Patent Portfolios Protecting 10 Top-Selling Prescription Drugs.

Importance: Brand-name drugs are sold at high prices in the US during market exclusivity periods protected by patents. Multiple overlapping patents protecting a drug are known as patent thickets and can effectively delay the emergence of price-lowering generic competition for many years. Objective: To evaluate the composition of patent thickets of 10 top-selling prescription drugs in the US and compare the characteristics of drug patents filed during development with those filed on these products after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Design and Setting: This cross-sectional study examined US patent thickets of the 10 prescription drugs with the highest US net sales revenue in 2021 using information on issued patents and patent applications as of June 30, 2022, obtained from a public database by the Initiative for Medicines, Access, and Knowledge. Data were analyzed from September 2022 to June 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of patents filed before and after FDA approval; types of claims present in issued patents (ie, chemical composition, method of use, process or synthesis, formulation, and delivery device); and patent thicket density (number of active patents at a given time). Results: The 10 top-selling prescription drugs in the US for 2021 included 4 small-molecule drugs and 6 biologics. These 10 drugs were linked to 1429 patents and patent applications: 742 (52%) issued patents, 218 (15%) pending applications, and 469 (33%) abandoned applications. Almost three-quarters of patent applications (1028 [72%]) were filed after FDA approval. The postapproval proportion was higher for biologics (80%) than for small-molecule drugs (58%). Postapproval filing of patent applications peaked in the first 5 years after FDA approval for small-molecule drugs and 12 years after FDA approval for biologics. Of 465 patents issued for applications filed after FDA approval, 189 (41%) had method of use claims, 127 (27%) had formulation claims, and 103 (22%) had process or synthesis claims, while 86 (19%) had chemical composition claims and 46 (10%) had device claims. Patent thicket density peaked 13 years after FDA approval, at which time these 10 drugs were protected by a median (IQR) of 42 (18-83) active patents, 66% of which were filed after FDA approval. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that among the 10 top-selling prescription drugs in the US in 2021, patents filed after FDA approval and containing claims covering aspects other than the active ingredient of the drug contributed to patent thickets. Scrutiny of patent applications and of patents filed after FDA approval is needed to facilitate timely generic or biosimilar competition.

How health technology assessment can help to address challenges in drug repurposing: a conceptual framework.

Drug repurposing faces various challenges that can impede its success. We developed a framework outlining key challenges in drug repurposing to explore when and how health technology assessment (HTA) methods can address them. We identified 20 drug-repurposing challenges across the categories of data access, research and development, collaboration, business case, regulatory and legal challenges. Early incorporation of HTA methods, including literature review, empirical research, stakeholder consultation, health economic evaluation and uncertainty assessment, can help to address these challenges. HTA methods canassess the value proposition of repurposed drugs, inform further research and ultimately help to bring cost-effective repurposed drugs to patients.

Regulating Laboratory Tests: What Framework Would Best Support Safety and Validity?

Policy Points With increasing public attention to cases of inaccurate and misleading laboratory-developed tests, there have been calls for regulatory reform. To protect patients from faulty laboratory tests, we need a framework that balances comprehensive test review with laboratory flexibility. The Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT [In Vitro Clinical Test] Development (VALID) Act would have helped ensure laboratory test safety and validity through a much-needed expansion of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight. However, Congress did not pass the VALID Act in 2022, forcing the FDA to start the regulatory reform process on its own.

Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) accelerated approval pathway allows approval of investigational drugs treating unmet medical needs based on changes to surrogate measures considered "reasonably likely" to predict clinical benefit. Postapproval clinical trials are then required to confirm whether these drugs offer clinical benefit. Objective: To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately demonstrate clinical benefit and to evaluate the basis of conversion to regular approval. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, publicly available FDA data were used to identify cancer drugs granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demonstrated improvement in quality of life or overall survival in accelerated approvals with more than 5 years of follow-up, as well as confirmatory trial end points and time to conversion for drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval. Results: A total of 129 cancer drug-indication pairs were granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Among 46 indications with more than 5 years of follow-up (approved 2013-2017), approximately two-thirds (29, 63%) were converted to regular approval, 10 (22%) were withdrawn, and 7 (15%) remained ongoing after a median of 6.3 years. Fewer than half (20/46, 43%) demonstrated a clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Time to withdrawal decreased from 9.9 years to 3.6 years, and time to regular approval increased from 1.6 years to 3.6 years. Among 48 drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval, 19 (40%) were converted based on overall survival, 21 (44%) on progression-free survival, 5 (10%) on response rate plus duration of response, 2 (4%) on response rate, and 1 (2%) despite a negative confirmatory trial. Comparing accelerated and regular approval indications, 18 of 48 (38%) were unchanged, while 30 of 48 (63%) had different indications (eg, earlier line of therapy). Conclusions and Relevance: Most cancer drugs granted accelerated approval did not demonstrate benefit in overall survival or quality of life within 5 years of accelerated approval. Patients should be clearly informed about the cancer drugs that use the accelerated approval pathway and do not end up showing benefits in patient-centered clinical outcomes.

Leah Z. Rand, Daniel P. Carpenter, Aaron S. Kesselheim, Anushka Bhaskar, Jonathan J. Darrow, and William B. Feldman Reply.

The authors respond to a letter by Mitchell Berger in the March-April 2024 issue of the Hastings Center Report concerning their essay "Securing the Trustworthiness of the FDA to Build Public Trust in Vaccines."

Clinical Value of Molecular Targets and FDA-Approved Genome-Targeted Cancer Therapies.

Importance: The number of new genome-targeted cancer drugs has increased, offering the possibility of personalized therapy, often at a very high cost. Objective: To assess the validity of molecular targets and therapeutic benefits of US Food and Drug Administration-approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on the outcomes of their corresponding pivotal clinical trials. Design and Settings: In this cohort study, all genome-targeted cancer drugs that were FDA-approved between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed. From FDA drug labels and trial reports, key characteristics of pivotal trials were extracted, including the outcomes assessed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit for their approved indications was evaluated using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Substantial clinical benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for curative intent and 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. Molecular targets qualifying for ESCAT category level I-A and I-B associated with substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS were rated as high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments. Results: A total of 50 molecular-targeted drugs covering 84 indications were analyzed. Forty-five indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or phase 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials, and 48 (57%) were approved on the basis of subgroup analyses. By each indication, 46 of 84 primary end points (55%) were overall response rate (median [IQR] overall response rate, 57% [40%-69%]; median [IQR] duration of response, 11.1 [9.2-19.8] months). Among the 84 pivotal trials supporting these 84 indications, 38 trials (45%) had I-A ESCAT targetability, and 32 (38%) had I-B targetability. Overall, 24 of 84 trials (29%) demonstrated substantial clinical benefit via ESMO-MCBS. Combining these ratings, 24 of 84 indications (29%) were associated with high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study demonstrate that among recently approved molecular-targeted cancer therapies, fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial patient benefits at approval. Benefit frameworks such as ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT can help physicians, patients, and payers identify therapies with the greatest clinical potential.

Changes in Use of Hepatitis C Direct-Acting Antivirals After Access Restrictions Were Eased by State Medicaid Programs.

Importance: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are safe and highly effective for curing hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, but their high cost led certain state Medicaid programs to impose coverage restrictions. Since 2015, many of these restrictions have been lifted voluntarily in response to advocacy or because of litigation. Objective: To estimate how the prescribing of DAAs to Medicaid patients changed after states eased access restrictions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This modified difference-in-differences analysis of 39 state Medicaid programs included Medicaid beneficiaries who were prescribed a DAA from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. DAA coverage restrictions were measured based on a series of cross-sectional assessments performed from 2014 through 2022 by the US National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable and the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation. Exposure: Calendar quarter when states eased or eliminated 3 types of DAA coverage restrictions: limiting treatment to patients with severe liver disease, restricting use among patients with active substance use, and requiring prescriptions to be written by or in consultation with specialists. States with none of these restrictions at baseline were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quarterly number of HCV DAA treatment courses per 100 000 Medicaid beneficiaries. Results: Of 39 states, 7 (18%) eliminated coverage restrictions, 25 (64%) eased restrictions, and 7 (18%) maintained the same restrictions from 2015 to 2019. During this period, the average quarterly use of DAAs increased from 669 to 3601 treatment courses per 100 000 Medicaid beneficiaries. After states eased or eliminated restrictions, the use of DAAs increased by 966 (95% CI, 409-1523) treatment courses per 100 000 Medicaid beneficiaries each quarter compared with states that did not ease or eliminate restrictions. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that there was greater use of DAAs after states relaxed coverage restrictions related to liver disease severity, sobriety, or prescriber specialty. Further reductions or elimination of these rules may improve access to a highly effective public health intervention for patients with HCV.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Biologic Drugs After Biosimilar Competition.

Importance: Biologic drugs account for a growing share of US pharmaceutical spending. Competition from follow-on biosimilar products (subsequent versions that have no clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic) has led to modest reductions in US health care spending, but these savings may not translate to lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients. Objective: To investigate whether biosimilar competition is associated with lower OOP spending for patients using biologics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a national commercial claims database (Optum Clinformatics Data Mart) to identify outpatient claims for 1 of 7 clinician-administered biologics (filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, epoetin alfa, bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab) from January 2009 through March 2022. Claims by commercially insured patients younger than 65 years were included. Exposure: Year relative to first biosimilar availability and use of original or biosimilar version. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients' annual OOP spending on biologics for each calendar year was determined, and OOP spending per claim between reference biologic and biosimilar versions was compared. Two-part regression models assessed for differences in OOP spending, adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics (age, sex, US Census region, health plan type, diagnosis, and place of service) and year relative to initial biosimilar entry. Results: Over 1.7 million claims from 190 364 individuals (median [IQR] age, 53 [42-59] years; 58.3% females) who used at least 1 of the 7 biologics between 2009 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Over 251 566 patient-years of observation, annual OOP costs increased before and after biosimilar availability. Two years after the start of biosimilar competition, the adjusted odds ratio of nonzero annual OOP spending was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.12; P < .001) and average nonzero annual spending was 12% higher (95% CI, 10%-14%; P < .001) compared with the year before biosimilar competition. After biosimilars became available, claims for biosimilars were more likely than reference biologics to have nonzero OOP costs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.11-1.16]; P < .001) but had 8% lower mean nonzero OOP costs (adjusted mean ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93; P < .001). Findings varied by drug. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this cohort study suggest that biosimilar competition was not consistently associated with lower OOP costs for commercially insured outpatients, highlighting the need for targeted policy interventions to ensure that the savings generated from biosimilar competition translate into increased affordability for patients who need biologics.

The FDA in the Crosshairs-Science, Politics, and Abortion.

In this Viewpoint, the Supreme Court case FDA v AHM is used to illustrate the tension the FDA faces between science and politics, and state authority over abortion vs federal authority over which drugs may be marketed nationwide.

Spending on Targeted Therapies for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.

This study estimates public and private spending on genetically targeted treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy during years in which the drugs were marketed without completed confirmatory studies.

How Do Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Impact Clinical Practice? A National Survey of Physicians.

The US Food and Drug Administration can require risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programs for prescription drugs to ensure the benefits of use outweigh the risks. We conducted a national survey of physicians' experiences prescribing eight REMS-covered drugs: (1) ambrisentan; (2) bosentan; (3) clozapine; (4) isotretinoin; (5-7) the multiple myeloma (MM) drugs lenalidomide, pomalidomide, thalidomide; and (8) sodium oxybate. Between May 2022 and January 2023, we surveyed 5,331 physician prescribers of these drugs, and 1,295 (24%) returned surveys (range: 149 for bosentan to 226 for MM drugs). Although 765 (68%) respondents thought the certification process provided useful drug information, 757 (67%) wanted materials to include benefit data and 944 (84%) non-REMS-related risk data. A majority (704, 63%) thought the safe use requirements facilitated discussion with patients, but a similar number (637, 57%) attributed delayed medication access to these requirements. In multivariable modeling, MM drug and isotretinoin respondents were less likely than sodium oxybate respondents to agree that the certification process provided useful drug information (MM drug: odds ratio (OR) = 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.25-0.55; isotretinoin: OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.25-0.61), and isotretinoin, clozapine, and bosetan respondents were more likely than sodium oxybate respondents to agree that the safe use requirements often delayed medication access (isotretinoin: OR = 5.83, 95% CI = 3.70-9.19; clozapine: OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.08-2.54; bosentan: OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.12-2.85). Most physicians believe REMS programs convey useful drug safety information and facilitate discussion with patients but also seek information on benefits and non-REMS-related risks and better integration of REMS processes into clinical workflows.

Patents on Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies for Prescription Drugs and Generic Competition.

This cross-sectional study identifies the prevalence of patents on risk evaluation and mitigation strategies and their association with delaying generic competition.

Delivery Device Patents on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists.

This study analyzed the US Food and Drug Administration­listed patents on glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists to determine their claim characteristics and the potential barriers they pose to generic entry.

Use of Efficiency Frontiers to Align Prices and Clinical Benefits of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis.

Importance: The US lacks a systematic approach for aligning drug prices with clinical benefit, and traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) faces political obstacles. The efficiency frontier (EF) method offers policymakers an alternative approach. Objective: To assess how the EF approach could align prices and clinical benefits of biologic medications for plaque psoriasis and estimate price reductions in the US vs 4 peer countries: Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Design and Setting: This health economic evaluation used the EF approach to compare the prices and clinical benefits of 11 biologics and 2 biosimilars for plaque psoriasis in the US, Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Data were collected from February to March 2023 and analyzed from March to June 2023. Main Outcome Measures: EFs were constructed based on each biologic's efficacy, measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rate, and annual treatment cost as of January 2023; US costs were net of estimated manufacturer rebates. Prices based on the EF were compared with traditional CEA-based prices calculated by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review at a threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Among 13 biologics, PASI 90 response rates ranged from 17.9% (etanercept) to 71.6% (risankizumab); US net annual treatment costs ranged from $1664 (infliximab-dyyb) to $79 277 (risankizumab). The median (IQR) net annual treatment cost was higher in the US ($34 965 [$20 493-$48 942]) than prerebate costs in Australia ($9179 [$6691-$12 688]), Canada ($15 556 [$13 017-$16 112]), France ($9478 [$6637-$11 678]), and Germany ($13 829 [$13 231-$15 837]). The US EF included infliximab-dyyb (PASI 90: 57.4%; annual cost: $1664), ixekizumab (PASI 90: 70.8%; annual cost: $33 004), and risankizumab (PASI 90: 71.6%; annual cost: $79 277). US prices for psoriasis biologics would need to be reduced by a median (IQR) of 71% (31%-95%) to align with those estimated using the EF; the same approach would yield smaller price reductions in Canada (41% [6%-57%]), Australia (36% [0%-65%]), France (19% [0%-67%]), and Germany (11% [8%-26%]). Except for risankizumab, the EF-based prices were lower than the prices based on traditional CEA. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation showed that for plaque psoriasis biologics, using an EF approach to negotiate prices could lead to substantial price reductions and better align prices with clinical benefits. US policymakers might consider using EFs to achieve prices commensurate with comparative clinical benefits, particularly for drug classes with multiple therapeutic alternatives for which differences can be adequately summarized by a single outcome measurement.

Availability and Cost of Expensive and Common Generic Prescription Drugs: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Direct-to-Consumer Pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmacies sell generic prescription drugs, often at lower prices than traditional retail pharmacies; however, not all drugs are available, and prices vary. OBJECTIVE: To determine the availability and cost of generic drugs at DTC pharmacies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Five national DTC pharmacies in April and May 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Each qualifying form of 100 generic drugs with the highest cost-per-patient (expensive) and the 50 generic drugs with the highest number of patients (common) in Medicare Part D in 2020 MAIN MEASURES: Availability of these drugs and the lowest DTC pharmacy price for a standardized drug strength and supply (e.g., 30 pills), compared to GoodRx retail pharmacy prices. KEY RESULTS: Of the 118 expensive generic dosage forms, 94 (80%) were available at 1 or more DTC pharmacies; out of 52 common generic dosage forms, 51 (98%) were available (p < 0.001). Of the 88 expensive generics available in comparable quantities and strengths across pharmacies, 42 (47%) had the lowest cost at Amazon, 23 (26%) at Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company, 13 (14%) at Health Warehouse, and 12 (13%) at Costco; for 51 common generic formulations, 16 (31%) had the lowest cost at Costco, 14 (27%) at Amazon, 10 (20%) at Walmart, 6 (12%) at Health Warehouse, and 5 (10%) at Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. For the 77 expensive generics with available GoodRx retail pharmacy prices, the median cost savings at DTC pharmacies were $231 (95% CI, $129-$792) or 76% (IQR, 53-91%); for 51 common generics, savings were $19 (95% CI, $10-$34) or 75% (IQR, 67-83%). CONCLUSIONS: Many of the most expensive generic drugs are unavailable at direct-to-consumer pharmacies. Meanwhile, less expensive, commonly used generics are widely available, but drug prices vary by pharmacy and savings are modest, requiring patients to shop around for the lowest cost.

Estimated Spending on Beremagene Geperpavec for Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa.

Importance: New gene therapies can offer substantial benefits to patients, particularly those with rare diseases who have few therapeutic options. In May 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first topical gene therapy, beremagene geperpavec (B-VEC), for treating both autosomal recessive and autosomal dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB). However, FDA approval was based on limited data in patients with autosomal dominant disease, even though they comprise approximately 50% of all DEB cases. Objective: To estimate projected spending in the US on B-VEC therapy for treating autosomal recessive and autosomal dominant DEB. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used data from the National Epidermolysis Bullosa Registry to estimate the current population of US patients with autosomal dominant and autosomal recessive DEB, with the aim of estimating US spending on B-VEC therapy from an all-payers perspective during 1- and 3-year periods after FDA approval. A base-case cost of $300 000 per patient per year was assumed based on a report from the manufacturer (Krystal Biotech). Exposure: Treatment with B-VEC. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated overall spending on B-VEC in the first year and over a 3-year period after FDA approval. Several prespecified sensitivity analyses with different assumptions about the eligible patient population and the cost of therapy were performed, and lifetime total costs of treatment per patient were estimated. Results: The estimated number of US patients with DEB who were eligible for treatment with B-VEC in the first year after FDA approval was 894. The estimated total expenditure for B-VEC therapy was $268 million (range, $179 million-$357 million). Over a 3-year period, estimated spending was $805 million (range, $537 million-$1.1 billion). Estimated lifetime total costs per patient were $15 million (range, $10 million-$20 million) per patient with autosomal recessive DEB and $17 million (range, $11 million-$22 million) for patients with autosomal dominant DEB. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this economic evaluation suggest that the FDA's broad indication for the use of B-VEC in treating both autosomal recessive and autosomal dominant DEB will have significant implications for payers.

Physicians' Perspectives On FDA Regulation Of Drugs And Medical Devices: A National Survey.

Physicians' knowledge of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval processes is important in informing clinical decisions and patient discussions. Among a randomly selected national sample of 509 internists, cardiologists, and oncologists, 41 percent reported moderate or better understanding of the FDA's drug approval process, and 17 percent reported moderate or better understanding of the FDA's medical device approval process. Nearly all physicians thought that randomized, blinded trials that met primary endpoints should be very important factors required to secure regulatory approval. Also, nearly all physicians thought that the FDA should revoke approval for accelerated-approval drugs or breakthrough devices that did not show benefit in postapproval studies. Our findings suggest that physicians commonly lack familiarity with drug and medical device regulatory practices and are under the impression that the data supporting FDA drug and high-risk device approvals are more rigorous than they often are. Physicians would value more rigorous premarket evidence, as well as regulatory action for drugs and devices that do not demonstrate safety and effectiveness in the postmarket setting.