On the Road to Discovering Urgently Needed Antibiotics: So Close Yet So Far Away.

The Pew Charitable Trusts' 2016 publication "A Scientific Roadmap for Antibiotic Discovery" provided a consensus approach to accelerating the discovery of novel antibiotics targeting Gram-negative pathogens. Since then, encouraging initiatives have launched to catalyze antibiotics discovery, particularly by improving knowledge sharing and making discovery efforts more efficient and effective. However, because the global pipeline remains insufficient to address current and future unmet needs, existing initiatives are not enough. Sustained public funding is critical, particularly as private funding continues to dwindle. And with public funding comes the responsibility of sharing what has been learned. Finally, a "precompetitive" R&D model in which the financial return on investment is not a primary driver warrants further consideration.

Understanding Payer Perspectives on Value in the Use of Pharmaceuticals in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, value assessment frameworks have been introduced to inform discussions about how to define and assess value in the U.S. health care system. However, there is uncertainty as to how value assessment frameworks and other approaches to achieve value such as outcomes-based contracting are perceived and used in coverage decisions. OBJECTIVE: To understand how U.S. payers determine value in the use of pharmaceuticals and how it differs from payers outside the United States. METHODS: Qualitative in-depth phone interviews with 13 executive-level public and private U.S. managed care representatives and 6 health technology assessment advisors outside the United States were conducted from September to November 2017. RESULTS: Despite various mechanisms used by U.S. payers to assess value, no consistent definitions of value were provided, and U.S. payers felt limited in what they can do to achieve value in pharmaceutical decision making. Value assessment frameworks are not formally considered in formulary and reimbursement decisions but are used as a reference as they become available by most or all U.S. health plans. U.S. payers expressed concerns, including limited control over pharmaceutical pricing and budget caps, and limited ability to use incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year thresholds. Outcomes-based contracting could have some utility in specific cases where the treatment has a particularly high cost and a clear outcomes measure, but payers indicated that outcomes-based contracts can be difficult to operationalize, and determination of savings was uncertain. Payers outside the United States-who are enabled by government health care bodies, policy tools, and analytical frameworks that have no counterpart in the United States-have a wider array of instruments at their disposal. U.S. payers were largely open to learning from other health care systems outside the United States, particularly the German health care system, where patient-relevant benefit compared with a predetermined treatment comparator is the primary determinant for price negotiations. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is interest in including value assessment frameworks during the decision-making process in the United States, there are significant challenges to operationalizing them. The current environment in the United States restricts payers' ability to make favorable contracts with manufacturers, and changes to the U.S. health system design are needed to facilitate this effort. Adoption of a value assessment framework in Medicare or Medicaid would accelerate adoption of these tools by private payers in the United States. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted by RTI Health Solutions under the direction of The Pew Charitable Trusts and was funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Vekaria is employed by RTI Health Solutions. Reynolds and Coukell are employed by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Brogan and Hogue have nothing to disclose.

Shared Platform for Antibiotic Research and Knowledge: A Collaborative Tool to SPARK Antibiotic Discovery.

The discovery of urgently needed antibiotics is hindered by challenges to information sharing. To help address this challenge, The Pew Charitable Trusts launched SPARK: the Shared Platform for Antibiotic Research and Knowledge. SPARK is an online, publicly available, interactive database designed to help scientists build on previous research and generate new insights to advance the field's understanding of Gram-negative permeability. This Viewpoint details how data are selected and integrated into the platform, how scientists can use SPARK to share their data, and the ways the scientific community can access and use these data to develop hypotheses.

Antimicrobial drug use in food-producing animals and associated human health risks: what, and how strong, is the evidence?

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is a public health threat. Because antimicrobial consumption in food-producing animals contributes to the problem, policies restricting the inappropriate or unnecessary agricultural use of antimicrobial drugs are important. However, this link between agricultural antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance has remained contested by some, with potentially disruptive effects on efforts to move towards the judicious or prudent use of these drugs. MAIN TEXT: The goal of this review is to systematically evaluate the types of evidence available for each step in the causal pathway from antimicrobial use on farms to human public health risk, and to evaluate the strength of evidence within a 'Grades of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation'(GRADE) framework. The review clearly demonstrates that there is compelling scientific evidence available to support each step in the causal pathway, from antimicrobial use on farms to a public health burden caused by infections with resistant pathogens. Importantly, the pathogen, antimicrobial drug and treatment regimen, and general setting (e.g., feed type) can have significant impacts on how quickly resistance emerges or spreads, for how long resistance may persist after antimicrobial exposures cease, and what public health impacts may be associated with antimicrobial use on farms. Therefore an exact quantification of the public health burden attributable to antimicrobial drug use in animal agriculture compared to other sources remains challenging. CONCLUSIONS: Even though more research is needed to close existing data gaps, obtain a better understanding of how antimicrobial drugs are actually used on farms or feedlots, and quantify the risk associated with antimicrobial use in animal agriculture, these findings reinforce the need to act now and restrict antibiotic use in animal agriculture to those instances necessary to ensure the health and well-being of the animals.

Assessing the safety and effectiveness of devices after US Food and Drug Administration approval: FDA-mandated postapproval studies.

IMPORTANCE: Postmarketing surveillance is critical to evaluating the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may order the manufacturer of a high-risk device to conduct postmarketing surveillance studies, known as postapproval studies (PASs), at the time of approval. OBJECTIVES: To understand the characteristics of PASs ordered in recent years and inform discussions about the direction of the PASs program. DESIGN: Descriptive study of the PASs ordered for medical devices using the FDA's PASs website, the Premarket Approval database, and supplemental information provided by the FDA. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of medical devices that received a PAS order and study characteristics. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2011, the FDA ordered 223 studies of 158 medical devices, including studies for 93 (48%) new high-risk devices approved during this period. The median required sample size for a study was 350 patients (interquartile range, 160-1500). If the protocol of a study was not in place at the time the device was approved, which occurred frequently, a median of 180 days elapsed until the protocol was agreed on. The FDA has never issued a warning letter or penalty owing to study delays, inadequate progress, or any other issue related to a PAS. Of the approved protocols, 41 (19%) were subsequently revised, including 29 (21%) protocols in place by application approval. Some studies generated significant clinical findings. The most common effect of a PAS finding after study completion was that the FDA requested a labeling change for 31 studies (53%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Postapproval studies have the potential to provide additional information to better understand medical device performance. However, small sample sizes, delays in reaching protocol agreement, and lack of availability of findings may hinder their ability to be clinically useful. Owing to the lack of information on the effect of studies, it is unclear whether the program achieves its aims. Improved completion and accessibility of PASs could help answer important questions of safety and effectiveness about medical devices. To better understand the real-world performance of these products, they should be better integrated with other sources of information about device performance.