Orphan Drugs Offer Larger Health Gains but Less Favorable Cost-effectiveness than Non-orphan Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Orphan drugs offer important therapeutic options to patients suffering from rare conditions, but are typically considerably more expensive than non-orphan drugs, leading to questions about their cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To compare the value of orphan and non-orphan drugs approved by the FDA from 1999 through 2015. DESIGN: We searched the PubMed database to identify estimates of incremental health gains (measured in quality-adjusted life-years, or QALYs) and incremental costs that were associated with orphan and non-orphan drugs compared with preexisting care. We excluded pharmaceutical industry-funded studies from the dataset. When a drug was approved for multiple indications, we considered each drug-indication pair separately. We then compared incremental QALY gains, incremental costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for orphan and non-orphan drugs using the Mann-Whitney U (MWU) test (to compare median values of the different distributions) and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test (to compare the shape of different distributions). RESULTS: We identified estimates for 49 orphan drug-indication pairs, and for 169 non-orphan drug-indication pairs. We found that orphan drug-indication pairs offered larger median incremental health gains than non-orphan drug-indication pairs (0.25 vs. 0.05 QALYs; MWU p = 0.0093, KS p = 0.02), but were associated with substantially higher costs ($47,652 vs. $2870; MWU p < 0.001, KS p < 0.001) and less favorable cost-effectiveness ($276,288 vs. $100,360 per QALY gained; MWU p = 0.0068, KS p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that orphan drugs often offer larger health gains than non-orphan drugs, but due to their substantially higher costs they tend to be less cost-effective than non-orphan drugs. Our findings highlight the challenge faced by health care payers to provide patients appropriate access to orphan drugs while achieving value from drug spending.

Are Medical Devices Cost-Effective?

OBJECTIVE: Medical devices can offer important therapeutic advances but, as for any medical interventions, there are questions about their costs and benefits. We examined health benefits and costs for pre-market approved (PMA) devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1999-2015), grouping them by generic category (e.g., drug-eluting stents) and indication. METHODS: We searched PubMed for incremental health gain estimates [measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and incremental costs for each device category compared to previously available treatments. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios by dividing the average incremental costs by the average incremental QALY gains. In sensitivity analysis, we repeated the analysis when excluding industry-funded studies. RESULTS: We identified at least one relevant cost-utility or comparative-effectiveness study for 88 devices (15.9% of non-cosmetic devices approved from 1999 to 2015), and at least one device across 53 (26.2%) generic categories. The median (mean) incremental cost across generic device categories was $1701 ($13,320). The median (mean) incremental health gain across generic device categories was 0.13 (0.46) QALYs. We found that cost-effectiveness ratios for 36 of 53 (68%) and 43 of 53 (81%) device categories fell below (were more favorable than) $50,000 and $150,000 per QALY, respectively. Results were roughly similar when we excluded industry-funded studies. CONCLUSIONS: We found that roughly one-quarter of the major PMA medical device categories have published cost-effectiveness evidence accessible through a large, publicly available database. Available evidence suggests that devices generally offer good value, as judged relative to established cost-effectiveness benchmarks.

Metagenomic analysis of apple orchard soil reveals antibiotic resistance genes encoding predicted bifunctional proteins.

To gain insight into the diversity and origins of antibiotic resistance genes, we identified resistance genes in the soil in an apple orchard using functional metagenomics, which involves inserting large fragments of foreign DNA into Escherichia coli and assaying the resulting clones for expressed functions. Among 13 antibiotic-resistant clones, we found two genes that encode bifunctional proteins. One predicted bifunctional protein confers resistance to ceftazidime and contains a natural fusion between a predicted transcriptional regulator and a beta-lactamase. Sequence analysis of the entire metagenomic clone encoding the predicted bifunctional beta-lactamase revealed a gene potentially involved in chloramphenicol resistance as well as a predicted transposase. A second clone that encodes a predicted bifunctional protein confers resistance to kanamycin and contains an aminoglycoside acetyltransferase domain fused to a second acetyltransferase domain that, based on nucleotide sequence, was predicted not to be involved in antibiotic resistance. This is the first report of a transcriptional regulator fused to a beta-lactamase and of an aminoglycoside acetyltransferase fused to an acetyltransferase not involved in antibiotic resistance.