Search

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adult cancer drugs have historically been exempted from pediatric testing requirements. In 2017, Congress passed the Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity (RACE) for Children Act to expand mandatory pediatric testing to cancer drugs; the law took effect in 2020. With this study, we sought to evaluate how the pediatric testing of molecularly targeted adult cancer drugs changed after the RACE Act. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used publicly available Food and Drug Administration data to compare pediatric post-approval requirements, trials, and trial characteristics, including timing, in adult cancer drugs before and after the RACE Act. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved 61 adult cancer drugs with molecular targets relevant to pediatric cancer; 40 were submitted before 2020, and 21 were submitted after 2020. The 40 pre-RACE Act drugs were associated with no pediatric post-approval requirements, whereas the 21 post-RACE Act drugs were associated with 15 pediatric post-approval testing requirements. Approximately two-thirds (26/40, 65%) of pre-RACE Act drugs and 57% (12/21) of post-RACE Act drugs were evaluated in pediatric trials. Among pre-RACE Act cancer drugs, pediatric trials were initiated a median of 0.04 years after approval (interquartile range: -3.3 to 1.9 years), whereas post-RACE Act trials were initiated a median of 2.8 years before approval (interquartile range: -4.3 to 0.3 years). CONCLUSIONS: The RACE Act has been associated with greater numbers of pediatric postapproval testing requirements and the earlier initiation of pediatric trials, although early pediatric trial rates appear unchanged. Formalizing pediatric testing requirements may lead to the timely completion of pediatric studies to the benefit of pediatric patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Research and regulatory approval for pediatric uses of prescription drugs often lag years after adult approvals, during which time substantial off‐label use of medications in children can occur. We evaluated whether US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory actions affected the pediatric use of omalizumab, a biologic drug used to treat asthma. Methods: In this serial cross‐sectional study, we identified quarterly cohorts of children (0–18 years) with moderate‐to‐severe asthma within two large national claims databases of those with commercial insurance and Medicaid from 2003 to 2019. Using an interrupted time‐series analysis, we fit segmented linear regression models to identify changes in the incidence of omalizumab use in 6–11‐year‐old children compared with 12–18‐year‐olds after two time points: (1) 2009Q3 when an FDA advisory committee voted against use for 6–11‐year‐old children and (2) 2016Q2 when FDA expanded omalizumab's labeling to include 6–11‐year‐old children. Results: We identified 9298 new pediatric omalizumab users (84% Medicaid). Among 6–11‐year‐old children, the incidence of omalizumab use did not change following the FDA's initial review of evidence in 2009 and increased after 2016 Q2 FDA approval for this age group in both Medicaid (58 per 100 000 children with asthma, 95% confidence interval [CI] 27–89, p < 0.001) and commercial insurance (57 per 100 000, 95% CI 21–94, p = 0.003) compared with 12–18‐year‐old children. Conclusions: The use of omalizumab among asthmatic children aged 6–11 years remained steady after FDA advisory committee concerns in 2009 and increased after FDA expanded the indication to include this population in 2016. Additional market incentives may help to ensure the timely generation of evidence and regulatory approval of medications for children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsWith 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a 2024 study on the attitudes of patients 65 years and older on the use of routine clinical data in making treatment decisions. Results show participants' interest in such data and in how drugs work for them, and their concerns on confounders like populations' similarity of conditions with them, and on common minor side effects. Also noted are participants' common view that their physicians determine the evidence's applicability to them, and recommend a medication.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) oversight role in the pharmaceutical market is critical to the health of patients and the health care system. This study characterized the FTC's policy on the pharmaceutical market in recent decades, identifying the types of actions it has favored, barriers it has faced, and authorities that remain untested. Objective: To review FTC legal actions in the pharmaceutical market from 2000-2022. Evidence Review: Legal actions were determined through manual review of search results from the FTC's online Legal Library as well as a 2023 FTC report on pharmaceutical actions. The alleged misconduct, type of legal action taken, timing, and outcome were collected from press releases, complaints, orders, and other legal documents. Findings: From 2000-2022, the FTC challenged 62 mergers, brought 22 enforcement actions against allegedly unlawful business practices, and made 1 rule related to pharmaceuticals. Alleged misconduct in enforcement actions involved anticompetitive settlements in patent litigation (n = 11), unilateral actions by brand manufacturers to delay generic competition (n = 6), noncompete agreements (n = 4), and monopolization (n = 3), with 10 outcomes involving monetary payment, totaling $1.6 billion. Of the 62 mergers the FTC challenged, 61 were allowed to continue, 58 after divesting certain drugs to third-party competitors. The FTC's reliance on drug divestitures decreased from 18 drugs per year from 2000-2017 to 4.3 per year from 2017-2023. Conclusions and Relevance: The FTC brought about 1 enforcement action and 3 merger actions per year against pharmaceutical manufacturers from 2000-2022, pursuing a small fraction of the estimated misconduct and consolidation in the pharmaceutical marketplace. Although the FTC faces substantial legal and practical limitations, important tools remain untested, including a rule defining "unfair methods of competition," that may allow it to more effectively prevent repetitive patterns of anticompetitive behavior. This Special Communication examines the Federal Trade Commission's policy and legal actions related to alleged misconduct, consolidation, and anticompetitive behavior in the pharmaceutical market between 2000 and 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US has found it hard to establish competition in the market for biologics, which are therapeutics derived from living cells. In the case of small-molecule drugs, the emergence of direct competition from generic drugs at the end of the exclusivity period has provided the impetus for price competition, leading to lower spending. In 2010, to spur competition in the biologics market, Congress created a simplified pathway for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve comparable versions of biologic drugs called biosimilars. Biosimilar competition in the US has nonetheless remained weaker than in European peer countries. For example, as of August 2020, there were 52 biosimilars available in Germany, and only 15 in the US.1 An important contributor to this "biosimilar gap" has been the fact that biosimilars to biologic blockbusters such as adalimumab (Humira) and etanercept (Enbrel) were only (or will only become) commercially available in the US several years after receiving FDA approval, while they were available in Europe years earlier.2 Through the end of 2021, it took biosimilars a median of 301 days between receiving FDA approval and becoming available for use.3 In one recent study, the median length of time between when a biologic drug was approved and when its first biosimilar was made available to US patients was 21.5 years.4 This paucity of competition has contributed to high US spending on biologics. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2022 41% of US drug expenditures was spent on biologics, which represented 16% of US prescriptions.5 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document presents a study on the impact of skinny-label generic competition on Medicare Part D spending from 2015 to 2021. Skinny-label generics are generic drugs that are approved for a subset of the indications of the brand-name drug. The study found that skinny-label generic competition saved Medicare approximately $14.6 billion during this period. The savings were highest for drugs such as Crestor, Lyrica, and Gleevec. The study suggests that skinny-label generics can improve patient access to lower-cost medications and recommends reinforcing the skinny-label pathway to encourage timely generic competition. [Extracted from the article]

Under the Inflation Reduction Act, Medicare will be able to negotiate prices for a limited number of high-cost prescription drugs. This article describes a loophole in the rules around the selection of drugs for negotiation. The authors propose a solution that may reduce perverse incentives for drug manufacturers and improve the ability of Medicare to optimize savings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US Food and Drug Administration can require risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programs for prescription drugs to ensure the benefits of use outweigh the risks. We conducted a national survey of physicians' experiences prescribing eight REMS‐covered drugs: (1) ambrisentan; (2) bosentan; (3) clozapine; (4) isotretinoin; (5–7) the multiple myeloma (MM) drugs lenalidomide, pomalidomide, thalidomide; and (8) sodium oxybate. Between May 2022 and January 2023, we surveyed 5,331 physician prescribers of these drugs, and 1,295 (24%) returned surveys (range: 149 for bosentan to 226 for MM drugs). Although 765 (68%) respondents thought the certification process provided useful drug information, 757 (67%) wanted materials to include benefit data and 944 (84%) non‐REMS‐related risk data. A majority (704, 63%) thought the safe use requirements facilitated discussion with patients, but a similar number (637, 57%) attributed delayed medication access to these requirements. In multivariable modeling, MM drug and isotretinoin respondents were less likely than sodium oxybate respondents to agree that the certification process provided useful drug information (MM drug: odds ratio (OR) = 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.25–0.55; isotretinoin: OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.25–0.61), and isotretinoin, clozapine, and bosetan respondents were more likely than sodium oxybate respondents to agree that the safe use requirements often delayed medication access (isotretinoin: OR = 5.83, 95% CI = 3.70–9.19; clozapine: OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.08–2.54; bosentan: OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.12–2.85). Most physicians believe REMS programs convey useful drug safety information and facilitate discussion with patients but also seek information on benefits and non‐REMS‐related risks and better integration of REMS processes into clinical workflows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study uses public US Food and Drug Administration lists to identify new drugs approved from 2015 through 2021 to examine recent estimates of compliance with and timing of pediatric testing requirements after passage of the Pediatric Research Equity Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article from the New England Journal of Medicine discusses the challenges of delayed confirmatory trials for drugs granted accelerated approval by the FDA. It highlights the potential use of fines as a tool to incentivize timely completion of these trials, but also acknowledges the procedural and practical challenges associated with imposing fines on manufacturers. The authors suggest potential reforms to streamline the process and improve compliance with trial requirements, emphasizing the importance of protecting public health and ensuring that drugs on the market have demonstrated clinical benefit. [Extracted from the article]

Key Points: Question: What is the clinical benefit of cancer drugs granted accelerated approval, and on what basis are they converted to regular approval? Findings: In this cohort study of cancer drugs granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2017, 41% (19/46) did not improve overall survival or quality of life in confirmatory trials after more than 5 years of follow-up, with results not yet available for another 15% (7/46). Among drugs converted to regular approval, 60% (29/48) of conversions relied on surrogate measures. Meaning: Although accelerated approval can be useful, some cancer drugs do not end up demonstrating benefit in extending patients' lives or improving their quality of life. Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) accelerated approval pathway allows approval of investigational drugs treating unmet medical needs based on changes to surrogate measures considered "reasonably likely" to predict clinical benefit. Postapproval clinical trials are then required to confirm whether these drugs offer clinical benefit. Objective: To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately demonstrate clinical benefit and to evaluate the basis of conversion to regular approval. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, publicly available FDA data were used to identify cancer drugs granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demonstrated improvement in quality of life or overall survival in accelerated approvals with more than 5 years of follow-up, as well as confirmatory trial end points and time to conversion for drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval. Results: A total of 129 cancer drug–indication pairs were granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Among 46 indications with more than 5 years of follow-up (approved 2013-2017), approximately two-thirds (29, 63%) were converted to regular approval, 10 (22%) were withdrawn, and 7 (15%) remained ongoing after a median of 6.3 years. Fewer than half (20/46, 43%) demonstrated a clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Time to withdrawal decreased from 9.9 years to 3.6 years, and time to regular approval increased from 1.6 years to 3.6 years. Among 48 drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval, 19 (40%) were converted based on overall survival, 21 (44%) on progression-free survival, 5 (10%) on response rate plus duration of response, 2 (4%) on response rate, and 1 (2%) despite a negative confirmatory trial. Comparing accelerated and regular approval indications, 18 of 48 (38%) were unchanged, while 30 of 48 (63%) had different indications (eg, earlier line of therapy). Conclusions and Relevance: Most cancer drugs granted accelerated approval did not demonstrate benefit in overall survival or quality of life within 5 years of accelerated approval. Patients should be clearly informed about the cancer drugs that use the accelerated approval pathway and do not end up showing benefits in patient-centered clinical outcomes. This study aims to determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration ultimately demonstrate clinical benefit and to evaluate the basis of conversion to regular approval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The False Claims Act is the US federal government's primary tool for identifying and penalizing pharmaceutical fraud. The Department of Justice uses the False Claims Act to bring civil cases against drug manufacturers that allegedly obtain improper payment from federal programs. Methods: The authors searched the Department of Justice website for press releases published between 2006 and 2022 that announced fraud actions brought against drug companies. They then used the World Health Organization's Anatomical Therapeutic Classification index to identify the classes of prescription drugs implicated in fraud actions. Findings: During fiscal years 2006–2022, payments by six manufacturers amounted to more than 28% of total payments made as a result of federal False Claims Act actions. Nervous system and cardiovascular drugs were the classes of medications most commonly implicated in alleged fraud. Federal officials most frequently alleged that companies improperly promoted nervous system drugs and paid kickbacks to increase revenues from cardiovascular, antineoplastic and immunomodulating, and alimentary tract and metabolism drugs. Conclusions: Despite frequent pharmaceutical fraud settlements and penalties, incidence of alleged fraud among drug companies remains high. Alternative methods for preventing and deterring fraud could help safeguard our health systems and promote public health, and policy makers should ensure that effective fraud enforcement complements preventive public health regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study estimates public and private spending on genetically targeted treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy during years in which the drugs were marketed without completed confirmatory studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]