Pharmaceutical policy and innovation for rare diseases: A narrative review

This article aims to synthesize the existing literature on the implementation of public policies to incentivize the development of treatments for rare diseases, (diseases with very low prevalence and therefore with low commercial interest) otherwise known as orphan drugs. The implementation of these incentives in the United States (US), Japan, and in the European Union (EU) seems to be related to a substantial increase in treatments for these diseases, and has influenced the way the pharmaceutical research & development (R&D) system operates beyond this policy area. Despite the success of the Orphan Drug model, the academic literature also highlights the negative implications that these public policies have on affordability and access to orphan drugs, as well as on the prioritization of certain disease rare areas over others. The synthesis focuses mostly on the United States' Orphan Drug Act (ODA) as a model for subsequent policies in other regions and countries. It starts with a historical overview of the creation of the term "rare diseases", continues with a summary of the evidence available on the US ODA's positive and negative impacts, and provides a summary of the different proposals to reform these incentives in light of the negative outcomes described. Finally, it describes some key aspects of the Japanese and European policies, as well as some of the challenges captured in the literature related to their impact in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs).

The Relationship between Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Innovation: An Empirical Study Based on Meta-Analysis

The growing research interest in the relationship between health insurance and pharmaceutical innovation is driven by their significant impact on healthcare optimization and pharmaceutical development. The existing literature, however, lacks consensus on this relationship and provides no evidence of the magnitude of a correlation. In this context, this study employs meta-analysis to explore the extent to which health insurance affects pharmaceutical innovation. It analyzes 202 observations from 14 independent research samples, using the regression coefficient of health insurance on pharmaceutical innovation as the effect size. The results reveal that there is a strong positive correlation between health insurance and pharmaceutical innovation (r = 0.367, 95% CI = [0.294, 0.436]). Public health insurance exhibits a stronger promoting effect on pharmaceutical innovation than commercial health insurance. The relationship between health insurance and pharmaceutical innovation is moderated by the country of sample origin, data range, journal type, journal impact factor, type of health insurance, and research perspective. Our research findings further elucidate the relationship mechanism between health insurance and pharmaceutical innovation, providing a valuable reference for future explorations in pharmaceutical fields.

Regulatory policy and pharmaceutical innovation in the United Kingdom after Brexit: Initial insights

Brexit was presented as an opportunity to promote innovation by breaking free from the European Union regulatory framework. Since the beginning of 2021 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has operated as the independent regulatory agency for the United Kingdom. The MHRA's regulatory activity in 2021 was analyzed and compared to that of other international regulatory bodies. The MHRA remained reliant on EU regulatory decision-making for novel medicines and there were significant regulatory delays for a small number of novel medicines in the UK, the reasons being so far unclear. In addition, the MHRA introduced innovation initiatives, which show early promise for quicker authorization of innovative medicines for cancer and other areas of unmet need. Longer-term observation and analysis is needed to show the full impact of post-Brexit pharmaceutical regulatory policy.

Resisting Clinical Translation from Bench to Bedside: The China Case of Liver Cancer Therapeutic Revolution

It is traditionally believed that liver cancer therapies are undergoing a shift from chemotherapy to targeted therapy, and then to immunotherapy. Nonetheless, in the case of China, targeted therapy for liver cancer still holds a significantly lower share, not to mention the newly launched immunotherapy. In developing countries, policy intervention and financial considerations have resisted the clinical translation from laboratory's bench-side to patients' bedsides.

Incentives to promote the US pharmaceutical innovation: empirical research based on the case of Epogen

OBJECTIVE

This study aims at emphasizing the significant impact of the incentives to promote the United States (US) pharmaceutical innovation.

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective single-case study. We analyzed the innovation process of Epogen: basic research, applied research, regulatory, and marketing.

RESULTS

Incentives and policies of pharmaceutical innovation significantly facilitates the entire life cycle of Epogen. The transfer of patent presented by the Bayh-Dole Act allowed Amgen to purchase the research results of Epogen. Relying on the intellectual property mechanisms and financing incentives, Amgen raised the funds needed for Epogen in applied research. Special review shortened the regulatory of Epogen. Epogen obtained orphan drug designation twice and 8 years of market exclusivity. Tax deduction and research funding provided direct economic compensation. The patent system enabled Epogen to obtain 32 years of patent protection (1983-2015). Monopoly pricing was a significant determinant to increase the sales of Epogen through pricing strategies.

CONCLUSION

We pointed out that Amgen has developed the successful innovation of Epogen taking advantages of the incentives. Effective and flexible incentives and policies are essential to support the entire life cycle of new drugs, ultimately forming a sustainable driver for the long-run pharmaceutical innovation.

Research funding and price negotiation for new drugs

This paper analyzes the negotiation process, which leads to basic research funding and price setting for new drugs in regulated health insurance markets. Its results bring answers to the following questions: Should basic research be privately funded, publicly funded, or produced by an independent lab? Under which conditions is public integration of basic research efficient? How do pharmaceutical prices respond to different organizations of basic research? We show that efficiency and prices are higher when basic research is integrated in the firm that commercializes the drug as compared with independent basic research. In both organizations, the higher the negotiation power of the research labs relative to the one of the public health authority is, the higher the prices and the efficiency are. We thereby confirm the traditional trade-off between price containment and dynamic efficiency. We identify one important exception to this trade-off. Indeed, public integration of basic research can result in lowest prices and highest efficiency, as compared with the other possible organizations, in particular when basic and applied research are highly complementary.

Barriers for Pharmaceutical Innovation With Focus in Cancer Drugs, the Case of Mexico

Drug innovation does not only generate economic growth but also portrays a country's efforts toward innovation. The article reviews the current status on the innovation of the Mexican pharmaceutical industry with a focus on cancer drugs. The authors examined the scientific and nonscientific literature in search of the origin of innovative cancer drugs, as well as the regulatory frames by which these drugs are approved in Mexico. The article presents a narrative analysis of the author's experiences on the barriers that impede pharmaceutical innovation in Mexico. To the best of the authors' knowledge, there was only 1 domestic approval by COFEPRIS, the Mexican health regulatory agency, of an anticancer product developed under a repositioning approach. Among the barriers impeding drug innovation in Mexico are, but not be limited to, insufficient funds for the discovery phase; unaffordable or limited capacity for performing preclinical studies under good laboratory practices (GLP); lengthy clinical trial approval; unfavorable conditions for clinical trials for both academic and domestic pharmaceutical industry-sponsored studies; unclear policies for drug approvals and marketing. The authors state specific proposals for overcoming these barriers to generate a climate for increasing participation of academic and existing domestic pharmaceutical industry as well as to increase venture capital and favor start-up and early-stage companies. In conclusion, Mexico has the human resources and material infrastructure to innovate. The implementation of these and any other constructive proposals are just a matter of political will.

Trends in the costs of drugs launched in the UK between 1981 and 2015: an analysis of the launch price of drugs in five disease areas

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the trend in the launch price of new drugs for five common health conditions.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using data on new drugs launched in the UK between 1981 and 2015 for hypertension, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, schizophrenia and colorectal cancer.

DATA AND SOURCES

All drugs marketed in the UK between 1981 and 2015 (inclusive), and licensed specifically for the treatment of one of the five chosen conditions were included in the study. Newly launched medicines and their launch prices were identified by hand-searching all editions of the British National Formulary in addition to searching the websites of relevant regulatory agencies (European Medicines Agency and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency). The launch price in UK pounds for a 28-day supply of each medicine at a typical or usual maintenance dose was adjusted for the effects of general inflation using the gross domestic product deflator series.

RESULTS

104 drugs were included in our study with a mean inflation-adjusted 28-day launch price of £288 (SD £678). The launch price of new drugs varied significantly across the five conditions, with drugs for hypertension having the lowest mean price (£27) and drugs for colorectal cancer having the highest mean price (£1590) (p<0.001). There were large increases in launch prices across the study period, but the magnitude and pattern was markedly different between therapeutic areas. Biological drugs represented 13.5% of all included drugs and had a significantly higher launch price than non- biological drugs (£1233 vs £141, p<0.001). 22.1% of included drugs were first-of-kind and had a significantly higher launch price than follow-on drugs (£768 vs £151) (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Drugs prices continue to increase across different therapeutic areas. This has some association with novelty, but, it is not clear if this increase in price is associated with medical benefits.

Does global drug innovation correspond to burden of disease? The neglected diseases in developed and developing countries

Although it is commonly argued that there is a mismatch between drug innovation and disease burden, there is little evidence on the magnitude and direction of such disparities. In this paper, we measure inequality in innovation, by comparing research and development activity with population health and gross domestic product data across 493 therapeutic indications to globally measure: (a) drug innovation, (b) disease burden, and (c) market size. We use concentration curves and indices to assess inequality at two levels: (a) broad disease groups and (b) disease subcategories for both 1990 and 2010. For some top burden disease subcategories (i.e., cardiovascular and circulatory diseases, neoplasms, and musculoskeletal disorders), innovation is disproportionately concentrated in diseases with high disease burden and large market size, whereas for others (i.e., mental and behavioral disorders, neonatal disorders, and neglected tropical diseases) innovation is disproportionately concentrated in low burden diseases. These inequalities persisted over time, suggesting inertia in pharmaceutical research and development in tackling the global health challenges. Our results confirm quantitatively assertions about the mismatch between disease burden and pharmaceutical innovation in both developed and developing countries and highlight the disease areas for which morbidity and mortality remain unaddressed.

Addressing the Challenges of Tuberculosis: A Brief Historical Account

Tuberculosis (TB) is a highly contagious disease that still poses a threat to human health. Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB), the pathogen responsible for TB, uses diverse ways in order to survive in a variety of host lesions and to subsequently evade immune surveillance; as a result, fighting TB and its associated multidrug resistance has been an ongoing challenge. The aim of this review article is to summarize the historical sequence of drug development and use in the fight against TB, with a particular emphasis on the decades between World War II and the dawn of the twenty first century (2000).

Cost-Effectiveness and Dynamic Efficiency: Does the Solution Lie Within?

The majority of the current systems spread across the world require the value of pharmaceuticals to be demonstrated with an acceptable degree of certainty before a technology is funded. Often involving the notion of cost-effectiveness, one of the key characteristics of such assessments tends to be the consideration of efficiency as a static outcome; with a strong emphasis on current health gains but a disregard for the impact of decision making on the potential health value over time. In this article, we argue that current systems using cost-effectiveness thresholds may provide an incomplete indicator of value. We defend the idea that funding decisions should also be informed by dynamic efficiency considerations and reflect both the current and the future value of achieving a certain level of effectiveness in a specific disease area. We further lay down the foundations for the implementation of such a value assessment framework.

Cellular immunity augmentation in mainstream oncologic therapy

Anticancer immunotherapy has undergone a long evolving journey for decades, and has been dramatically applied to mainstream treatments in oncology in recent 5 years. This progress represents an advanced milestone following cytotoxic medicine and targeted therapy. Cellular immunity plays a pivotal role in the immune responses of hosts to tumor antigens. Such immunity is notably suppressed during neoplastic progression due to immuno-editing processes. Cellular immunity can also be selectively re-activated to combat malignancies while exploiting the advantages of contemporary scientific breakthroughs in molecular immunology and genetic engineering. The rapid advancement of cellular immunity-based therapeutic approaches has achieved high efficacy in certain cancer patients. Consequently, the landscape of oncologic medicine and pharmaceutical innovation has transformed recently. In this regard, we present a comprehensive update on clinically established anti-cancer treatments with cell immunity augmentation as the major mechanism of action.

The Impact of Recent Generic Drug Price Policies on Pharmaceutical Innovation: A Theoretical Rationale and Proposal of a Method Supporting Innovation in Areas of Unmet Medical Need

New discoveries are a critical priority for the pharmaceutical industry. However, the use of fixed incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) thresholds for health technology assessment (HTA) may compromise incentives to innovate and affect future treatment options. This paper highlights the impact of generic drug price policies on pharmaceutical innovation in the context of fixed ICER thresholds and proposes a new consideration for the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). There is a direct causal relationship between HTA and the market price of a drug; in jurisdictions where HTA agencies apply fixed ICER thresholds as an important reimbursement listing criterion, the incremental cost of a new drug is expected to be proportional to its incremental benefit over the comparator. However, the comparator price is subject to market forces or sudden policies and may change markedly affecting the cost-effectiveness assessment (e.g. where the comparator patent has expired). Since recent generic price regulations increased the price gap between drugs' generic and patented versions, it is harder to achieve a sufficient level of incremental benefits in order to offset incremental prices of new treatments. Consequently, even promising drugs may have challenges to show attractive ICERs and research and development (R&D) investments may become unattractive in certain disease area. In order to promote innovation in therapeutic fields with unmet medical needs, a compromise would be to include the comparator's patented price in the CEA instead of the generic drug. By identifying the relevant disease areas, decision makers and HTA authorities could therefore convey the importance of investing in these therapeutic areas to manufacturers.

Pharmaceutical Innovation in the Treatment of Schizophrenia and Mental Disorders Compared with Other Diseases

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to assess the level of private and public investment in research and development of treatments for schizophrenia and other mental disorders compared to other diseases in order to present data on the economic burden and pharmaceutical innovation by disease area, and to compare the level of investment relative to burden across different diseases.

DESIGN

The levels of investment and pharmaceutical innovation relative to burden across different diseases were assessed. Disease burden and prevalence for mental disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder); cancer; rheumatoid arthritis; chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder; diabetes; cardiovascular disease; and neurological disorders (dementia and epilepsy) were estimated from literature sources.

SETTING

Pharmaceutical treatment innovation was measured by the total number of drug launches and the number of drugs launched categorized by innovativeness. Research and development expenditures were estimated using published information on annual public and domestic private research and development expenditures by disease area. Lastly, investment relative to disease burden was measured among the set of disease classes for which all three measures were available: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and neurology (dementia and epilepsy combined).

RESULTS

The level of investment and pharmaceutical innovation in mental disorders was comparatively low, especially relative to the burden of disease. For mental disorders, investment was $3.1 per $1,000 burden invested in research and development for schizophrenia, $1.8 for major depressive disorder, and $0.4 for bipolar disorder relative to cancer ($75.5), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ($9.4), diabetes ($7.6), cardiovascular disease ($6.3), or rheumatoid arthritis ($5.3). Pharmaceutical innovation was also low for mental disorders.

CONCLUSION

Despite the significant burden mental disorders impose on society, investment and pharmaceutical innovation in this disease area remains comparatively low. Policymakers should consider new strategies to stimulate public and private investment in the research and development of novel and effective therapies to treat schizophrenia and other mental disorders.

Valorising and creating access to innovative medicines in the European union

This Perspective describes (a) the current situation, (b) challenges and initiatives, (c) and formulates recommendations to valorize and create access to innovative medicines in the EU. We are currently still far away from optimal assessment of value for money in the EU. On the one hand, valorizing innovative medicines involves a local appraisal by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and competent authorities about the value for money, the budget impact, and the local medical need that can be filled with new medicines. Therefore, local priorities and national health care policy environments should be reflected in the processes and criteria used for assessing value for money and ultimately for reimbursement decisions. On the other hand, a pan-European assessment of both relative effectiveness and medical need (including general ethical and social considerations) should be envisaged in order to feed part of the data needed for the local decisions in an efficient way. This could be the task of the European Medicines Agency, HTA bodies, and competent authorities together.

The international patent system and biomedical research: reconciling aspiration, policy and practice

This article reviews how the international environment shapes international patent law and practice with bearing on biomedical innovation. The cluster of issues is encapsulated in two core paradoxes. The first concerns how public goods, such as new pharmaceuticals, may be produced through the deliberate creation of private rights that exclude material from the public domain. The second paradox concerns how "technological neutrality" and overall policy balance in the application of general patent law principles requires technology-specific interventions by regulators. The article illustrates how centrifugal and centripetal trends influence diverse national approaches to applying patentability criteria for pharmaceutical products.