The estimated annual financial impact of gene therapy in the United States.

Gene therapy is a new class of medical treatment that alters part of a patient's genome through the replacement, deletion, or insertion of genetic material. While still in its infancy, gene therapy has demonstrated immense potential to treat and even cure previously intractable diseases. Nevertheless, existing gene therapy prices are high, raising concerns about its affordability for U.S. payers and its availability to patients. We assess the potential financial impact of novel gene therapies by developing and implementing an original simulation model which entails the following steps: identifying the 109 late-stage gene therapy clinical trials underway before January 2020, estimating the prevalence and incidence of their corresponding diseases, applying a model of the increase in quality-adjusted life years for each therapy, and simulating the launch prices and expected spending of all available gene therapies annually. The results of our simulation suggest that annual spending on gene therapies will be approximately $20.4 billion, under conservative assumptions. We decompose the estimated spending by treated age group as a proxy for insurance type, finding that approximately one-half of annual spending will on the use of gene therapies to treat non-Medicare-insured adults and children. We conduct multiple sensitivity analyses regarding our assumptions and model parameters. We conclude by considering the tradeoffs of different payment methods and policies that intend to ensure patient access to the expected benefits of gene therapy.

Multimorbidity and mortality: A data science perspective.

Background: With multimorbidity becoming the norm rather than the exception, the management of multiple chronic diseases is a major challenge facing healthcare systems worldwide. Methods: Using a large, nationally representative database of electronic medical records from the United Kingdom spanning the years 2005-2016 and consisting over 4.5 million patients, we apply statistical methods and network analysis to identify comorbid pairs and triads of diseases and identify clusters of chronic conditions across different demographic groups. Unlike many previous studies, which generally adopt cross-sectional designs based on single snapshots of closed cohorts, we adopt a longitudinal approach to examine temporal changes in the patterns of multimorbidity. In addition, we perform survival analysis to examine the impact of multimorbidity on mortality. Results: The proportion of the population with multimorbidity has increased by approximately 2.5 percentage points over the last decade, with more than 17% having at least two chronic morbidities. We find that the prevalence and the severity of multimorbidity, as quantified by the number of co-occurring chronic conditions, increase progressively with age. Stratifying by socioeconomic status, we find that people living in more deprived areas are more likely to be multimorbid compared to those living in more affluent areas at all ages. The same trend holds consistently for all years in our data. In general, hypertension, diabetes, and respiratory-related diseases demonstrate high in-degree centrality and eigencentrality, while cardiac disorders show high out-degree centrality. Conclusions: We use data-driven methods to characterize multimorbidity patterns in different demographic groups and their evolution over the past decade. In addition to a number of strongly associated comorbid pairs (e.g., cardiac-vascular and cardiac-metabolic disorders), we identify three principal clusters: a respiratory cluster, a cardiovascular cluster, and a mixed cardiovascular-renal-metabolic cluster. These are supported by established pathophysiological mechanisms and shared risk factors, and largely confirm and expand on the results of existing studies in the medical literature. Our findings contribute to a more quantitative understanding of the epidemiology of multimorbidity, an important pre-requisite for developing more effective medical care and policy for multimorbid patients.

Estimates of Probabilities of Successful Development of Pain Medications: An Analysis of Pharmaceutical Clinical Development Programs from 2000 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: The authors estimate the probability of successful development and duration of clinical trials for medications to treat neuropathic and nociceptive pain. The authors also consider the effect of the perceived abuse potential of the medication on these variables. METHODS: This study uses the Citeline database to compute the probabilities of success, duration, and survivorship of pain medication development programs between January 1, 2000, and June 30, 2020, conditioned on the phase, type of pain (nociceptive vs. neuropathic), and the abuse potential of the medication. RESULTS: The overall probability of successful development of all pain medications from phase 1 to approval is 10.4% (standard error, 1.5%). Medications to treat nociceptive and neuropathic pain have a probability of successful development of 13.3% (standard error, 2.3%) and 7.1% (standard error, 1.9%), respectively. The probability of successful development of medications with high abuse potential and low abuse potential are 27.8% (standard error, 4.6%) and 4.7% (standard error, 1.2%), respectively. The most common period for attrition is between phase 3 and approval. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' data suggest that the unique attributes of pain medications, such as their abuse potential and intended pathology, can influence the probability of successful development and duration of development.

Should we allocate more COVID-19 vaccine doses to non-vaccinated individuals?

Following the approval by the FDA of two COVID-19 vaccines, which are administered in two doses three to four weeks apart, we simulate the effects of various vaccine distribution policies on the cumulative number of infections and deaths in the United States in the presence of shocks to the supply of vaccines. Our forecasts suggest that allocating more than 50% of available doses to individuals who have not received their first dose can significantly increase the number of lives saved and significantly reduce the number of COVID-19 infections. We find that a 50% allocation saves on average 33% more lives, and prevents on average 32% more infections relative to a policy that guarantees a second dose within the recommended time frame to all individuals who have already received their first dose. In fact, in the presence of supply shocks, we find that the former policy would save on average 8, 793 lives and prevents on average 607, 100 infections while the latter policy would save on average 6, 609 lives and prevents on average 460, 743 infections.

A cost/benefit analysis of clinical trial designs for COVID-19 vaccine candidates.

We compare and contrast the expected duration and number of infections and deaths averted among several designs for clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, including traditional and adaptive randomized clinical trials and human challenge trials. Using epidemiological models calibrated to the current pandemic, we simulate the time course of each clinical trial design for 756 unique combinations of parameters, allowing us to determine which trial design is most effective for a given scenario. A human challenge trial provides maximal net benefits-averting an additional 1.1M infections and 8,000 deaths in the U.S. compared to the next best clinical trial design-if its set-up time is short or the pandemic spreads slowly. In most of the other cases, an adaptive trial provides greater net benefits.

Machine-Learning and Stochastic Tumor Growth Models for Predicting Outcomes in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The prediction of clinical outcomes for patients with cancer is central to precision medicine and the design of clinical trials. We developed and validated machine-learning models for three important clinical end points in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)-objective response (OR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)-using routinely collected patient and disease variables. METHODS: We aggregated patient-level data from 17 randomized clinical trials recently submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration evaluating molecularly targeted therapy and immunotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest studies of NSCLC to consider biomarker and inhibitor therapy as candidate predictive variables. We developed a stochastic tumor growth model to predict tumor response and explored the performance of a range of machine-learning algorithms and survival models. Models were evaluated on out-of-sample data using the standard area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and concordance index (C-index) performance metrics. RESULTS: Our models achieved promising out-of-sample predictive performances of 0.79 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.81), 0.67 C-index (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.69), and 0.73 C-index (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.74) for OR, PFS, and OS, respectively. The calibration plots for PFS and OS suggested good agreement between actual and predicted survival probabilities. In addition, the Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the difference in survival between the low- and high-risk groups was significant (log-rank test P < .001) for both PFS and OS. CONCLUSION: Biomarker status was the strongest predictor of OR, PFS, and OS in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies. However, single biomarkers have limited predictive value, especially for programmed death-ligand 1 immunotherapy. To advance beyond the results achieved in this study, more comprehensive data on composite multiomic signatures is required.

Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters.

Previous estimates of drug development success rates rely on relatively small samples from databases curated by the pharmaceutical industry and are subject to potential selection biases. Using a sample of 406 038 entries of clinical trial data for over 21 143 compounds from January 1, 2000 to October 31, 2015, we estimate aggregate clinical trial success rates and durations. We also compute disaggregated estimates across several trial features including disease type, clinical phase, industry or academic sponsor, biomarker presence, lead indication status, and time. In several cases, our results differ significantly in detail from widely cited statistics. For example, oncology has a 3.4% success rate in our sample vs. 5.1% in prior studies. However, after declining to 1.7% in 2012, this rate has improved to 2.5% and 8.3% in 2014 and 2015, respectively. In addition, trials that use biomarkers in patient-selection have higher overall success probabilities than trials without biomarkers.

Just how good an investment is the biopharmaceutical sector?

Uncertainty surrounding the risk and reward of investments in biopharmaceutical companies poses a challenge to those interested in funding such enterprises. Using data on publicly traded stocks, we track the performance of 1,066 biopharmaceutical companies from 1930 to 2015-the most comprehensive financial analysis of this sector to date. Our systematic exploration of methods for distinguishing biotech and pharmaceutical companies yields a dynamic, more accurate classification method. We find that the performance of the biotech sector is highly sensitive to the presence of a few outlier companies, and confirm that nearly all biotech companies are loss-making enterprises, exhibiting high stock volatility. In contrast, since 2000, pharmaceutical companies have become increasingly profitable, with risk-adjusted returns consistently outperforming the market. The performance of all biopharmaceutical companies is subject not only to factors arising from their drug pipelines (idiosyncratic risk), but also from general economic conditions (systematic risk). The risk associated with returns has profound implications both for patterns of investment and for funding innovation in biomedical R&D.