Browsing by Subject "Drug Industry"
Now showing 1 - 20 of 22
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access 3Rs for innovating novel antibiotics: sharing resources, risks, and rewards.(BMJ, 2012-04-03) So, Anthony D; Ruiz-Esparza, Quentin; Gupta, Neha; Cars, OttoItem Open Access Access to patient-level data from GlaxoSmithKline clinical trials.(N Engl J Med, 2013-08-01) Nisen, Perry; Rockhold, FrankItem Open Access An interview with Professor Robert J. Lefkowitz, M.D. Interview by Vicki Glaser.(Assay Drug Dev Technol, 2003-04) Lefkowitz, Robert JRobert J. Lefkowitz, M.D., is James B. Duke Professor of Medicine and Professor of Biochemistry at the Duke University Medical Center. He has been an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute since 1976. Dr. Lefkowitz received a Bachelor's degree from Columbia College and an M.D. degree from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. After serving an internship and one year of general medical residency at the College of Physicians and Surgeons, he served as a Clinical and Research Associate with Drs. Jesse Roth and Ira Pastan at the National Institutes of Health. He then completed his medical residency and research and clinical training in cardiovascular disease at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. During this time, he continued his research in the laboratories of Dr. Edgar Haber and was a teaching fellow at Harvard Medical School. On completing his training, he was appointed Associate Professor of Medicine and Assistant Professor of Biochemistry at the Duke University Medical Center.Item Open Access Compliance with results reporting at ClinicalTrials.gov.(N Engl J Med, 2015-03-12) Anderson, Monique L; Chiswell, Karen; Peterson, Eric D; Tasneem, Asba; Topping, James; Califf, Robert MBACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) mandates timely reporting of results of applicable clinical trials to ClinicalTrials.gov. We characterized the proportion of applicable clinical trials with publicly available results and determined independent factors associated with the reporting of results. METHODS: Using an algorithm based on input from the National Library of Medicine, we identified trials that were likely to be subject to FDAAA provisions (highly likely applicable clinical trials, or HLACTs) from 2008 through 2013. We determined the proportion of HLACTs that reported results within the 12-month interval mandated by the FDAAA or at any time during the 5-year study period. We used regression models to examine characteristics associated with reporting at 12 months and throughout the 5-year study period. RESULTS: From all the trials at ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified 13,327 HLACTs that were terminated or completed from January 1, 2008, through August 31, 2012. Of these trials, 77.4% were classified as drug trials. A total of 36.9% of the trials were phase 2 studies, and 23.4% were phase 3 studies; 65.6% were funded by industry. Only 13.4% of trials reported summary results within 12 months after trial completion, whereas 38.3% reported results at any time up to September 27, 2013. Timely reporting was independently associated with factors such as FDA oversight, a later trial phase, and industry funding. A sample review suggested that 45% of industry-funded trials were not required to report results, as compared with 6% of trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and 9% of trials that were funded by other government or academic institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ethical and legal obligations to disclose findings promptly, most HLACTs did not report results to ClinicalTrials.gov in a timely fashion during the study period. Industry-funded trials adhered to legal obligations more often than did trials funded by the NIH or other government or academic institutions. (Funded by the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative and the NIH.).Item Open Access Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.(J Health Econ, 1991-07) DiMasi, JA; Hansen, RW; Grabowski, HG; Lasagna, LThe research and development costs of 93 randomly selected new chemical entities (NCEs) were obtained from a survey of 12 U.S.-owned pharmaceutical firms. These data were used to estimate the pre-tax average cost of new drug development. The costs of abandoned NCEs were linked to the costs of NCEs that obtained marketing approval. For base case parameter values, the estimated out-of-pocket cost per approved NCE is $114 million (1987 dollars). Capitalizing out-of-pocket costs to the point of marketing approval at a 9% discount rate yielded an average cost estimate of $231 million (1987 dollars).Item Open Access Data monitoring and interim analyses in the pharmaceutical industry: ethical and logistical considerations.(Stat Med, 1993-03) Rockhold, FW; Enas, GGThe characteristics of data monitoring and the need for the use of data monitoring committees in clinical trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry differ from those of trials sponsored by government. Data monitoring is a continuous process in industry trials due to the regulatory requirements and the need to more thoroughly evaluate safety of new compounds. As part of this process, interim analyses are employed to make decisions about treatment effects. In some cases, such analyses may require the use of an external data monitoring committee to assist in the data review, analysis and decision making. A number of examples of interim analyses, with and without data monitoring committees, are discussed. Issues surrounding the need for external data monitoring committees and recommendations are presented. In particular the issues of sponsor participation in the data monitoring committee and controls of the decision making process are considered.Item Open Access Developing drugs for developing countries.(Health Aff (Millwood), 2006-03) Ridley, David; Moe, JeffreyInfectious and parasitic diseases create enormous health burdens, but because most of the people suffering from these diseases are poor, little is invested in developing treatments. We propose that developers of treatments for neglected diseases receive a "priority review voucher." The voucher could save an average of one year of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review and be sold by the developer to the manufacturer of a blockbuster drug. In a well-functioning market, the voucher would speed access to highly valued treatments. Thus, the voucher could benefit consumers in both developing and developed countries at relatively low cost to the taxpayer.Item Open Access Economic return of clinical trials performed under the pediatric exclusivity program.(JAMA, 2007-02-07) Li, Jennifer; Eisenstein, Eric; Reid, Elizabeth; Mangum, Barry; Schulman, Kevin; Goldsmith, John; Murphy, M Dianne; Califf, Robert; Benjamin, Daniel; JrCONTEXT: In 1997, Congress authorized the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant 6-month extensions of marketing rights through the Pediatric Exclusivity Program if industry sponsors complete FDA-requested pediatric trials. The program has been praised for creating incentives for studies in children and has been criticized as a "windfall" to the innovator drug industry. This critique has been a substantial part of congressional debate on the program, which is due to expire in 2007. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the economic return to industry for completing pediatric exclusivity trials. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cohort study of programs conducted for pediatric exclusivity. Nine drugs that were granted pediatric exclusivity were selected. From the final study reports submitted to the FDA (2002-2004), key elements of the clinical trial design and study operations were obtained, and the cost of performing each study was estimated and converted into estimates of after-tax cash outflows. Three-year market sales were obtained and converted into estimates of after-tax cash inflows based on 6 months of additional market protection. Net economic return (cash inflows minus outflows) and net return-to-costs ratio (net economic return divided by cash outflows) for each product were then calculated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Net economic return and net return-to-cost ratio. RESULTS: The indications studied reflect a broad representation of the program: asthma, tumors, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, hypertension, depression/generalized anxiety disorder, diabetes mellitus, gastroesophageal reflux, bacterial infection, and bone mineralization. The distribution of net economic return for 6 months of exclusivity varied substantially among products (net economic return ranged from -$8.9 million to $507.9 million and net return-to-cost ratio ranged from -0.68 to 73.63). CONCLUSIONS: The economic return for pediatric exclusivity is variable. As an incentive to complete much-needed clinical trials in children, pediatric exclusivity can generate lucrative returns or produce more modest returns on investment.Item Open Access Economics of new oncology drug development.(J Clin Oncol, 2007-01-10) DiMasi, Joseph A; Grabowski, Henry GPURPOSE: Review existing studies and provide new results on the development, regulatory, and market aspects of new oncology drug development. METHODS: We utilized data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), company surveys, and publicly available commercial business intelligence databases on new oncology drugs approved in the United States and on investigational oncology drugs to estimate average development and regulatory approval times, clinical approval success rates, first-in-class status, and global market diffusion. RESULTS: We found that approved new oncology drugs to have a disproportionately high share of FDA priority review ratings, of orphan drug designations at approval, and of drugs that were granted inclusion in at least one of the FDA's expedited access programs. US regulatory approval times were shorter, on average, for oncology drugs (0.5 years), but US clinical development times were longer on average (1.5 years). Clinical approval success rates were similar for oncology and other drugs, but proportionately more of the oncology failures reached expensive late-stage clinical testing before being abandoned. In relation to other drugs, new oncology drug approvals were more often first-in-class and diffused more widely across important international markets. CONCLUSION: The market success of oncology drugs has induced a substantial amount of investment in oncology drug development in the last decade or so. However, given the great need for further progress, the extent to which efforts to develop new oncology drugs will grow depends on future public-sector investment in basic research, developments in translational medicine, and regulatory reforms that advance drug-development science.Item Open Access Impact of economic, regulatory, and patent policies on innovation in cancer chemoprevention.(Cancer Prev Res (Phila), 2008-07) Moe, Jeffrey LChemoprevention agents are an emerging new scientific area that holds out the promise of delaying or avoiding a number of common cancers. These new agents face significant scientific, regulatory, and economic barriers, however, which have limited investment in their research and development (R&D). These barriers include above-average clinical trial scales, lengthy time frames between discovery and Food and Drug Administration approval, liability risks (because they are given to healthy individuals), and a growing funding gap for early-stage candidates. The longer time frames and risks associated with chemoprevention also cause exclusivity time on core patents to be limited or subject to significant uncertainties. We conclude that chemoprevention uniquely challenges the structure of incentives embodied in the economic, regulatory, and patent policies for the biopharmaceutical industry. Many of these policy issues are illustrated by the recently Food and Drug Administration-approved preventive agents Gardasil and raloxifene. Our recommendations to increase R&D investment in chemoprevention agents include (a) increased data exclusivity times on new biological and chemical drugs to compensate for longer gestation periods and increasing R&D costs; chemoprevention is at the far end of the distribution in this regard; (b) policies such as early-stage research grants and clinical development tax credits targeted specifically to chemoprevention agents (these are policies that have been very successful in increasing R&D investment for orphan drugs); and (c) a no-fault liability insurance program like that currently in place for children's vaccines.Item Open Access Moving from the Trial to the Real World: Improving Medication Adherence Using Insights of Implementation Science.(Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology, 2019-01) Zullig, Leah L; Deschodt, Mieke; Liska, Jan; Bosworth, Hayden B; De Geest, SabinaMedication nonadherence is a serious public health concern. Although there are promising interventions that improve medication adherence, most interventions are developed and tested in tightly controlled research environments that are dissimilar from the real-world settings where the majority of patients receive health care. Implementation science methods have the potential to facilitate and accelerate the translation shift from the trial world to the real world. We demonstrate their potential by reviewing published, high-quality medication adherence studies that could potentially be translated into clinical practice yet lack essential implementation science building blocks. We further illustrate this point by describing an adherence study that demonstrates how implementation science creates a junction between research and real-world settings. This article is a call to action for researchers, clinicians, policy makers, pharmaceutical companies, and others involved in the delivery of care to adopt the implementation science paradigm in the scale-up of adherence (research) programs.Item Open Access Pediatric Antibacterial and Antifungal Trials From 2007 to 2017.(Pediatrics, 2018-09) Thaden, Joshua T; Chiswell, Karen; Jaffe, Ian; Bergin, Stephen P; Yang, William E; Romaine, Andrew; Roberts, Jamie; Nambiar, Sumathi; Farley, John; Benjamin, Daniel K; Smith, P Brian; Tsalik, Ephraim LBACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:The impact of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) and the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) on pediatric antibacterial or antifungal drug trials is unknown. Our objective was to identify and characterize trials conducted under the BPCA and/or the PREA. METHODS:Pediatric antibacterial and antifungal drug trials with industry or US federal funding registered in clinicaltrials.gov from 2007 to 2017 were identified. Those conducted under BPCA and/or PREA were identified through US Food and Drug Administration and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development databases. RESULTS:Of 17 495 pediatric trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov between October 2007 and September 2017, 122 systemic antibacterial or antifungal drug trials with industry or US federal funding were identified. Of these 122 trials, 98 (80%) involved antibacterials only, 23 (19%) antifungals only, and 1 (1%) both antibacterials and antifungals. These represented <1% (122 of 17 495) of pediatric trials. Neither pediatric antibacterial nor antifungal drug trials commonly enrolled neonates 0 to 30 days old (30% [30 of 99] vs 42% [10 of 24], respectively). Pediatric antibacterial and antifungal trials were commonly industry funded (79% [78 of 99] and 83% [20 of 24], respectively). In total, 65% (79 of 122) of pediatric antibacterial and/or antifungal drug trials were conducted under BPCA and/or PREA. Researchers in trials conducted under BPCA and/or PREA, relative to non-BPCA and/or PREA trials, more often collected pharmacokinetic data (70% [55 of 79] vs 26% [11 of 43]). CONCLUSIONS:Although the majority of pediatric antibacterial and/or antifungal drug trials were conducted under BPCA and/or PREA, the overall number was low. Greater effort is needed to stimulate such trials.Item Open Access Potential impact of pharmaceutical industry rebates on medication adherence.(The American journal of managed care, 2019-05) Zullig, Leah L; Granger, Bradi B; Vilme, Helene; Oakes, Megan M; Bosworth, Hayden BMany patients struggle to take their prescription medications as prescribed. Multiple interacting factors influence medication nonadherence. The cost of medications, particularly a patient's out-of-pocket cost, spans several of these domains. One proposed option for reducing a patient's out-of-pocket cost involves directly sharing manufacturer rebates with patients to lower their out-of-pocket costs at the pharmacy counter. Rebates are widely used across industries (eg, pharmaceutical manufacturers, tourism taxes, automobile manufacturers) in negotiations between sellers and buyers for a particular product. Medication rebates play an important role in the current US pharmaceutical marketplace. However, rebate contract terms are not publicly reported, so it is difficult for patients to determine if, and how, a rebate is reflected in their out-of-pocket costs. This commentary addresses the role of rebates in the current US healthcare landscape and their relationship with medication adherence.Item Open Access Returns to R&D on new drug introductions in the 1980s.(J Health Econ, 1994-12) Grabowski, HG; Vernon, JMThis study finds that the mean IRR for 1980-84 U.S. new drug introductions is 11.1%, and the mean NPV is 22 million (1990 dollars). The distribution of returns is highly skewed. The results are robust to plausible changes in the baseline assumptions. Our work is also compared with a 1993 study by the OTA. Despite some important differences in assumptions, both studies imply that returns for the average NCE are within one percentage point of the industry's cost of capital. This is much less than what is typically observed in analyses based on accounting data.Item Open Access Should the patent system for new medicines be abolished?(Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2007-11) DiMasi, JA; Grabowski, HGItem Open Access Spending on postapproval drug safety.(Health Aff (Millwood), 2006-03) Ridley, David; Kramer, Judith; Tilson, Hugh; Schulman, KevinWithdrawals of high-profile pharmaceuticals have focused attention on post-approval safety surveillance. There have been no systematic assessments of spending on postapproval safety. We surveyed drug manufacturers regarding safety efforts. Mean spending on postapproval safety per company in 2003 was 56 million dollars (0.3 percent of sales). Assuming a constant safety-to-sales ratio, we estimated that total spending on postapproval safety by the top twenty drug manufacturers was 800 million dollars in 2003. We also examined, using regression analysis, the relationship between the number of safety personnel and the number of initial adverse-event reports. This study offers information for the debate on proposed changes to safety surveillance.Item Open Access Strategic use of statistical thinking in drug development.(Stat Med, 2000-12-15) Rockhold, FWThe role of the statistician and statistical thinking in the pharmaceutical industry has evolved greatly in the last four or five decades. Regulatory developments and the changing face of the science of drug development have driven this evolution. The increasing regulatory requirement for statistical input in critical areas has facilitated a wider range of applications. The pace of change of science in general has brought statisticians into contact with a wider range of potential customers. More importantly, it has allowed the statistician to become increasingly involved in strategic issues with the possibility of influencing the direction of the business. However, it is not clear that the statistical profession in industry is adequately prepared for these opportunities either in attitude or training. Changing the statisticians' approach to their role and acquiring the correct training and experience are critical for the profession to optimize their contribution to the drug discovery and development processes.Item Open Access The cost of drug development.(N Engl J Med, 2015-05-14) DiMasi, Joseph A; Grabowski, Henry G; Hansen, Ronald WItem Open Access The distribution of sales revenues from pharmaceutical innovation.(Pharmacoeconomics, 2000) Grabowski, HG; Vernon, JOBJECTIVE: This report updates our earlier work on the returns to pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) in the US (1980 to 1984), which showed that the returns distributions are highly skewed. It evaluates a more recent cohort of new drug introductions in the US (1988 to 1992) and examines how the returns distribution is emerging for drugs with life cycles concentrated in the 1990s versus the 1980s. DESIGN AND SETTING: Methods were described in detail in our earlier reports. The current sample included 110 new drug entities (including 28 orphan drugs), and sales data were obtained for the period 1988 to 1998, which represented between 7 and 11 years of sales for the drugs included. 20 years was chosen as the expected market life for this cohort, and a 2-step procedure was used to project future sales for the drugs--during the period until patent expiry and then beyond patent expiry until the 20-year time-horizon was completed. Thus, the values in the first half of the life cycle are essentially based on realised sales, while those in the second half are projected using information on patent expiry and other inputs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Peak annual sales for the top decile of drugs introduced between 1988 and 1992 in the US amounted to almost $US1.1 billion compared with peak sales of less than $US175 million (1992 values) for the mean compound. In particular, the top decile accounted for 56% of overall sales revenue. Although the sales distributions were skewed in both our earlier and current analysis, the top decile in the later time-period exhibited more rapid rates of growth after launch, a peak that was more than 50% greater in real terms than for the 1980 to 1984 cohort, and a faster rate of expected decline in sales after patent expiry. One factor contributing to the distribution of sales revenues becoming more skewed over time is the orphan drug phenomenon (i.e. most of the orphan drugs are concentrated at the bottom of the distribution). CONCLUSION: The distribution of sales revenues for new drug compounds is highly skewed in nature. In this regard, the top decile of new drugs accounts for more than half of the total sales generated by the 1988 to 1992 cohort analysed. Furthermore, the distribution of sales revenues for this cohort is more skewed than that of the 1980 to 1984 cohort we analysed in previous research.Item Open Access The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs.(J Health Econ, 2003-03) DiMasi, Joseph A; Hansen, Ronald W; Grabowski, Henry GThe research and development costs of 68 randomly selected new drugs were obtained from a survey of 10 pharmaceutical firms. These data were used to estimate the average pre-tax cost of new drug development. The costs of compounds abandoned during testing were linked to the costs of compounds that obtained marketing approval. The estimated average out-of-pocket cost per new drug is 403 million US dollars (2000 dollars). Capitalizing out-of-pocket costs to the point of marketing approval at a real discount rate of 11% yields a total pre-approval cost estimate of 802 million US dollars (2000 dollars). When compared to the results of an earlier study with a similar methodology, total capitalized costs were shown to have increased at an annual rate of 7.4% above general price inflation.