The Relative Contributions of NIH and Private Sector Funding to the Approval of New Biopharmaceuticals.

OBJECTIVES: There remains ongoing debate regarding the relative efficacy of public (NIH) and private sector funding in bringing biopharmaceutical innovations to market. This paper investigates the significance of each party's level of funding for obtaining Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorization. METHODS: A cohort of research projects linked to 23,230 National Institute of Health grants awarded in the year 2000 was audited to account for patents, where the project led to a product in clinical development and potentially FDA approval. A total of 8126 associated patents led to the identification of 41 therapies that registered clinical trials; 18 of these therapies received FDA approved. RESULTS: NIH funding for the 18 FDA-approved therapies totaled $0.670 billion, whereas private sector funding (excluding post-approval funding) totaled $44.3 billion. A logistic regression relating the levels of public and private funding to the probability of FDA approval indicates a positive and significant relationship between private sector funding and the likelihood of FDA approval (p ≤ 0.0004). The relationship between public funding and the likelihood of FDA approval is found to be negative and not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Our study results underscore that the development of basic discoveries requires substantial additional investments, partnerships, and the shouldering of financial risk by the private sector if therapies are to materialize as FDA-approved medicine. Our finding of a potentially negative relationship between public funding and the likelihood that a therapy receives FDA approval requires additional study.

Are CAR-T therapies living up to their hype? A study using real-world data in two cohorts to determine how well they are actually working in practice compared with bone marrow transplants.

With the increasing use of new regulatory tools, like the Food and Drug Administration's breakthrough designation, there are increasing challenges for European health technology assessors (HTAs) to make an accurate assessment of the long-term value and performance of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies, particularly for orphan conditions, such as acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. The aim of this study was to demonstrate a novel methodology harnessing longitudinal real-world data, extracted from the electronic health records of a medical centre functioning as a clinical trial site, to develop an accurate analysis of the performance of CAR-T compared with the next-best treatment option, namely allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). The study population comprised 43 subjects in two cohorts: 29 who had undergone HCT treatment and 14 who had undergone CAR-T therapy. The 3-year relapse-free survival probability was 46% (95% CI: 08% to 79%) in the CAR-T cohort and 68% (95% CI: 46% to 83%) in the HCT cohort. To explain the lower RFS probability in the CAR-T cohort compared with the HCT cohort, the authors hypothesised that the CAR-T cohort had a far higher level of disease burden. This was validated by log-rank test analysis (p=0.0001) and confirmed in conversations with practitioners at the study site. The authors are aware that the small populations in this study will be seen as limiting the generalisability of the findings to some readers. However, in consultation with many European HTAs and regulators, there is broad agreement that this methodology warrants further investigation with a larger study.

Tying Medicare Part B Drug Prices to International Reference Pricing Will Devastate R&D.

According to Secretary Azar of Health and Human Services, implementing international reference pricing (IPI) in Medicare Part B will have minimal impacts. He has stated, "These savings, while substantial for American patients and taxpayers, cannot possibly pull out more than 1 percent of R&D." As companies traditionally spend 20% of free cash flow on R&D, we have measured the IPI impact according to industry standard metrics. The potential negative impacts of the international reference pricing plan, as it is currently structured, are numerous. Companies are likely to avoid developing Medicare Bart B physician-administered drugs in the future if it comes to fruition. Further, if distributing in any of the included countries in the benchmarking exercise that traditionally have prices far below that of the United States has the impact of creating lower US prices where the industry currently derives more than 80% of their global profit, companies will simply not seek market access in those benchmarked countries and patients in those countries will not receive the medicines they need. The idea that companies will be able to unilaterally raise prices in Europe defies logic and practice. Many countries in the EU have been threatening IP rights under the TRIPS clauses of the WTO for several years because of their belief that pharmaceutical pricing is unacceptably high right now, without the IPI. Harnessing real-world evidence would allow for increased competition by faster time to market. One wonders why an approach encompassing the improved time to market was not considered, as the reference pricing proposal as it stands now, ultimately, will reduce R&D budgets, impair the overall investment climate, and deprive patients the new medicines.

Real world big data for clinical research and drug development.

The objective of this paper is to identify the extent to which real world data (RWD) is being utilized, or could be utilized, at scale in drug development. Through screening peer-reviewed literature, we have cited specific examples where RWD can be used for biomarker discovery or validation, gaining a new understanding of a disease or disease associations, discovering new markers for patient stratification and targeted therapies, new markers for identifying persons with a disease, and pharmacovigilance. None of the papers meeting our criteria was specifically geared toward novel targets or indications in the biopharmaceutical sector; the majority were focused on the area of public health, often sponsored by universities, insurance providers or in combination with public health bodies such as national insurers. The field is still in an early phase of practical application, and is being harnessed broadly where it serves the most direct need in public health applications in early, rare and novel disease incidents. However, these exemplars provide a valuable contribution to insights on the use of RWD to create novel, faster and less invasive approaches to advance disease understanding and biomarker discovery. We believe that pharma needs to invest in making better use of Electronic Health Records and the need for more precompetitive collaboration to grow the scale of this 'big denominator' capability, especially given the needs of precision medicine research.

Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients (MAPPs): A Story of International Collaboration Leading to Implementation.

After nearly a decade of discussion, analysis, and development, the Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients (MAPPs) initiative is beginning to see acceptance from regulators, industry, patients, and payers, with the first live pilot project initiated under the guidance of the European Medicines Agency in 2014. Although it is a significant achievement to see the first asset being placed into human trials under an adaptive pathway, there is much to be learned regarding the multinational and multi-stakeholder effort that has driven the growing acceptance of MAPPs as a methodology and concept, as well as the need for continued and increasing international collaboration to foster the wider adoption of MAPPs. Changes in available science and technology, as well as a number of challenges in the current system, outlined in this paper, are transforming approaches to medicines development and approval. It is these challenges that have led directly to the groundbreaking MAPPs collaboration between the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Biomedical Innovation's New Drug Development Paradigms Initiative, the EMA, patient, payer and health technology assessment groups, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, and the Innovative Medicines Initiative-a European public-private partnership. This article examines the development of MAPPs, from inception of the concept, to the establishment of this trans-Atlantic initiative, and examines challenges for the future.

Medicine adaptive pathways to patients (MAPPs): using regulatory innovation to defeat Eroom's law.

Eroom's Law is, literally, Moore's law in reverse. The pharmaceutical sector invests $50 billion annually in research for new medicines but, "the number of new drugs approved per billion US dollars spent has halved roughly every 9 years since 1950, falling around 80-fold in inflation-adjusted terms". Pharmaceutical companies have invested enormous sums in new molecular entities (NME) in the areas of unmet medical need identified by the World Health Organization (WHO), but the approval rates from phase I are only 7% for cardiovascular disease, dropping to 4% for Alzheimer's disease. The increasing cost of research & development (R&D) is not only a factor of research management quality, but also indicative of an industry trying to address therapeutic areas that have incredibly complex biological mechanisms with budget-crushing failure rates. Medicine adaptive pathways to patients (MAPPs) build on the stratification breakthroughs of personalized medicine to facilitate new types of clinical trials that adapt to a given patient's response. At their core, MAPPs will have a limited commercial marketing authorization for a patient group who has access to new therapeutic agents while validating additional clinical endpoints at the same time. This gives MAPPs a theoretical ability to run trials that fulfil both the efficacy requirements for authorization and the effectiveness needs of national health technology assessments (HTA) simultaneously, providing patients with needed therapies in the most efficient timescale and trial size possible. In order to move science forward and meet these daunting medical challenges for patients, new collaborative approaches to testing the efficacy and effectiveness of new improved medicines such as MAPPs should be embraced by regulators in close partnership with patients, payers, and practitioners. To not do so puts the entire healthcare value chain, and the future health of patients, at risk.