Search

Background: Over the past decades, US Congress enabled the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to facilitate and expedite drug development for serious conditions filling unmet medical needs with five special designations and review pathways: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy. Objectives: This study reviews the FDA's five special designations for drug development regarding their safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, clinical trials, innovation, economic incentives, development timelines, and price. Methods: We conducted a keyword search to identify studies analyzing the impact of the FDA's special designations (orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy) on the safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, trials, innovativeness, economic incentives, development times, and pricing of new drugs. Results were summarized in a narrative overview. Results: Expedited approval reduces new drugs' time to market. However, faster drug development and regulatory review are associated with more unrecognized adverse events and post-marketing safety revisions. Clinical trials supporting special FDA approvals frequently use small, non-randomized, open-label designs. Required post-approval trials to monitor unknown adverse events are often delayed or not even initiated. Evidence suggests that drugs approved under special review pathways, marketed as "breakthroughs", are more innovative and deliver a higher clinical benefit than those receiving standard FDA approval. Special designations are an economically viable strategy for investors and pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for rare diseases with unmet medical needs, due to financial incentives, expedited development timelines, higher clinical trial success rates, alongside greater prices. Nonetheless, patients, physicians, and insurers are concerned about spending money on drugs without a proven benefit or even on drugs that turn out to be ineffective. While European countries established performance- and financial-based managed entry agreements to account for this uncertainty in clinical trial evidence and cost-effectiveness, the pricing and reimbursement of these drugs remain largely unregulated in the US. Conclusion: Special FDA designations shorten clinical development and FDA approval times for new drugs treating rare and severe diseases with unmet medical needs. Special-designated drugs offer a greater clinical benefit to patients. However, physicians, patients, and insurers must be aware that special-designated drugs are often approved based on non-robust trials, associated with more unrecognized side effects, and sold for higher prices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The healthcare sector is ubiquitously plagued by workforce shortages in economies around the globe. The fragility of this structural shortage becomes apparent when external shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbate the lack of workers in clinical practice. In this article, we summarize current trends in healthcare workforce development across the globe, review theoretical concepts of workforce shortages, and discuss policies to address them. In practice, developed countries often address workforce shortages with targeted migration policies. However, targeted workforce migration policies only intensify workforce shortages in low-and middle-income countries. Theoretical macroeconomic models suggest that supply shortages may result from too low wages, supply lagging behind demand, and social perception. Changes in the wage rate cannot sufficiently increase the supply of health professionals as scholars find inelastic wages for physicians and nurses. Nonpecuniary factors such as working conditions, job satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation are at least equally important as financial incentives. In conclusion, increased wages can only be part of a heterogeneous policy plan to address shortages. Migration and retirement levels of health professionals can temporarily mitigate workforce shortages but rarely change the underlying systemic issues. Increasing the number of places available in medical and nursing schools while also improving, both, financial and nonfinancial incentives for employees are long-term structural policy options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study analyzes the development, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, benefits, innovation, trials, epidemiology, and price of cancer drugs with multiple special designations: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy. Methods In total, 355 FDA-approved cancer drug indications with 841 special designations were identified (2012-2022). Trial, epidemiology, and price data were collected from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and Medicare and Medicaid. The association between efficacy outcomes and indications' number of special designations were compared in meta-analyses. Results Median development times were 7.3, 7.8, and 5.4 months (P  = .027) for drugs with 0 to 1, 2 to 3, and 4 to 5 special designations, respectively. Multiple special designations were associated with higher biotechnological and clinical innovation. Median patient enrollment in trials were 615, 471, 398, 168, 104, and 120 (P  < .001) for indications with 0 to 5 special designations. Drugs for rare diseases supported by open-label phase 1/2 trials of single-arm design were granted more special designations. Hazard ratios for overall survival (0.80 vs 0.73 vs 0.73 vs 0.69 vs 0.56 vs 0.52; P  = .003) and progression-free survival (0.70 vs 0.61 vs 0.59 vs 0.44 vs 0.37 vs 0.67; P  < .001) substantially declined while tumor response increased with more special designations. Mean monthly prices increased for drugs with 0 to 4 but not 5 special designations ($21 596 vs $14 753 vs $32 410 vs $41 240 vs $38 703 vs $19 184). Conclusions Multiple special designations are associated with faster clinical development and greater benefits for patients with unmet needs but also with nonrobust trial evidence and a tendency toward higher drug prices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study aims to analyse the association between clinical trial design and treatment effects for cancer drugs with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval., Design: Cross-sectional study and meta-analysis., Setting: Data from Drugs@FDA, FDA labels, ClincialTrials.gov and the Global Burden of Disease study., Participants: Pivotal trials for 170 drugs with FDA approval across 437 cancer indications between 2000 and 2022., Main Outcome Measures: Treatment effects were measured in HRs for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and in relative risk for tumour response. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions explored the association between treatment effect estimates and clinical trial design for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and single-arm trials., Results: Across RCTs, greater effect estimates were observed in smaller trials for OS (ß=0.06, p<0.001), PFS (ß=0.15, p<0.001) and tumour response (ß=-3.61, p<0.001). Effect estimates were larger in shorter trials for OS (ß=0.08, p<0.001) and PFS (ß=0.09, p=0.002). OS (ß=0.04, p=0.006), PFS (ß=0.10, p<0.001) and tumour response (ß=-2.91, p=0.004) outcomes were greater in trials with fewer centres. HRs for PFS (0.54 vs 0.62, p=0.011) were lower in trials testing the new drug to an inactive (placebo/no treatment) rather than an active comparator. The analysed efficacy population (intention-to-treat, per-protocol, or as-treated) was not consistently associated with treatment effects. Results were consistent for single-arm trials and in multivariable analyses., Conclusions: Pivotal trial design is significantly associated with measured treatment effects. Particularly small, short, single-centre trials testing a new drug compared with an inactive rather than an active comparator could overstate treatment outcomes. Future studies should verify results in unsuccessful trials, adjust for further confounders and examine other therapeutic areas. The FDA, manufacturers and trialists must strive to conduct robust clinical trials with a low risk of bias., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) facilitates the development of drugs with a large preliminary benefit in treating serious or life-threatening diseases. This study analyzes the FDA approval, trials, benefits, unmet needs, and pricing of breakthrough and nonbreakthrough therapy cancer drugs and indications., Patients and Methods: We analyzed 355 cancer indications with FDA approval (2012-2022). Breakthrough and nonbreakthrough indications were compared regarding their FDA approval, innovativeness, clinical trials, epidemiology, and price. Data were extracted from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and relative risk (RR) of tumor response were meta-analyzed across randomized controlled trials. Objective response rates (ORRs) were meta-analyzed for single-arm trials., Results: We identified 137 breakthrough and 218 nonbreakthrough cancer indications. The median clinical development time was 3.2 years shorter for breakthrough drugs than for nonbreakthrough drugs (5.6 vs 8.8 years; P=.002). The BTD was more frequently granted to biomarker-directed indications (46% vs 34%; P=.025) supported by smaller trials (median, 149 vs 326 patients; P<.001) of single-arm (53% vs 27%; P<.001) and phase I or II design (61% vs 31%; P<.001). Breakthrough indications offered a greater OS (HR, 0.69 vs 0.74; P=.031) and tumor response (RR, 1.48 vs 1.32; P=.006; ORR, 52% vs 40%; P=.004), but not a PFS benefit (HR, 0.53 vs 0.58; P=.212). Median improvements in OS (4.8 vs 3.2 months; P=.002) and PFS (5.4 vs 3.3 months; P=.005) but not duration of response (8.7 vs 4.7 months; P=.245) were higher for breakthrough than for nonbreakthrough indications. The BTD was more frequently granted to first-in-class drugs (42% vs 28%; P=.001) and first-in-indication treatments (43% vs 29%; P<.001). There were no differences in treatment and epidemiologic characteristics between breakthrough and nonbreakthrough drugs. Breakthrough drugs were more expensive than nonbreakthrough drugs (mean monthly price, $38,971 vs $22,591; P=.0592)., Conclusions: The BTD expedites patient access to effective and innovative, but also expensive, new cancer drugs and indications.