Orphan Drug Label Expansions: Analysis Of Subsequent Rare And Common Indication Approvals.

The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 was enacted to provide financial incentives to stimulate drug development for rare diseases. In recent years, concerns have been raised regarding these orphan drugs, including how many are being approved for both rare and common diseases and the number of subsequent indication approvals. Policy makers have suggested modifications to the Orphan Drug Act's incentives to address these concerns. In this study we investigated the approval "family trees" of orphan drugs. We found that 491 novel orphan drugs were approved between 1990 and 2022. To date, 65 percent have been approved for a single rare disease, 15 percent have been approved for multiple rare diseases, and 20 percent have been approved for both rare and common diseases. Ten percent of orphan drugs received a subsequent indication approval for a pediatric population of an orphan disease. Revenue estimates from 2021 show that one-third of the drugs approved for both rare and common indications and 6 percent of rare-only drugs were among the 200 top-selling drugs worldwide. The results have implications for the possible externalities of modifying the incentives of the Orphan Drug Act, such as a potential decrease in the initiation of programs to develop pediatric rare disease drugs.

An Analysis of Antibacterial Drug Development Trends in the United States, 1980-2019.

We present a longitudinal analysis of investigational new drug applications (INDs) for new, systemic antibacterial drugs under active development between 1980 and 2019, evaluating the characteristics of these investigational drugs and the outcomes of these drug development programs. The number of INDs in active development declined by two-thirds, from 39 active INDs at its peak in 1987 to a low 13 in 2001, with decreased development of new cephalosporin, quinolone, and macrolide drugs and reduced participation from large pharmaceutical firms. Antibacterial drug development activity rebounded substantially from 2002 to 2009, primarily led by involvement of small pharmaceutical companies. As of 31 December 2019, the number of active INDs has declined to an 11-year low, and the number of antibacterial INDs initiated with the US Food and Drug Administration during 2010-2019 was lower than any of the previous 3 decades. Antibacterial drug development programs initiated in the 1980s and 1990s had high success rates, with >40% of INDs obtaining marketing approval, in a median time of about 6 years from IND receipt to approval. For drug development programs initiated between 2000 and 2009, we found that IND-to-approval rates reduced to 23%, with median development times for approved antibacterial drugs increasing to 8.2 years. The majority of INDs in development as of 31 December 2019 come from already established drug classes, most in early stages of development, and few are sponsored by large pharmaceutical companies.

An Analysis of Follow-On Development in New Drug Classes, January 1986-June 2018.

Follow-on drugs-new medicines approved within an established drug class-provide incremental treatment improvements, additional choices for clinicians and patients, and potential price competition. We examine the timing, quantity, and product characteristics of within-class drug approvals for new drug classes approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since January 1986. We find that nearly two-thirds of first-in-class drugs do not face a subsequent follow-on product. Follow-on innovation within a drug class was more common and occurred more rapidly in the 1990s than during the 2000s. We also find that fewer drug classes have multiple competitors entering the market during the 2000s. First-in-class drugs treating rare disorders experienced lower rates of follow-on entry than drugs treating common medical conditions. The decreased pace of follow-on development likely results from greater industry focus on rare diseases and increasing reimbursement pressure on products lacking clear advantages over existing products.

Investigating the landscape of US orphan product approvals.

BACKGROUND: The Orphan Drug Act was enacted in 1983 to encourage the development of drugs for rare diseases. Previous research has attempted to examine the impact of the Act by assessing either the number of orphan designations that have been granted or the number of new orphan drugs approved for marketing. This study provides a more in-depth understanding of the effect of the Orphan Drug Act by investigating all types of drug approvals with an orphan designation, along with multiple characteristics of the drugs, over the entire 35 years of the Act. These orphan approvals include: new molecular entities (new drugs approved first for a rare disease), secondary indications (an expansion from the first approved indication), and new formulations. RESULTS: The results show that the number of approvals for orphan indications has been increasing over time, and the upward trend is especially large in the most recent years. Much of this increase has been driven by the increase in secondary indications being approved for previously approved drugs, although there have also been increases in the number of approved new drugs. We also find that while oncology indications have been increasing significantly, there has also been an increase in other therapeutic areas. Additionally, we find that the proportion of biologic drugs being approved has increased over time. Lastly, while other parts of this drug landscape have dramatically altered over time, the proportion of orphan approvals receiving priority review has not changed. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the Orphan Drug Act appears to have stimulated significant drug development for rare diseases. Additionally, approvals of orphan indications have been increasing over time. This increasing effect has not targeted a single area of the rare disease space, rather, gains in approvals have been seen across: therapeutic areas, approval types (both new drugs and secondary indications), and for both biologics and small molecule drugs.

Evaluation of Pre-marketing Factors to Predict Post-marketing Boxed Warnings and Safety Withdrawals.

INTRODUCTION: An important goal in drug regulation is understanding serious safety issues with new drugs as soon as possible. Achieving this goal requires us to understand whether information provided during the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug review can predict serious safety issues that are usually identified after the product is approved. However, research on this topic remains understudied. In this paper, we examine whether any pre-marketing drug characteristics are associated with serious post-marketing safety actions. METHODS: We study this question using an internal FDA database containing every new small molecule drug submitted to the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) on or after November 21, 1997, and approved and commercially launched before December 31, 2009. Serious post-marketing safety actions include whether these drugs ever experienced either a post-marketing boxed warning or a withdrawal from the market due to safety concerns. A random effects logistic regression model was used to test whether any pre-marketing characteristics were associated with either post-marketing safety action. RESULTS: A total of 219 new molecular entities were analyzed. Among these drugs, 11 experienced a safety withdrawal and 30 received boxed warnings by July 31, 2016. Contrary to prevailing hypotheses, we find that neither clinical trial sample sizes nor review time windows are associated with the addition of a post-marketing boxed warning or safety withdrawal. However, we do find that new drugs approved with either a boxed warning or priority review are more likely to experience post-marketing boxed warnings. Furthermore, drugs approved with boxed warnings tend to receive post-marketing boxed warnings resulting from new safety information that are unrelated to the original warning. Drugs approved with a boxed warning are 3.88 times more likely to receive a post-marketing boxed warning, while drugs approved with a priority review are 3.51 times more likely to receive a post-marketing boxed warning. CONCLUSION: Although drugs approved with a boxed warning or priority review are more likely to experience serious post-marketing safety events, other information provided during the FDA drug review that is easy to quantify is generally not associated with post-marketing safety events. It appears that these post-marketing events are not discernible during a pre-marketing review and therefore might not be avoidable using current review data.

Trends In Orphan New Molecular Entities, 1983-2014: Half Were First In Class, And Rare Cancers Were The Most Frequent Target.

The Orphan Drug Act was enacted in 1983 to stimulate drug development for rare diseases. How well this law has accomplished that goal is an important public health question. This study examined the characteristics of the 209 orphan drugs approved as new molecular entities in the period 1983-2014. As a whole, these drugs were highly innovative and provided substantial gains in reducing unmet medical needs for rare diseases: Over 50 percent of the drugs were first in class, and 78 percent received a priority review. Drugs approved as either therapeutic or supportive therapies for rare cancers represented the highest proportion of these drugs (35 percent). Additionally, in 2010-14 large companies became a strong presence in developing orphan new molecular entities for oncology indications. Overall, new orphan drugs appeared to be highly innovative and provided important advances in care for patients with rare diseases.

Scientific and regulatory reasons for delay and denial of FDA approval of initial applications for new drugs, 2000-2012.

IMPORTANCE: Some new drug applications fail because of inadequate drug performance and others are not approved because the information submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is unsatisfactory to make that determination. Resubmission of failed applications is costly, delaying marketing approval and the availability of new drugs to patients. OBJECTIVE: To identify the reasons that FDA marketing approval for new drugs was delayed or denied. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective review of FDA documents and extraction of data were performed. We examined all drug applications first submitted to the FDA between 2000 and 2012 for new molecular entities (NMEs), which are active ingredients never before marketed in the United States in any form. Using FDA correspondence and reviews, we investigated the reasons NMEs failed to obtain FDA approval. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reasons for delayed FDA approval or nonapproval of NME applications. RESULTS: Of the 302 identified NME applications, 151 (50%) were approved when first submitted and 222 (73.5%) were ultimately approved. Seventy-one applications required 1 or more resubmissions before approval, with a median delay to approval of 435 days following the first unsuccessful submission. Of the unsuccessful first-time applications, 24 (15.9%) included uncertainties related to dose selection, 20 (13.2%) choice of study end points that failed to adequately reflect a clinically meaningful effect, 20 (13.2%) inconsistent results when different end points were tested, 17 (11.3%) inconsistent results when different trials or study sites were compared, and 20 (13.2%) poor efficacy when compared with the standard of care. The frequency of safety deficiencies was similar among never-approved drugs compared with those with delayed approval (43 of 80 never approved [53.8%] vs 37 of 71 eventually approved [52.1%]; difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -14.86% to 18.05%]; P = .87). However, efficacy deficiencies were significantly more frequent among the never-approved drugs than among those with delayed approvals (61 of 80 never approved [76.3%] vs 28 of 71 eventually approved [39.4%]; difference, 36.9% [95% CI, 20.25% to 50.86%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Several potentially preventable deficiencies, including failure to select optimal drug doses and suitable study end points, accounted for significant delays in the approval of new drugs. Understanding the reasons for previous failures is helpful to improve the efficiency of clinical development for new drugs.

An improved approach to measuring drug innovation finds steady rates of first-in-class pharmaceuticals, 1987-2011.

For more than a decade, industry analysts and policy makers have raised concerns about declining pharmaceutical innovation, citing declining numbers of new molecular entities (NMEs) approved in the United States each year. Yet there is little consensus on whether this is the best measure of "innovation." We examined NME approvals during 1987-2011 and propose the three distinct subcategories of NMEs--first-in-class, advance-in-class, and addition-to-class--to provide more nuanced and informative insights into underlying trends. We found that trends in NME approvals were largely driven by addition-to-class, or "me too," drug approvals, while first-in-class approvals remained fairly steady over the study period. Moreover, the higher proportion of first-in-class drug approvals over the most recent decade is an encouraging sign of the health of the industry as a whole.

Economic issues with follow-on protein products.

The economic effects of the possible introduction of 'follow-on' protein products have been the subject of recent debate. Here, we aim to explore the economic issues surrounding this debate using three measures: total sales, product complexity and patent expiry. Our analysis shows that the sales of therapeutic protein products are concentrated in a relatively small number of branded products, which may be the most attractive targets for follow-on development. For the years 2013-2015, we estimate that products representing US$20 billion in annual sales--approximately half of all sales in 2006--can be expected to lose patent protection.