Factors associated with positive and negative recommendations for cancer and non-cancer drugs for rare diseases in Canada.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, reimbursement recommendations on drugs for common and rare diseases are overseen by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) and made through the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) and the Common Drug Review (CDR). While the agency specifies information requirements for the review of drug submissions, how that information is used by each process to formulate final reimbursement recommendations, particularly on drugs for rare diseases (DRDs) in which per patient treatment costs are often high, is unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine which factors contribute to recommendation type for DRDs. METHODS: Information was extracted from CDR and pCODR recommendations on drugs for diseases with a prevalence < 1 in 2000 from January 2012 to April 2018. Data were tabulated and multiple logistic regression was applied to explore the association between recommendation type and the following factors: condition/review process (cancer vs non-cancer), year, prevalence, clinical effectiveness (improvements in surrogate, clinical and patient reported outcomes), safety, quality of evidence (availability of comparative data, consistency between population in trial and indication, and bias), clinical need, treatment cost, and incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER). Two-way interactions were also explored. RESULTS: A total of 103 recommendations were included. Eleven were resubmissions, all of which received a positive recommendation. Among new submissions (n = 92), DRDs that were safe or offered improvements in clinical or patient reported outcomes were more likely to receive positive reimbursement recommendations. No associations between recommendation type and daily treatment cost, cost-effectiveness, or condition (cancer or non-cancer) were found. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical effectiveness, as opposed to economic considerations or whether the drug is indicated for cancer or non-cancer, determine the type of reimbursement recommendation.

Evaluating Canadians' Values for Drug Coverage Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Decision makers are facing growing challenges in prioritizing drugs for reimbursement because of soaring drug costs and increasing pressures on financial resources. In addition to cost and effectiveness, payers are using other values to dictate which drugs are prioritized for funding, yet there are limited data on the Canadian public's priorities. OBJECTIVES: To measure the relative societal importance of values considered most relevant in informing drug reimbursement decisions in a representative sample of Canadians. METHODS: An online survey of 2539 Canadians aged 19 years and older was performed in which 13 values used in drug funding prioritization were ranked and then weighted using an analytic hierarchy process. RESULTS: Canadians value safe and efficacious drugs that have certainty of evidence. The values ranked in the top 5 by most of our subjects were potential effect on quality of life (65.4%), severity of the disease (62.6%), ability of drug to work (61.1%), safety (60.5%), and potential to extend life (49.4%). Values related to patient or disease characteristics such as rarity, socioeconomic status, and health and lifestyle choices held the lowest rankings and weights. CONCLUSIONS: Canadians value, above all, treatment-related factors (eg, efficacy and safety) and disease-related factors (eg, severity and equity). Decision makers are currently using additional justifications to prioritize drugs for reimbursement, such as rarity and unmet need, which were not found to be highly valued by Canadians. Decision makers should integrate the public's values into a Canadian reimbursement framework for prioritization of drugs competing for limited funds.

The possibility of obtaining marketing authorization of orphan pharmaceutical compounding preparations: 3,4-DAP for Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical compounding preparations, produced by (hospital) pharmacies, usually do not have marketing authorization. As a consequence, some of these pharmaceutical compounding preparations can be picked-up by a pharmaceutical company to obtain marketing authorization, often leading to price increases. An example is the 3,4-diaminopyridine slow release (3,4-DAP SR) tablets for Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome (LEMS). In 2009 marketing authorization was given for the commercial immediate release phosphate salt of the drug, including a fifty-fold price increase compared to the pharmaceutical compounding preparation. Obtaining marketing authorization for 3,4-DAP SR by academia might have been a solution to prevent this price increase. To determine whether the available data of a pharmaceutical compounding preparation with long-term experience in regular care are adequate to obtain marketing authorization, 3,4-DAP SR is used as a case study. METHODS: A retrospective qualitative case-study was performed. Initially, document analysis was executed by collecting the required data for marketing authorization in general and whether data of Firdapse® and 3,4-DAP SR met these requirements. Secondly, the (non-) available data of the two formulations were compared with each other to determine the differences in availability. RESULTS: At the time of approval, almost all data were available for both Firdapse® and 3,4-DAP SR. Conversely, much of the data used for the approval of Firdapse® originated from the 3,4-DAP immediate release (3,4-DAP IR) formulation. Only two bioequivalence studies and one pharmacology safety study was performed with Firdapse® before marketing authorization application. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, at time Firdapse® obtained approval, the data available did not differ substantially from 3,4-DAP SR, indicating that approval with 3,4-DAP SR would have been possible. We make a plea for approval of orphan medicinal products developed and manufactured by academic institutions as to keep utilization of these products affordable.

Impact of biomarker usage on oncology drug development.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The increasing cost of drug research and development and the decreasing number of new drugs being launched are serious issues for pharmaceutical companies. Biomarkers for predicting drug effectiveness are regarded as useful tools for combating these trends. However, the extent to which these biomarkers actually help in improving drug development is unclear. Here, we investigated the efficiency of biomarker usage in oncology drug development by focusing on stratification markers. METHODS: Anti-tumour agents for which clinical studies were initiated between 1998 and 2009 were identified using commercially available data sources, and clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov were examined to identify the use of stratification marker. Phase transition probability for each clinical phase was calculated and analysed along with various other factors that may affect the efficiency of the development process. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of 908 anti-tumour agents identified, 121 (13·3%) utilized stratification markers in their clinical studies. Phase I, II and III transition probabilities for all agents were 76·4%, 50·8% and 58·5%, respectively. Corresponding Phase I, II and III transition probabilities of agents developed with stratification markers of 90·4%, 69·0% and 85·0%, respectively, were significantly higher than those for agents without stratification markers. Orphan designation positively affected phase transition probabilities of agents without stratification markers in all phases, while it did not affect transition probabilities of agents with stratification markers, except for Phase II. This shows that stratification markers help improve the probability of success in the development of agents without orphan designation. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Stratification markers contribute to improving the efficiency of development of anti-cancer drugs. The majority of non-orphan drugs are still being developed without stratification markers. Finding reliable stratification markers for all drugs should improve the success rates in drug development.

Rare lung disease and orphan drug development.

Rare diseases are a major health-care burden worldwide. Very little is known about the cause, behaviour, and treatment of these disorders, and thus non-specialist health-care providers and patients are left without sufficient knowledge to manage these diseases. Up to 3 million Europeans are estimated to have a rare lung disease. Several organisations-many of which are patient led-attempt to raise the profile of rare lung diseases to improve understanding and management of these disorders. Incentives have now been introduced in the USA and Europe that encourage the pharmaceutical industry to invest in targets that might otherwise not appeal because of small target populations. Despite many intrinsic challenges and obstacles, considerable progress is constantly being made in the research and development of drugs for rare disorders.

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.