It has been hailed as the most significant discovery in biology since polymerase chain reaction allowed for the mass replication of DNA samples. CRISPR-Cas9 is an inexpensive and easy-to-use gene-editing method that promises applications ranging from medicine to industrial agriculture to biofuels. Currently, applications to treat leukemia, HIV, and cancer are under experimental development.¹ However, new technical solutions tend to be fraught with old problems, and in this case, ethical and legal questions loom large over the future.

Disagreements on ethics

The uptake of this method has been so fast that many scientists have started to worry about inadequate regulation of research and its unanticipated consequences.² Consider, for instance, the disagreement on research on human germ cells (eggs, sperm, or embryos) where an edited gene is passed onto offspring. Since the emergence of bioengineering applications in the 1970s, the scientific community has eschewed experiments to alter human germline and some governments have even banned them.³ The regulation regimes are expectedly not uniform: for instance, China bans the implantation of genetically modified embryos in women but not the research with embryos.

Last year, a group of Chinese researchers conducted gene-editing experiments on non-viable human zygotes (fertilized eggs) using CRISPR.⁴ News that these experiments were underway prompted a group of leading U.S. geneticists to meet in March 2015 in Napa, California, to begin a serious consideration of ethical and legal dimensions of CRISPR and called for a moratorium on research editing genes in human germline.⁵ Disregarding that call, the Chinese researchers published their results later in the year largely reporting a failure to precisely edit targeted genes without accidentally editing non-targets. CRISPR is not yet sufficiently precise.

CRISPR reignited an old debate on human germline research that is one of the central motivations (but surely not the only one) for an international summit on gene editing hosted by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the U.K.'s Royal Society in December 2015. About 500 scientists as well as experts in the legal and ethical aspects of bioengineering attended.⁶ Rather than consensus, the meeting highlighted the significant contrasts among participants about the ethics of inquiry, and more generally, about the governance of science. Illustrative of these contrasts are the views of prominent geneticists Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, and George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard. Collins argues that the “balance of the debate leans overwhelmingly against human germline engineering.” In turn, Church, while a signatory of the moratorium called by the Napa group, has nevertheless suggested reasons why CRISPR is shifting the balance in favor of lifting the ban on human germline experiments.⁷

The desire to speed up discovery of cures for heritable diseases is laudable. But tinkering with human germline is truly a human concern and cannot be presumed to be the exclusive jurisdictions of scientists, clinicians, or patients. All members of society have a stake in the evolution of CRISPR and must be part of the conversation about what kind of research should be permitted, what should be discouraged, and what disallowed. To relegate lay citizens to react to CRISPR applications—i.e. to vote with their wallets once applications hit the market—is to reduce their citizenship to consumer rights, and public participation to purchasing power.⁸ Yet, neither the NAS summit nor the earlier Napa meeting sought to solicit the perspectives of citizens, groups, and associations other than those already tuned in the CRISPR debates.⁹

The scientific community has a bond to the larger society in which it operates that in its most basic form is the bond of the scientist to her national community, is the notion that the scientist is a citizen of society before she is a denizen of science. This bond entails liberties and responsibilities that transcend the ethos and telos of science and, consequently, subordinates science to the social compact. It is worth recalling this old lesson from the history of science as we continue the public debate on gene editing. Scientists are free to hold specific moral views and prescriptions about the proper conduct of research and the ethical limits of that conduct, but they are not free to exclude the rest of society from weighing in on the debate with their own values and moral imaginations about what should be permitted and what should be banned in research. The governance of CRISPR is a question of collective choice that must be answered by means of democratic deliberation and, when irreconcilable differences arise, by the due process of democratic institutions.

Patent disputes

More heated than the ethical debate is the legal battle for key CRISPR patents that has embroiled prominent scientists involved in perfecting this method. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office initiated a formal contestation process, called interference, in March 2016 to adjudicate the dispute. The process is likely to take years and appeals are expected to extend further in time. Challenges are also expected to patents filed internationally, including those filed with the European Patent Office.

To put this dispute in perspective, it is instructive to consider the history of CRISPR authored by one of the celebrities in gene science, Eric Lander.¹⁰ This article ignited a controversy because it understated the role of one of the parties to the patent dispute (Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier), while casting the other party as truly culminating the development of this technology (Feng Zhang, who is affiliated to Lander’s Broad Institute). Some gene scientists accused Lander of tendentious inaccuracies and of trying to spin a story in a manner that favors the legal argument (and economic interest) of Zhang.

Ironically, the contentious article could be read as an argument against any particular claim to the CRISPR patents as it implicitly questions the fairness of granting exclusive rights to an invention. Lander tells the genesis of CRISPR that extends through a period of two decades and over various countries, where the protagonists are the many researchers who contributed to the cumulative knowledge in the ongoing development of the method. The very title of Lander’s piece, “The Heroes of CRISPR” highlights that the technology has not one but a plurality of authors.

A patent is a legal instrument that recognizes certain rights of the patent holder (individual, group, or organization) and at the same time denies those rights to everyone else, including those other contributors to the invention. Patent rights are thus arbitrary under the candle of history. I am not suggesting that the bureaucratic rules to grant a patent or to determine its validity are arbitrary; they have logical rationales anchored in practice and precedent. I am suggesting that in principle any exclusive assignation of rights that does not include the entire community responsible for the invention is arbitrary and thus unfair. The history of CRISPR highlights this old lesson from the history of technology: an invention does not belong to its patent holder, except in a court of law.

Some scientists may be willing to accept with resignation the unfair distribution of recognition granted by patents (or prizes like the Nobel) and find consolation in the fact that their contribution to science has real effects on people’s lives as it materializes in things like new therapies and drugs. Yet patents are also instrumental in distributing those real effects quite unevenly. Patents create monopolies that, selling their innovation at high prices, benefit only those who can afford them. The regular refrain to this charge is that without the promise of high profits, there would be no investments in innovation and no advances in life-saving medicine. What’s more, the biotech industry reminds us that start-ups will secure capital injections only if they have exclusive rights to the technologies they are developing. Yet, Editas Medicine, a biotech start-up that seeks to exploit commercial applications of CRISPR (Zhang is a stakeholder), was able to raise $94 million in its February 2016 initial public offering. That some of Editas’ key patents are disputed and were entering interference at USPTO was patently not a deterrent for those investors.

Towards a CRISPR democratic debate

Neither the governance of gene-editing research nor the management of CRISPR patents should be the exclusive responsibility of scientists. Yet, they do enjoy an advantage in public deliberations on gene editing that is derived from their technical competence and from the authority ascribed to them by society. They can use this advantage to close the public debate and monopolize its terms, or they could turn it into stewardship of a truly democratic debate about CRISPR.

The latter choice can benefit from three steps. A first step would be openness: a public willingness to consider and internalize public values that are not easily reconciled with research values. A second step would be self-restraint: publicly affirming a self-imposed ban on research with human germline and discouraging research practices that are contrary to received norms of prudence. A third useful step would be a public service orientation in the use of patents: scientists should pressure their universities, who hold title to their inventions, to preserve some degree of influence over research commercialization so that the dissemination and access to innovations is consonant with the noble aspirations of science and the public service mission of the university. Openness, self-restraint, and an orientation to service from scientists will go a long way to make of CRISPR a true servant of society and an instrument of democracy.

Other reading: See media coverage compiled by the National Academies of Sciences.

¹Nature: an authoritative and accessible primer. A more technical description of applications in Hsu, P. D. et al. 2014. Cell, 157(6): 1262–1278.

³More about ethical concerns on gene editing here: http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=8711

⁴Liang, P. et al. 2015. Protein & Cell, 6, 363–372

⁵Science: A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification.

⁶Nature: NAS Gene Editing Summit.

⁷While Collins and Church participated in the summit, their views quoted here are from StatNews.com: A debate: Should we edit the human germline. See also Sciencenews.org: Editing human germline cells sparks ethics debate.

⁸Hurlbut, J. B. 2015. Limits of Responsibility, Hastings Center Report, 45(5): 11-14.

⁹This point is forcefully made by Sheila Jasanoff and colleagues: CRISPR Democracy, 2015 Issues in S&T, 22(1).

¹⁰Lander, E. 2016. The Heroes of CRISPR. Cell, 164(1-2): 18-28.

       

Event Information

The emerging field of precision medicine continues to offer hope for improving patient outcomes and accelerating the development of innovative and effective therapies that are tailored to the unique characteristics of each patient. To date, however, progress in the development of precision medicines has been limited due to a lack of reliable biomarkers for many diseases. Biomarkers include any defined characteristic—ranging from blood pressure to gene mutations—that can be used to measure normal biological processes, disease processes, or responses to an exposure or intervention. They can be extremely powerful tools for guiding decision-making in both drug development and clinical practice, but developing enough scientific evidence to support their use requires substantial time and resources, and there are many scientific, regulatory, and logistical challenges that impede progress in this area.

On October 27th, 2015, the Center for Health Policy at The Brookings Institution convened an expert workshop that included leaders from government, industry, academia, and patient advocacy groups to identify and discuss strategies for addressing these challenges. Discussion focused on several key areas: the development of a universal language for biomarker development, strategies for increasing clarity on the various pathways for biomarker development and regulatory acceptance, and approaches to improving collaboration and alignment among the various groups involved in biomarker development, including strategies for increasing data standardization and sharing. The workshop generated numerous policy recommendations for a more cohesive national plan of action to advance precision medicine.  

Event Materials

• 1027 Brookings biomarkers workshop agenda
• 1027 Biomarkers workshop backgrounderfinal
• 1027 Biomarkers workshop slide deckfinal
• 1027 Biomarkers workshop participant listfinal

       

Event Information

Over the past decade, drug shortages and product recalls in the U.S. have occurred at unprecedented rates, limiting patient access to critical medicines and undermining health care. A majority of these shortages and recalls have been due to manufacturing quality issues. In response to these problems, and as part of its ongoing efforts to ensure a continuous supply of high-quality pharmaceuticals in the U.S., the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is pursuing a range of strategies designed to improve the flexibility, reliability, and quality of pharmaceutical manufacturing. Among these strategies is the promotion of new manufacturing technologies, including continuous manufacturing. Continuous manufacturing offers several important advantages over current approaches to manufacturing and has the potential to significantly mitigate the risks of quality failures. At present, however, these technologies and processes are not widely used by the pharmaceutical industry, and there remain a number of barriers to their broader adoption. In collaboration with a range of stakeholders, FDA is currently exploring ways in which it can help to address these barriers and facilitate the uptake of new manufacturing technologies.

Under a cooperative agreement with FDA, the Center for Health Policy at Brookings held a workshop on October 19 entitled “Promoting Continuous Manufacturing in the Pharmaceutical Sector.” This workshop provided an opportunity for industry, academia, and government partners to identify the major barriers to the adoption of continuous manufacturing, discuss regulatory policies and strategies that could help to address those barriers, and explore approaches to improving public and private sector alignment and collaboration to promote the adoption of continuous manufacturing.

Event Materials

• Continuous Manufacturing Agenda
• CM Panelist Bio Sheet
• Participant list
• Continuous manufacturing discussion guide
• allslides_Continuousmanufacturingworkshop_101915
• meetingsummary_101915_continuousmanufacturing

       

Event Information

The biomedical innovation ecosystem continues to evolve and enhance the processes by which treatments are developed and delivered to patients. Given this changing biomedical innovation landscape, it is imperative that all stakeholders work to ensure that development programs, regulatory practices, and the policies that enable them are aligned on and achieving a common set of goals. This will require a thorough reexamination of our understanding of biomedical innovation – and the subsequent ways in which we seek to incentivize it – in order to more effectively bridge research and analysis of the process itself with the science and policy underpinning it.

Traditional research into the efficiency and effectiveness of drug development programs has tended to focus on the ‘inputs’ and process trends in product development, quantifying the innovation as discrete units. At the opposite end of the research spectrum are potential measures that could be categorized as “value” or “outcomes” metrics. Identifying the appropriate measures across this spectrum – from inputs and technological progress through outcomes and value – and how such metrics can be in conversation with each other to improve the innovation process will be the focus of this expert workshop. On October 14, the Center for Health Policy at Brookings, under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, convened a roundtable discussion that engaged key stakeholders from throughout the innovation ecosystem to explore the factors and characteristics that could improve our understanding of what constitutes modern “innovation” and how best to track its progress.

Event Materials

• FINAL 1014 BrookingsFDA Agenda
• FINAL 1014 BrookingsFDA Participant List

       

If current economic growth trends persist, the “great divergence” between Western Europe and East and South Asia in per capita income that commenced 200 years ago will close sometime this century. Key to the closing will be greater accessibility to technology, higher education in East and South Asia, and the relentless diffusion of knowledge including in the biosciences. Advances in the biosciences are poised to contribute in a major way to English economist Thomas Malthus’s four necessities of human life–food, fiber, fuel, and building materials–as well as to human and animal health, biodiversity conservation, and environmental remediation and sustainability.

As my coauthor Leo Furcht and I recently wrote in “Divergence, Convergence, and Innovation: East-West Bioscience in an Anxious Age”, 21st century history will describe the great economic and technological convergence between East and West. It will also further entwine the economic and ecological storylines of the human experience as the vast populations of China and India strive to enter the middle class. Environmentally sustainable economic growth will require putting knowledge of life code, cellular processes, biosynthesis, and biological regeneration to practical use. That prospect is at hand because the biosciences are in the midst of their own convergence–with information technology, nanotechnology, microelectronics, materials, artificial intelligence, robotics, architecture, and design.

From William Hoffman and Leo Furcht, "The Biologist’s Imagination: Innovation in the Biosciences" (Oxford University Press, 2014)

Biomolecules, brainpower, and Malthusian limits

Products arising from molecular biology constitute a growing share of the global economy with each passing year as technologies evolve, production processes improve, and markets expand. In recent years industrial biotechnology has grown faster than the biologic drugs and agricultural biotech sectors in the U.S.

U.S. biotech revenue in billions of U.S. dollars.
Source: Robert Carlson, "Nature Biotechnology", In press

Industrial biotechnology employs greener and cleaner technologies to make chemicals, solvents, fuels, and materials such as biocomposites and bioplastics. Growth in this sector can weaken the link between economic growth, environmental pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Genomics, synthetic biology and metabolic engineering are poised to accelerate growth in the design and manufacture of industrial enzymes and renewable bio-based products. East and South Asian production and consumption of industrial enzymes are on the rise as the Asian middle class expands.

Bioscience is enabling major cereal crops such as wheat, rice, and corn to adapt to a changing climate. Cereal crop yields need to grow by an estimated 70 percent by mid-century to feed the projected nine billion people expected to then inhabit our planet. The challenge of feeding nine billion people without further deforestation and environmental degradation has resurrected the specter of Malthusian limits to our planet’s ecological carrying capacity. These limits are expressed in food and water shortages, forced migrations, political instability, armed conflict, abatement and cleanup activities, and health care related to pollution and climate change. Even with the powerful tools of food crop bioscience–marker-assisted selection, targeted mutation-selection, genetic modification, and others–maintaining crop production levels at expected higher temperatures and with less water is highly questionable.

Precise genomic editing of cereal grains could equip rice, wheat, and corn with nitrogen fixation capabilities, thus reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers with their environmental and atmospheric costs. East and South Asia, facing major food production challenges, ecological limits, pollution from fertilizer use, and drought from climate change, may take the lead over the West in adopting innovative food crop technologies.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of human beings of many ethnicities have had their genomes decoded over the past decade, with the number expected to increase exponentially as sequencing technologies grow in productivity and decline in price. Genomic information coupled with precise genomic editing and bioregenerative tools give us unprecedented power to shape the course of evolution, including our own.

Cost trend of sequencing a human-sized genome and Moore’s Law 2001 – 2015.
Source: Kris A. Wetterstrand, DNA Sequencing Costs: Data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program.

The practice of technological innovation in the industrial era – the systematic application of ideas, inventions and technology to markets, trade, and social systems–is now being joined with the code of life, DNA, and the basic unit of life, the cell. Even as the economic gap between East and West narrows, no other convergence has such profound implications for our future and the future health of living systems and ecosystems. That makes the task for policymakers a daunting one.

       

Event Information

The role of clinical pharmacology and experimental medicine

The high failure rate of investigational compounds during drug development, especially in late stages of the clinical development process, is widely seen as a key contributor to the outsize amount of time and resources necessary to develop new drugs. Advances in clinical pharmacology and experimental medicine have the potential to rebalance these trends by providing researchers with the tools to more efficiently and systematically identify promising targets and compounds, appropriate patient populations, and adequate doses for study much earlier in development. 

On July 28, the Center for Health Policy at Brookings, in collaboration with the International Consortium for Innovation & Quality in Pharmaceutical Development and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), hosted a public meeting to tackle these issues. Through presentations and case studies, leading experts from industry, academia, and government agencies explored the evolving role of clinical pharmacology tools in pre-clinical and clinical development, existing gaps in the application of those tools, and how emerging science could be better leveraged to improve the efficiency of drug development programs and better optimize treatments. Discussion at this event will potentially be harnessed to inform downstream guidance documents, to establish best practices for the application of emerging clinical pharmacology tools, or to support academic publications. Speakers will convene privately to discuss such downstream deliverables and key takeaways from the conference.

Click here to access the full event agenda.

Video

• Introductory keynotes: Framing the issues
• Optimizing target and compound selection to enhance early stage decision-making
• The right dose for the right patient: Challenges and opportunities in dose optimization
• Precision medicine: Trial enrichment, biomarker science, and mechanistic reasoning to optimize patient selection
• Applications of clinical pharmacology to support demonstration of efficacy

Event Materials

• Event Slide Deck
• Clinical Pharmacology Public Conference
• Clinical Pharmacology Backgrounder
• Clinical Pharmacology Private Roundtable

       

Event Information

Under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007, the FDA has the authority to require pharmaceutical manufacturers to develop Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) for drugs or biologics that carry serious potential or known risks. Since that time, the REMS program has become an important tool in ensuring that riskier drugs are used safely, and it has allowed FDA to facilitate access to a host of drugs that may not otherwise have been approved. However, concerns have arisen regarding the effects of REMS programs on patient access to products, as well as the undue burden that the requirements place on the health care system. In response to these concerns, FDA has initiated reform efforts aimed at improving the standardization, assessment, and integration of REMS within the health care system. As part of this broader initiative, the agency is pursuing four priority projects, one of which focuses on improving provider-patient benefit-risk counseling for drugs that have a REMS attached.

Under a cooperative agreement with FDA, the Center for Health Policy at Brookings held an expert workshop on July 24 titled, “Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS): Building a Framework for Effective Patient Counseling on Medication Risks and Benefits”. This workshop was the first in a series of convening activities that will seek input from stakeholders across academia, industry, health systems, and patient advocacy groups, among others. Through these activities, Brookings and FDA will further develop and refine an evidence-based framework of best practices and principles that can be used to inform the development and effective use of REMS tools and processes.

Event Materials

• REMS_PBRC_Meeting_Agenda
• REMS BR Speaker Bios
• REMS BenefitRisk Meeting Summary
• REMS BenefitRisk communication white paper

       

Event Information

The Sentinel System is a state of the art active surveillance system relying on a distributed data network to rapidly scale analysis of health care data collected from over 178 million patients nationwide. Sentinel is an important safety surveillance tool used by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and its underlying distributed data infrastructure is increasingly being recognized to have the potential to support the needs of diverse stakeholders including other public health agencies, health systems, regulated industry, and the clinical research enterprise. Despite Sentinel’s importance in safety surveillance, patients are largely unaware of Sentinel’s public health mission and commitment to protecting patient privacy. Therefore, it is both timely and critical to identify opportunities to raise awareness and build trust for Sentinel safety surveillance among patients, consumers, and the general public.

On June 23, the Center for Health Policy at Brookings, in collaboration with the FDA, hosted an expert workshop to discuss opportunities to raise awareness of the Sentinel System through improved communication to patients and consumers. Participants, including Sentinel Data Partners, patient focused organizations (e.g., consumer advocacy groups), experts in patient privacy, ethics, and health literacy, and representatives from the FDA explored possible opportunities where each stakeholder might be uniquely positioned to engage with patients, and how these communications could be designed and delivered effectively. Discussions from this workshop resulted in recommendations including a set of guiding principles, potential tools, and strategies to improve awareness of the Sentinel System, but more broadly, safety surveillance activities led by the FDA.

Event Materials

• Sentinel Engagement_Discussion Guide
• Engagement_Agenda
• Engagement_Participant List
• Engagement_Speaker BioSketches
• Engagement_Meeting Summary

       

The Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program has become an important tool of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in ensuring that the benefits of a given medical product outweigh the associated risks, and has enabled FDA to approve a number of products that might not otherwise have been made available for patient use. Since the implementation of the REMS program, however, concerns have been raised regarding its impact on patient access to products and the associated burden on providers and health care systems. In an effort to address these concerns—and as part of its commitments under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization of 2012—FDA has undertaken efforts to standardize and improve the effectiveness of REMS, and to better integrate REMS programs into the health system. As part of this broader initiative, the Agency is currently assessing the feasibility of integrating accredited continuing education (CE) programs and activities into REMS programs that have been developed for a single drug.

Under a cooperative agreement with the FDA, the Center for Health Policy held an expert workshop on May 18 titled, “Incorporating Continuing Education into Single-Drug REMS: Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities”. This workshop provided an opportunity for pharmaceutical manufacturers, regulators, CE providers, accreditors, and other stakeholders to explore the ways that CE can be a valuable addition to the REMS toolkit, discuss potential barriers to the development and implementation of REMS-related CE for single products, and identify strategies for addressing those barriers.

Downloads

• Download discussion guide

       

For the last several years, the US government has been negotiating a free-trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with 11 other countries across the Asia-Pacific and Latin American regions, which could have major impact on the pharmaceutical market.  When finalized it will be the largest free-trade agreement in history, impacting up to one-third of world trade and roughly 40 percent of the global gross domestic product. The deal has attracted a fair share of criticism from a wide range of groups, including concerns over proposed regulations for biologic drugs in participating countries. Specifically, critics are concerned about the length of data exclusivity granted to the companies that hold the patents on these drugs. Below is a primer on biologics and how they are being addressed in the TPP.

Biologic drugs include any therapy derived from a biological source; a group which includes vaccines, anti-toxins, proteins, and monoclonal antibodies. Because they are typically much larger and more structurally complex than traditional ‘small-molecule’ drugs, they are also more difficult—and much more costly—to develop and manufacture. Biologics are also among the most expensive drugs on the market, costing an average of 22 times more than nonbiologic drugs. Avastin, a cancer drug, can cost more than $50,000 a year, while the rheumatoid arthritis drug Remicade can cost up to $2,500 per injection.

Given these high costs, there is substantial interest in encouraging the development of biosimilars, a term used to describe follow-on versions of an original biologic. Estimates of the potential cost savings vary substantially, but some have predicted that competition from biosimilars could reduce US spending on biologics by $44 to $66 billion over the next ten years.  In the European Union, biosimilars have been on the market since 2006, and a 2013 analysis found that, for the 14 biosimilars on the market, the average price discount was about 25 percent. By 2020, the overall cost savings are projected to total $16-$43 billion.

After the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) developed an accelerated approval pathway for biosimilars, modeled after the pathway used for the approval of small-molecule generics. In order to meet the criteria for biosimilarity, the drug must share the same mechanism of action for the approved condition of use, and there must be no clinically significant differences between the two drugs in terms of purity, safety, or potency. FDA recently approved its first biosimilar, Zarxio, which is a copy of the oncology drug Neupogen.

Under current FDA regulations, biologic drugs are granted 12 years of data exclusivity following approval. During this period of exclusivity, the FDA may not approve a biosimilar application that relies on the data submitted as part of the original biologic application. This form of temporary monopoly is distinct from patent protection, which is granted well before approval and is not related to clinical data.  Data exclusivity does not prevent another company from generating the data independently, but drug companies are unlikely to go to the considerable (and costly) effort of replicating a full course of clinical trials for a drug that is already on the market. (Though biosimilars may need to undergo some additional clinical testing under current FDA regulations, the amount of data required to support approval would certainly be less than what is required for an original biologic approval.)

The 12-year exclusivity period for biologics was established in the ACA following intense debate, and has continued to attract criticism. (By contrast, the period of data exclusivity is just five years for small-molecule drugs.) Supporters argue that given the greater cost and difficulty of bringing a biologic to market a longer period of exclusivity is necessary to incentivize innovation. Others argue that the resulting restrictions on competition keep drug prices unnecessarily high, inevitably putting a strain on the health system and keeping potentially life-saving drugs out of reach for many patients.

For the 11 countries besides the U.S. that are involved in the TPP, current data exclusivity protections range from zero (Brunei) to eight years (Japan). Under the Obama Administration’s current proposal, participating countries would increase those periods to match the US standard of 12 years. Curiously, this proposal directly contradicts the administration’s ongoing domestic efforts to lower the period of data exclusivity. Since the ACA passed, the Obama administration has repeatedly proposed reducing it to seven, arguing that this would save Medicare $4.4 billion over the next decade. Some have noted that, once the 12-year period is enshrined in the TPP, it will become significantly more difficult to change it through the US legislative process. Furthermore, imposing US standards on the 11 member countries would inevitably restrict competition at the global level, and many patient advocacy and international humanitarian organizations have argued that doing so would undermine the efforts of US global health initiatives like the Vaccine Alliance and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which rely on price competition to manage program costs.

It is unclear whether the US will be successful in its efforts. There have been reports that the issue of data exclusivity has become a significant point of contention, and the US delegation may seek to compromise on its demands. It may, for example, negotiate exceptions for the poorer countries involved in the negotiation, as the Washington Post notes. However, the details of the negotiations are largely confidential, which makes it challenging to assess the possibilities, their relative advantages, or how the US Trade Representative (which is leading the US negotiations) is balancing the need to ensure adequate incentives for innovation with the need to control drug costs and facilitate patient access to potentially life-saving therapies.

Editor's note: Elizabeth Richardson, a research associate in the Center for Health Policy, contributed to the research and writing of this post. 

       

Event Information

The Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program has become an important tool of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in ensuring that the benefits of a given medical product outweigh the associated risks, and has enabled FDA to approve a number of products that might not otherwise have been made available for patient use. Since the implementation of the REMS program, however, concerns have been raised regarding its impact on patient access to products and the associated burden on providers and health care systems. In an effort to address these concerns—and as part of its commitments under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization of 2012—FDA has undertaken efforts to standardize and improve the effectiveness of REMS, and to better integrate REMS programs into the health system. As part of this broader initiative, the Agency is currently assessing the feasibility of integrating accredited continuing education (CE) programs and activities into REMS programs that have been developed for a single drug.

Under a cooperative agreement with the FDA, the Center for Health Policy held an expert workshop on May 18, titled “Incorporating Continuing Education into Single-Drug REMS: Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities”. This workshop provided an opportunity for pharmaceutical manufacturers, regulators, CE providers, accreditors, and other stakeholders to explore the ways that CE can be a valuable addition to the REMS toolkit, discuss potential barriers to the development and implementation of REMS-related CE for single products, and identify strategies for addressing those barriers.

Event Materials

• Bio sheet
• REMS CE Meeting Agenda
• REMS_CE_Meeting_Discussion_Guide_Final
• REMS CE Meeting Summary

      

The breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) program was initiated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012 to expedite the development of treatments for serious or life-threatening illness that demonstrate “substantial improvement” over existing therapies. The program has since become a widely supported mechanism for accelerating patient access to new drugs. As of March 2015, FDA has received a total of 293 requests for BTD. However, it has granted just  82 (28%), which indicates an ongoing lack of clarity over what exactly meets the criteria for the designation.

On April 24, the Center for Health Policy at Brookings convened a public meeting to explore the designation’s qualifying criteria and how FDA applies those criteria across therapeutic areas. Panelists used real-world and hypothetical case studies to frame the discussion, and highlighted major considerations for the application process, the FDA’s evaluation of the evidence, and the key factors for acceptance or rejection. The discussion also identified strategies to ensure that qualifying criteria are well understood. Here are the five big takeaways:

1.  The BTD program is viewed positively by drug companies, researchers, advocates, and others 

Across the board, participants expressed enthusiasm for the BTD program. Industry representatives noted that their experience had been extremely positive, and that the increased cooperation with and guidance from FDA were very helpful in streamlining their development programs. Receiving the designation can also raise a drug company’s profile, which can facilitate additional investment as well as clinical trial patient recruitment; this is particularly important for smaller companies with limited resources.

Patient and disease advocates were likewise supportive, and expressed hope that the early lessons learned from successful breakthrough therapy approvals (which have been mostly concentrated in the oncology and antiviral fields) could be translated to other disease areas with less success. However, while BTD is an important tool in expediting the development of new drugs, it is just one piece of broader scientific and regulatory policy landscape. Accelerating the pace of discovery and development of truly innovative new drugs will depend on a range of other factors, such as developing and validating new biomarkers that can be used to measure treatment effects at an earlier stage, as well as establishing networks that can streamline the clinical trial process. It will also be important to develop effective new approaches to collecting, analyzing, and communicating information about these treatments once they are on the market, as this information can potentially be used by FDA, providers, and patients to  further improve prescription drug policy and medical decision-making.

2.  BTD requests far outnumber those that actually meet the qualifying criteria

Since the program began, less than 30 percent of requests have received BTD designation. A substantial majority were denied at least in part due to either a lack of data or problems with the quality of the data, or some combination of the two. For example, some sponsors requested the designation before they had any clinical data, or submitted the request using clinical data that was incomplete or based on flawed study designs. Many requests also failed to meet the Agency’s bar for “substantial improvement” over existing therapies.

One reason for the high denial rate may be a lack of a clear regulatory or statutory bar that could be used as a definitive guide for sponsors to know what is needed to qualify for the designation. BTD denials are also confidential, which means that sponsors effectively have nothing to lose by submitting a request. Going forward, manufacturers may need to exercise more discretion in deciding to request the designation, as the process can be resource- and time-intensive for both sides.

3.  There is no single threshold for determining what defines a breakthrough therapy

About 53 percent of the 109 total BTD denials were due at least in part to the fact that the drug did not represent a substantial improvement over existing therapies. During the day’s discussion, FDA and sponsors both noted that this is likely because the criteria for BTD are inherently subjective. In practice, this means there is no clear threshold for determining when a new therapy represents a “substantial improvement” over existing therapies. Designation decisions are complex and highly dependent on the context, including the disease or condition being targeted, the availability of other treatments, the patient population, the outcomes being studied, and the overall reliability of the data submitted. Given the multiple factors at play, it can be difficult in some cases to determine when a new product is potentially “transformational” as opposed to “better,” especially for conditions that are poorly understood or have few or no existing treatments. In making its determinations, FDA considers the totality of the evidence submitted, rather than focusing on specific evidentiary requirements.

4.  Early communication with FDA is strongly recommended for BTD applicants

Roughly 72 percent of the BTD denials related at least in part to trial design or analysis problems, which led several people to suggest that sponsors engage with FDA prior to submitting their request. Though there are several formal mechanisms for interacting with the agency, informal consultations with the relevant review division could help sponsors to get a better  and much earlier sense of what kind of data FDA might need. This early communication could both strengthen viable BTD requests and reduce the number of frivolous requests.

5.  FDA may need more resources for implementing the BTD program

      

Legislative proposals to accelerate and improve the development of innovative drugs and medical devices generally focus on reforming the clinical development and regulatory review processes that occur before a product gets to market. Many of these proposals – such as boosting federal funding for basic science, streamlining the clinical trials process, improving incentives for development in areas of unmet medical need, or creating expedited FDA review pathways for promising treatments – are worthy pursuits and justifiably part of ongoing efforts to strengthen biomedical innovation in the United States, such as the 21^st Century Cures initiative in the House and a parallel effort taking shape in the Senate.

What has largely been missing from these recent policy discussions, however, is an equal and concerted focus on the role that postmarket evidence can play in creating a more robust and efficient innovation process. Data on medical product safety, efficacy, and associated patient outcomes accrued through routine medical practice and through practical research involving a broad range of medical practices could not only bolster our understanding of how well novel treatments are achieving their intended effects, but reinforce many of the premarket reforms currently under consideration. Below and in a new paper, we highlight the importance of postmarket evidence development and present a number of immediately achievable proposals that could help lay the foundation for future cures.

Why is postmarket evidence development important?

There are a number of reasons why evidence developed after a medical product’s approval should be considered an integral part of legislative efforts to improve biomedical innovation. First and foremost, learning from clinical experiences with medical products in large patient populations can allow providers to better target and treat individuals, matching the right drug or device to the right patient based on real-world evidence. Such knowledge can in turn support changes in care that lead to better outcomes and thus higher value realized by any given medical product.

Similarly, data developed on outcomes, disease progression, and associated genetic and other characteristics that suggest differences in disease course or response to treatment can form the foundation of future breakthrough medical products. As we continue to move toward an era of increasingly-targeted treatments, this important of this type of real-world data cannot be discounted.

Finally, organized efforts to improve postmarket evidence development can further establish infrastructure and robust data sources for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of FDA-approved products, protecting patient lives. This is especially important as Congress, the Administration, and others continue to seek novel policies for further expediting the pre-market regulatory review process for high-priority treatments. Without a reliable postmarket evidence development infrastructure in place, attempts to further shorten the time it takes to move a product from clinical development to FDA approval may run up against the barrier of limited capabilities to gather the postmarket data needed to refine a product’s safety and effectiveness profile. While this is particularly important for medical devices – the “life cycle” of a medical device often involves many important revisions in the device itself and in how and by whom it is used after approval – it is also important for breakthrough drugs, which may increasingly be approved based on biomarkers that predict clinical response and in particular subpopulations of patients.

What can be done now?

The last decade has seen progress in the availability of postmarket data and the production of postmarket evidence. Biomedical researchers, product developers, health care plans, and providers are doing more to collect and analyze clinical and outcomes data. Multiple independent efforts – including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Sentinel Initiative for active postmarket drug safety surveillance, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s PCORnet for clinical effectiveness studies, the Medical Device Epidemiology Network (MDEpiNet) for developing better methods and medical device registries for medical device surveillance and a number of dedicated, product-specific outcomes registries – have demonstrated the powerful effects that rigorous, systematic postmarket data collection can have on our understanding of how medical products perform in the real-world and of the course of underlying diseases that they are designed to treat.

These and other postmarket data systems now hold the potential to contribute to data analysis and improved population-based evidence development on a wider scale. Federal support for strengthening the processes and tools through which data on important health outcomes can be leveraged to improve evidence on the safety, effectiveness, and value of care; for creating transparent and timely access to such data; and for building on current evidence development activities will help to make the use of postmarket data more robust, routine, and reliable.

Toward that end, we put forward a number of targeted proposals that current legislative efforts should consider as the 2015 policy agenda continues to take shape:

Evaluate the potential use of postmarket evidence in regulatory decision-making. The initial Cures discussion draft mandated FDA to establish a process by which pharmaceutical manufacturers could submit real-world evidence to support Agency regulatory decisions. While this is an important part of further establishing methods and mechanisms for harnessing data developed in the postmarket space, the proposed timelines (roughly 12 months to first Guidance for Industry) and wide scope of the program do not allow for a thoughtfully-, collaboratively-considered approach to utilizing real-world evidence. Future proposals should allow FDA to take a longer, multi-stakeholder approach to identify the current sources of real-world data, gaps in such collection activities, standards and methodologies for collection, and priority areas where more work is needed to understand how real-world data could be used.

Expand the Sentinel System’s data collection activities to include data on effectiveness. Established by Congress in 2007, Sentinel is a robust surveillance system geared toward monitoring the safety of drugs and biologics. In parallel to the program for evaluating the use of RWE outlined above, FDA could work with stakeholders to identify and pursue targeted extensions of the Sentinel system that begin to pilot collection of such data. Demonstration projects could enable faster and more effective RWE development to characterize treatment utilization patterns, further refine a product’s efficacy profile, or address pressing public health concerns – all by testing strategic linkages to data elements outside of Sentinel’s safety focus.

Establish an active postmarket safety surveillance system for medical devices. Congress has already acted once to establish device surveillance, mandating in 2012 that Sentinel be expanded to include safety data on medical devices. To date, however, there has been no additional support for such surveillance or even the capability of individually tracking medical devices in-use. With the recently finalized Unique Device Identifier rule going effect and the ability to perform such tracking on the horizon, the time is now to adopt recent proposals from FDA’s National Medical Device Postmarket Surveillance System Planning Board. With Congressional authorization for FDA to establish an implementation plan and adequate appropriations, the true foundation for such a system could finally be put into place.

      

Many proposals to accelerate and improve medical product innovation and regulation focus on reforming the product development and regulatory review processes that occur before drugs and devices get to market. While important, such proposals alone do not fully recognize the broader opportunities that exist to learn more about the safety and effectiveness of drugs and devices after approval. As drugs and devices begin to be used in larger and more diverse populations and in more personalized clinical combinations, evidence from real-world use during routine patient care is increasingly important for accelerating innovation and improving regulation.

First, further evidence development from medical product use in large populations can allow providers to better target and treat individuals, precisely matching the right drug or device to the right patients. As genomic sequencing and other diagnostic technologies continue to improve, postmarket evidence development is critical to assessing the full range of genomic subtypes, comorbidities, patient characteristics and preferences, and other factors that may significantly affect the safety and effectiveness of drugs and devices. This information is often not available or population sizes are inadequate to characterize such subgroup differences in premarket randomized controlled trials.

Second, improved processes for generating postmarket data on medical products are necessary for fully realizing the intended effect of premarket reforms that expedite regulatory approval. The absence of a reliable postmarket system to follow up on potential safety or effectiveness issues means that potential signals or concerns must instead be addressed through additional premarket studies or through one-off postmarket evaluations that are more costly, slower, and likely to be less definitive than would be possible through a better-established infrastructure. As a result, the absence of better systems for generating postmarket evidence creates a barrier to more extensive use of premarket reforms to promote innovation.

These issues can be addressed through initiatives that combine targeted premarket reforms with postmarket steps to enhance innovation and improve evidence on safety and effectiveness throughout the life cycle of a drug or device. The ability to routinely capture clinically relevant electronic health data within our health care ecosystem is improving, increasingly allowing electronic health records, payer claims data, patient-reported data, and other relevant data to be leveraged for further research and innovation in care. Recent legislative proposals released by the House of Representatives’ 21st Century Cures effort acknowledge and seek to build on this progress in order to improve medical product research, development, and use. The initial Cures discussion draft included provisions for better, more systematic reporting of and access to clinical trials data; for increased access to Medicare claims data for research; and for FDA to promulgate guidance on the sources, analysis, and potential use of so-called Real World Evidence. These are potentially useful proposals that could contribute valuable data and methods to advancing the development of better treatments.

What remains a gap in the Cures proposals, however, is a more systematic approach to improving the availability of postmarket evidence. Such a systematic approach is possible now. Biomedical researchers and health care plans and providers are doing more to collect and analyze clinical and outcomes data. Multiple independent efforts – including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Sentinel Initiative for active postmarket drug safety surveillance, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s PCORnet for clinical effectiveness studies, the Medical Device Epidemiology Network (MDEpiNet) for developing better methods and medical device registries for medical device surveillance and a number of dedicated, product-specific outcomes registries – have demonstrated the potential for large-scale, systematic postmarket data collection. Building on these efforts could provide unprecedented evidence on how medical products perform in the real-world and on the course of underlying diseases that they are designed to treat, while still protecting patient privacy and confidentiality.

These and other postmarket data systems now hold the potential to contribute to public-private collaboration for improved population-based evidence on medical products on a wider scale. Action in the Cures initiative to unlock this potential will enable the legislation to achieve its intended effect of promoting quicker, more efficient development of effective, personalized treatments and cures.

Downloads

• Download paper

      

Event Information

Established by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) is one of several programs developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to speed up the development and review of drugs and biologics that address unmet medical needs. In order to qualify for this designation, the treatment must address a serious or life-threatening illness. In addition, the manufacturer (i.e., sponsor) must provide early clinical evidence that the treatment is a substantial improvement over currently available therapies. The FDA is working to further clarify how it applies the qualifying criteria to breakthrough designation applications.

On April 24, under a cooperative agreement with FDA, the Center for Health Policy convened a public meeting to discuss the qualifying criteria for this special designation. Using examples from oncology, neurology, psychiatry, and hematology, the workshop highlighted considerations for the BTD application process, the evaluation process, and factors for acceptance or rejection. The discussion also focused on key strategies for ensuring that the qualifying criteria are understood across a broad range of stakeholder groups.

Video

• Breakthrough therapy designation: Two and a half years in
• Applying the breakthrough therapy criteria: Oncology
• Applying the breakthrough therapy criteria: Neurology
• Applying the breakthrough therapy criteria: Anti-infective/psychiatry/hematology
• Summary and discussion of lessons learned

Event Materials

• Breakthrough Therapy Designation_final
• Breakthrough therapy slide deck

      

Quickly following on the heels of the midterm elections, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) indicated that the medical device tax was a key target for repeal in the 114th Congress. Today, the Senate Finance Health Care Subcommittee will hold a hearing about the effects of the 2.3 percent tax that was included in the Affordable Care Act. Many believe that a repeal is, in fact, possible. Below is a basic primer about the tax and its contentious history.

      

Breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) is the newest of four expedited programs developed by the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to accelerate the development and review of novel therapies that target serious conditions. The public response to the program has been largely positive, and dozens of drugs have successfully received the designation. However, the FDA denies many more requests than it grants. In fact, as of March 2015, less than one in three of the BTD requests submitted have been granted. By contrast, roughly 75 percent of the requests for fast track designation (another of the Agency’s expedited programs) were granted between 1998 and 2007. This discrepancy suggests ongoing uncertainty over what exactly constitutes a “breakthrough” according to the FDA’s criteria.

On April 24, the Center for Health Policy at Brookings will host an event, Breakthrough Therapy Designation: Exploring the Qualifying Criteria, that will discuss qualifying criteria for the BTD program using real and hypothetical case studies to explore how FDA weighs the evidence submitted. Below is a primer that describes the definition, value, and impact of BTD.

What is BTD?

BTD was established in 2012 under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, and is intended to expedite the development and review of drugs that show signs of extraordinary benefit at early stages of the clinical development process. However, BTD is not an automatic approval. The drug still has to undergo clinical testing and review by the FDA. Rather, BTD is designed to facilitate and shorten the clinical development process, which can otherwise take many years to complete.

What criteria does FDA use to evaluate potential breakthroughs?

In order to qualify for the designation, a therapy must be intended to treat a serious or life-threatening illness, and there must be preliminary clinical evidence that it represents a substantial improvement over existing therapies on at least one clinically significant outcome (such as death or permanent impairment).

In considering a request for BTD, FDA relies on three primary considerations:

1) the quantity and quality of the clinical evidence being submitted;

2) the available therapies that the drug is being compared to; and

3) the magnitude of treatment effect shown on the outcome being studied.

In practice, however, it can be difficult to define a single threshold that a therapy must meet. The decision depends on the specific context for that drug.  In some cases, for example, the targeted disease has few or no treatments available, while in others there may be several effective alternative treatments to which the new therapy can be compared. The request may also be made at different stages of the clinical development process, which means that the amount and type of data available to FDA can vary. In some cases, early evidence of benefit may disappear when the drug is tested in larger populations, which is why FDA reserves the right to rescinded the designation if subsequent data shows that the therapy no longer meets the criteria.

How many therapies have received the designation?

As of March 2015, FDA had received a total of 293 requests for BTD. Of these, 82 received the designation, and 23 have since been approved for marketing. Ten of these approvals were new indications for already approved drugs, rather than novel therapies that had never before received FDA approval.

What are the benefits of BTD?

For drug manufacturers, it is about the intensity and frequency of their interactions with FDA. Once the designation is granted, the FDA takes an “all hands-on-deck” approach to providing the manufacturer with ongoing guidance and feedback throughout the clinical development process. Products that receive BTD are also able to submit portions of their marketing application on a rolling basis (rather than all at once at the end of clinical trials) and BTD can also be used in combination with other expedited programs in order to further reduce the product’s time to market.

For patients, the potential benefits are straightforward: earlier access to therapies that may significantly improve or extend their lives.

How does BTD relate to the other three expedited programs?

The other three expedited review and development programs—fast track designation, priority review, and accelerated approval—are also geared at facilitating the development and approval of drugs for serious conditions. These other programs have been in place for over 15 years, and have played a significant role in accelerating patient access to new therapeutics (Table 1). In 2014 alone, 66 percent of the 41 drugs approved by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research used at least one of these four pathways, and 46 percent received at least two of the designations in combination.

Table 1: Overview of FDA’s Expedited Review Programs

 Adapted from FDA's Guidance for Industry: Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions - Drugs and Biologics

      

Editor's note: This article appears in the April 2015 issue of Global Forum. Click here to view the full publication.

Since passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the last several years have seen a groundswell in physician payment and delivery reforms designed to achieve higher value health care through incentivizing higher quality care and lower overall costs. Accountable care models, for example, are achieving marked progress by realigning provider incentives toward greater risk-sharing and increased payments and shared savings with measured improvements in quality and cost containment. Medical homes are introducing greater care coordination and team-based care management, while the use of episode-based or bundled payments is removing perverse incentives that reward volume and intensity.

These reforms are coming just as the number of highly targeted, highly priced treatments continues to expand. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a decade-high 41 novel new drugs in 2014, many of them targeted therapies approved on the basis of increasingly sophisticated progress in genomics and the understanding of disease progression. In areas like oncology, such targeted treatments have grown as a percentage of global oncology market size from 11% in 2003 to 46% in 2013. New brand specialty drug spending in the U.S. is estimated to have been $7.5 billion in 2013, or 69% of total new drug spending. The growing prevalence of these drugs and their cost to the health system are setting the stage for significant flashpoints between industry, payers, and providers, seen most clearly in the debate over hepatitis C treatment costs that roiled stakeholder interactions for most of the past year. 

More of these targeted treatments are in the development pipeline, and a growing number of public policy efforts taking shape in 2015 are focused on accelerating their availability. The House of Representatives' 21st Century Cures Initiative, for example, has released a slew of legislative proposals aimed at promoting breakthrough innovation by increasing the efficiency of drug development and regulatory review. These efforts have significant downstream implications for the pace at which targeted and specialty therapies will become available, their associated costs, and the growing importance of demonstrating value in the postmarket setting.

As payers and providers continue their push toward increased value-based care, more innovative models for connecting such reforms to drug development are needed. Earlier collaboration with industry could enable more efficient identification of unmet need, opportunities to add value through drug development, and clearer input on the value proposition and evidentiary thresholds needed for coverage. Equally important will be unique public-private collaborations that invest in developing a better postmarket data infrastructure that can more effectively identify high value uses of new treatments and support achieving value through new payment reforms.

Stronger collaboration could also improve evidence development and the coverage determination process after a targeted  treatment has gained regulatory approval. Facilitated drug access programs like those proposed by the Medicare Administrative Contractor Palmetto GBA create access points for patients to receive targeted anti-cancer agents off-label while payers and industry gather important additional outcomes data in patient registries. More systematic and efficient use of policies like Medicare's Coverage with Evidence Development (CED), which allows for provisional coverage for promising technologies or treatments while evidence continues to be collected, could enable industry and payers to work together to learn about a medical product's performance in patient populations not typically represented in clinical studies. A CED-type model could be especially useful for certain specialty drugs: data collected as a condition of payment could help payers and providers develop evidence from actual practice to improve treatment algorithms, increase adherence, and improve outcomes. 

Finally, collaborations that support stronger postmarket data collection can also support novel drug payment models that further reward value. Bundled payments that include physician-administered drugs, for example, could encourage providers to increase quality while also incentivizing manufacturers to help promote evidence-based drug use and lower costs for uses that generate low value. Outcomes-based purchasing contracts that tie price paid to a medical product's performance could be another promising approach for high-expense treatment with clearly defined and feasibly measured outcomes.

Many of these ideas are not new, but as manufacturers, payers, providers, and patients move into an increasingly value-focused era of health care, it is clear that they must work together to find new ways to both promote development of promising new treatments while also making good on the promise of value-based health care reforms.

      

Event Information

As policy agendas for 2015 come into sharper focus, much of the national conversation is aimed at tackling challenges in biomedical innovation. The first two months of the year alone have seen landmark proposals from Congress and the Obama Administration, including the House’s 21^st Century Cures initiative, a bipartisan Senate working group focused on medical progress, President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative and a number of additional priorities being advanced by federal agencies and other stakeholders.

On March 13, the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform hosted the State of Biomedical Innovation Conference to provide an overview of emerging policy efforts and priorities related to improving the biomedical innovation process. Senior leaders from government, academia, industry, and patient advocacy shared their thoughts on the challenges facing medical product development and promising approaches to overcome them. The discussion also examined the data and analyses that provide the basis for new policies and track their ultimate success.

 Join the conversation by following @BrookingsMed or #biomed

Video

• State of biomedical innovation conference: Panel 1
• State of biomedical innovation conference: Panel 2

Audio

• State of biomedical innovation conference

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20150313_biomed_transcript
• 313 MASTER DECK2

      

While antibiotics are necessary and crucial for treating bacterial infections, their misuse over time has contributed to a rather alarming rate of antibiotic resistance, including the development of multidrug-resistance bacteria or “super bugs.” Misuse manifests throughout all corners of public and private life; from the doctor’s office when prescribed to treat viruses; to industrial agriculture, where they are used in abundance to prevent disease in livestock. New data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirm that rising overuse of antibiotics has already become a major public health threat worldwide.

As drug resistance increases, we will see a number of dangerous and far-reaching consequences. First, common infections like STDs, pneumonia, and “staph” infections will become increasingly difficult to treat, and in extreme cases these infections may require hospitalization or treatment with expensive and toxic second-line therapies. In fact, recent estimates suggest that every year more than 23,000 people die due to drug-resistant infections in the U.S., and many more suffer from complications caused by resistant pathogens. Further, infections will be harder to control. Health care providers are increasingly encountering highly resistant infections not only in hospitals – where such infections can easily spread between vulnerable patients – but also in outpatient care settings.

Incentivize appropriate use of antibiotics. Many patients and providers underestimate the risks of using antibiotics when they are not warranted, in part because these drugs often have rapid beneficial effects for those who truly need them.  In many parts of the world the perception that antibiotics carry few risks has been bolstered by their low costs and availability without a prescription or contact with a trained health care provider. Education efforts, stewardship programs, and the development of new clinical guidelines have shown some success in limiting antibiotic use, but these fixes are limited in scope and generally not perceived as cost-effective or sustainable. Broader efforts to incentivize appropriate use, coupled with economic incentives, may be more effective in changing the culture of antibiotic use. These options might include physician or hospital report cards that help impact patient provider selection, or bonuses based on standardized performance measures that can be used to report on success of promoting appropriate use.  While these might create additional costs, they would likely help control rates of drug resistant infections and outweigh the costs of treating them.

Reinvigorate the drug development pipeline with novel antibiotics. There has not been a new class of antibiotics discovered in almost three decades, and companies have largely left the infectious disease space for more stable and lucrative product lines, such as cancer and chronic disease. Antibiotics have historically been inexpensive and are typically used only for short periods of time, creating limited opportunities for return on investment. In addition, unlike cancer or heart disease treatments, antibiotics lose effectiveness over time, making them unattractive for investment. Once they are on the market, the push to limit use of certain antibiotics to the most severe infections can further constrict an already weak market.

Late last year, H.R. 3742, the Antibiotic Development to Advance Patient Treatment (ADAPT) Act of 2013, was introduced and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. If enacted, the ADAPT Act would create a streamlined development pathway to expedite the approval of antibiotics that treat limited patient populations with serious unmet medical needs. This could potentially reduce costs and development time for companies, thereby encouraging investment in this space. Regulators have indicated that they would also welcome the opportunity to evaluate benefits and risk for a more selective patient subpopulation if they could be confident the product would be used appropriately. The bill has received a great deal of support and would help address a critical public health need (I cover this topic in more detail with my colleagues Kevin Outterson, John Powers, and Mark McClellan in a recent Health Affairs paper).

Advance new economic incentives to remedy market failure. Innovative changes to pharmaceutical regulation, research and development (R&D), and reimbursement are necessary to alleviate the market failure for antibacterial drugs. A major challenge, particularly within a fee-for-service or volume-based reimbursement system, is providing economic incentives that promote investment in drug development without encouraging overuse.  A number of public and private stakeholders, including the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform and Chatham House’s Centre on Global Health Security Working Group on Antimicrobial Resistance, are exploring alternative reimbursement mechanisms that  “de-link” revenue from the volume of antibiotics sold. Such a mechanism, combined with further measures to stimulate innovation, could create a stable incentive structure to support R&D.

Improve tracking and monitoring of resistance in the outpatient setting. There is increasing concern about much less rigorous surveillance capabilities in the outpatient setting, where drug-resistant infections are also on the rise. Policymakers should consider new incentives for providers and insurers to encourage a coordinated approach for tracking inpatient and outpatient resistance data. The ADAPT Act, mentioned above, also seeks to enhance monitoring of antibiotic utilization and resistance patterns. Health insurance companies can leverage resistance-related data linked to health care claims, while providers can capture lab results in electronic health records. Ultimately, this data could be linked to health and economic outcomes at the state, federal, and international levels, and provide a more comprehensive population-based understanding of the impact and spread of resistance. Current examples include the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Sentinel Initiative and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s PCORnet initiative. 

Antibiotic resistance is an urgent and persistent threat. As such, patients and providers will continue to require new antibiotics as older drugs are forced into retirement by resistant pathogens. Stewardship efforts will remain critical in the absence of game-changing therapies that parry resistance mechanisms. Lastly, a coordinated surveillance approach that involves diverse stakeholder groups is needed to understand the health and economic consequences of drug resistance, and to inform antibiotic development and stewardship efforts.

Editor's note: This blog was originally posted in May 2014 on Brookings UpFront.