Maximizing insights from nonclinical safety studies in the context of rising costs and changing regulations.

The traditional paradigm of non-rodent safety assessment studies, primarily reliant on non-human primates (NHPs) and dogs, is undergoing a transformation. During the 2023 Safety Pharmacology Society Annual Meeting, scientists from leading nonclinical contract organizations discussed how traditional IND-enabling studies can benefit from employing underutilized alternative non-rodent models, such as the swine. Swine offer a cost-effective approach to drug development and share many anatomical and physiological similarities with humans. The inclusion of non-traditional species in safety assessments, coupled with advanced measurement techniques, aids in de-risking compounds early on and adapting projects to the evolving cost landscape.

Costs of Drug Development and Research and Development Intensity in the US, 2000-2018.

Importance: Understanding the cost of drug development can help inform the development of policies to reduce costs, encourage innovation, and improve patient access to drugs. Objective: To estimate the cost of drug development by therapeutic class and trends in pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) intensity over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation study, an analytical model of drug development constructed using public and proprietary sources that collectively cover data from 2000 to 2018 was used to estimate the cost of bringing a drug to market, overall and for specific therapeutic classes. The analysis for the study was completed in October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three measures of development cost from nonclinical through postmarketing stages were estimated: mean out-of-pocket cost or cash outlay, mean expected cost, and mean expected capitalized cost. Pharmaceutical R&D intensity, defined as the ratio of R&D spending to total sales, from 2008 to 2019, based on the time frame for available data, was also analyzed. Results: The estimated mean cost of developing a new drug was approximately $172.7 million (2018 dollars) (range, $72.5 million for genitourinary to $297.2 million for pain and anesthesia), inclusive of postmarketing studies. The cost increased to $515.8 million when cost of failures was included. When the costs of failures and capital were included, the mean expected capitalized cost of drug development increased to $879.3 million (range, $378.7 million for anti-infectives to $1756.2 million for pain and anesthesia); results varied widely by therapeutic class. The pharmaceutical industry as a whole experienced a decline of 15.6% in sales but increased R&D intensity from 11.9% to 17.7% from 2008 to 2019. By contrast, R&D intensity of large pharmaceutical companies increased from 16.6% to 19.3%, whereas sales increased by 10.0% (from $380.0 to $418.0 billion) over the same 2008 to 2019 period, even though the cost of drug development remained relatively stable or may have even decreased. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation of new drug development costs, even though the cost of drug development appears to have remained stable, R&D intensity of large pharmaceutical companies remained relatively unchanged, despite substantial growth in revenues during this period. These findings can inform the design of drug-related policies and their potential impacts on innovation and competition.

Commentary: Reconsidering Pharmaceutical Research and Development Investments.

Following Lee and colleagues' (2023) article explaining how Canadians are being shortchanged by drug companies when it comes to investments in research and development (R&D), this rejoinder adds context and appends two other very problematic elements in the debate between wishful narratives over the industry's contribution in R&D and actual numbers. First, even the current stricter definition of R&D investment might simply be too large considering that elements such as seeding trials - a well-known marketing device - can be accounted for as R&D expenditures. Second, this rejoinder identifies how Statistics Canada acted in concert with Innovative Medicines Canada to reinforce the industry's preferred narratives around R&D expenditures. This situation puts into question the trustworthiness of Canada's statistical agency.

Assessing the Financial Value of Decentralized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Deployment of remote and virtual clinical trial methods and technologies, referred to collectively as decentralized clinical trials (DCTs), represents a profound shift in clinical trial practice. To our knowledge, a comprehensive assessment of the financial net benefits of DCTs has not been conducted. METHODS: We developed an expected net present value (eNPV) model of the cash flows for new drug development and commercialization to assess the financial impact of DCTs. The measure of DCT value is the increment in eNPV that occurs, on average, when DCT methods are employed in comparison to when they are not. The model is populated with parameter values taken from published studies, Tufts CSDD benchmark data, and Medable Inc. data on DCT projects. We also calculated the return on investment (ROI) in DCTs as the ratio of the increment in eNPV to the DCT implementation cost. RESULTS: We found substantial value from employing DCT methods in phase II and phase III trials. If we assume that DCT methods are applied to both phase II and phase III trials the increase in value is $20 million per drug that enters phase II, with a seven-fold ROI. CONCLUSIONS: DCTs can provide substantial extra value to sponsors developing new drugs, with high returns to investment in these technologies. Future research on this topic should focus on expanding the data to larger datasets and on additional aspects of clinical trial operations not currently measured.

The actual status of drug prices and adjustment factors for drug price calculation: an analysis of ultra-orphan drug development in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Extremely high prices facilitate drug development for ultra-rare diseases (ultra-orphan drugs). However, various problems arise in terms of healthcare financing and fairness, and the status of ultra-orphan drug pricing remains ambiguous. In this study, we investigated ultra-orphan drug prices in Japan relative to that of other drugs. We examined the relationship between annual expected drug prices and expected sales, and the expected number of patients, for 393 drugs containing new active ingredients for therapeutic use that were listed on the National Health Insurance drug price list in Japan between April 16, 2010 and August 26, 2020. In addition, we compared prices, the drug price calculation method, and price calculation adjustment factors for ultra-orphan and other drugs. RESULTS: Drug prices tended to increase as the expected number of patients to whom the drug was administered decreased; however, this trend diminished when the expected number of patients was less than 1000. On the other hand, the expected sales tended to decrease as the number of expected patients decreased, and this tendency was reinforced when the expected number of patients was less than 1000. The cost accounting method tended to be used for the price calculation of ultra-orphan drugs, but there were no price differences based on the drug price calculation method. Regarding the price calculation adjustment factors, the premium for usefulness tended to be higher for ultra-orphan drugs. The premium for marketability was higher for non-orphan drugs but did not differ from that for orphan drugs, except for ultra-orphan drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The status of drug prices and expected sales differed beyond a threshold of 1000 expected patients, indicating that recovering the development cost for ultra-orphan drugs is difficult. In addition, the higher premium for usefulness for ultra-orphan drugs reflects the largely unmet need of the associated diseases. Scarcity among orphan drugs is not considered for marketability, highlighting the need for a new framework to promote the development of ultra-orphan drugs.

Catalyzing momentum in male contraceptive development†.

Globally, nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Male contraceptives offer the potential to decrease unintended pregnancy and introduce contraceptive equity, but decades of research have yet to bring a novel product to market. New funding avenues from the philanthropic sector seek to stimulate research in male contraceptives through investments, grants, and support for trainees alongside other programs that encourage product development and ultimately commercialization. This Forum outlines the purpose of and funding opportunities provided by Male Contraceptive Initiative, a funding agency and non-profit focused on the advancement of non-hormonal, reversible contraceptive technologies for those who produce sperm.

Discovery and Development of Pregabalin (Lyrica): The Role of Public Funding.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pregabalin (Lyrica), a widely used drug that has generated billions in revenue as a treatment for diabetic neuropathy and other conditions, was originally discovered in an academic medical center, largely supported by public funding. We aimed to define the extent of direct federal public funding that contributed to various stages of pregabalin's development prior to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. METHODS: We identified key research, scientists, and organizations involved in the development of pregabalin from its discovery through FDA approval. Using key terms (e.g., its indications and mechanism of action), we searched PubMed for relevant publications and determined whether each publication was based on federal public funding using the NIH RePORTER. For each award prior to the drug's FDA approval, we scored its potential relatedness to pregabalin's development based on its title, investigator, and organization, and then examined descriptions of the most relevant awards to aid in defining these relationships. The budgets for all related awards were converted to 2020 dollars. RESULTS: Pregabalin was discovered largely on the basis of publicly funded research at Northwestern University; in 1990, it was licensed to Parke-Davis, which further developed it through its FDA approval in 2004. Most key terms were related to the drug and drug target (n = 5) and organizations involved (n = 5), followed by patent-listed inventors (n = 3). These key terms linked 6,438 core project awards and we identified 37 NIH awards related to pregabalin's development: 9 awards through 1990 ($3.3 million) and 28 from 1991 through 2004 ($10.5 million). CONCLUSION: Like that of many other widely sold medications, the development of pregabalin relied on public sector as well as industry contributions to its discovery, with relevant NIH awards totaling $13.8 million during its preapproval development.

Pharmaceutical drug development: high drug prices and the hidden role of public funding.

In 2019, the record for the most expensive drug was broken at US$2.1 million per patient. The high costs of new drugs are justified by the pharmaceutical industry as the expense required for maintaining research and development (R&D) pipelines. However, this does not take into account that globally the public pays for between one to two-thirds of upfront R&D costs through taxpayers or charitable donations. Governments are effectively paying twice for medicines; first through R&D, and then paying the high prices upon approval. High drug prices distort research priorities, emphasising financial gains and not health gains. In this manuscript, issues surrounding the current patent-based drug development model, public funding of research and pharmaceutical lobbying will be addressed. Finally, innovations in drug development to improve public health needs and guaranteeing medication access to patients will be explored.