Search

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]

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]

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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patents prevent generic drug entry. Brand firms file new "method of use" patents for old drugs to prevent generic entry. Congress addressed this issue by creating the "skinny label" pathway, which allows generic firms to use the drug label to indicate that the old drug can only be used for non‐patented uses. This pathway is now in jeopardy due to a recent court case. This paper outlines the issues and suggests possible legislative solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Covid‐19 pandemic highlighted the need to examine public trust in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vaccine approval process and the role of political influence in the FDA's decisions. Ensuring that the FDA is itself trustworthy is important for justifying public trust in its actions, like vaccine approvals, thereby promoting public health. We propose five conditions of trustworthiness that the FDA should meet when it reviews vaccines, even during emergencies: consistency with rules, proper expert or political decision‐makers, proper decision‐making and noninterference, connection to public preference, and transparency of both reasons and procedures. The five conditions provide a road map of procedural and substantive requirements, which the FDA has variably implemented, focused on ensuring appropriate influence of political interests. While being a trustworthy agency cannot guarantee the public's trust, implementing these conditions builds a groundwork for public trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody indicated for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. The accelerated approval decision was controversial due to concerns about the use of an unvalidated surrogate measure, beta‐amyloid, as the basis for approval and a lack of clinical outcome benefit. Between October 2021 and September 2022, we conducted a survey of a nationally representative group of internists, medical oncologists, and cardiologists to understand perspectives around aducanumab's approval and how this FDA decision may influence trust in other drugs approved through the accelerated approval program. Among 214 physician respondents familiar with the accelerated approval of aducanumab, 184 (86%) would not prescribe or recommend aducanumab. Further, 143 (67%) physicians reported losing trust in other drugs approved through the accelerated approval program due to the FDA's decision with aducanumab. As a growing number of similar novel Alzheimer's disease treatments are on the horizon, the first of which, lecanemab, already has received accelerated approval in January 2023, our survey findings provide insight into the impact of the FDA's regulatory decisions on the perspectives and prescribing behavior of physicians concerning these novel drug treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the use and timing of market introduction of authorized generics (AGs), which unlike independent generics are sold by the brand‐name drug manufacturer under a generic label. Data Sources: This study used public Medicaid prescription drug use data from 2014 to 2020. Study Design: This cross‐sectional study measured the percentage of filled prescriptions for AGs, compared with brand‐name and independent generic versions. We also identified the frequency and characteristics of AGs marketed at least 1 year before independent generics. Data Extraction Methods: Drugs were classified based on manufacturer‐reported data to Medicaid. Principal Findings: From 2014 to 2020, 1023 AGs accounted for 175 million filled Medicaid prescriptions. These represented 4% of Medicaid prescription drug use, and 16% of medication use among products with AGs available. Among 393 AGs for drugs without generic competition before 2014, 139 (35%) were marketed at least 1 year before independent generics or had no independent generic competition through December 2020. Conclusions: AGs represented a small share of Medicaid prescription drug use from 2014 to 2020, but when AGs were available, they accounted for sizeable market share. Among the minority of cases in which AGs were marketed a year or more before independent generics, manufacturers may be using AGs to bolster brand‐name drug prices or to undermine independent generic competition, meriting further attention by regulators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze whether other outcome measures used in health technology assessment (HTA) address the criticisms of quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs). Data Sources and Study Setting: HTA methods guidance from 11 US comparator countries (the G10 and Australia) and six value frameworks from US organizations were reviewed to identify health outcome measures currently used to evaluate the benefits of a drug. Study Design: The study involved a documentary analysis of guidelines to identify outcome measures used by the sampled HTA organizations. Similar outcomes were grouped together into outcome types. Each type was analyzed to determine the extent to which it replicates key advantages and responds to criticisms of QALYs extracted from the literature. Extraction Methods: Outcomes were included if guidance from at least one HTA organization identified the outcome as acceptable for HTA. Outcomes measuring or evaluating the benefit, clinical effect, or impact of a drug or health technology was included; methods of calculating costs were excluded. Principal Findings: Seven types of outcome measures were identified falling into three groups: preference‐based, single‐dimension outcomes, and outcomes using non‐health perspectives. Among the seven QALY alternative outcome measures currently used for HTA by the sampled countries, no one outcome measure addresses all the QALY criticisms while retaining the advantageous features of the QALY. Conclusions: Proposals to adopt health technology assessment (HTA) to support value‐based pricing of prescription drugs in the US have faced pushback over the use of the QALY. There is no single "right" outcome measure, and the criticisms of QALYs apply to other outcome measures used to evaluate health. The measures identified have different features and strengths, which may be appropriate for specific decision making goals, but the QALY remains the best option for decision making that requires comparisons of the overall societal value of health gains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After market exclusivity ends for biologic drugs, biosimilars—follow‐on versions made by other manufacturers—can compete with lower prices. Biosimilars have modestly reduced prescription drug spending for US payers, but it is unclear whether patients have directly experienced any savings. In this study we assessed whether availability of biosimilar infliximab was associated with lower out‐of‐pocket (OOP) costs, using claims from a national data set of commercially insured patients from 2014 to 2018. We used two‐part models, adjusting for patient demographics, clinical characteristics, insurance plan type, and calendar month. Compared with the reference biologic, there was no difference in the percentage of biosimilar claims with OOP costs (30.1% vs. 30.8%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84–1.15, P = 0.84) or the average nonzero OOP cost (median $378 vs. $538, adjusted mean ratio (aMR) 0.97, 95% CI, 0.80–1.18, P = 0.77). The percentage of claims with OOP costs was lower after biosimilar competition (30.7% vs. 35.0%, aOR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.94–0.99, P = 0.003), but average nonzero costs increased (median $534 vs. $520, aMR 1.04, 95% CI, 1.01–1.07, P = 0.004). Thus, early biosimilar infliximab competition did not improve affordability for patients. Policymakers need to better assure that competition in the biosimilar market translates to lower costs for patients using these medications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the introduction of biosimilars as competition to the blockbuster drug Humira (adalimumab), which has been a top-selling drug for the past decade. It examines the potential impact of biosimilars on lowering drug prices and addresses the challenges in biosimilar market competition, including patent issues and financial incentives in the supply chain.

To address unresolved questions about drug safety and efficacy at the time of approval, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) may require that manufacturers conduct additional studies during the postmarketing period. As a growing proportion of new cancer drugs are approved on the basis of limited evidence of clinical benefit, timely completion of postmarketing requirements is important. We used publicly available regulatory documents to evaluate key characteristics of pivotal studies supporting EMA‐approved cancer drugs from 2004–2014 and assessed completion rates of postmarketing data collection requirements after a minimum of 5 years. From 2004–2014, 79% (45/57) of EMA‐approved cancer drugs had to fulfill postmarketing requirements. Pivotal trials supporting the approval of cancer drugs with postmarketing requirements were less likely to have randomized designs (41/61, 67% vs. 11/11, 100%), include an active comparator (20/61, 33% vs. 10/11, 91%), or measure overall survival as the primary study end point (18/61, 30% vs. 6/11, 55%) compared with pivotal trials for drugs without postmarketing requirements. Among 200 postmarketing requirements, almost half were designed to assess drug safety. After a minimum of 5 years, 60% (121/200) of requirements were completed, 10% (19/200) were ongoing, and 30% (60/200) were delayed. About half (40/75, 53%) of postmarketing requirements for new clinical studies were completed on time. Delays in the completion of postmarketing requirements often did not impact the likelihood of drugs receiving permanent marketing authorization (87%, 39/45) after 5 years. Our findings highlight the need for EMA to better enforce its authority to require timely completion of postmarketing requirements and studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors respond to a letter by Mitchell Berger in the March‐April 2024 issue of the Hastings Center Report concerning their essay "Securing the Trustworthiness of the FDA to Build Public Trust in Vaccines." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsOnly a small minority of new drugs in "nonprotected" classes are widely covered by Part D plans nationwide in the year after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.Part D plans frequently apply utilization management restrictions such as prior authorizations to newly approved drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes.Drug price influences both formulary inclusion (in nonprotected classes) and coverage restrictions (in both protected and nonprotected classes), while other drug characteristics such as therapeutic benefits are not consistently associated with formulary design. Plans do not seem to favor the minority of drugs that are determined to offer added therapeutic benefit over existing alternatives. Context: Medicare Part D is an outpatient prescription drug benefit for older Americans covering more than 46 million beneficiaries. Except for mandatory coverage for essentially all drugs in six protected classes, plans have substantial flexibility in how they design their formularies: which drugs are covered, which drugs are subject to restrictions, and what factors determine formulary placement. Our objective in this paper was to document the extent to which Part D plans limit coverage of newly approved drugs. Methods: We examined the formulary design of 4,582 Part D plans from 2014 through 2018 and measured (1) the decision to cover newly approved drugs in nonprotected classes, (2) use of utilization management tools in protected and nonprotected classes, and (3) the association between plan design and drug‐level characteristics such as 30‐day cost, therapeutic benefit, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expedited regulatory pathway. Findings: The FDA approved 109 new drugs predominantly used in outpatient settings between 2013 and 2017. Of these, 75 fell outside of the six protected drug classes. One‐fifth of drugs in nonprotected classes (15 out of 75) were covered by more than half of plans during the first year after approval. Coverage was often conditional on utilization management strategies in both protected and nonprotected classes: only seven drugs (6%) were covered without prior authorization requirements in more than half of plans. Higher 30‐day drug costs were associated with more widespread coverage in nonprotected classes: drugs that cost less than $150 for a 30‐day course were covered by fewer than 20% of plans while those that cost more than $30,000 per 30 days were covered by more than 50% of plans. Plans were also more likely to implement utilization management tools on high‐cost drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. A higher proportion of plans implemented utilization management strategies on covered drugs with first‐in‐class status than drugs that were not first in class. Other drug characteristics, including availability of added therapeutic benefit and inclusion in FDA expedited regulatory approval, were not consistently associated with plan coverage or formulary restrictions. Conclusions: Newly approved drugs are frequently subject to formulary exclusions and restrictions in Medicare Part D. Ensuring that formulary design in Part D is linked closely to the therapeutic value of newly approved drugs would improve patients' welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prescription drugs and medical devices are increasingly coming to market through expedited US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pathways that require only limited evidence of safety and efficacy, such as nonrandomized, unblinded trial data in small numbers of patients, or the use of surrogate end points. Reliance on more limited evidence means that there is often greater uncertainty about risks and benefits. Using a modified Delphi process, we sought to identify promising policy approaches that address physician‐patient decision‐making needs about the use of such drugs and medical devices. We convened 13 national leaders from academia, government, nonprofits, payors, and industry who had expertise in medical product regulation, payor policymaking, bioethics, physician practice, patient advocacy, public health expertise/advocacy, clinical trials, the pharmaceutical and device industry, institutional review board oversight, and real‐world evidence. Through multiple rounds of voting and meetings focused on evaluating the feasibility and impact of various interventions, the 13 participants reached the broadest consensus on 4 interventions: strengthening FDA post‐approval study requirements to ensure postmarket evidence is generated in a timely manner, better informing patients about the risks and benefits and level of evidence supporting therapies via simplified and patient‐centered product information "boxes" modeled on nutrition labels, limiting prices for drugs and medical devices approved based on surrogate end point data until confirmatory clinical evidence is generated, and improving health professional education about FDA regulation to better support clinician use of drugs and devices as well as communication with patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biologics accounted for roughly $145 billion in spending in 2018. They are also the fastest growing segment of the pharmaceutical industry. The Biological Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) of 2010 created an abbreviated pathway for biosimilar products to promote price competition in the market for biological drugs. There was great anticipation that the BPCIA would lead to a moderation in drug prices driven by market competition. The observed levels of competition and the accompanying savings have not reached those expected levels. We investigate the early impacts of biosimilar competition on the use and pricing of biological products. We focus especially on the ways in which altered market structures stemming from the implementation of the BPCIA have affected the prices for biological products subject to biosimilar competition. We do so by studying seven products that have recently faced biosimilar competition. We estimate fixed effects and Instrumental Variables models to estimate the impact of market competition on prices. Our results indicate that in the range of one to three entrants each additional marketed product results in a reduction in weighted average market prices of between 5.4% and 7% points. These are the result of a combination of reductions in originator prices and shifting in demand to biosimilar products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsIn the absence of federal action on rising prescription drug costs, we reviewed the details of five states that have enacted prescription drug–pricing boards seeking to lower drug prices based on products' value. Within these states, six such boards are currently authorized; they have similarities but vary in terms of structure, authority, scope, and leverage.As of June 2021, only one of the boards in our sample has conducted pricing reviews; legislators in other states can learn from the successes and challenges of existing boards.Prescription drug–pricing boards represent a novel and promising way to curb state spending and pay for value in prescription drugs but face legal and political barriers in implementation. Context: Rising prescription drug costs are consuming a growing proportion of state and private budgets. In response, lawmakers have experimented with a variety of policies to contain spending and achieve value in prescription drugs. As part of this series of reforms, some state legislatures have recently authorized prescription drug–pricing boards to address the high prices of brand‐name prescription drugs and assess the value of those drugs. Methods: We identified state prescription drug–pricing boards in the United States, defined as any agency authorized by a state legislature to review specific drugs and pursue value‐based drug prices. To describe the characteristics of the boards, we obtained public records of authorizing legislation, guidance documents, and board meeting minutes. We compared the boards' powers and responsibilities and analyzed completed pricing reviews. Findings: Six state drug‐pricing boards in five states met our definition; their design varied substantially. Two of the boards (New York Medicaid and Massachusetts) have authority over drug rebates paid by state Medicaid programs, one (New York Drug Accountability Board) has jurisdiction over state‐regulated commercial insurance, and another three (Maine, Maryland, and New Hampshire) oversee non‐Medicaid, state‐funded insurance. Three boards are authorized to require manufacturers to confidentially submit information related to the pricing and clinical effectiveness of reviewed drugs to inform value determinations. Only one board (New York Medicaid) had completed pricing reviews as of June 3, 2021. Conclusions: Boards' structure, scope, and statutory leverages to compel manufacturers to negotiate lower net costs are key factors that influence whether and to what extent boards can achieve cost savings for states. Though legal constraints may limit the effective reach of prescription drug–pricing boards, these agencies can enable states to address rising prescription drug costs, in part by virtue of their very existence. To overcome practical limitations, states seeking to implement similar policies can build on the experiences and designs of current boards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Launched in 2002, originator adalimumab (Humira) is the top revenue‐generating drug in the United States. Between 2016 and 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 5 adalimumab biosimilars, yet none have been marketed owing to patent dispute settlements. We sought to calculate the cost of this delayed entry to Medicare over this period by estimating the difference between reported spending on originator adalimumab and estimated spending on originator and biosimilar adalimumab products assuming timely biosimilar market entry. Estimates of potential biosimilar spending were calculated based on the following evidence‐based projections: (i) market capture of 15% for the first biosimilar and 5.5% for successive biosimilars in their first year on the market, and 5% annually thereafter; (ii) price reductions of 3.5% per year and 2.4% per additional biosimilar entry for originator adalimumab; and (iii) price discounts of 25% at launch, 3.4% per year, and 1.7% per additional biosimilar entry for biosimilar adalimumab. Based on these assumptions, had adalimumab biosimilars launched upon approval, estimated non‐rebate spending on them would have been $18.3 million in 2016, $225.7 million in 2017, $436.2 million in 2018, and $727.7 million in 2019, whereas estimated non‐rebate spending on originator adalimumab would have been $2.33 billion, $2.04 billion, $1.78 billion, and $1.42 billion. Cumulative spending on adalimumab would have thus been $8.98 billion instead of an observed $12.11 billion. Accounting for estimated rebates, total predicted savings would have been $2.19 billion. Reforms for timely biosimilar availability will be critical in ensuring optimal savings for Medicare after biosimilar approval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US Congress created the Breakthrough Therapy designation in 2012 to expedite drug development and review through efficient clinical trial design and intensive interaction with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewers. Yet, of the 116 pivotal trials supporting Breakthrough‐designated drugs approved 2013–2018, 96 (83%) were already underway or completed when the designation was granted, limiting the potential of the designation to influence trial design. We found no difference between these trials and the 20 (17%) that had not yet begun when the designation was granted (which had greater potential to be impacted by the designation) with respect to phase, size, intervention model (single‐arm vs. multi‐arm), or use of surrogate end points under the Accelerated Approval (AA) pathway. This finding suggests that, in contrast to previous studies, observed trial characteristics were not likely attributable to the designation, and instead other factors such as disease category (e.g., oncology) may be driving both trial design and Breakthrough designation. The 20 trials in our sample that began after designation was granted were, however, over 8 months shorter than trials of nondesignated drugs. This suggests that designations granted early in clinical development may reduce trial time by influencing aspects of clinical programs other than design characteristics, such as timelines for FDA responses. Alternately, certain drugs may be more likely to both receive an early designation and have a shorter trial duration, for example, because of therapeutic category or large effect size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Before the first generic version of a drug is marketed, patent litigation often occurs. The process begins when generic manufacturers notify the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of their intent to market a generic copy of a brand‐name drug protected by patents, which they allege to be invalid or not infringed (called a Paragraph IV certification). Assuming the brand‐name manufacturer responds with litigation within 45 days, a 30‐month stay period is triggered, which bars the FDA from authorizing generic entry until the stay period expires or litigation is resolved in favor of the generic manufacturer. To understand whether 30‐month stays delay generic entry, we examined the timing of major legal events leading to generic entry for a cohort of 46 generic drugs, including the timing of Paragraph IV certification filings, stay period expirations, the FDA approvals of generics, and generic product launches. We found Paragraph IV certifications were filed a median of 5.2 years after the brand drug's FDA approval. There was a median of 3.2 years between the stay period expiration and subsequent generic launch. Because stay periods generally expire well in advance of when generic entry typically occurs, 30‐month stays are unlikely to delay the timing of generic entry. Patent litigation could begin even earlier, however, if litigation was allowed to start immediately following a brand‐name drug's FDA approval; but by law currently, the soonest this can begin is 4 years after the brand drug's FDA approval. Study HighlightsWHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC?Before generic versions of new drugs reach the market, patent litigation often occurs. Once litigation has been initiated, a 30‐month regulatory stay period is triggered that bars the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from approving the generic application until litigation resolves or the stay period expires. WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS?What is the timing of key legal events in the regulatory approval process for generic drugs in relation to the eventual launch of the generic product? WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE?We identified the typical timing of the initiation of patent litigation and expiration of the 30‐month stay period prior to the eventual launch of generic products. Litigation is often initiated as soon as legally possible (i.e., 4 years after the launch of the brand product), and stay periods typically expire well before generic entry occurs. HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE?Stay periods are unlikely to delay generic entry directly because stay expirations often occur well before the time of generic launch. Allowing the submission of generic drug applications immediately following a brand drug's FDA approval would facilitate earlier patent dispute resolution and prevent unnecessary delays in the anticipated generic product launch date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Methods Findings Conclusions Policy Points Health care systems around the world rely on a range of methods to ensure the affordability of prescription drugs, including negotiating prices soon after drug approval and relying on formal clinical assessments that compare newly approved therapies with existing alternatives. The negotiation framework established under the Inflation Reduction Act is far more limited than other frameworks explored in this study. Adding elements from these frameworks could lead to more effective price negotiation in the United States. Health care systems around the world rely on a range of methods to ensure the affordability of prescription drugs, including negotiating prices soon after drug approval and relying on formal clinical assessments that compare newly approved therapies with existing alternatives. The negotiation framework established under the Inflation Reduction Act is far more limited than other frameworks explored in this study. Adding elements from these frameworks could lead to more effective price negotiation in the United States. In 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which allowed Medicare, for the first time, to begin negotiating the prices for certain high‐cost brand‐name prescription drugs. Many other industrialized countries negotiate drug prices, and we sought to compare and contrast key features of the negotiation process across several health systems. We focused, in particular, on the criteria for selecting drugs for price negotiation, procedures for negotiation, factors that influence negotiated prices, and how prices are implemented.We included four G7 countries in our analysis (Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom [England]), two Benelux countries (Belgium and the Netherlands), and one Scandinavian country (Norway) with long‐established frameworks for drug price negotiation. We also analyzed the Veterans Affairs Health System in the United States. For each system, we gathered relevant legislation, government publications, and guidelines to understand negotiation frameworks, and we reached out to key drug price negotiators in each system to conduct semistructured interviews. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded, and data were analyzed based on an internal assessment tool that we developed.All eight systems negotiate the prices of brand‐name prescription drugs soon after approval and rely on formal clinical assessments that compare newly approved drugs with existing therapies. Systems in our study differed on characteristics such as whether the body performing clinical assessments is separate from the negotiating authority, how added health benefit is assessed, whether explicit willingness‐to‐pay thresholds are employed, and how specific approaches for priority disease areas are taken.High‐income countries around the world adopt different approaches to conducting price negotiations on brand‐name drugs but coalesce around a set of practices that will largely be absent from the current Medicare negotiation framework. US policymakers might consider adding some of these characteristics in the future to improve negotiation outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy Points Spending on prescription drugs is much higher per capita in the United States than in most other industrialized nations, including France. Lower prescription drug spending in France is due to different approaches to managing drug prices, volume of prescribing, and global health budgets. Linking a drug's price to value both at the launch of the drug and over its lifetime is key to controlling spending. Regulations on prescription volume and global spending complement the interventions on prices. If the United States adopted the French approach to regulating drug pricing, Medicare could potentially save billions of dollars annually on prescription drug spending. Context: Prescription drug spending per capita in the United States is higher than in most other industrialized countries. Policymakers seeking to lower drug spending often suggest benchmarking prices against other countries, including France, which spends half as much as the United States per capita on prescription drugs. Because differences in drug prices may result from how markets are organized in each nation, we sought to directly compare drug prices and pricing regulations between the United States and France. Methods: For the six brand‐name drugs with the highest gross expenditures in Medicare Part D in 2017, we compared the price dynamics in France and the United States between 2010 and 2018 and analyzed associations between price changes in each country and key regulatory events. We also comprehensively reviewed US and French laws and regulations related to drug pricing. Findings: Prices for the six drugs studied were higher in the United States than in France. In 2018, if Medicare had paid French prices for the brand‐name drugs in our cohort, the agency would have saved $5.1 billion. We identified 12 factors that explain why the United States spends more than France on drugs, including variations in unit prices and the volume of prescriptions, driven by use of health technology assessment and value‐based pricing in France. Conclusions: Key drivers of lower drug spending in France compared to the United States are that the French government regulates drug prices when products are launched and prohibits substantial price increases after launch. The regulation of prescription drugs in France is governed by rules that can inform discussions of US prescription drug policy and potential Medicare price negotiations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brand‐name drugs have periods of market exclusivity before generic competition begins. Due to high brand‐name drug prices charged during this period, market exclusivity is an important determinant of US prescription drug spending. We used claims data to estimate the market exclusivity period for 264 small molecule and 4 biologic drugs that faced new generic or biosimilar competition from 2012–2018. Exclusivity periods were longer for biologics compared with new small molecule drugs (median 21.5 vs. 14.4 years, P = 0.02), longer for drugs with annual revenue < $75 million compared with those with revenue ≥ $500 million (16.6 vs. 14.2 years, P = 0.01), and shorter in cases for which the first generic was granted 180 days of exclusivity, which is an incentive designed to expedite generic competition (14.1 vs. 15.9 years, P < 0.01). Modified versions of existing products had shorter exclusivities than new drugs (9.9 vs. 14.5 years, P < 0.01), with variation by route of administration, therapeutic area, and use of expedited approval pathways. Exclusivity periods for new drugs ranging from 13–17 years are similar to older estimates, but longer exclusivity among the small number of biologics in the cohort raises concern that overall median exclusivity may lengthen in the future because biologics represent a larger fraction of new drug approvals over the last decade than they did the previous decade. Unnecessarily long exclusivity periods delay patient access to lower‐priced medications, and policymakers should consider options to encourage timely competition, particularly among biologic drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The world has been elated by the roll-out of multiple highly effective vaccines that prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). US Taxpayers Heavily Funded the Discovery of COVID-19 Vaccines Now that the products are approved, future prices are likely to rise; indeed, Pfizer-BioNTech executives have already discussed future price increases for COVID-19 vaccines post-pandemic with their investors. [Extracted from the article]

We sought to compare expected and observed biosimilar and generic entry dates among new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2000 and 2012. We defined expected biosimilar and generic entry dates as the later of the expiration of the key patent term or statutory exclusivity (12 years for biologics, 5 years for small molecule drugs not indicated for a rare disease, and 7 years for small molecule drugs indicated for a rare disease; plus 6 months if a pediatric extension had been granted). For drugs with expected entry prior to 2019, we calculated the proportion with observed biosimilar or generic entry. The expected biosimilar entry dates were estimated to be a median of 12.3 years (interquartile range (IQR) 12.0–14.0, n = 60) after FDA approval. The 12‐year biologic statutory exclusivity period comprised 98% of the median expected protection period. By contrast, expected generic entry was estimated to be a median of 12.2 years (IQR 8.4–14.0, n=268), or 7.2 years after the 5‐year small molecule statutory exclusivity (59% of the total expected market protection period). By 2019, observed biosimilar entry occurred in 12% of cases (3/25) and observed generic entry in 65% (101/155). We concluded that expected US market exclusivity periods are similar for biologic and small molecule drugs. Statutory exclusivity plays a more substantial role in market exclusivity protection for biologics. Biosimilar competition, currently lagging behind generic competition, will likely increase as the biosimilar market becomes established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The clinical benefit and pricing of breakthrough-designated cancer drugs are uncertain. This study compares the magnitude of the clinical benefit and monthly price of new and supplemental breakthrough-designated and non-breakthrough-designated cancer drug approvals.Methods: A cross-sectional cohort comprised approvals of cancer drugs for solid tumors from July 2012 to December 2017. For each indication, the clinical benefit from the pivotal trials was scored via validated frameworks: the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee (ASCO-CRC), the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks. A high clinical benefit was defined as scores ≥ 45 for the ASCO-VF, overall survival gains ≥ 2.5 months or progression-free survival gains ≥ 3 months for all cancer types for the ASCO-CRC criteria, a grade of A or B for trials of curative intent and a grade of 4 or 5 for trials of noncurative intent for the ESMO-MCBS, and scores of 4 and 5 and a combined score ≥ 16 for the NCCN Evidence Blocks. Monthly Medicare drug prices were calculated with Medicare prices and DrugAbacus.Results: This study identified 106 trials supporting approval of 52 drugs for 96 indications. Forty percent of these indications received the breakthrough designation. Among the included trials, 33 (43%), 46 (73%), 35 (34%), and 67 (69%) met the thresholds established by the ASCO-VF, ASCO-CRC, ESMO-MCBS, and NCCN, respectively. In the metastatic setting, there were higher odds of clinically meaningful grades in trials supporting breakthrough drugs with the ASCO-VF (odds ratio [OR], 3.69; P = .022) and the NCCN Evidence Blocks (OR, 5.80; P = .003) but not with the ASCO-CRC (OR, 3.54; P = .11) or version 1.1 (v1.1) of the ESMO-MCBS (OR, 1.22; P = .70). The median costs of breakthrough therapy drugs were significantly higher than those of nonbreakthrough therapies (P = .001).Conclusions: In advanced solid cancers, drugs that received the breakthrough therapy designation were more likely than nonbreakthrough therapy drugs to be scored as providing a high clinical benefit with the ASCO-VF and the NCCN Evidence Blocks but not with the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 or the ASCO-CRC scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To determine how commonly pre‐approval clinical trials could potentially be replicated using real‐world data from insurance claims databases. Methods: We conducted a cross‐sectional study of medications approved by the FDA in 2011. For each medication, we reviewed the drug's label and the details of the pivotal clinical trials supporting its approval. We assessed whether each clinical trial could be replicated using an insurance claims databases by determining whether the following pivotal trial features could be reliably captured in claims data: study outcome, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, and the presence of an appropriate active comparator. Results: In 2011, 28 new medications were approved. The most common disease areas were oncology (N = 8, 29%), infectious disease (N = 5, 18%), and neurology (N = 4, 14%). The primary outcome of pre‐approval clinical trials was identifiable in claims databases for six (21%) of the medications. Two (ticagrelor and linagliptin) had at least 80% of inclusion and exclusion criteria that could be identified in claims databases and had an available active comparator. The non‐identifiable primary outcomes were related to patient‐reported symptoms (N = 9, 32%), imaging findings (N = 5, 18%), laboratory values (N = 5, 18%), or other measurements (eg, blood pressure) not typically available in insurance claims databases (N = 4, 14%). Conclusions: Among drugs FDA‐approved in 2011, two (7%) had a pre‐approval trial that could be replicated using insurance claims databases. In such qualifying trials, replication using claims databases could be useful in assessing whether they provide concordant results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assessments of clinical evidence vary between regulators and health technology assessment bodies, but precise differences remain unclear. To compare uncertainties raised on the clinical evidence of approved drugs, we analyzed assessments of regulators and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies in the United States and Europe. We found that US and European regulators report uncertainties related to safety for almost all drugs (85–94%), whereas HTA bodies reported these less (53–59%). By contrast, HTA bodies raised uncertainties related to effects against relevant comparators for almost all drugs (88–100%), whereas this was infrequently addressed by regulators (12–32%). Regulators as well as HTA bodies reported uncertainties related to the patient population for 60–95% of drugs. The patterns of regulator‐HTA misalignment were comparable between the United States and Europe. Our results indicate that increased coordination between these complementary organizations is necessary to facilitate the collection of necessary evidence in an efficient and timely manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2010, Congress created an abbreviated application pathway for biosimilars, versions of approved biologics made by different manufacturers. However, as of November 1, 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved only 13 biosimilars under this pathway, of which just 6 were available for patients to use. We review the history of US regulation of biologics and identify manufacturing, regulatory, and marketing issues that have limited biosimilar market entry and uptake, concluding with recommendations for reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Food and Drug Administration's expanded access program allows patients with serious or immediately life‐threatening conditions to seek access to experimental drugs and treatments from their manufacturers. The 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 sought to increase the transparency of manufacturers' approaches to expanded access by requiring public listing of five key pieces of information about their expanded access programs: 1) relevant contact information, 2) procedures for making requests, 3) general criteria used to evaluate requests, 4) length of time anticipated to acknowledge receipt of requests, and 5) a reference to pertinent information on ClinicalTrials.gov. Manufacturers were given 60 days from the Act's enactment, or until February 11, 2017, to post this information. We reviewed a sample of pharmaceutical manufacturers' expanded access policies to determine what information is readily available to patients online, including assessing whether the information described in the Act is available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Small changes in bioavailability of narrow therapeutic index (NTI) drugs can alter clinical outcomes, raising concern over generic NTI substitution. We surveyed pharmacists to identify their perceptions of generic NTI drugs, their frequency of performing generic NTI substitution, and predictors of this behavior. Of 710 respondents (33% response rate), 87% perceived generic NTI drugs as effective as their brand‐name versions and 94% as safe. Whereas 82% almost always performed generic NTI substitution for initial prescriptions, only 60% did for refills. Pharmacists in non‐chain settings (odds ratio (OR) = 2.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.40–4.02), in practice longer (per year OR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.02–1.06), in states with affirmative patient consent laws (OR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.06–3.32), and in states with NTI‐specific substitution requirements (OR = 1.95; 95% CI = 1.16–3.26) were more likely not to substitute initial prescriptions. Education of non‐chain and veteran pharmacists and elimination of affirmative patient consent and NTI‐specific substitution requirements could increase generic NTI substitution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the earliest application of modern randomized controlled trials in medical research, scientists and observers have deliberated the ethics of randomly allocating study participants to trial control arms. Adaptive RCT designs have been promoted as ethically advantageous over conventional RCTs because they reduce the allocation of subjects to what appear to be inferior treatments. Critical assessment of this claim is important, as adaptive designs are changing medical research, with the potential to significantly shift how clinical trials are conducted. Policy-makers are swiftly moving to encourage greater use of adaptive designs. In 2016, the newly enacted 21st Century Cures Act instructed the Food and Drug Administration to help product sponsors incorporate adaptive methods into proposed clinical trial protocols and applications for investigational drugs and also biological products. In this article, we review the ethical justifications commonly offered for adaptive designs, explore these arguments in the context of actual trials, and contend that clinical equipoise is a useful standard for adaptive-trial ethics. We distinguish between theoretical and clinical equipoise and explain why ethical arguments related to adaptive trials tend to focus on the former. Yet we contend that theoretical equipoise can be an unreliable standard for adaptive ethics. While we contend that clinical equipoise is the most critical principle for the primary ethical concerns posed by adaptive trials, we suggest ethical approaches to deal with some additional concerns unique to adaptive designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Skepticism about the safety and effectiveness of certain generic drugs remains, particularly related to generic drugs that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) using product-specific bioequivalence studies that differ from the standard testing pathway. The current study was designed to assess patient knowledge and perceptions of the generic drug approval process. Methods We conducted a survey of patients with 10 different chronic diseases. We recruited survey participants from the CVS Advisor Panel, a proprietary database of 124 621 CVS customers pre-consented to participate in online research activities. We created a survey to collect data on patients' perceptions of the FDA's generic drug approval process, as well as their experiences with generic drugs approved using modified bioequivalence approaches used to treat their chronic medical conditions. Results Our survey of 753 patients with chronic diseases (65% response rate) showed that most (74%) expressed little familiarity with FDA's approval process for generic drugs, but nearly all (89%) believed that FDA approval ensures the safety and effectiveness of generic drugs. About one-fifth of respondents reported hearing concerns about their generic drugs, most commonly from physicians (35-36%) and the Internet (32-38%), but there were no differences in patients' reports of concerns about generic versions of the six study drugs approved using product-specific pathways versus comparator drugs. Conclusions Patients have little knowledge about the generic drug approval system, but positive belief in the safety and effectiveness of generic drugs. Patients do not appear to have greater concern about generic drugs approved via product-specific pathways. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Products containing the sedative/hypnotic zolpidem were subject to Drug Safety Communications (DSCs) in January and May 2013 describing the risk of next-morning impairment and recommending lower starting doses particularly for women. This study aimed to assess whether zolpidem DSCs were associated with prescribing-pattern changes between January 2011 and December 2013. Methods We assessed overall dispensings of zolpidem-containing products between January 2011 and December 2013 by conducting a time-series analysis. Analyses were stratified by gender because the DSC contained gender-specific information. Participants were patients drawn from the Optum Clinformatics data source of commercially insured people in the USA. We evaluated changes in mean prescribed dose of the two drugs and health care utilization metrics. Results Each month of the study, more than 80 000 patients received a zolpidem-containing product and approximately one-tenth as many received eszopiclone. The two DSCs did not affect the downward trajectory of new zolpidem prescriptions. However, there was an increase in use of lower-dose forms of zolpidem (30% increase, p < 0.001), coupled with a reduction in higher-dose forms (13% decrease, p = 0.03), so that the average dose decreased after the DSCs (from 9.7 mg to 9.4 mg, p < 0.001), a change that was not seen with eszopiclone (from 2.74 mg to 2.74 mg, p = 0.45). Conclusion The DSCs related to zolpidem-containing products shifted prescribing toward the lower-dose formulations, consistent with the recommendations in the DSCs. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves indications for prescription drugs based on premarket pivotal clinical studies designed to demonstrate safety and efficacy. We characterized the pivotal studies supporting FDA approval of otolaryngologic prescription drug indications. Study Design Retrospective cross-sectional analysis. Setting Publicly available FDA documents. Subjects Recently approved (2005-2014) prescription drug indications for conditions treated by otolaryngologists or their multidisciplinary teams. Drugs could be authorized for treatment of otolaryngologic disease upon initial approval (original indications) or thereafter via supplemental applications (supplemental indications). Methods Pivotal studies were categorized by enrollment, randomization, blinding, comparator type, and primary endpoint. Results Between 2005 and 2014, the FDA approved 48 otolaryngologic prescription drug indications based on 64 pivotal studies, including 21 original indications (19 drugs, 31 studies) and 27 supplemental indications (18 drugs, 33 studies). Median enrollment was 299 patients (interquartile range, 198-613) for original indications and 197 patients (interquartile range, 64-442) for supplemental indications. Most indications were supported by ≥1 randomized study (original: 20/21 [95%], supplemental: 21/27 [78%]) and ≥1 double-blinded study (original: 14/21 [67%], supplemental: 17/27 [63%]). About half of original indications (9/21 [43%]) and one-quarter of supplemental indications (7/27 [26%]) were supported by ≥1 active-controlled study. Nearly half (original: 8/21 [38%], supplemental: 14/27 [52%]) of all indications were approved based exclusively on studies using surrogate markers as primary endpoints. Conclusion The quality of clinical evidence supporting FDA approval of otolaryngologic prescription drug indications varied widely. Otolaryngologists should consider limitations in premarket evidence when helping patients make informed treatment decisions about newly approved drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many hold that the so-called golden era of antibiotic discovery has passed, leaving only a limited clinical pipeline for new antibiotics. A logical conclusion of such arguments is that we need to reform the current system of antibiotic drug research-including clinical trials and regulatory requirements-to spur activity in discovery and development. The United States Congress in the past few years has debated a number of bills to address this crisis, including the 2012 Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now Act and the 2016 21st Century Cures Act. Experts have also sought to advance antibiotic development by encouraging greater use of trials with noninferiority hypotheses, which are thought to be easier to conduct. The goal underlying these proposals is to stave off the post-antibiotic era by expanding the pharmaceutical armamentarium as quickly as possible. But although new antibiotic agents are necessary to combat the long-term threat of drug-resistant disease, we argue that these research policies, which effectively lower the bar for antibiotic approval, are ethically problematic. Rather, given broader public health considerations related to the full lifecycle of antibiotic use-including development of resistance-we should reject an overly permissive approach to new antibiotic approval and instead set the bar for regulatory approval at a point that will naturally direct research resources toward the most transformative chemical or social interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves high-risk medical devices based on premarket pivotal clinical studies demonstrating reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness and may require postapproval studies (PAS) to further inform benefit-risk assessment. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using publicly available FDA documents to characterize industry-sponsored pivotal studies and PAS of high-risk devices used in the treatment of otolaryngologic diseases. Between 2000 and 2014, the FDA approved 23 high-risk otolaryngologic devices based on 28 pivotal studies. Median enrollment was 118 patients (interquartile range, 67-181), and median duration of longest primary effectiveness end point follow-up was 26 weeks (interquartile range, 16-96). Fewer than half were randomized (n = 13, 46%), blinded (n = 12, 43%), or controlled (n = 10, 36%). The FDA required 23 PASs for 16 devices (70%): almost two-thirds (n = 15, 65%) monitored long-term performance, and roughly one-third (n = 8, 35%) focused on subgroups. Otolaryngologists should be aware of limitations in the strength of premarket evidence when considering the use of newly approved devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the required evidence submitted by the pharmaceutical manufacturer to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration for approval. Topics mention including the accelerated approval formalized by the U.S. Congress in 1992, confirming the drug effectivity and application of surrogate measure.

Purpose US Food and Drug Administration approval for generic drugs relies on demonstrating pharmaceutical equivalence and bioequivalence; however, some drug products have unique attributes that necessitate product-specific approval pathways. We evaluated rates of patients' switching back to brand-name versions from generic versions of four drugs approved via such approaches. Methods We used data from Optum LifeSciences Research Database to identify patients using a brand-name version of a study drug (acarbose tablets, salmon calcitonin nasal spray, enoxaparin sodium injection, and venlafaxine extended release tablets) or a control drug. We followed patients to identify switching to generic versions and then followed those who switched to identify whether they switched back to brand-name versions. We calculated switch and switch-back rates and used Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests to compare rates between study and control drugs. Results Our cohort included 201 959 eligible patients. Brand-to-generic switch rates ranged from 66 to 106 switches per 100 person-years for study drugs and 80 to 110 for control drugs. Rates of switch-back to brand-name versions ranged from 5 to 37 among study drugs and 3 to 53 among control drugs. Switch-back rates were higher for venlafaxine vs. sertraline ( p < 0.01) and calcitonin vs. alendronate ( p = 0.01). Switch-back rates were lower for venlafaxine vs. paroxetine ( p < 0.01) and acarbose vs. nateglinide ( p < 0.01). Rates were similar for acarbose vs. glimepiride ( p = 0.97) and for enoxaparin vs. fondiparinux ( p = 0.11). Conclusion As compared to control drugs, patients were not more likely to systematically switch back from generic to brand-name versions of the four study drugs. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The US Food and Drug Administration is considering an application for a biosimilar version of infliximab, which has been available in South Korea since November 2012. The aim of the present study was to examine the utilization patterns of both branded and biosimilar infliximab and other tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in South Korea before and after the introduction of this biosimilar infliximab. Methods Using claims data from April 2009 to March 2014 from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, which includes the entire South Korean population, the number of claims for biosimilar infliximab was assessed. A segmented linear regression model was used to examine the utilization patterns of infliximab (the branded and biosimilar versions) and other TNF inhibitors (adalimumab and etanercept) before and after the introduction of the biosimilar infliximab. Results In total, 20,976 TNF inhibitor users were identified from the South Korean claims database, including 983 with a prescription claim for biosimilar infliximab. Among all of the claims for any version of infliximab, the proportion of biosimilar infliximab claims increased to 19% through March 2014. Before November 2012, each month there were 33 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 32, 35) more infliximab claims, 44 (95% CI 40, 48) more etanercept claims, and 50 (95% CI 47, 53) more adalimumab claims. After November 2012, there were significant changes in the slopes for trend in usage, with additional increases in the use of branded and biosimilar infliximab (9 more claims per month, 95% CI 2, 17) and decreases in the use of etanercept (−52 claims per month, 95% CI −66, −38) and adalimumab (−21 claims per month, 95% CI −35, −6). Conclusion During the first 15 months since its introduction in South Korea, one-fifth of all infliximab claims were for the biosimilar version. Introduction of biosimilar infliximab may affect the use of other TNF inhibitors, and the magnitude of change in usage will likely differ in other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Milbank Quarterly is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose Type 2 diabetes mellitus has reached epidemic proportions worldwide. Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus will require insulin, and the evidence-based use of insulin is described in the prescription drug label. Product labels in different countries may provide inconsistent information. We evaluated the variability in drug label content for one brand of basal insulin across diverse settings. Methods We examined the drug label content pertinent to effective and safe use of insulin glargine across 17 countries: Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, UK, and the USA. We compared label characteristics in settings where drug labels were governed by a local regulatory authority versus countries where labels were administered by a regional body or adopted from another locale. Results All 17 labels cautioned that providers should consider age, illness, diet, and exercise when prescribing. Only two (12%) described care of the fasting patient. Caution was urged for patients with renal or hepatic impairment in 16 (94%) labels. Four (24%) did not describe responses to missed doses, and five (29%) failed to recommend patient counseling about the risk of hypoglycemia. Labels emerging from regional or adopted regulatory bodies reported fewer patients in efficacy studies than did labels from settings with their own drug regulatory agencies (365 ± 0 patients vs. 3560 ± 2938, p = 0.04). Conclusions There is substantial variation in the content of drug labels for glargine, which may lead to international inconsistency in quality of care for diabetic patients. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To ascertain predictors of initiation of brand-name versus generic narrow therapeutic index ( NTI) drugs. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Data from CVS Caremark were linked to Medicare claims and to U.S. census data. Participants Individuals aged 65 and older who initiated an NTI drug in 2006 and 2007 (N = 36,832). Measurements Demographic, health service utilization, and geographic predictors of whether participants initiated a generic or brand-name version of their NTI drug were identified using logistic regression. Results Overall, 30,014 (81.5%) participants started on a generic version of their NTI drug. The most commonly initiated NTI drugs were warfarin (n = 17,790; 48%), levothyroxine (n = 10,779; 29%), and digoxin (n = 6,414; 17%). Older age (odds ratio ( OR) = 1.12, 95% confidence interval ( CI) = 1.02-1.22 comparing aged ≥85 with 65-74), higher burden of comorbidity ( OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.04-1.07 for each 1-point increase in comorbidity score), and prior use of any generic drug ( OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.29-1.87) were positively associated with generic drug initiation. Independent of other predictors, residing in the census block group with the highest generic use was positively associated with greater odds of generic NTI drug initiation ( OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.14-1.35 compared with the lowest quintile). Conclusion Demographic, health service utilization, and geographic characteristics are important determinants of whether individuals initiate treatment with a brand-name or generic NTI drug. These factors may contribute to disparities in care and highlight potential targets for educational campaigns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research is receiving increased attention. The authors sought to define current disclosure policies and how they relate to disclosure statements provided by authors in major oncology journals. METHODS: The authors identified all oncology journals listed in the Thomson Institute for Scientific Information and sought their policies on conflict-of-interest disclosure. For a subset of journals with an Impact Factor >2.0, they catalogued the number and type of articles and the details of the published disclosures in all papers from the 2 most recent issues. RESULTS: Disclosure policies were provided by 112 of 131 journals (85%); 99 (88%) of these requested that authors disclose conflicts of interest (mean Impact Factor for these journals: 4.6), whereas the remaining 13 (12%) did not (mean Impact Factor: 2.9). Ninety-three journals (94%) required financial disclosure, and 42 (42%) also sought nonfinancial disclosures. For a subset of 52 higher-impact journals (Impact Factor >2.0), we reviewed 1734 articles and identified published disclosures in 51 journals (98%). Many of these journals (31 of 51, 61%) included some disclosure statement in >90% of their articles. Among 27 journals that published editorials/commentaries, only 14 (52%) included disclosures with such articles. There was no publication of any nonfinancial conflicts of interest in any article reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Disclosure policies and the very definition of conflict of interest varied considerably among journals. Although most journals had some policy in this area, a substantial proportion did not publish disclosure statements consistently, with deficiencies particularly among editorials and commentaries. Cancer 2012;. © 2011 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]