with a longer submission lag (coefficient = 762.1, P = 0.017), while breakthrough therapy designation in the US was associated with a shorter submission lag (coefficient = -832.8, P = 0.035). In conclusion, we revealed that an approval lag for orphan anticancer drugs still existed in 2016-2017. A submission lag for orphan anticancer drugs was the main component affecting the approval lag, and was longer than that for non-orphan drugs. External collaboration in drug development may be a potential factor in reducing the submission lag for orphan anticancer drugs.

Specialty Drug Coverage Varies Across Commercial Health Plans In The US.

We analyzed specialty drug coverage decisions issued by the largest US commercial health plans to examine variation in coverage and the consistency of those decisions with indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Across 3,417 decisions, 16 percent of the 302 drug-indication pairs were covered the same way by all of the health plans, and 48 percent were covered the same way by 75 percent of the plans. Specifically, 52 percent of the decisions were consistent with the FDA label, 9 percent less restrictive, 2 percent mixed (less restrictive in some ways but more restrictive in others), and 33 percent more restrictive, while 5 percent of the pairs were not covered. Health plans restricted coverage of drugs indicated for cancer less often than they did coverage of drugs indicated for other diseases. Using multivariate regression, we found that several drug-related factors were associated with less restrictive coverage, including indications for orphan diseases or pediatric populations, absence of safety warnings, time on the market, lack of alternatives, and expedited FDA review. Variations in coverage have implications for patients' access to treatment and health system costs.

Trends of Clinical Trials for Drug Development in Rare Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Drug development for rare diseases is challenging because it is difficult to obtain relevant data from very few patients. It must be informative to grasp current status of clinical trials for drug development in rare diseases. OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials in rare diseases are to be outlined and compared among the US, EU and Japan. METHOD: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT, National Clinical Trial), EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) and the Japan Primary Registries Network (JPRN) were analyzed. Clinical trials involving information on rare diseases and drugs were extracted by text-mining, based on the diseases and drugs derived from Orphanet and DrugBank, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 28,526 clinical trials were extracted, which studied 1,535 rare diseases and 1,539 drugs. NCT had the largest number of trials, involving 1,252 diseases and 1,332 drugs. EUCTR and JPRN also had registry-specific diseases (250 and 22, respectively) and drugs (172 and 29, respectively) that should not be missed. Among the 1,535 rare diseases, most diseases were studied in only a limited number of trials; 70% of diseases were studied in fewer than 10 trials, and 28% were studied in only one. Additionally, most studied rare diseases were cancer-related ones. CONCLUSION: This study has revealed the characteristics of the clinical trials in rare diseases among the US, EU and Japan. The number of trials for rare diseases was limited especially for non-cancerrelated ones. This information could contribute to drug development such as drug-repositioning in rare diseases.

2016 in review: FDA approvals of new molecular entities.

An overview of drugs approved by FDA in 2016 reveals dramatic disruptions in long-term trends. The number of new molecular entities (NMEs) dropped, reflecting the lowest rate of small-molecule approvals observed in almost five decades. In addition, the pace of industry consolidation slowed substantially. The impact of mergers and acquisitions decreased the total number of organizations with past approval experience and continued research and development (R&D) activities to 102, divided evenly between more established pharmaceutical and newer biotechnology companies. Despite these substantial differences, the industry continued to pursue regulatory incentives, as evidenced by a continued increase in the fraction of NMEs approved using an orphan or priority designation, and almost all oncology drugs approved in 2016 utilized these mechanisms.

Reimbursement of Drugs for Rare Diseases through the Public Healthcare System in Canada: Where Are We Now?

INTRODUCTION: Over the past 20 years, the number of therapies developed for rare diseases has rapidly increased. Often, these therapies represent the only active treatment for debilitating and/or life-threatening conditions. However, they create significant challenges for public and private payers. Because they target small patient populations, clinical evidence of efficacy/effectiveness is typically limited, while the cost per patient is high. In Canada, each province/territory establishes its own mechanisms for determining which drugs for rare diseases (DRDs) to provide. OBJECTIVES: To compare current mechanisms across provinces and territories, and explore their impact on access. METHODS: A systematic review of relevant published and unpublished documents was performed. Electronic bibliographic databases, the internet, and government websites were scanned using structured search strategies. Information was extracted independently by two researchers, and included aspects such as program type, condition/patient/therapy eligibility criteria, role of health technology assessment (HTA), decision options, ethical assumptions, and stakeholder input. It was validated through member-checking with provincial/territorial policy experts and tabulated to facilitate qualitative analyses. Impact on access was assessed through a cross-province/territory comparison of the coverage status of all non-cancer therapies reviewed by the Common Drug Review for indications affecting <1/2,000 Canadians using the Kappa statistic. Reasons for variations were explored using qualitative techniques. RESULTS: Each province/territory has formal and informal mechanisms through which such therapies may be accessed. In most cases, formal mechanisms constitute the centralized HTA processes that also apply to common therapies. While several provinces have established dedicated processes/programs, whether they have affected access is not clear. Despite broadly comparable approaches, there is less than perfect agreement on publicly funded DRDs across jurisdictions. CONCLUSIONS: Individual jurisdictions have developed different approaches to providing access to these therapies. However, as the number increases, a more systematic approach to decision-making may be needed.

Orphan therapies: making best use of postmarket data.

BACKGROUND: Postmarket surveillance of the comparative safety and efficacy of orphan therapeutics is challenging, particularly when multiple therapeutics are licensed for the same orphan indication. To make best use of product-specific registry data collected to fulfill regulatory requirements, we propose the creation of a distributed electronic health data network among registries. Such a network could support sequential statistical analyses designed to detect early warnings of excess risks. We use a simulated example to explore the circumstances under which a distributed network may prove advantageous. METHODS: We perform sample size calculations for sequential and non-sequential statistical studies aimed at comparing the incidence of hepatotoxicity following initiation of two newly licensed therapies for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. We calculate the sample size savings ratio, or the proportion of sample size saved if one conducted a sequential study as compared to a non-sequential study. Then, using models to describe the adoption and utilization of these therapies, we simulate when these sample sizes are attainable in calendar years. We then calculate the analytic calendar time savings ratio, analogous to the sample size savings ratio. We repeat these analyses for numerous scenarios. KEY RESULTS: Sequential analyses detect effect sizes earlier or at the same time as non-sequential analyses. The most substantial potential savings occur when the market share is more imbalanced (i.e., 90% for therapy A) and the effect size is closest to the null hypothesis. However, due to low exposure prevalence, these savings are difficult to realize within the 30-year time frame of this simulation for scenarios in which the outcome of interest occurs at or more frequently than one event/100 person-years. CONCLUSIONS: We illustrate a process to assess whether sequential statistical analyses of registry data performed via distributed networks may prove a worthwhile infrastructure investment for pharmacovigilance.

Global pharmacogenomics: where is the research taking us?

Pharmacogenomics knowledge and technologies, which couple genomics information with pharmaceutical drug response, have been promised to revolutionise both drug development and prescription. One notable promise of pharmacogenomics is the potential to contribute to some of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), namely to increase justice in global health by incentivising public research laboratories and pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for populations (e.g., in low- and middle-income countries) that have been neglected by the traditional drug development model. To evaluate the credibility of this promise, we examined - both quantitatively and qualitatively - those scientific papers indexed in PubMed and published between 1997 and 2010, with a view to describing the major orientations and tendencies characterising the development of pharmacogenomics research. Our results demonstrate that pharmacogenomics research has focused on three major non-communicable categories of disease: cancer, depression and other psychological disorders and cardiovascular and coronary heart disease. Few publications - and thus, by extension, little scientific interest - concerned orphan diseases, infectious diseases or maternal health, indicating that pharmacogenomics research over the last decade has replicated the well-known 90/10 ratio in drug development. As such, we argue that research in the field of pharmacogenomics has failed in its promise to contribute to the MDGs by reducing global health inequalities.

[Attractiveness of France for international clinical trials in 2012: 6(th) survey assessed by Leem (French association of pharmaceutical companies)]. / État des lieux 2012 de l'attractivité de la France pour la recherche clinique internationale : 6(e) enquête du Leem.

Since 2002, the Leem (French Association of Pharmaceutical Companies) has conducted a survey every two years to update the attractiveness of France for international clinical trials. Thirty companies (68% of the French market) have participated in this 6(th) survey which involved 79 countries, a greater number of Phases I/II, II and III studies (420 versus 352 in 2010), a relatively stable number of included patients (246,895 versus 249,704 in 2010) and a greater number of centers (32,965 versus 24,337 in 2010). The evolution of time-lines for the go-ahead by French Authorities is heterogeneous (shorter time-lines by the French National Agency of Drug and Health Products Safety [ANSM] but longer time-lines by Research Ethics Comittees [CPP]). The time-lines for first hospital contracts remain stable. France ranks at an average position among European countries in regards to quantitative and qualitative data, and its state-of-art in early stages is still recognized. Its good performance in oncology and orphan diseases are major assets of competitiveness.

The prevalence and cost of unapproved uses of top-selling orphan drugs.

INTRODUCTION: The Orphan Drug Act encourages drug development for rare conditions. However, some orphan drugs become top sellers for unclear reasons. We sought to evaluate the extent and cost of approved and unapproved uses of orphan drugs with the highest unit sales. METHODS: We assessed prescription patterns for four top-selling orphan drugs: lidocaine patch (Lidoderm) approved for post-herpetic neuralgia, modafinil (Provigil) approved for narcolepsy, cinacalcet (Sensipar) approved for hypercalcemia of parathyroid carcinoma, and imatinib (Gleevec) approved for chronic myelogenous leukemia and gastrointestinal stromal tumor. We pooled patient-specific diagnosis and prescription data from two large US state pharmaceutical benefit programs for the elderly. We analyzed the number of new and total patients using each drug and patterns of reimbursement for approved and unapproved uses. For lidocaine patch, we subcategorized approved prescriptions into two subtypes of unapproved uses: neuropathic pain, for which some evidence of efficacy exists, and non-neuropathic pain. RESULTS: We found that prescriptions for lidocaine patch, modafinil, and cinacalcet associated with non-orphan diagnoses rose at substantially higher rates (average monthly increases in number of patients of 14.6, 1.45, and 1.58) than prescriptions associated with their orphan diagnoses (3.12, 0.24, and 0.03, respectively (p<0.001 for all)). By contrast, for imatinib, approved uses increased significantly over off-label (0.97 vs. 0.47 patients, p<0.001). Spending on off-label uses was highest for lidocaine patch and modafinil (>75%). Increases in lidocaine patch use for non-neuropathic pain far exceeded neuropathic pain (10.2 vs. 3.6 patients, p<0.001). DISCUSSION: In our sample, three of four top-selling orphan drugs were used more commonly for non-orphan indications. These orphan drugs treated common clinical symptoms (pain and fatigue) or laboratory abnormalities. We should continue to monitor orphan drug use after approval to identify products that come to be widely used for non-FDA approved indications, particularly those without adequate evidence of efficacy.

Emergence of orphan drugs in the United States: a quantitative assessment of the first 25 years.

The 1983 US Orphan Drug Act has stimulated the development of new therapies for rare diseases. To provide the first comprehensive overview of orphan-designated products and their indications, this article quantitatively analyses the characteristics and distribution of orphan designations and approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration from 1983 to August 2008. Of the 1,892 orphan-designated products, 326 received marketing approval, representing 247 different drugs and more than 200 different diseases. About half of the approvals had occurred by 4 years after designation was granted. The most common patient population size for orphan designations and approvals was fewer than 10,000 patients, and cancer was the most common disease area. The implications of such findings for future development and marketing of therapies for rare diseases are discussed.

Accelerated approval of cancer drugs: improved access to therapeutic breakthroughs or early release of unsafe and ineffective drugs?

PURPOSE: Accelerated approval (AA) was initiated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to shorten development times of drugs for serious medical illnesses. Sponsors must confirm efficacy in postapproval trials. Confronted with several drugs that received AA on the basis of phase II trials and for which confirmatory trials were incomplete, FDA officials have encouraged sponsors to design AA applications on the basis of interim analyses of phase III trials. METHODS: We reviewed data on orphan drug status, development time, safety, and status of confirmatory trials of AAs and regular FDA approvals of new molecular entities (NMEs) for oncology indications since 1995. RESULTS: Median development times for AA NMEs (n = 19 drugs) and regular-approval oncology NMEs (n = 32 drugs) were 7.3 and 7.2 years, respectively. Phase III trials supported efficacy for 75% of regular-approval versus 26% of AA NMEs and for 73% of non-orphan versus 45% of orphan drug approvals. AA accounted for 78% of approvals for oncology NMEs between 2001 and 2003 but accounted for 32% in more recent years. Among AA NMEs, confirmatory trials were nine-fold less likely to be completed for orphan drug versus non-orphan drug indications. Postapproval, black box warnings were added to labels for four oncology NMEs (17%) that had received AA and for two oncology NMEs (9%) that had received regular approval. CONCLUSION: AA oncology NMEs are safe and effective, although development times are not accelerated. A return to endorsing phase II trial designs for AA for oncology NMEs, particularly for orphan drug indications, may facilitate timely FDA approval of novel cancer drugs.

Adjuncts for ovarian stimulation: when do we adopt "orphan indications" for approved drugs?

Several drugs, shown to be safe for other uses, have proven to be highly effective adjuncts for ovarian stimulation. The authors evaluate these "orphan" indications and make recommendations so that more patients will benefit from their use.