0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Cost of Exempting Sole Orphan Drugs From Medicare Negotiation

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Importance

          The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) requires Medicare to negotiate prices for some high-spending drugs but exempts drugs approved solely for the treatment of a single rare disease.

          Objective

          To estimate Medicare spending and global revenues for drugs that might have been exempt from negotiation from 2012 to 2021.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This cross-sectional study analyzed drugs that met the IRA threshold for price negotiation (Medicare spending >$200 million/y) in any year from 2012 to 2021 and had an Orphan Drug Act designation. We stratified drugs into 4 mutually exclusive categories: approved for a single rare disease (sole orphan), approved for multiple rare diseases (multiorphan), initially approved for a rare disease and subsequently approved for a nonrare disease (orphan first), and initially approved for a nonrare disease and subsequently approved for a rare disease (non–orphan first).

          Outcomes

          The primary outcomes were the number of sole orphan drugs, estimated Medicare spending on those drugs from 2012 to 2021, and global revenue since launch.

          Results

          Among 282 drugs, 95 (34%) were approved to treat at least 1 rare disease, including 25 sole orphan drugs (26%), 20 multiorphan drugs (21%), 13 orphan first drugs (14%), and 37 non–orphan first drugs (39%). From 2012 to 2021, Medicare spending on sole orphan drugs increased from $3.4 billion to $10.0 billion. Each year, a median (IQR) of $2.5 ($1.9-$2.6) billion in Medicare spending would have been excluded from price negotiation because of the sole orphan exemption. The cumulative global revenue of the median (IQR) sole orphan drug was $11 ($6.6-$19.2) billion.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          The sole orphan exemption will exclude billions of dollars of Medicare drug spending from price negotiation. The high level of global revenues achieved by these drugs, however, suggests that special exemption is unnecessary for them to achieve financial success. Congress could consider removing the sole orphan exemption to obtain additional savings for patients and taxpayers and to eliminate any potential disincentive for developing additional indications for these drugs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Estimated Research and Development Investment Needed to Bring a New Medicine to Market, 2009-2018

          How much do drug companies spend on research and development to bring a new medicine to market? In this study, which included 63 of 355 new therapeutic drugs and biologic agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between 2009 and 2018, the estimated median capitalized research and development cost per product was $985 million, counting expenditures on failed trials. Data were mainly accessible for smaller firms, products in certain therapeutic areas, orphan drugs, first-in-class drugs, therapeutic agents that received accelerated approval, and products approved between 2014 and 2018. This study provides an estimate of research and development costs for new therapeutic agents based on publicly available data; differences from previous studies may reflect the spectrum of products analyzed and the restricted availability of data in the public domain. The mean cost of developing a new drug has been the subject of debate, with recent estimates ranging from $314 million to $2.8 billion. To estimate the research and development investment required to bring a new therapeutic agent to market, using publicly available data. Data were analyzed on new therapeutic agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2009 and 2018 to estimate the research and development expenditure required to bring a new medicine to market. Data were accessed from the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Drugs@FDA database, and ClinicalTrials.gov, alongside published data on clinical trial success rates. Conduct of preclinical and clinical studies of new therapeutic agents. Median and mean research and development spending on new therapeutic agents approved by the FDA, capitalized at a real cost of capital rate (the required rate of return for an investor) of 10.5% per year, with bootstrapped CIs. All amounts were reported in 2018 US dollars. The FDA approved 355 new drugs and biologics over the study period. Research and development expenditures were available for 63 (18%) products, developed by 47 different companies. After accounting for the costs of failed trials, the median capitalized research and development investment to bring a new drug to market was estimated at $985.3 million (95% CI, $683.6 million-$1228.9 million), and the mean investment was estimated at $1335.9 million (95% CI, $1042.5 million-$1637.5 million) in the base case analysis. Median estimates by therapeutic area (for areas with ≥5 drugs) ranged from $765.9 million (95% CI, $323.0 million-$1473.5 million) for nervous system agents to $2771.6 million (95% CI, $2051.8 million-$5366.2 million) for antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents. Data were mainly accessible for smaller firms, orphan drugs, products in certain therapeutic areas, first-in-class drugs, therapeutic agents that received accelerated approval, and products approved between 2014 and 2018. Results varied in sensitivity analyses using different estimates of clinical trial success rates, preclinical expenditures, and cost of capital. This study provides an estimate of research and development costs for new therapeutic agents based on publicly available data. Differences from previous studies may reflect the spectrum of products analyzed, the restricted availability of data in the public domain, and differences in underlying assumptions in the cost calculations. This study uses publicly available data to analyze research and development spending to win FDA approval and bring new drugs to market between 2009 and 2018.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            How Much Does It Cost to Research and Develop a New Drug? A Systematic Review and Assessment

            Background Debate over the viability of the current commercial research and development (R&D) model is ongoing. A controversial theme is the cost of bringing a new molecular entity (NME) to market. Objective Our aim was to evaluate the range and suitability of published R&D cost estimates as to the degree to which they represent the actual costs of industry. Methods We provided a systematic literature review based on articles found in the Pubmed, Embase and EconLit electronic databases, and in a previously published review. Articles published before March 2020 that estimated the total R&D costs were included (22 articles with 45 unique cost estimates). We included only literature in which the methods used to collect the information and to estimate the R&D costs were clearly described; therefore, three reports were excluded. We extracted average pre-launch R&D costs per NME and converted the values to 2019 US dollars (US$) using the gross domestic product (GDP) price deflator. We appraised the suitability of the R&D estimated costs by using a scoring system that captures three domains: (1) how success rates and development time used for cost estimation were obtained; (2) whether the study considered potential sources contributing to the variation in R&D costs; and (3) what the components of the cost estimation were. Results Estimates of total average capitalized pre-launch R&D costs varied widely, ranging from $161 million to $4.54 billion (2019 US$). Therapeutic area-specific estimates were highest for anticancer drugs (between $944 million and $4.54 billion). Our analysis identified a trend of increasing R&D costs per NME over time but did not reveal a relation between cost estimates and study ranking when the suitability scores were assessed. We found no evidence of an increase in suitability scores over time. Conclusion There is no universally correct answer regarding how much it costs, on average, to research and develop an NME. Future studies should explicitly address previously neglected variables, which likely explain some variability in estimates, and consider the trade-off between the transparency and public accessibility of data and their specificity. Use of our proposed suitability scoring system may assist in addressing such issues. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-021-01065-y.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pomalidomide for Symptomatic Kaposi's Sarcoma in People With and Without HIV Infection: A Phase I/II Study.

              Purpose Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is a multicentric tumor caused by Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus. Unmet needs include therapies that are oral, anthracycline sparing, and deliverable in resource-limited settings. We evaluated pomalidomide, an oral immune modulatory agent, in patients with symptomatic KS. Methods The primary objectives were to assess tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and activity. Initial dosage level was 5 mg once per day for 21 days per 28-day cycle, with a de-escalated level of 3 mg if not tolerable, and aspirin 81 mg once per day thromboprophylaxis. HIV-infected patients required controlled viremia with either persistent KS despite 3 months of antiretroviral therapy (ART) or progressive KS despite 2 months of ART. Evaluations included tumor response and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Results Twenty-two patients were treated; 15 (68%) were HIV infected, 17 (77%) had advanced (T1) disease, and 19 (86%) previous KS therapy excluding ART. All were treated with 5 mg because no dose-limiting toxicities occurred. Over 156 cycles, the grade 3/4 adverse events possibly attributable to therapy were neutropenia (23 cycles, 10 patients), infection (1 cycle), and edema (1 cycle). Sixteen patients responded (73%; 95% CI, 50% to 89%): nine of 15 HIV-infected patients (60%; 95% CI, 32% to 84%) and all seven HIV-uninfected patients (100%; 95% CI, 59% to 100%). Median time to response was 4 weeks (range, 4 to 36 weeks). HRQL showed no impairment during therapy and improved satisfaction with appearance at end therapy ( P = .03). Significant increases in CD4(+) and CD8(+) cells were seen in patients with and without HIV, together with a transient increase in Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus viral load at week 4 ( P = .05). Conclusion Pomalidomide is well tolerated and active in KS regardless of HIV status. Responses were rapid, with improved self-reported outcomes, and occurred in advanced and heavily pretreated disease. Correlative studies support, at least in part, an immunologic mechanism of activity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Internal Medicine
                JAMA Intern Med
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                2168-6106
                January 01 2024
                January 01 2024
                : 184
                : 1
                : 63
                Affiliations
                [1 ]John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
                [2 ]Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [3 ]Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
                [4 ]Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [5 ]Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
                Article
                10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.6293
                74287e88-225e-46d1-b80f-49ca034df140
                © 2024
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article