Public sector replacement of privately funded pharmaceutical R&D: cost and efficiency considerations.

AIMS: Economic studies have found that public support of basic medical research provides important long-term benefits. In response to suggestions that private pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) funding could be totally replaced by public funding, we investigate the economic implications of such a substitution in funding roles that maintain the recent pace of pharmaceutical innovation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total lifecycle R&D costs were estimated using the latest available R&D expenditures per novel molecule entering clinical trials, likelihood of approval, pre-clinical and post-approval expenditures, using a published survey and a review of publicly available financial accounts from US-listed multinational developers. This estimate was then stratified by the average number of annual FDA approvals to estimate total costs of R&D funding born by the private sector. RESULTS: We find total lifecycle R&D costs were US$2.83 billion per approved medicine. Estimated uncapitalized costs to replace private R&D funding for one year of FDA approvals were $139.6 billion. These additional costs are equivalent to 302% of the entire National Institute for Health 2022 budget of $46.2 billion, and around 25 times NIH's estimated annual $5.6 billion currently dedicated to clinical research trials for pharmaceuticals. Further assessing the policy proposition through a literature review, we found little evidence for improvements in economic efficiency via public funding substitution, while there may be additional challenges including asymmetric information, adverse selection, yardstick competition, hold-up, under-rewarding of incremental innovation and political rent-seeking. LIMITATIONS: Our calculations may undervalue full replacement costs, by excluding non-R&D expenses for manufacturing, distribution, or financing. CONCLUSIONS: The bulk of investment in R&D is underwritten by the private sector. Political discourse portraying the NIH as the central force in bringing a new drug to market may underappreciate the pivotal role of private at-risk capital. Replacing such investment while maintaining the current innovation output in terms of approved therapies would necessitate substantial increases in taxpayer financing.

Understanding the impact of slowing disease progression for individuals with biomarker-confirmed early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease.

Recent advances in development of amyloid-targeting therapies support the potential to slow the rate of progression of Alzheimer's disease. We conducted a narrative review of published evidence identified through a targeted search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (2020-2023), recent presentations at disease-specific conferences, and data updates from cohort studies in Alzheimer's disease to describe the trajectory of the progression of Alzheimer's disease. Our findings enable the interpretation of clinical trial results and the value associated with slowing disease progression across outcomes of relevance to patients, care partners, clinicians, researchers and policymakers. Even at the earliest stages, Alzheimer's disease imposes a substantial burden on individuals, care partners, and healthcare systems. The magnitude of the burden increases with the rate of disease progression and symptom severity, as worsening cognitive decline and physical impairment result in loss of functional independence. Data from cohort studies also indicate that slowing disease progression is associated with decreased likelihood of needing extensive clinical care over at least 5 years, decreased care partner burden, and substantial individual and societal cost savings. Slowed disease progression is of significant benefit to individuals with Alzheimer's disease, their loved ones, and the healthcare system. As clinicians and policymakers devise strategies to improve access to treatment earlier in the disease spectrum, they should carefully weigh the benefits of slowing progression early in the disease (e.g. preservation of cognitive and functional abilities, as well as relative independence) to individuals, their loved ones, and broader society.

New Vaccine Platforms-Novel Dimensions of Economic and Societal Value and Their Measurement.

The COVID-19 pandemic's dramatic impact has been a vivid reminder that vaccines-especially in the context of infectious respiratory viruses-provide enormous societal value, well beyond the healthcare system perspective which anchors most Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) evaluation frameworks. Furthermore, the development of modified ribonucleic acid-based (mRNA-based) and nanoparticle vaccine technologies has brought into focus several new value drivers previously absent from the discourse on vaccines as public health interventions such as increased vaccine adaptation capabilities, the improved ability to develop combination vaccines, and more efficient vaccine manufacturing and production processes. We review these novel value dimensions and discuss how they might be measured and incorporated within existing value frameworks using existing methods. To realize the full potential of next-generation vaccine platforms and ensure their widespread availability across populations and health systems, it is important that value frameworks utilized by HTAs and NITAGs properly reflect the full range of benefits for population health and well-being and cost efficiencies that these new vaccines platforms provide.

Real-world treatment, dosing, and discontinuation patterns among patients treated with pegvaliase for phenylketonuria: Evidence from dispensing data.

Background: Phenylketonuria (PKU) is an inborn metabolic error characterized by a deficiency of the enzyme required for the metabolism of phenylalanine, an essential amino acid found in most protein-containing foods. Pegvaliase (Palynziq®) is an enzyme substitution therapy approved for adults with PKU who have inadequate blood phenylalanine control (≥600 µmol/L) on existing management. Objective: To characterize the treatment, discontinuation, and dosing patterns in patients treated with pegvaliase in real-world practice settings in the United States following commercial availability in 2018. Study design: Retrospective cohort study using BioMarin's proprietary drug dispense database associated with the pegvaliase REMS program. Methods: Sample construction identified all patients who properly initiated pegvaliase in real world settings ('full cohort') and a subset of patients ('extended follow-up cohort') with ≥12 months between first dispense of maximum dose and last pegvaliase dispense. Key outcomes were quantified across patients in both cohorts: maximum daily dose; time to maximum daily dose; maximum daily syringes; and dose escalation over time. The overall dose at discontinuation and time to discontinuation were calculated. Patients who subsequently reinitiated therapy were identified. For the extended follow-up cohort, 12-month changes in dose and syringes and dispensing gaps during the 12 months after maximum dose were quantified across all patients and were further stratified by maximum dose. Results: Overall, 1596 patients associated with 33,814 dispenses were reflected in the pegvaliase dispense dataset during the study period from July 9, 2018, through December 31, 2021; 1280 patients associated with 25,973 dispenses met inclusion criteria for the full cohort, with 19.9 dispenses each on average. Of these patients, 483 patients associated with 15,149 dispenses also met the extended follow-up criteria, with an average of 31.4 dispenses.Average treatment duration in the full cohort was 82.2 weeks, including 50.8 weeks after maximum daily dose was achieved. The average maximum daily dose was 30 mg with an average time to maximum dose of 31.8 weeks: 43.0% of patients had a maximum dose of 20 mg, 31.3% a maximum dose of 40 mg, and 12.0% a maximum dose of 60 mg. At data cut-off, 289 patients (22.6%) had discontinued; within this group, 126 patients (43.6%) discontinued within the first 6 months after reaching maximum dose.The overall average treatment duration for patients in the extended follow up cohort at data cut off was 131.2 weeks, including 98.6 weeks after maximum dose was achieved. The average maximum daily dose across the cohort was 32.9 mg: 42.4% of patients had a maximum dose of 20 mg, 41.0% a maximum dose of 40 mg, and 11.2% a maximum dose of 60 mg. At 12 months after achieving maximum dose, 35% of patients had down-dosed, with a 46.8% decrease (on average) from their maximum dose. Conclusions: Real-world use of pegvaliase reflects longer titration periods than in the dosing schedule based on trial experience. Over time, a substantial number of patients are able to reduce their daily dose by titrating down from their maximum dose, a finding of great interest to clinicians and patients alike.