Changes in the Number of Continuation Patents on Drugs Approved by the FDA.

This study assesses the frequency of continuation patents on brand-name drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2000 to 2015.

The Pharmaceutical Industry in 2021. An Analysis of FDA Drug Approvals from the Perspective of Molecules.

Similar to last year, 2021 will be remembered for the COVID-19 pandemic. Although five vaccines have been approved by the two most important drug regulatory agencies, namely the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the pandemic has still not been brought under control. However, despite the context of a global pandemic, 2021 has been an excellent year with respect to drug approvals by the FDA. In 2021, 50 drugs have been authorized, making it the fourth-best year after 2018 (59 drugs) and 1996 and 2020 (53 each). Regarding biologics, 2021 has been the third-best year to date, with 14 approvals, and it has also witnessed the authorization of 36 small molecules. Of note, nine peptides, eight monoclonal antibodies, two antibody-drug conjugates, and two oligonucleotides have been approved this year. From them, five of the molecules are pegylated and three of them highly pegylated. The presence of nitrogen aromatic heterocycles and/or fluorine atoms are once again predominant among the so-called small molecules. This report analyzes the 50 new drugs approved in 2021 from a chemical perspective, as it did for those authorized in the previous five years. On the basis of chemical structure alone, the drugs that received approval in 2021 are classified as the following: biologics (antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, enzymes, and pegylated proteins); TIDES (peptide and oligonucleotides); combined drugs; natural products; nitrogen aromatic heterocycles; fluorine-containing molecules; and other small molecules.

Racial representation in clinical trials for dermatological new molecular entities.

Under-representation of ethnic minorities in clinical research has major implications for equality of access to current treatments in the field of dermatology. To determine whether there has been equitable representation of black individuals in the clinical trials for dermatological new molecular entities (NMEs) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 2015, we analysed data from the FDA Drug Trials Snapshots programme from January 2015 to the present. During this period, there was significant under-representation of black participants in clinical trials for NMEs treating acne vulgaris, plaque psoriasis, actinic keratosis and squamous cell carcinoma. These findings highlight the need to prioritize representation of ethnic minorities in clinical trials to enhance clinical practice in the field of dermatology and to improve the care and health of minorities.

Characteristics of Cost-effectiveness Studies for Oncology Drugs Approved in the United States From 2015-2020.

Importance: Increasingly, cost-effectiveness analyses are being done to determine the value of rapidly increasing oncology drugs; however, this assumes that these analyses are unbiased. Objective: To analyze the characteristics of cost-effectiveness studies and to determine characteristics associated with whether an oncology drug is found to be cost-effective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 254 cost-effectiveness analyses for 116 oncology drugs that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2015 to 2020. Exposures: Each drug was analyzed for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year, the funding of the study, the authors' conflict of interest, the threshold of willingness-to-pay, from what country's perspective the analysis was done, and whether a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness analysis had been done. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective. Results: There were 116 drug approvals with 254 studies and country perspectives. Of the country perspectives, 132 (52%) were from the US. Forty-seven of 78 drugs with cost-effective studies had been shown to improve overall survival, whereas 15 of 38 of drugs without a cost-effectiveness study had been shown to improve overall survival. Having a study funded by a pharmaceutical company was associated with higher odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective than studies without funding (odds ratio, 41.36; 95% CI, 11.86-262.23). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, pharmaceutical funding was associated with greater odds that an oncology drug would be found to be cost-effective. These findings suggest that simply disclosing potential conflict of interest is inadequate. We encourage cost-effectiveness analyses by independent groups.

Real-world Use of and Spending on New Oral Targeted Cancer Drugs in the US, 2011-2018.

Importance: Launch prices of new cancer drugs in the US have substantially increased in recent years despite growing concerns about the quantity and quality of evidence supporting their approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Objective: To assess the use of and spending on new oral targeted cancer drugs among US residents with employer-sponsored insurance between 2011 and 2018, stratified by the strength of available evidence of benefit. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, dispensing claims for oral targeted cancer drugs first approved by the FDA between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were analyzed. The number of patients with drugs dispensed and the total payment for all claims were aggregated by calendar year, and these outcomes were arrayed according to evidence underlying FDA approvals, including pivotal study design (availability of randomized clinical trials) and overall survival (OS) benefit, as documented in drug labels. This study was conducted from July 17, 2019, to July 23, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual and cumulative numbers of patients who had dispensing events, and annual and cumulative sums of payment for eligible drugs. Results: Of 37 348 patients who had at least 1 of the 44 new oral targeted drugs dispensed between 2011 and 2018, 21 324 were men (57.1%); mean (SD) age was 64.1 (13.1) years. Most individuals (36 246 [97.0%]) received drugs for which evidence from randomized clinical trials existed; however, a growing share of patients received drugs without documented OS benefit during the study period: from 12.7% in 2011 to 58.8% in 2018. Cumulative spending on all sample drugs totaled $3.5 billion by the end of 2018, of which 96.8% was spent on drugs that were approved based on a pivotal randomized clinical trial. Cumulative spending on drugs without documented OS benefit ($1.8 billion [51.6%]) surpassed that on drugs with documented OS benefit ($1.7 billion [48.4%]) by the end of 2018. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that drugs used for treatment of cancer without documented OS benefits are adopted in the health system and account for substantial spending.

2020 in review: FDA approvals of new medicines.

Amid a global pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) remained relatively active, approving 55novel molecular entities (NMEs) in 2020, the third highest annual rate recorded. Orphan approvals also surged, capturing 60% of NMEs introduced during 2020, as did the number of NMEs approved using a priority review. The pandemic did appear to impact one recent trend, and in a paradoxically encouraging way. Escalating rates of consolidation slowed in 2020, with only 102 companies lost, down by two-thirds over the rate in 2019. This leaves 2000 extant clinical-stage pharmaceutical companies. When limiting this analysis to companies contributing to the research and development (R&D) of an approved drug, eight were lost, leaving 144 extant.

Patient Participation in Clinical Trials of Oncology Drugs and Biologics Preceding Approval by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Importance: Several studies have estimated the financial inputs for successful drug development. Such analyses do not capture the large investment that patient study participants commit to drug development. Objective: To estimate the volume of patients required to achieve a first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for a new anticancer drug or biologic therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included a random sample of prelicense oncology drugs and biologics with a trial site in the United States that were launched into clinical efficacy testing between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010. Drugs and biologics were identified using ClinicalTrials.gov registration records. Total patient enrollment was captured over an 8-year span, and each intervention was classified based on whether it received FDA approval and was deemed as having intermediate or substantial value according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) score. Secondarily, the association between patient numbers and intervention characteristics was tested. Data were analyzed in February 2020. Main Outcomes and Measure: The prespecified primary outcome was the number of patients enrolled in prelicense trials per FDA approval. Results: A total of 120 drugs and biologics were included in our study, with 84 (70.0%) targeted agents, 20 (16.7%) immunotherapies, and 71 (59.2%) novel agents. A total of 13 drugs and biologics (10.8%; 95% CI, 5.3%-16.8%) in our sample gained FDA approval within 8 years, of which 1 (7.7%) was deemed of intermediate value and 3 (23.1%) were deemed of substantial value using ASCO-VF scoring. Overall, 158 810 patients were enrolled in 1335 trials testing these drugs and biologics, 47 913 (30.2%) in trials that led to FDA approval and 110 897 (69.8%) in trials that did not. An estimated 12 217 (95% CI, 7970-22 215) patient study participants contributed to prelicense trials per FDA approval. The estimated number of patients needed to produce a single FDA-approved drug or biologic of intermediate or substantial ASCO-VF clinical value was 39 703 (95% CI, 19 391-177 991). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study make visible the substantial patient investment required for prelicense oncology drug development. Such analyses can be used to devise policies that maximize the clinical impact of research on a per-patient basis.

Does biomarker use in oncology improve clinical trial failure risk? A large-scale analysis.

PURPOSE: To date there has not been an extensive analysis of the outcomes of biomarker use in oncology. METHODS: Data were pooled across four indications in oncology drawing upon trial outcomes from www.clinicaltrials.gov: breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma and colorectal cancer from 1998 to 2017. We compared the likelihood drugs would progress through the stages of clinical trial testing to approval based on biomarker status. This was done with multi-state Markov models, tools that describe the stochastic process in which subjects move among a finite number of states. RESULTS: Over 10000 trials were screened, which yielded 745 drugs. The inclusion of biomarker status as a covariate significantly improved the fit of the Markov model in describing the drug trajectories through clinical trial testing stages. Hazard ratios based on the Markov models revealed the likelihood of drug approval with biomarkers having nearly a fivefold increase for all indications combined. A 12, 8 and 7-fold hazard ratio was observed for breast cancer, melanoma and NSCLC, respectively. Markov models with exploratory biomarkers outperformed Markov models with no biomarkers. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic statistical evidence that biomarkers clearly increase clinical trial success rates in three different indications in oncology. Also, exploratory biomarkers, long before they are properly validated, appear to improve success rates in oncology. This supports early and aggressive adoption of biomarkers in oncology clinical trials.

QT Prolongation Risk Assessment in Oncology: Lessons Learned From Small-Molecule New Drug Applications Approved During 2011-2019.

The International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) E14 guidance provides recommendations to assess the potential of a drug to delay cardiac repolarization (QT prolongation), including general guidelines for cases in which a conventional thorough QT study (TQT) might not be feasible. These guidelines have been updated through the ICH question-and-answer process, with the last revision in 2015. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of QT prolongation evaluation of small-molecule new drug applications (NDAs) approved in oncology between 2011 and 2019 to extract learning experience. The following information was analysed: (1) methods to assess QT prolongation, (2) electrocardiogram data collection, (3) QT-related label language, and (4) postmarketing requirements. Overall, every NDA included a QT assessment. The concentration-QTc modeling approach (studies in which QT was not the primary objective) was the most common approach (59%), followed by the TQT and the dedicated QT studies (20% and 21%, respectively). The quality and quantity of the QT assessments were different across NDAs, which suggested relatively large flexibility in the designs and approaches to characterizing QT liability. The QT-related label language reflected the QT results, but also the safety events and the study design limitations because of the oncology settings. There was no delay in approval because of less robust QTc studies as long as the benefit-to-risk ratio of the drug was acceptable, and the implications were reflected in the label. This work offers a structured understanding of the QT evaluation criteria by the Food and Drug Administration and can assist in planning QT prolongation assessments in oncology settings.

Development and economic trends in anticancer drugs licensed in the UK from 2015 to 2019.

Analysis of new anticancer drugs licensed in the UK found that 44 new therapies were approved from 2015 to 2019. No other 5-year period has produced as many new therapies. Most new drugs are kinase inhibitors (KIs, N=18) and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs, N=16) with only one classical cytotoxic chemotherapy (CC) licensed. The average median treatment duration has risen by 55 days to 318 days (263 days in 2010-2014). Drug costs have escalated; an average treatment course now costs £62 343, compared to £35 383 in 2010-2014. New drugs are delivering significant clinical benefits with longer treatment durations. However, the financial burden is greater, heralding economic challenges for healthcare providers.

Evolving Landscape of New Drug Approval in Japan and Lags from International Birth Dates: Retrospective Regulatory Analysis.

The Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) has approved hundreds of new drugs in recent years. We retrospectively analyzed the new drugs approved in Japan from 2008 to 2019, and identify the first-in-world approvals and clarify the current drug lag. The new drug and the drug lag were defined as a drug with a new active substance and a difference between the approval date in Japan and the international birth date, respectively. Among 400 new drugs approved in Japan during the last 12 years, 80 (20.0%) were first approved in Japan, and 320 were outside Japan (the United States: 202, 50.5%; Europe: 82, 20.5%; other regions: 36, 9.0%). Of these, 45 new drugs have not yet been approved outside Japan, and the remaining 355 have been globally approved in Japan and overseas. The number of new drug approvals were the largest in oncology followed by metabolic/endocrine and infectious diseases. The median drug lags (year) among all 400 new drugs and 355 new drugs with global approvals were 4.3 and 4.7 in the first tertile (2008-2011), 1.5 and 2.6 in the second tertile (2012-2015), and reduced to 1.3 and 2.2 in the third tertile (2016-2019), respectively. Substantial drug lag remains in neurology, psychiatry, and therapeutic areas where the number of new drug approvals was relatively small. Collectively, one-fifth of the new drugs approved in Japan are first-in-world approvals. Drug lag has been greatly decreased, although it still exists.

Assessment of Clinical Trials Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents, 1995-2017.

Importance: Since the introduction of the Fast Track designation in 1988, the number of special regulatory programs available for the approval of new drugs and biologics by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increased, offering the agency flexibility with respect to evidentiary requirements. Objective: To characterize pivotal efficacy trials supporting the approval of new drugs and biologics during the past 3 decades. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included 273 new drugs and biologics approved by the FDA for 339 indications from 1995 to 1997, from 2005 to 2007, and from 2015 to 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Therapeutics were classified by product type and therapeutic area as well as orphan designation and use of special regulatory programs, such as Priority Review and Accelerated Approval. Pivotal trials were characterized by use of randomization, blinding, types of comparators, primary end points, number of treated patients, and trial duration, both individually and aggregated by each indication approval. Results: A total of 273 new drugs and biologics were approved by the FDA in these 3 periods (107 [39.2%] in 1995-1997; 57 [20.9%] in 2005-2007; and 109 [39.9%] in 2015-2017), representing 339 indications (157 [46.3%], 64 [18.9%], and 118 [34.8%], respectively). The proportion of therapeutic approvals using at least 1 special regulatory program increased (37 [34.6%] in 1995-1997; 33 [57.9%] in 2005-2007; and 70 [64.2%] in 2015-2017), as did indication approvals receiving an orphan designation (20 [12.7%] in 1995-1997; 17 [26.6%] in 2005-2007, and 45 [38.1%] in 2015-2017). The most common therapeutic areas differed over time (infectious disease, 53 [33.8%] in 1995-1997 vs cancer, 32 [27.1%] in 2015-2017). When considering the aggregate pivotal trials supporting each indication approval, the proportion of indications supported by at least 2 pivotal trials decreased (80.6% [95% CI, 72.6%-87.2%] in 1995-1997; 60.3% [95% CI, 47.2%-72.4%] in 2005-2007; and 52.8% [95% CI, 42.9%-62.6%] in 2015-2017; P < .001). The proportion of indications supported by only single-group pivotal trials increased (4.0% [95% CI, 1.3%-9.2%] in 1995-1997; 12.7% [95% CI, 5.6%-23.5%] in 2005-2007; and 17.0% [95% CI, 10.4%-25.5%] in 2015-2017; P = .001), whereas the proportion supported by at least 1 pivotal trial of 6 months' duration increased (25.8% [95% CI, 18.4%-34.4%] in 1995-1997; 34.9% [95% CI, 23.3%-48.0%] in 2005-2007; and 46.2% [95% CI, 36.5%-56.2%] in 2015-2017; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, more recent FDA approvals of new drugs and biologics were based on fewer pivotal trials, which, when aggregated by indication, had less rigorous designs but longer trial durations, suggesting an ongoing need for continued evaluation of therapeutic safety and efficacy after approval.

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.