The Use of Real-World Evidence and Data in Clinical Research and Postapproval Safety Studies.

BACKGROUND: The adoption and use of real-world evidence (RWE) is becoming increasingly important to drug development and patient safety. METHODS: The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) conducted a benchmark survey of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and contract research organizations in a number of areas that support real-world data (RWD) and evidence, including operations and performance areas. Data were gathered on organizational functions, staff, roles and responsibilities, and skill sets required. Also, current and future allocation of budgets and spending were examined as well as return on investment measures. A total of 30 unique companies responded to the survey. RESULTS: Nearly all respondents (29/30 companies) reported that their organizations had an RWE function and most companies indicated that their RWE functions were increasing in size (21 companies). From a postapproval regulatory and labeling perspective, there were two primary areas for company use of RWD to generate evidence: one for postapproval safety studies, including decreasing the severity of a label warning or to support risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) (12/22 companies; 55%), which allows for real-world patient population data to inform safety decisions; and the other for postmarketing studies (13/23 companies; 57%). Developing greater insight into therapeutic area needs, gaining market access, and greater understanding of drug effectiveness were the top measures identified for return on investment for use of RWE. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the use of RWE in regulatory decision making and increasing uses of real-world data by sponsors will fill the gaps that are critically needed for drug development and safety.

Cost Drivers of a Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia Phase 3 Clinical Trial.

Background: Studies indicate that the prevalence of multidrug-resistant infections, including hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP), has been rising. There are many challenges associated with these disease conditions and the ability to develop new treatments. Additionally, HABP/VABP clinical trials are very costly to conduct given their complex protocol designs and the difficulty in recruiting and retaining patients. Methods: With input from clinicians, representatives from industry, and the US Food and Drug Administration, we conducted a study to (1) evaluate the drivers of HABP/VABP phase 3 direct and indirect clinical trial costs; (2) to identify opportunities to lower these costs; and (3) to compare (1) and (2) to endocrine and oncology clinical trials. Benchmark data were gathered from proprietary and commercial databases and used to create a model that calculates the fully loaded (direct and indirect) cost of typical phase 3 HABP/VABP endocrine and oncology clinical trials. Results: Results indicate that the cost per patient for a 200-site, 1000-patient phase 3 HABP/VABP study is $89600 per patient. The cost of screen failures and screen failure rates are the main cost drivers. Conclusions: Results indicate that biopharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies should consider strategies to improve screening and recruitment to decrease HABP/VABP clinical trial costs.

Mapping the Landscape of Patient-centric Activities Within Clinical Research.

PURPOSE: Although there has been more involvement by patients in the drug-development process, there are not a lot of published data that quantify patient-centric activities or that document these activities across a large scale. In order to examine the patient-centricity landscape and to quantify the adoption and implementation of these initiatives, the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development and the Drug Information Association collaborated on a research study. The study examined patient-centric activities implemented by pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and contract research organizations, as well as activities being piloted or in the planning stages. METHODS: A global industry survey was conducted across pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and contract research organizations, assessing 25 patient-centric activities within clinical research. Some of these initiatives involve the use of social media to engage with patients, or the use of social listening to monitor study activity. Initiatives being implemented, planned, or piloted in addition to those not being considered were evaluated by respondents. Twenty-two unique companies responded to the survey, representing a mix of large, mid-sized, and small organizations. FINDINGS: The most widely adopted patient-centric initiatives, including activities both implemented and piloted across organizations, were patient advisory boards (17/22 companies), professional panels (16), lay-language clinical trial results summaries (13), assessment of the patient-organization landscape (10), and the use of home nursing networks (9). IMPLICATIONS: The results of the study suggest that organizations have a varied approach to the adoption and implementation of patient-centric initiatives, with more activities occurring in the planning stages than are being piloted or implemented. Many factors affect implementation and adoption, including buy-in by senior management, organizational vision, resources, and level of investment.

Progress Report on Neglected Tropical Disease Drug Donation Programs.

PURPOSE: Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) impose a significant burden on public health, particularly in developing nations. Many can be treated cost-effectively with drugs donated or offered at or below marginal cost. In 2012, the World Health Organization published an NTD roadmap that outlined a strategy for the prevention, control, and eradication of 17 NTDs by 2020. Inspired by this roadmap, executives from 13 pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, and other interested parties signed the London Declaration on Neglected Tropical Diseases in January 2012. In this paper, we will assess progress in meeting commitments on drug donations laid out in the London Declaration. METHODS: We conducted Medline and LexisNexis searches of peer-reviewed publications and trade journals, as well as product development partnership and government reports. Subsequently, we designed a survey instrument and surveyed 10 company signatories (companies with drug donation programs) to the London Declaration to determine current donations and pledges. FINDINGS: Nine of 10 companies with donation programs responded to the survey. The respondents reported substantial progress in meeting the goals laid out in the London Declaration. Survey respondents maintained 17 drug donation programs across 10 disease categories. In 2014, companies donated >1 billion treatments, with a dollar value of nearly $1.5 billion. However, not all donated products were distributed to patients in need. In addition, 4 of the 17 programs were slated to end before 2020, three of the 17 programs did not report explicit program objectives, and 7 of 17 did not measure the impact of programs in terms of numbers of patients treated. None of our survey respondents reported on whether the programs were leading to a reduction in disease prevalence. IMPLICATIONS: Donations are a necessary but insufficient condition for patient access to neglected disease drugs. Additional resources must be allocated to ensure delivery of donated products to patients. In addition, drug donation programs should provide explicit descriptions of program objectives, measurements of the impacts of their programs, and extension of all donation commitments through 2020. To achieve this, multiple stakeholders with a vested interest in reducing the burden of neglected diseases must collaborate in a multipronged approach toward NTD elimination.

Prospects for Harmonizing Regulatory Science Programs in Europe, Japan, and the United States to Advance Regenerative Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Regenerative medicine (RM) is a game-changing technology with the potential to repair damaged tissues and organs, but its introduction into the clinic is complicated by the fact that Europe, Japan, and the United States are struggling to make appropriate regulatory decisions about advanced technologies that are highly promising but also uncertain and potentially risky. They have adopted the new approach of regulatory science (RS), applying science-based approaches and standards to support regulatory decision making, to address the challenge. METHODS: Is RS the right approach for harmonizing the regulatory mechanisms needed to integrate RM into the mainstream of the development continuum for medical products? If so, what are the prospects for harmonization? We examine the current state of the art for RM and RS in the 3 major drug development regions to answer these questions. RESULTS: Among the practical obstacles to harmonization is the fact that the 3 regions represent different legal jurisdictions and health care systems, with disparate regulatory and reimbursement requirements. However, the regulatory regimes are not without commonalities. Thus, it is not the practical differences that should be debated but rather how best to enhance collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Just as consistent and predictable regulatory support founded on common principles in regulatory science provide the confidence and certainty required to bolster investment in regenerative medicine, harmonization is essential to building that framework on a global scale.

State of the industry for drug-diagnostic development: challenge and change on the path to precision medicine.

Four challenges to the adoption of personalized medicine were identified in the mid-2000s - adherence to the blockbuster model, the lack of a supportive regulatory environment, the dysfunctional payment system and physician barriers. In this article, we report on our study findings based on interviews with 24 senior executives from leading drug and diagnostics companies to assess progress made in addressing those challenges over the last decade. Overall, we found that even with payer pushback and adjusting to new business models, the majority of developers expected their business to increase over the next 5 years. Several factors that unexpectedly helped to shape the personalized medicine landscape, such as the growth of support in genomic medicine from the public sector, are also discussed.