Biosimilar Uptake In The US: Patient And Prescriber Factors.

Among 196,766 commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients who newly initiated biologic drugs with available biosimilar versions, biosimilar initiation increased from 1 percent in 2013 to 34 percent in 2022. Patients were less likely to initiate biosimilars if they were younger than age eighteen or the drug was prescribed by a specialist or administered in a hospital outpatient facility.

Extent of Drug Patents With Terminal Disclaimers and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejections.

This study evaluates the frequency of terminal disclaimers filed by drug patent holders to obviate obviousness-type double patenting rejections associated with drug patent thickets.

US Food and Drug Administration's Directive to Deal With Delayed Confirmatory Trials: Lessons From Pralatrexate and Belinostat for T-Cell Lymphoma.

The FDA's directive to deal with delayed confirmatory trials: lessons from pralatrexate and belinostat for T-cell lymphoma.

Drug Repurposing Via the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act.

This Viewpoint discusses the benefits and impediments of drug repurposing in the US and how the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act may serve as a successful legislative model to stimulate greater drug repurposing.

Clinical Benefit and Revenues of Drugs Affected by Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Vouchers, 2017-2023.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical benefit of drugs that earned or redeemed rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers from 2017 through 2023, and the revenues generated by such drugs. STUDY DESIGN: In this cohort study, Federal Register documents, publicly available health technology agency (HTA) assessments, and financial filings were used to identify drugs that were issued or redeemed using a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher from 2017 through 2023, and to assess their added therapeutic benefit and drug-specific global revenues. RESULTS: Among the 36 drugs whose approval resulted in issuance of a rare pediatric priority review voucher, therapeutic benefit ratings were available for 17 (47%), with 9 (53%) rated as high by at least one organization. Mean annual global revenues were $363 million (year 1), $621 million (year 2), and $850 million (year 3). The median annual list price for drugs issued a voucher was $788,705. Vouchers were then redeemed for 15 different drugs; out of 13 drugs with therapeutic benefit ratings, 4 (31%) were high value. CONCLUSIONS: Drugs that treat rare pediatric diseases generate similar revenues compared with other brand drugs, and drugs with high therapeutic benefit tend to generate more revenue than those with low therapeutic benefit. Drugs that earned the rare pediatric disease priority review voucher for their manufacturer generate significant revenues and the voucher may not be necessary to incentivize drug development in the rare pediatric disease space.

Commercial markups on pediatric oncology drugs at 340B pediatric hospitals.

Eligible pediatric hospitals can purchase clinician-administered drugs at discounted rates through the 340B Drug Pricing Program and charge payers prices exceeding drug acquisition costs, but the magnitude of these markups is not known. In a study of newly approved oncology drugs at pediatric 340B hospitals, median negotiated prices ranged from 102% (interquartile range [IQR]: 91%-156%) of average sales price (ASP) at Phoenix Children's Hospital to 630% (IQR: 526%-630%) at Driscoll Children's Hospital. Pediatric hospitals participating in the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program can extract steep payments on new drugs from commercial insurers, though with wide variation between and within hospitals.

Measuring and Understanding Market Exclusivity Length for New Prescription Drugs in France, Australia, and the USA.

BACKGROUND: Originator drug manufacturers use several strategies to delay generic competition in the USA, but it remains unclear whether this results in longer market exclusivity compared to other countries. OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand how drug market exclusivity lengths vary between the USA and two comparable countries. METHODS: We focused on drugs approved within 2 years of each other in the USA, France, and Australia from 1995 to 2005, and we compared the lengths of exclusivity from marketing approval through first generic competition or June 2023 using Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: Among 165 drugs in common between the USA and France, the median length of exclusivity was slightly longer in France (15.0 years, interquartile range [IQR]: 13.0-19.6) than the USA (14.5 years, IQR: 11.7-17.6). Among 100 drugs in common between the USA and Australia, the median length of exclusivity was longer in Australia (16.3 years, IQR: 13.9-22.4) than in the USA (14.4 years, IQR: 12.0-17.1). CONCLUSIONS: Market exclusivity lengths in the USA are not longer than in France and Australia. Potential reasons include the larger US market and incentives that offer transient high generic drug prices in the USA for manufacturers that successfully challenge originator market exclusivity.

Sales Revenues for New Therapeutic Agents Approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration From 1995 to 2014.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyze worldwide sales of new therapeutic agents and to estimate the time it takes for product sales to exceed industry-wide average drug development costs. METHODS: Data obtained from company reports were analyzed to track worldwide sales of new medicines approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 1995 to 2014. All sales figures were reported in 2019 US dollars. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate the time it took for discounted product sales to exceed the average costs associated with developing 1 new drug (accounting for the costs of failed trials), using published estimates of these costs. RESULTS: Based on data for 361 of 558 new therapeutic agents approved over the study period (median follow-up 13.2 years), mean sales revenue per product was $15.2 billion through the end of 2019; the median was $6.7 billion. These products jointly generated global sales of $5.5 trillion since approval. Revenues were highly skewed, with the 25 best selling products (7%, 25 of 361) accounting for 38% of this amount ($2.1 trillion of $5.5 trillion). Approximately 47% of products had discounted sales that exceeded the estimated industry-wide average costs of development within 5 years of approval, and 75% within 10 years. After attributing potential production, marketing, and other costs, these numbers dropped to 21% of products within 5 years of approval, and 46% within 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Sales of new medicines approved from 1995 to 2014 were highly skewed, but many products had net discounted sales that exceeded the industry-wide average costs of development within 10 years of approval. An understanding of how sales revenues accrue in the years after initial approval, alongside data on business costs, can inform discussions about how to incentivize private investment in innovation while ensuring affordable prices for patients and the healthcare system.

Removing the FDA's Boxed Hepatotoxicity Warning and Liver Function Testing Requirement for Ambrisentan.

Importance: Endothelin receptor antagonists are first-line therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The first 2 agents approved in the class, bosentan and ambrisentan, initially carried boxed warnings for hepatotoxicity and required monthly liver function tests (LFTs) as part of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS); however, in 2011, as further safety data emerged on ambrisentan, the boxed hepatotoxicity warning and LFT requirements were removed. Objective: To analyze changes in the use of and LFT monitoring for ambrisentan and bosentan after changes to the ambrisentan labeling and REMS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional study used data from 3 longitudinal health care insurance claims databases-Medicaid, Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart, and Merative Marketscan-to perform an interrupted time series analysis of prescription fills and LFTs for patients taking ambrisentan and bosentan. Participants were patients filling prescriptions for ambrisentan and bosentan from July 1, 2007, to December 31, 2018. Data analysis was performed from April 2021 to August 2023. Exposure: Removal of the boxed warning for hepatotoxicity and the REMS LFT monitoring requirements on ambrisentan in March 2011. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were use of ambrisentan (ie, individuals with at least 1 dispensing per 1 000 000 individuals enrolled in the 3 datasets) vs bosentan and LFT monitoring (ie, proportion of initiators with at least 1 ordered test) before initiation and before the first refill. Results: A total of 10 261 patients received a prescription for ambrisentan during the study period (7442 women [72.5%]; mean [SD] age, 52.6 [17.6] years), and 11 159 patients received a prescription for bosentan (7931 women [71.1%]; mean [SD] age, 47.7 [23.7] years). Removal of the ambrisentan boxed hepatotoxicity warning and LFT monitoring requirement was associated with an immediate increase in the use of ambrisentan (1.50 patients per million enrollees; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.92 patients per million enrollees) but no significant change in the use of bosentan. There were reductions in recorded LFTs before drug initiation (13.1% absolute decrease; 95% CI, -18.2% to -8.0%) and before the first refill (26.4% absolute decrease; 95% CI, -34.4% to -18.5%) of ambrisentan but not bosentan. Conclusions and Relevance: In this serial cross-sectional study of ambrisentan, labeling changes and removal of the REMS-related LFT requirement were associated with shifts in prescribing and testing behavior for ambrisentan but not bosentan. Further clinician education may be needed to maximize the benefits of REMS programs and labeling warnings designed to ensure the safe administration of high-risk medications.

Impact of Priority Review Voucher Eligibility on Research and Development of Medical Countermeasures.

The priority review voucher was established to incentivize research and development of treatments for traditionally underfunded diseases and was extended to medical countermeasures from 2016 to 2023, despite limited evidence of an association between the voucher program and increased product development. To determine whether the voucher program has incentivized initiation of new medical countermeasures in clinical trials, we created three cohorts of material threats: (i) COVID-19, (ii) opioid pharmaceutical-based agents, and (iii) all others. Using the Citeline Trialtrove database, we determined the number of medical countermeasures initiated in clinical trials from 2009-2016 and 2017-2023. Eligibility of COVID-19 products for the voucher was confirmed with the issuance of a voucher for remdesivir in October 2020, so we compared January 2020-October 2020 to November 2020-July 2023. We fit two Poisson models-before and after voucher creation-within each cohort. Among COVID-19 medical countermeasures, there was a decrease in the proportion of drugs initiated before (4.5%; 95% CI, 1.0 to 8.3%) vs. after voucher eligibility (-5.1%; 95% CI, -6.1 to -4.0%) (P = 0.01). Among opioid pharmaceutical-based agents medical countermeasures, the rate of new drugs initiated did not change from 2009-2016 (8.1%, 95% CI, -4.4 to 22.6%) to 2017-2023 (5.6%; 95% CI, -3.2 to 15.2%) (P = 0.82). Among all other medical countermeasures, the rate of new drugs initiated also did not change from 2009-2016 (6.6%; 95% CI, -5.6 to 20.8%) to 2017-2023 (-14.8%; 95% CI, -29.2 to 2.0%) (P = 0.15). The priority review voucher program was not associated with stimulating new clinical testing of investigational medical countermeasures.

The Origins of "Confidential Commercial Information" at the FDA.

This Viewpoint reviews regulations regarding FDA's handing of confidential commercial information, explains how these regulations serve as a barrier to disclosure of information in the interest of public health, and suggests how information could be carefully shared to improve health outcomes and advance research.

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.

Medicare Should Cover Weight Loss Drugs as Long as the Prices are Affordable.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are effective for treating obesity, but the high cost of these medications endangers the financial viability of our health care system. To ensure that these drugs are available to Medicare beneficiaries, pharmaceutical manufacturers must lower their prices.

Trust in the Food and Drug Administration: A National Survey Study.

Building trust in public health agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has become a key government priority. Understanding the roots of FDA mistrust is important if the agency is to develop targeted messaging and reforms aimed at building confidence in the agency. We conducted a survey of 2,021 respondents in the US probing attitudes toward the FDA. The primary outcome was FDA trust, defined as the mean score that each respondent assigned to the FDA across four prespecified axes: (1) competence and effectiveness; (2) commitment to acting in the best interests of the American public; (3) abiding by the rules and regulations set forth by policy or law; and (4) expertise in health, science, and medicine. On multivariable ordinal logistic regression, FDA mistrust was associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.88), rural community (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.96), conservative political views (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.74-0.81), worse self-reported health (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.98), lower satisfaction with health care received (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56-0.71), less attention to health and science news (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.80), and not having children under the age of 18 (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.86). These findings underscore the challenges faced by US political leaders in convincing a heterogeneous American public to trust the FDA. The FDA should develop and deploy targeted outreach strategies to populations with lower levels of trust and strengthen internal processes that minimize biases and ensure sound decision-making.

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.