The economic returns of pediatric clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs.

BACKGROUND: Congress has authorized the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to provide industry sponsors with a 6-month extension of drug marketing rights under the Pediatric Exclusivity Provision if FDA-requested pediatric drug trials are conducted. The cost and economic return of pediatric exclusivity to industry sponsors has been shown to be highly variable. We sought to determine the cost of performing pediatric exclusivity trials within a single therapeutic area and the subsequent economic return to industry sponsors. METHODS: We evaluated 9 orally administered antihypertensive drugs submitted to the FDA under the Pediatric Exclusivity Provision from 1997 to 2004 and obtained key elements of the clinical trial designs and operations. Estimates of the costs of performing the studies were generated and converted into after-tax cash outflow. Market sales were obtained and converted into after-tax inflows based on 6 months of additional patent protection. Net economic return and net return-to-cost ratios were determined for each drug. RESULTS: Of the 9 antihypertensive agents studied, an average of 2 studies per drug was performed, including at least 1 pharmacokinetic study and a safety and efficacy study. The median cost of completing a pharmacokinetic trial was $862,000 (range $556,000 to 1.8 million). The median cost of performing safety and efficacy trials for these agents was $4.3 million (range $2.1-12.9 million). The ratio of net economic return to cost was 17 (range 4-64.7). CONCLUSION: We found that, within a cohort of antihypertensive drugs, the Pediatric Exclusivity Provision has generated highly variable, yet lucrative returns to industry sponsors.

Sensible approaches for reducing clinical trial costs.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, annual funding for biomedical research has more than doubled while new molecular entity approvals have declined by one third. OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of practices commonly employed in the conduct of large-scale clinical trials, and to identify areas where costs could be reduced without compromising scientific validity. METHODS: In the qualitative phase of the study, an expert panel recommended potential modifications of mega-trial designs and operations in order to maximize their value (cost versus scientific benefit tradeoff). In the quantitative phase, a mega-trial economic model was used to assess the financial implications of these recommendations. Our initial chronic disease trial design included 20,000 patients randomized at 1000 sites. Each site was assigned 24 monitoring visits and a $10,000 per patient site payment. The case report form (CRF) was 60 pages long, and trial duration was assumed to be 48 months. RESULTS: The total costs of the initial trial design were $421 million ($US 2007). Following the expert panel's recommendations, we varied study duration, CRF length, number of sites, electronic data capture (EDC), and site management components to determine their individual and combined effects upon total trial costs. The use of EDC and modified site management practices were associated with significant reductions in total trial costs. When reductions in all five trial components were combined in a streamlined pharmaceutical industry design, a 59% reduction in total trial costs resulted. When we assumed an even more streamlined trial design than has typically been considered for regulatory submissions in the past, there was a 90% reduction in total trial costs. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that it is possible to reduce substantially the cost of large-scale clinical trials without compromising the scientific validity of their results. If implemented, our recommendations could free billions of dollars annually for additional clinical studies. Research in the setting of clinical trials should be conducted to refine these findings.

Economic return of clinical trials performed under the pediatric exclusivity program.

CONTEXT: In 1997, Congress authorized the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant 6-month extensions of marketing rights through the Pediatric Exclusivity Program if industry sponsors complete FDA-requested pediatric trials. The program has been praised for creating incentives for studies in children and has been criticized as a "windfall" to the innovator drug industry. This critique has been a substantial part of congressional debate on the program, which is due to expire in 2007. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the economic return to industry for completing pediatric exclusivity trials. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cohort study of programs conducted for pediatric exclusivity. Nine drugs that were granted pediatric exclusivity were selected. From the final study reports submitted to the FDA (2002-2004), key elements of the clinical trial design and study operations were obtained, and the cost of performing each study was estimated and converted into estimates of after-tax cash outflows. Three-year market sales were obtained and converted into estimates of after-tax cash inflows based on 6 months of additional market protection. Net economic return (cash inflows minus outflows) and net return-to-costs ratio (net economic return divided by cash outflows) for each product were then calculated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Net economic return and net return-to-cost ratio. RESULTS: The indications studied reflect a broad representation of the program: asthma, tumors, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, hypertension, depression/generalized anxiety disorder, diabetes mellitus, gastroesophageal reflux, bacterial infection, and bone mineralization. The distribution of net economic return for 6 months of exclusivity varied substantially among products (net economic return ranged from -$8.9 million to $507.9 million and net return-to-cost ratio ranged from -0.68 to 73.63). CONCLUSIONS: The economic return for pediatric exclusivity is variable. As an incentive to complete much-needed clinical trials in children, pediatric exclusivity can generate lucrative returns or produce more modest returns on investment.