Acceleration of rare disease therapeutic development: a case study of AGIL-AADC.

Rare-disease drug development is both scientifically and commercially challenging. This case study highlights Agilis Biotherapeutics (Agilis), a small private biotechnology company that has developed the most clinically advanced adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene therapy for the brain. In an international collaboration led by Agilis with National Taiwan University (NTU) Hospital and the Therapeutics for Rare and Neglected Diseases (TRND) program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) at the National Institutes of Health, Agilis' gene therapy for aromatic l-amino acid decarboxylase deficiency (AADC), AGIL-AADC, was granted biologics license application (BLA)-ready status by the FDA in 2018, only 18 months after being licensed from NTU by Agilis. Here, we highlight the factors that enabled this remarkable pace of successful drug development for an ultra-rare disease.

New Business Models to Accelerate Innovation in Pediatric Oncology Therapeutics: A Review.

Importance: Few patient populations are as helpless and in need of advocacy as children with cancer. Pharmaceutical companies have historically faced significant financial disincentives to pursue pediatric oncology therapeutics, including low incidence, high costs of conducting pediatric trials, and a lack of funding for early-stage research. Observations: Review of published studies of pediatric oncology research and the cost of drug development, as well as clinical trials of pediatric oncology therapeutics at ClinicalTrials.gov, identified 77 potential drug development projects to be included in a hypothetical portfolio. The returns of this portfolio were simulated so as to compute the financial returns and risk. Simulated business strategies include combining projects at different clinical phases of development, obtaining partial funding from philanthropic grants, and obtaining government guarantees to reduce risk. The purely private-sector portfolio exhibited expected returns ranging from -24.2% to 10.2%, depending on the model variables assumed. This finding suggests significant financial disincentives for pursuing pediatric oncology therapeutics and implies that financial support from the public and philanthropic sectors is essential. Phase diversification increases the likelihood of a successful drug and yielded expected returns of -5.3% to 50.1%. Standard philanthropic grants had a marginal association with expected returns, and government guarantees had a greater association by reducing downside exposure. An assessment of a proposed venture philanthropy fund demonstrated stronger performance than the purely private-sector-funded portfolio or those with traditional amounts of philanthropic support. Clinical Relevance: A combination of financial and business strategies has the potential to maximize expected return while eliminating some downside risk-in certain cases enabling expected returns as high as 50.1%-that can overcome current financial disincentives and accelerate the development of pediatric oncology therapeutics.

Re-inventing drug development: A case study of the I-SPY 2 breast cancer clinical trials program.

BACKGROUND: In this case study, we profile the I-SPY 2 TRIAL (Investigation of Serial studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging And molecular anaLysis 2), a unique breast cancer clinical trial led by researchers at 20 leading cancer centers across the US, and examine its potential to serve as a model of drug development for other disease areas. This multicenter collaboration launched in 2010 to reengineer the drug development process to be more efficient and patient-centered. METHODS: We conduct several interviews with the I-SPY leadership as well as a literature review of relevant publications to assess the I-SPY 2 initiative. RESULTS: To date, six drugs have graduated from I-SPY 2, identified as excellent candidates for phase 3 trials in their corresponding tumor subtype, and several others have been or are still being evaluated. These trials are also more efficient, typically involving fewer subjects and reaching conclusions more quickly, and candidates have more than twice the predicted likelihood of success in a smaller phase 3 setting compared to traditional trials. CONCLUSIONS: We observe that I-SPY 2 possesses several novel features that could be used as a template for more efficient and cost effective drug development, namely its adaptive trial design; precompetitive network of stakeholders; and flexible infrastructure to accommodate innovation.