Clinical benefit, development, innovation, trials, epidemiology, and price for cancer drugs and indications with multiple special FDA designations.

BACKGROUND: This study analyzes the development, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, benefits, innovation, trials, epidemiology, and price of cancer drugs with multiple special designations: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy. METHODS: In total, 355 FDA-approved cancer drug indications with 841 special designations were identified (2012-2022). Trial, epidemiology, and price data were collected from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and Medicare and Medicaid. The association between efficacy outcomes and indications' number of special designations were compared in meta-analyses. RESULTS: Median development times were 7.3, 7.8, and 5.4 months (P = .027) for drugs with 0 to 1, 2 to 3, and 4 to 5 special designations, respectively. Multiple special designations were associated with higher biotechnological and clinical innovation. Median patient enrollment in trials were 615, 471, 398, 168, 104, and 120 (P < .001) for indications with 0 to 5 special designations. Drugs for rare diseases supported by open-label phase 1/2 trials of single-arm design were granted more special designations. Hazard ratios for overall survival (0.80 vs 0.73 vs 0.73 vs 0.69 vs 0.56 vs 0.52; P = .003) and progression-free survival (0.70 vs 0.61 vs 0.59 vs 0.44 vs 0.37 vs 0.67; P < .001) substantially declined while tumor response increased with more special designations. Mean monthly prices increased for drugs with 0 to 4 but not 5 special designations ($21 596 vs $14 753 vs $32 410 vs $41 240 vs $38 703 vs $19 184). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple special designations are associated with faster clinical development and greater benefits for patients with unmet needs but also with nonrobust trial evidence and a tendency toward higher drug prices.

Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, US Congress enabled the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to facilitate and expedite drug development for serious conditions filling unmet medical needs with five special designations and review pathways: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study reviews the FDA's five special designations for drug development regarding their safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, clinical trials, innovation, economic incentives, development timelines, and price. METHODS: We conducted a keyword search to identify studies analyzing the impact of the FDA's special designations (orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy) on the safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, trials, innovativeness, economic incentives, development times, and pricing of new drugs. Results were summarized in a narrative overview. RESULTS: Expedited approval reduces new drugs' time to market. However, faster drug development and regulatory review are associated with more unrecognized adverse events and post-marketing safety revisions. Clinical trials supporting special FDA approvals frequently use small, non-randomized, open-label designs. Required post-approval trials to monitor unknown adverse events are often delayed or not even initiated. Evidence suggests that drugs approved under special review pathways, marketed as "breakthroughs", are more innovative and deliver a higher clinical benefit than those receiving standard FDA approval. Special designations are an economically viable strategy for investors and pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for rare diseases with unmet medical needs, due to financial incentives, expedited development timelines, higher clinical trial success rates, alongside greater prices. Nonetheless, patients, physicians, and insurers are concerned about spending money on drugs without a proven benefit or even on drugs that turn out to be ineffective. While European countries established performance- and financial-based managed entry agreements to account for this uncertainty in clinical trial evidence and cost-effectiveness, the pricing and reimbursement of these drugs remain largely unregulated in the US. CONCLUSION: Special FDA designations shorten clinical development and FDA approval times for new drugs treating rare and severe diseases with unmet medical needs. Special-designated drugs offer a greater clinical benefit to patients. However, physicians, patients, and insurers must be aware that special-designated drugs are often approved based on non-robust trials, associated with more unrecognized side effects, and sold for higher prices.

Gene regulation for inflammation and inflammation resolution differs between umbilical arterial and venous endothelial cells.

Systemic inflammation affects the whole vasculature, yet whether arterial and venous endothelial cells differ in their abilities to mediate inflammation and to return to homeostasis after an inflammatory stimulus has not been addressed thoroughly. We assessed gene-expression profiles in isolated endothelial cells from human umbilical arteries (HUAEC) or veins (HUVEC) under basal conditions, after TNF-α stimulation and various time points after TNF-α removal to allow reinstatement of homeostasis. TNF-α regulates the expression of different sets of transcripts that are significantly changed only in HUAEC, only in HUVEC or changed in both. We identified three types of gene regulation, i.e. genes that were significantly regulated after 24 h of TNF-α stimulation but no longer when TNF-α was removed (homeostatic regulation), genes that maintained significantly regulated after TNF-α removal (not homeostatic regulation) and genes that were only significantly regulated when TNF-α was removed (post-regulation). HUAEC and HUVEC quantitatively differed in these types of gene regulation, with relatively more genes being post-regulated in HUAEC. In conclusion our data demonstrate that HUAEC and HUVEC respond intrinsically different to an inflammatory insult. Whether this holds true for all endothelial cells and its relevance for inflammatory insults in different organs during systemic inflammation warrants further studies.

Established and Emerging Lipid-Lowering Drugs for Primary and Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention.

Despite treatment with statins, patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides remain at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events. Consequently, novel pharmaceutical drugs have been developed to control and modify the composition of blood lipids to ultimately prevent fatal cardiovascular events in patients with dyslipidaemia. This article reviews established and emerging lipid-lowering drugs regarding their mechanism of action, development stage, ongoing clinical trials, side effects, effect on blood lipids and reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We conducted a keyword search to identify studies on established and emerging lipid modifying drugs. Results were summarized in a narrative overview. Established pharmaceutical treatment options include the Niemann-Pick-C1 like-1 protein (NPC1L1) inhibitor ezetimibe, the protein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors alirocumab and evolocumab, fibrates as peroxisome proliferator receptor alpha (PPAR-α) activators, and the omega-3 fatty acid icosapent ethyl. Statins are recommended as the first-line therapy for primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention in patients with hypercholesterinaemia and hypertriglyceridemia. For secondary prevention in hypercholesterinaemia, second-line options such as statin add-on or statin-intolerant treatments are ezetimibe, alirocumab and evolocumab. For secondary prevention in hypertriglyceridemia, second-line options such as statin add-on or statin-intolerant treatments are icosapent ethyl and fenofibrate. Robust data for these add-on therapeutics in primary cardiovascular prevention remains scarce. Recent biotechnological advances have led to the development of innovative small molecules (bempedoic acid, lomitapide, pemafibrate, docosapentaenoic and eicosapentaenoic acid), antibodies (evinacumab), antisense oligonucleotides (mipomersen, volanesorsen, pelcarsen, olezarsen), small interfering RNA (inclisiran, olpasiran), and gene therapies for patients with dyslipidemia. These molecules specifically target new cellular pathways, such as the adenosine triphosphate-citrate lyase (bempedoic acid), PCSK9 (inclisiran), angiopoietin-like 3 (ANGPTL3: evinacumab), microsomal triglyceride transfer protein (MTP: lomitapide), apolipoprotein B-100 (ApoB-100: mipomersen), apolipoprotein C-III (ApoC-III: volanesorsen, olezarsen), and lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a): pelcarsen, olpasiran). The authors are hopeful that the development of new treatment modalities alongside new therapeutic targets will further reduce patients' risk of adverse cardiovascular events. Apart from statins, data on new drugs' use in primary cardiovascular prevention remain scarce. For their swift adoption into clinical routine, these treatments must demonstrate safety and efficacy as well as cost-effectiveness in randomized cardiovascular outcome trials.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lipid-Lowering Therapies for Cardiovascular Prevention in Germany.

PURPOSE: Novel pharmaceutical treatments reducing cardiovascular events in dyslipidaemia patients must demonstrate clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness to promote long-term adoption by patients, physicians, and insurers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of statin monotherapy compared to additive lipid-lowering therapies for primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention from the perspective of Germany's healthcare system. METHODS: Transition probabilities and hazard ratios were derived from cardiovascular outcome trials for statin combinations with icosapent ethyl (REDUCE-IT), evolocumab (FOURIER), alirocumab (ODYSSEY), ezetimibe (IMPROVE-IT), and fibrate (ACCORD). Costs and utilities were retrieved from previous literature. The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was simulated with a Markov cohort model. The main outcomes were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: For primary prevention, the addition of icosapent ethyl to statin generated 0.81 QALY and €14,732 costs (ICER: 18,133), whereas fibrates yielded 0.63 QALY and € - 10,516 costs (ICER: - 16,632). For secondary prevention, the addition of ezetimibe to statin provided 0.61 QALY at savings of € - 5,796 (ICER: - 9,555) and icosapent ethyl yielded 0.99 QALY and €14,333 costs (ICER: 14,485). PCSK9 inhibitors offered 0.55 and 0.87 QALY at costs of €62,722 and €87,002 for evolocumab (ICER: 114,639) and alirocumab (ICER: 100,532), respectively. A 95% probability of cost-effectiveness was surpassed at €20,000 for icosapent ethyl (primary and secondary prevention), €119,000 for alirocumab, and €149,000 for evolocumab. CONCLUSIONS: For primary cardiovascular prevention, a combination therapy of icosapent ethyl plus statin is a cost-effective use of resources compared to statin monotherapy. For secondary prevention, icosapent ethyl, ezetimibe, evolocumab, and alirocumab increase patient benefit at different economic costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl, Evolocumab, Alirocumab, Ezetimibe, or Fenofibrate in Combination with Statins Compared to Statin Monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Despite treatment with statins, dyslipidaemia patients with elevated cholesterol- and triglyceride-levels remain at high residual risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). New lipid-lowering drugs must prevent the occurrence of MACE and exhibit cost-effectiveness for their successful adoption to clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of icosapent ethyl, fenofibrate, ezetimibe, evolocumab, and alirocumab in combination with statins compared to statin monotherapy for cardiovascular prevention from the perspective of UK's National Health Service. METHODS: A Markov model simulated the progression of cardiovascular disease and MACE, including myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, and coronary revascularisation, in dyslipidaemia patients. The model was populated with cardiovascular outcome trial data for each drug. Cost and utility data were extracted from peer-reviewed literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is reported per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained in 2021 Great Britain Pounds (£). RESULTS: For primary cardiovascular prevention, icosapent ethyl increased QALYs by 0.79 and costs by £15,421 compared to statin monotherapy (ICER = £19,485/QALY). Fenofibrate yielded 0.62 additional QALYs at cost-savings of - £6127 (ICER = - £9932/QALY). For secondary prevention, the omega-3 fatty acid icosapent ethyl extended QALYs by 0.98 at costs of £12,981 compared to statin monotherapy (ICER = £13,285/QALY). Fenofibrate added 0.85 QALYs whilst saving - £637 (ICER = - £7472/QALY). Ezetimibe increased QALYs by 0.60 at cost reductions of - £2529 (ICER = - £4231/QALY). PCSK9 inhibitors provided QALYs of 0.53 and 0.86 at costs of £45,279 and £46,375 for evolocumab (ICER = £85,193/QALY) and alirocumab (ICER = £54,211/QALY), respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £25,000/QALY, there is a probability of 100% for icosapent ethyl (98% in primary prevention) and 0% for PCSK9 inhibitors to be cost effective in secondary prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Icosapent ethyl is cost effective for primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention at an annual price of £2064 in the UK. For PCSK9 inhibitors, price discounts or prescription restrictions are necessary to achieve cost effectiveness.

Socio-economic burden of disease: Survivorship costs for bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: In this cost-of-illness study, we analysed the socio-economic burden of bladder cancer survivorship for the ten years after initial treatment in Germany during 2000, 2010 and 2020. METHODS: Bladder cancer follow-up guidelines were extracted from the European Association of Urology. Per patient costs were estimated with a micro-costing approach considering direct and indirect medical expenses derived from literature and official scales of tariffs. Three perspectives covering costs for patients, providers, and insurers were included to estimate societal costs. RESULTS: Mean 10-year follow-up costs per patient amounted to EUR 2214 for low-risk, EUR 4758 for medium-risk, and EUR 11,325 for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) in 2020. The mean economic burden of muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer (MIBC) was EUR 8994 per patient. Overall expenditure rose by 65% from 2000 to 2020 across all cancer stages (p < 0.001). While insurers covered 38% of costs in 2000, only 31% of costs were reimbursed in 2020 (p < 0.001). 58% of high-risk NMIBC follow-up resources were consumed by physician-patient visits and 17% by medical imaging (x-ray, CT-IVU, ultrasound). Spending was unevenly distributed across follow-up years (years 1-2: 43%, years 3-5: 29%, years 5-10: 28%). CONCLUSIONS: The rising socio-economic burden of follow-ups signifies the relevance of cancer survivorship for the healthcare system and society. This burden must be evenly distributed across stakeholders and considered in cost-effectiveness evaluations of novel anti-cancer drugs. Policy summary Personalized, equitable, and effective follow-up schedules covered by insurance funds are necessary to care for cancer survivors.

Socio-economic burden of disease: Survivorship costs for renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the risk-stratified 10-year socio-economic burden of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) follow-up costs after initial treatment in Germany from 2000 to 2020. METHODS: A micro-costing method considering direct and indirect medical expenditure associated with follow-up procedures was employed to calculate survivorship costs per patient. The frequencies of physician-patient visits, examinations and diagnostic tests were extracted from guidelines, whilst expenses were sourced from literature and official scales of tariffs. Societal costs were calculated based on three perspectives: patients, providers and insurers. RESULTS: Mean societal 10-year follow-up costs per patient amounted to EUR 3,377 (95%CI: 2,969-3,791) for low-risk, EUR 3,367 (95%CI: 3,003-3,692) for medium-risk and EUR 4,299 (95%CI: 3,807-4,755) for high-risk RCC in 2020. Spending increased by +32% from 2000 to 2020 for low-risk RCC, whilst medium-and high-risk RCC expenditure was cut by -39% and -22%, respectively. Patients shouldered 27%, providers 43% and insurers 35% of costs in 2020. Resources were consumed by medical imaging (52%), physician-patient consultations (31%), travel expenses (17%) and blood tests (1%). CONCLUSION: Results highlight the economic burden cancer survivorship poses for society. Cancer survivors require individualised, evidence-based and insurance-covered follow-up schedules to permit the early detection of side-effects, metastasis and secondary malignancies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Bivalent, Quadrivalent, and Nonavalent HPV Vaccination in South Africa.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In South Africa, the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) and associated diseases, such as cervical cancer and genital warts, is among the highest in the world. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of bivalent, quadrivalent, and nonavalent HPV vaccination for 9- to 14-year-old girls from the South African healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A Markov model portraying the natural HPV disease progression from high-risk infection to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) I, CIN II/III, or cervical cancer and from low-risk infection to genital warts was built. Transition probability, utility, and efficacy data were sourced from peer-reviewed literature. Vaccination costs were calculated based on the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. The model was populated with a cohort of 520,000 9-year-old girls to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) in South African Rand (R) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained for each vaccination strategy. RESULTS: All HPV vaccination strategies dominate the no vaccine strategy. Compared with the bivalent vaccine, the nonavalent strategy increases QALYs by 0.14 and costs by R1793 (ICER: R13,013 per QALY) per person, while the quadrivalent vaccination provides -0.02 incremental QALYs and R1748 costs (ICER: -R116,397 per QALY). Consequently, at the South African willingness-to-pay threshold of R23,630 per QALY, nonavalent vaccination is the preferred strategy, with a probability of 90.2%. Scenario analysis demonstrated that results are influenced by vaccine coverage, efficacy, and duration of efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of nonavalent for bivalent HPV vaccination is a cost-effective intervention in South Africa. HPV vaccination should be part of a multifaceted public health strategy entailing screening, condoms, and education of all stakeholders to reduce the significant burden of sexual transmitted diseases in South Africa. Sex-neutral and catch-up vaccinations are subjects for further research.