Affordable orphan drugs: a role for not-for-profit organizations.

AIMS: The success of the Regulation on Orphan Medicinal Products in the European Union is evidenced by the 127 orphan drugs that have had market authorization since 2000. However, the incentives aimed at stimulating research and development have had the unintended consequence of increasing drug cost, resulting in many orphan drugs not being cost-effective. Orphan drugs command an increasing share of the pharmaceutical market and account for a disproportionate amount of healthcare expenditure. Orphan drug ownership by socially motivated, not-for-profit organizations may facilitate access to more affordable orphan drugs, for the benefit of patients and healthcare systems alike. This study aims to describe opportunities for such organizations to become orphan drug Market Authorization Holders. METHODS: We reviewed data on the ownership of EMA designated and approved orphan drugs, identified funding opportunities and business models for not-for-profit organizations, and summarised relevant legal and policy documents concerning intellectual property rights and drug regulation. RESULTS: Using repurposed drugs as a paradigm, this narrative review navigates the regulatory hurdles, describes the legal context and identifies funding opportunities, in a bid to facilitate and encourage not-for-profit organizations to lead on the development of affordable orphan drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Although the regulatory steps required to obtain an MA for an orphan drug are numerous and challenging, they are not insurmountable and can be achieved by not-for-profit organizations that are socially motivated to reduce the costs of orphan drugs to the payers of healthcare. Opportunities for orphan drug development resulting in affordable products lie mainly with repurposed drugs.

Digital endpoints in clinical trials: emerging themes from a multi-stakeholder Knowledge Exchange event.

BACKGROUND: Digital technologies, such as wearable devices and smartphone applications (apps), can enable the decentralisation of clinical trials by measuring endpoints in people's chosen locations rather than in traditional clinical settings. Digital endpoints can allow high-frequency and sensitive measurements of health outcomes compared to visit-based endpoints which provide an episodic snapshot of a person's health. However, there are underexplored challenges in this emerging space that require interdisciplinary and cross-sector collaboration. A multi-stakeholder Knowledge Exchange event was organised to facilitate conversations across silos within this research ecosystem. METHODS: A survey was sent to an initial list of stakeholders to identify potential discussion topics. Additional stakeholders were identified through iterative discussions on perspectives that needed representation. Co-design meetings with attendees were held to discuss the scope, format and ethos of the event. The event itself featured a cross-disciplinary selection of talks, a panel discussion, small-group discussions facilitated via a rolling seating plan and audience participation via Slido. A transcript was generated from the day, which, together with the output from Slido, provided a record of the day's discussions. Finally, meetings were held following the event to identify the key challenges for digital endpoints which emerged and reflections and recommendations for dissemination. RESULTS: Several challenges for digital endpoints were identified in the following areas: patient adherence and acceptability; algorithms and software for devices; design, analysis and conduct of clinical trials with digital endpoints; the environmental impact of digital endpoints; and the need for ongoing ethical support. Learnings taken for next generation events include the need to include additional stakeholder perspectives, such as those of funders and regulators, and the need for additional resources and facilitation to allow patient and public contributors to engage meaningfully during the event. CONCLUSIONS: The event emphasised the importance of consortium building and highlighted the critical role that collaborative, multi-disciplinary, and cross-sector efforts play in driving innovation in research design and strategic partnership building moving forward. This necessitates enhanced recognition by funders to support multi-stakeholder projects with patient involvement, standardised terminology, and the utilisation of open-source software.

Moving Toward a Question-Centric Approach for Regulatory Decision Making in the Context of Drug Assessment.

The most intuitive question for market access for medicinal products is the benefit/risk (B/R) balance. The B/R assessment can conceptually be divided into subquestions related to establishing efficacy and safety. There are additional layers to the B/R ratio for medical products, including questions related to dose selection, clinical and nonclinical pharmacology, and drug quality. Explicitly stating the actual questions and how they contribute to the overall B/R provides a structure that fosters better informed cross-domain discussions. There is currently no systematic approach in the regulatory setting to assess and establish the acceptability of alternative methods and data sources. In most cases, the medicinal product sponsors tend to prioritize traditional data types and methods, which are well accepted by regulators for inclusion in regulatory submissions. This, in addition to the absence of rigor in the use and validation of new data types and methods, and the limited training of assessors in related fields can lead to increased regulatory skepticism toward new data types and methods. A data-knowledge backbone is needed to mitigate the uncertainty in efficacy and safety characterization. This white paper discusses the value of explicitly redefining and restructuring the regulatory scientific decision making around the scientific question to be addressed. The ecosystem proposed is based on three pillars: (i) a repository connecting questions, data, and methods; (ii) the development and validation of high-quality standards for data and methods; and (iii) credibility assessment. The ecosystem is applied to four use cases for illustration. The need for training and regulatory guidance is also discussed.

Paediatric investigation plans for pain: painfully slow!

PURPOSE: To examine the early impact of the Paediatric Regulation, which entered into force in Europe on 27 January 2007, on the development of pharmaceutical drugs in the therapeutic field of pain submitted to the Paediatric Committee (PDCO) and to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). METHODS: Paediatric Investigations Plans (PIPs) submitted with a Decision (outcome) reached between September 2007 and March 2010 were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Of the 17 Paediatric Investigation Plans submitted, 14 have resulted in an EMA Decision, 3 were withdrawn by the applicants, 8 were granted a full waiver from development, and 1 resulted in a negative opinion. Decisions as issued included 15 clinical trials, with at least 1,282 children to be recruited into studies across five different products. Neonates were included in four of the products. CONCLUSIONS: The small number of submissions indicates a lack of new drugs being developed for the management of pain. Ethical concerns that too many vulnerable children will be recruited into clinical trials must be balanced against limiting the number of off-label prescribing and obtaining age-appropriate information on paediatric use. Now is an opportune time for clinicians, academics, learned societies and industry to collaborate for the benefit of children in pain.

Randomized, controlled trial of miglustat in Gaucher's disease type 3.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of miglustat, concomitant with enzyme replacement therapy (ERT), in patients with Gaucher's disease type 3 (GD3). METHODS: This 24-month, phase II, open-label clinical trial of miglustat in GD3 was conducted in two phases. During the initial 12 months, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive miglustat or "no miglustat treatment." The randomized phase was followed by an optional 12-month extension phase in which all patients received miglustat. All patients received ERT during the 24-month period. The primary efficacy end points were change from baseline to months 12 and 24 in vertical saccadic eye movement velocity as determined by the peak amplitude versus amplitude regression line slope. Secondary end points included changes in neurological and neuropsychological assessments, pulmonary function tests, liver and spleen organ volumes, hematological and clinical laboratory assessments, and safety evaluations. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled, of whom 21 were randomized to miglustat and 9 to "no miglustat treatment." Twenty-eight patients entered the 12-month extension phase. No significant between-group differences in vertical saccadic eye movement velocity or in the other neurological or neuropsychological evaluations were observed. Organ volumes and hematological parameters remained stable in both treatment groups, but improvement in pulmonary function and decrease of chitotriosidase levels were observed with miglustat compared with patients receiving ERT alone. INTERPRETATION: Miglustat does not appear to have significant benefits on the neurological manifestations of GD3. However, miglustat may have positive effects on systemic disease (pulmonary function and chitotriosidase activity) in addition to ERT in patients with GD3.