Search

Objective: To systematically review and assess the quality of the novel drugs' economic evaluation literature in print during the drugs' early commercial availability following US regulatory approval., Data Sources: MEDLINE and the United Kingdom National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched from 1946 through December 2011 for economic evaluations of the 50 novel drugs approved by the FDA in 2008 and 2009., Study Selection and Data Extraction: The inclusion criteria were English-language, peer-reviewed, original economic evaluations (cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, cost-minimization, and cost-benefit analyses). We extracted and analyzed data from 36 articles considering 19 of the 50 drugs. Two reviewers assessed each publication's quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument and summarized study quality on a 100-point scale., Data Synthesis: Study quality had a mean of 70.0 ± 16.2 QHES points. The only study characteristics associated with QHES score (with P < 0.05) were having used modeling or advanced statistics, 75.1 versus 61.9 without; using quality-adjusted life years as an outcome, 75.9 versus 64.7 without; and cost-utility versus cost-minimization analysis, 75.9 versus 58.7. Studies most often satisfied quality aspects about stating study design choices and least often satisfied aspects about justifying design choices., Conclusion: The reviewed literature considered a minority of the 2008-2009 novel drugs and had mixed study quality. Cost-effectiveness stakeholders might benefit from efforts to improve the quality and quantity of literature examining novel drugs. Editors and reviewers may support quality improvement by stringently imposing economic evaluation guidelines about justifying study design choices., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Biological oncology products are integral to cancer treatment, but their high costs pose challenges to patients, families, providers, and insurers. The introduction of biosimilar agents-molecules that are similar in structure, function, activity, immunogenicity, and safety to the original biological drugs-provide opportunities both to improve health-care access and outcomes, and to reduce costs. Several international regulatory pathways have been developed to expedite entry of biosimilars into global marketplaces. The first wave of oncology biosimilar use was in Europe and India in 2007. Oncology biosimilars are now widely marketed in several countries in Europe, and in Australia, Japan, China, Russia, India, and South Korea. Their use is emerging worldwide, with the notable exception of the USA, where several regulatory and cost barriers to biosimilar approval exist. In this Review, we discuss oncology biosimilars and summarise their regulatory frameworks, clinical experiences, and safety concerns., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: 1) To compare the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) and European Medicines Agency's (EMA's) Risk Management Plan (RMP) guidances and 2) to compare REMS and RMPs for specific chemical entities and biological products., Methods: FDA, EMA, and pharmaceutical company Web sites were consulted for details pertaining to REMS and RMPs. REMS requirements include medication guides, communication plans, elements to ensure safe use, implementation systems, and specified assessment intervals. RMP requirements are increased pharmacovigilance and risk minimization activities. We compared these requirements for drugs requiring both REMS and RMPs., Results: We identified 95 drugs on FDA's REMS list as of March 2010. Of these, there were 29 drugs (11 biologics and 18 new chemical entities) with EMA RMPs. REMS and RMPs are similar in objectives, with comparable toolkits. Both allow flexibility in product-specific actions, recognizing adverse effects of potential concern. Of the 29 drugs reviewed, REMS requirements not included in RMPs were patient medication guides (100% of the drugs), provider communication plans (38%), and routine monitoring of REMS (66%). RMP requirements not included in REMS were specific adverse event reporting (45% of the drugs), prospective registry studies (34%), prospective epidemiology studies (24%), additional trial data (28%), and Summary of Product Characteristics contraindications (76%)., Conclusions: Both REMS and RMPs provide positive guidance for identification, monitoring, and minimization of risk to patient safety. Currently, neither agency provides specific guidance on how risk should be related to benefit either qualitatively or quantitatively., (Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Although regulatory authorities evaluate the risks and benefits of any new drug therapy during the new drug-approval process, quantitative risk-benefit assessment (RBA) is not typically performed, nor is it presented in a consistent and integrated framework when it is used. Our purpose is to identify and describe published quantitative RBA methods for pharmaceuticals., Methods: Using MEDLINE and other Internet-based search engines, a systematic literature review was performed to identify quantitative methodologies for RBA. These distinct RBA approaches were summarized to highlight the implications of their differences for the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies., Results: Theoretical models, parameters, and key features were reviewed and compared for the 12 quantitative RBA methods identified in the literature, including the Quantitative Framework for Risk and Benefit Assessment, benefit-less-risk analysis, the quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity, number needed to treat (NNT), and number needed to harm and their relative-value-adjusted versions, minimum clinical efficacy, incremental net health benefit, the risk-benefit plane (RBP), the probabilistic simulation method, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), the risk-benefit contour (RBC), and the stated preference method (SPM). Whereas some approaches (e.g., NNT) rely on subjective weighting schemes or nonstatistical assessments, other methods (e.g., RBP, MCDA, RBC, and SPM) assess joint distributions of benefit and risk., Conclusions: Several quantitative RBA methods are available that could be used to help lessen concern over subjective drug assessments and to help guide authorities toward more objective and transparent decision-making. When evaluating a new drug therapy, we recommend the use of multiple RBA approaches across different therapeutic indications and treatment populations in order to bound the risk-benefit profile.

Purpose: Accelerated approval (AA) was initiated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to shorten development times of drugs for serious medical illnesses. Sponsors must confirm efficacy in postapproval trials. Confronted with several drugs that received AA on the basis of phase II trials and for which confirmatory trials were incomplete, FDA officials have encouraged sponsors to design AA applications on the basis of interim analyses of phase III trials., Methods: We reviewed data on orphan drug status, development time, safety, and status of confirmatory trials of AAs and regular FDA approvals of new molecular entities (NMEs) for oncology indications since 1995., Results: Median development times for AA NMEs (n = 19 drugs) and regular-approval oncology NMEs (n = 32 drugs) were 7.3 and 7.2 years, respectively. Phase III trials supported efficacy for 75% of regular-approval versus 26% of AA NMEs and for 73% of non-orphan versus 45% of orphan drug approvals. AA accounted for 78% of approvals for oncology NMEs between 2001 and 2003 but accounted for 32% in more recent years. Among AA NMEs, confirmatory trials were nine-fold less likely to be completed for orphan drug versus non-orphan drug indications. Postapproval, black box warnings were added to labels for four oncology NMEs (17%) that had received AA and for two oncology NMEs (9%) that had received regular approval., Conclusion: AA oncology NMEs are safe and effective, although development times are not accelerated. A return to endorsing phase II trial designs for AA for oncology NMEs, particularly for orphan drug indications, may facilitate timely FDA approval of novel cancer drugs.

The ever-increasing concern for the welfare of volunteers participating in clinical trials and for the integrity of the data derived from those trials has generated the concept of Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program, in anticipation of the need to comply with GCP guidelines, developed a Site Monitoring and Review Team (SMART), which consists of a Good Clinical Practice Monitoring Group and a Good Clinical Practice Review Group. The review group conducted 335 site reviews from fiscal years (FY) 1999 through 2001 to assess and encourage adherence to GCP. Data from reviews were compared for two time periods, a 2-year implementation period (FYs 1999/2000, n=204) and a continuing follow-up period (FY 2001, n=131). Overall, high GCP adherence was exhibited by 11.3% (n=23) of study sites in FY 1999/2000 versus 20.6% (n=27) in FY 2001, average to good adherence was exhibited by 84.3% (n=172) in FY 1999/2000 versus 77.0% (n=101) in FY 2001, and below average adherence was exhibited by 4.4% (n=9) versus 1.5% (n=3) in these two periods. These changes were statistically significant by chi square analysis (p=0.029). Moreover, GCP adherence was assessed within eight GCP focus areas: patient informed consent, protocol adherence, safety monitoring, institutional review board interactions, regulatory document management, patient records in investigator file, drug/device accountability, and general site operations. Median assessment scores for all 62 GCP review elements improved from 0.82 to 0.89 (p<0.001). Median assessment scores for the 14 selected critical GCP items improved from 0.78 to 0.89 (p<0.001). Median scores for five of the eight GCP focus areas improved significantly (p<0.001) between the two time periods. These data suggest that the site-oriented activities of SMART combined with centralized quality assurance activities of the coordinating centers represent an integrated, versatile program to promote and assure GCP adherence and data integrity in Cooperative Studies Program trials.

Biosimilar filgrastims are primarily indicated for chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia prevention. They are less expensive formulations of branded filgrastim, and biosimilar filgrastim was the first biosimilar oncology drug administered in European Union (EU) countries, Japan, and the U.S. Fourteen biosimilar filgrastims have been marketed in EU countries, Japan, the U.S., and Canada since 2008, 2012, 2015, and 2016, respectively. We reviewed experiences and policies for biosimilar filgrastim markets in EU countries and Japan, where uptake has been rapid, and in the U.S. and Canada, where experience is rapidly emerging. U.S. regulations for designating biosimilar interchangeability are under development, and such regulations have not been developed in most other countries. Pharmaceutical substitution is allowed for new filgrastim starts in some EU countries and in Canada, but not Japan and the U.S. In EU countries, biosimilar adoption is facilitated with favorable hospital tender offers. U.S. adoption is reportedly 24%, while the second filgrastim biosimilar is priced 30% lower than branded filgrastim and 20% lower than the first biosimilar filgrastim approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Utilization is about 60% in EU countries, where biosimilar filgrastim is marketed at a 30%–40% discount. In Japan, biosimilar filgrastim utilization is 45%, primarily because of 35% discounts negotiated by Central Insurance and hospital‐only markets. Overall, biosimilar filgrastim adoption barriers are small in many EU countries and Japan and are diminishing in Canada in the U.S. Policies facilitating improved U.S. adoption of biosimilar filgrastim, based on positive experiences in EU countries and Japan, including favorable insurance coverage; larger price discount relative to reference filgrastim pricing; closing of the "rebate trap" with transparent pricing information; formal educational efforts of patients, physicians, caregivers, and providers; and allowance of pharmaceutical substitution of biosimilar versus reference filgrastim, should be considered. Implications for Practice: We reviewed experiences and policies for biosimilar filgrastims in Europe, Japan, Canada, and the U.S. Postmarketing harmonization of regulatory policies for biosimilar filgrastims has not occurred. Acceptance of biosimilar filgrastims for branded filgrastim, increasing in the U.S. and in Canada, is commonplace in Japan and Europe. In the U.S., some factors, accepted in Europe or Japan, could improve uptake, including acceptance of biosimilars as safe and effective; larger cost savings, decreasing "rebate traps" where pharmaceutical benefit managers support branded filgrastim, decreased use of patent litigation/challenges, and allowing pharmacists to routinely substitute biosimilar for branded filgrastim. Filgrastim patents have expired worldwide, opening the way for biosimilars. Biosimilar filgrastim, a less expensive formulation of reference filgrastim, is the most common biosimilar oncology drug administered worldwide and is hoped to decrease oncology pharmaceutical costs in the U.S., as has happened in other countries. This article reviews the experiences and policies related to biosimilar filgrastim markets in European countries and Japan, where uptake has been rapid, and in the U.S. and Canada, where experience is emerging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]