Development of medicines for rare diseases and inborn errors of metabolism: Toward novel public-private partnerships.

Medicine development for rare diseases, including inborn errors of metabolism (IEMs) is challenging. Many academic innovations fail to reach the patient, either by stranding in the translational stage or due to suboptimal patient access related to pricing or uncertain effectiveness. Expanding and solidifying the role of the academic in public-private partnerships (PPPs) may present an innovative solution to help overcome these complexities. This narrative review explores the literature on traditional and novel collaborative approaches to medicine development for rare diseases and analyzes examples of PPPs, with a specific focus on IEMs. Several academic institutions have introduced guidelines for socially responsible licensing of innovations for private development. The PPP model offers a more integrative approach toward academic involvement of medicine development. By sharing risks and rewards, failures in the translational stage can be mutually absorbed. If socially responsible terms are not included, however, high pricing can impede patient access. Therefore, we propose a framework for socially responsible PPPs aimed at medicine development for metabolic disorders. This socially responsible PPP framework could stimulate successful and accessible medicine development for IEMs as well as other rare diseases if the establishment of such collaborations includes terms securing joint data ownership and evidence generation, fast access, and socially responsible pricing.

Access to medicines for rare diseases: A European regulatory roadmap for academia.

Background: Novel or repurposed medicines for rare diseases often emerge from fundamental research or empirical findings in academia. However, researchers may be insufficiently aware of the possibilities and requirements to bring novel medicinal treatment options to the patient. This paper aims to provide an easily applicable, comprehensive roadmap designed for academic researchers to make medicines for rare diseases available for patients by addressing the relevant regulatory frameworks, including marketing authorization and alternative routes. Methods: Key points of the regulatory chapters "Placing on the Market" and "Scope" of Directive 2001/83/EC relating to medicinal products for human use were summarized. Provisions in EU directives regarding blood products, radiopharmaceuticals, and herbal and homeopathic medicinal products were excluded. Cross-referencing to other provisions was included. European case-law was retrieved from the InfoCuria database to exemplify the implications of alternative routes. Results: Medicines may only be placed on the market with a valid marketing authorization. To obtain such authorization in Europe, a "Common Technical Document" comprising reports on quality and non-clinical and clinical studies must be submitted to a "competent authority", a national medicine agency or the European Medicines Agency. Timely interaction of academic researchers with regulators via scientific advice may lead to better regulatory alignment and subsequently a higher chance for approval of academic inventions. Furthermore, reimbursement by national payers could be essential to ensure patient access. Apart from the marketing authorization route, we identified multiple alternative routes to provide (early) access. These include off-label use, named-patient basis, compassionate use, pharmacy compounding, and hospital exemption for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products. Discussion: Aligning academic (non-)clinical studies on rare diseases with regulatory and reimbursement requirements may facilitate fast and affordable access. Several alternative routes exist to provide (early) pharmaceutical care at a national level, but case-law demonstrates that alternative routes should be interpreted strictly and for exceptional situations only. Academics should be aware of these routes and their requirements to improve access to medicines for rare diseases.

Cost-Based Price Calculation of Mexiletine for Nondystrophic Myotonia.

OBJECTIVES: Mexiletine is a long-known drug used for the treatment of arrhythmias and repurposed in the 1980s for patients with nondystrophic myotonia (NDM). Recently, the price of mexiletine in Europe increased significantly after registration as an orphan drug for NDM. This led to international discussions on affordability and willingness to reimburse mexiletine in the absence of background information that would justify such a price. Our objective was to calculate a cost-based price for mexiletine for adult patients with NDM based on detailed information on development costs. METHODS: We calculated a fair price based on a cost-based pricing model for commercial mexiletine to treat adults with NDM using a recent European drug-pricing model as a framework to include actual costs incurred. Three scenarios were applied: 1 with minimum estimated costs, 1 with maximum estimated costs, and 1 with costs as if mexiletine was innovative. RESULTS: The calculated fair price of mexiletine per patient per year (PPPY) is €452 for the minimum scenario and €1996 for the maximum scenario. By using hypothetical R&D costs used for innovative drugs, the price would be €6685 PPPY. In Europe, the list price of mexiletine ranges from €30 707-60 730 PPPY, based on 600 mg daily. CONCLUSIONS: The current list price for mexiletine in Europe is manifold higher than any scenario of the cost-based models. Accounting for the reduced costs for clinical development in a repurposing scenario, the cost-based pricing model provides a fair commercial price range, which can be used as benchmark for pricing negotiations and/or reimbursement decisions.

A novel sustained-release cysteamine bitartrate formulation for the treatment of cystinosis: Pharmacokinetics and safety in healthy male volunteers.

The strict intake regimen of cysteamine bitartrate formulations, associated with side effects, is a concern for the treatment compliance in cystinosis therapy. Therefore, there is a need for a cysteamine formulation with an improved pharmacokinetic profile. This study investigated the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of a new sustained-release cysteamine dosage form, PO-001, in healthy volunteers. This was a randomized, investigator-blinded, three-way cross-over study to compare single doses (600 mg) of PO-001 with Cystagon® (immediate-release) and Procysbi® (delayed-release). Collected blood samples were analyzed for plasma cysteamine concentrations and pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated by noncompartmental analysis. In addition, plasma cysteamine concentrations were analyzed using a population pharmacokinetic approach using NONMEM® . Pharmacokinetics showed clear sustained-release characteristics of PO-001 over time with a lower Cmax and longer Tmax compared to Cystagon® and Procysbi® . All treatment-emergent adverse events were of mild severity, with the exception of two subjects who reported moderate severity gastrointestinal problems including vomiting and diarrhea, which were related to Cystagon® intake. Population PK simulations showed a favourable PK profile based on Cmax and Ctrough concentrations at steady state. In conclusion, a single dose of 600 mg PO-001 was well tolerated with no findings of clinical concern. This new cysteamine bitartrate formulation showed pharmacokinetics of a sustained-release formulation, which may be beneficial for the treatment of cystinosis patients. This study supports advancing this type of sustained-release formulation into a subsequent study to confirm reduced dosing frequency with efficient control of white blood cells (WBCs) cystine levels. Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR) (NL67638.056.18).

Registries for orphan drugs: generating evidence or marketing tools?

Independent disease registries for pre-and post-approval of novel treatments for rare diseases are increasingly important for healthcare professionals, patients, regulators and the pharmaceutical industry. Current registries for rare diseases to evaluate orphan drugs are mainly set up and owned by the pharmaceutical industry which leads to unacceptable conflicts of interest. To ensure independence from commercial interests, disease registries should be set up and maintained by healthcare professionals and patients. Public funding should be directed towards an early establishment of international registries for orphan diseases, ideally well before novel treatments are introduced. Regulatory bodies should insist on the use of data from independent disease registries rather than company driven, drug-oriented registries.

Corrigendum: Controlled Human Infections As a Tool to Reduce Uncertainty in Clinical Vaccine Development.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00297.].

Controlled Human Infections As a Tool to Reduce Uncertainty in Clinical Vaccine Development.

Vaccines can be extremely cost-effective public health measures. Unfortunately the research and development (R&D) of novel vaccines is suffering from rising costs and declining success rates. Because many vaccines target low- and middle income markets (LMIC), output needs to be maintained at a constrained budget. In addition, scientific neglect and political uncertainty around reimbursement decisions make it an unattractive arena for private investors. The vaccine development pipeline for LMIC thus is in need for a different, sustainable, and cost-effective development model. In conventional vaccine development, objectives for every clinical development phase have been predefined. However, given the scarcity of resources, the most efficient clinical development path should identify vaccine candidates with the highest potential impact as soon as possible. We argue for a custom-made question-based development path based on the scientific questions, success probabilities and investments required. One question can be addressed by several studies and one study can provide partial answers to multiple questions. An example of a question-based approach is the implementation of a controlled human malaria infection model (CHMI). Malaria vaccine R&D faces major scientific challenges and has limited resources. Therefore, early preliminary efficacy data needs to be obtained in order to reallocate resources as efficiently as possible and reduce clinical development costs. To meet this demand, novel malaria vaccines are tested for efficacy in so-called CHMI trials in which small groups of healthy volunteers are vaccinated and subsequently infected with malaria. Early evaluation studies of critical questions, such as CHMI, are highly rewarding, since they prevent expenditures on projects that are unlikely to succeed. Each set of estimated probabilities and costs (combined with market value) will have its own optimal priority sequence of questions to address. Algorithms can be designed to determine the optimal order in which questions should be addressed. Experimental infections of healthy volunteers is an example of how a question-based approach to vaccine development can be implemented and has the potential to change the arena of clinical vaccine development.

Gender differences in clinical registration trials: is there a real problem?

AIMS: Several studies have reported the under-representation of women in clinical trials, thereby challenging the external validity of the benefit/risk assessments of launched drugs. Our aim was to determine the extent to which women have been included in clinical trials used for drug registration and to analyse the fraction of women participating in phases I, II and III. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional, structured research into publicly available registration dossiers of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs that are prescribed frequently. Furthermore, we analysed compounds with high hepatic clearance and a known gender-related difference in drug response. In a sensitivity analysis, we compared figures with US disease prevalence data. RESULTS: For 38 of the initial 137 drugs (28%), sufficient data were reported and publicly available. For these drugs, 185 479 trial participants were included, of whom 47% were female and 44% were male; gender was not reported for 9% of participants. However, the number of female participants varied with the phase of the trial, with 22% females in phase I trials vs. 48% and 49%, respectively, in phase II and III trials. When compared with US disease prevalence data, 10 drugs (26%) had a greater than 20% difference between the proportion of females affected with the disease compared with representation in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: From these publicly available data, there was no evidence of any systematic under-representation of women in clinical trials.

Concentration-effect relationships of two rilmenidine single-dose infusion rates in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to assess the concentration-effect relationships for the antihypertensive effects of rilmenidine in patients to aid in the design of an optimized concentration profile of a sustained-release formulation. METHODS: A placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, 2-way partial crossover study was performed in subjects with hypertension. Patients were randomized to receive 2 of 3 possible 12-hour infusion regimens, each consisting of a loading phase (2 hours) and a maintenance phase (10 hours): low-profile infusion (total dose of rilmenidine, 1.45 mg), high-profile infusion (total dose, 3.3 mg), or placebo. Drug plasma concentrations, adverse events, blood pressure, heart rate, and visual analog scales were measured frequently, up to 24 hours after dosing. Salivary flow was determined for up to 15 hours. RESULTS: The high concentration profile was well tolerated and continued to produce a significant blood pressure reduction of 10.4 mm Hg (systolic)/5.8 mm Hg (diastolic) after 24 hours. The low concentration profile showed no significant effects on blood pressure compared with placebo after 24 hours. Decreases in salivary flow were -36% for the high-profile infusion and -20% for the low-profile infusion compared with placebo. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses showed infusion rate-independent, linear concentration-dependent reductions in diastolic blood pressure and salivary flow up to the maximum observed rilmenidine concentration for both types of infusion. CONCLUSIONS: The high concentration profile was well tolerated and still produced a significant blood pressure reduction after 24 hours. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships were linear and unaffected by the rate of infusion. These results should aid in the design of an optimal slow-release profile.