Biologic Patent Thickets and Terminal Disclaimers Tu, S Sean; Goode, Rachel; Feldman, William B
JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association,
01/2024, Letnik:
331, Številka:
4
Journal Article
Clinical guidelines on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend inhalers containing long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) over inhalers ...containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs. However, data from randomized clinical trials comparing these combination inhalers (LAMA-LABAs vs ICS-LABAs) have been conflicting and raised concerns of generalizability.
To assess whether LAMA-LABA therapy is associated with reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with ICS-LABA therapy in routine clinical practice.
This was a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort study using Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart, a large commercial insurance-claims database. Patients must have had a diagnosis of COPD and filled a new prescription for a combination LAMA-LABA or ICS-LABA inhaler between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019. Patients younger than 40 years were excluded, as were those with a prior diagnosis of asthma. The current analysis was performed from February 2021 to March 2023.
Combination LAMA-LABA inhalers (aclidinium-formoterol, glycopyrronium-formoterol, glycopyrronium-indacaterol, tiotropium-olodaterol, or umeclidinium-vilanterol) and combination ICS-LABA inhalers (budesonide-formoterol, fluticasone-salmeterol, fluticasone-vilanterol, or mometasone-formoterol).
The primary effectiveness outcome was first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and the primary safety outcome was first pneumonia hospitalization. Propensity score matching was used to control for confounding between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate propensity scores. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models stratified on matched pairs.
Among 137 833 patients (mean SD age, 70.2 9.9 years; 69 530 50.4% female) (107 004 new ICS-LABA users and 30 829 new LAMA-LABA users), 30 216 matched pairs were identified for the primary analysis. Compared with ICS-LABA use, LAMA-LABA use was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.96) and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.86). These findings were robust across a range of prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
In this cohort study, LAMA-LABA therapy was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with ICS-LABA therapy, suggesting that LAMA-LABA therapy should be preferred for patients with COPD.
Inhalers are the mainstay of treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These products face limited generic competition in the US and remain expensive. To better ...understand the strategies that brand-name inhaler manufacturers have employed to preserve their market dominance, we analyzed all patents and regulatory exclusivities granted to inhalers approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1986 and 2020. Of the sixty-two inhalers approved, fifty-three were brand-name products, and these brand-name products had a median of sixteen years of protection from generic competition. Only one inhaler contained an ingredient with a new mechanism of action. More than half of all patents were on the inhaler devices, not the active ingredients or other aspects of these drug-device combinations. Manufacturers augmented periods of brand-name market exclusivity by moving active ingredients from one inhaler device into another ("device hops"). The median time from approval of an originator product to the last-to-expire patent or regulatory exclusivity of branded follow-ons was twenty-eight years (across device hops on fourteen originator products). Regulatory and patent reform is critical to ensure that the rewards bestowed on brand-name inhaler manufacturers better reflect the added clinical benefit of new products.
Insulin is the primary treatment for type 1 and some type 2 diabetes but remains costly in the United States, even though it was discovered more than a century ago. High prices can lead to ...nonadherence and are often sustained by patents and regulatory exclusivities that limit competition on brand-name products. We sought to examine how manufacturers have used patents and regulatory exclusivities on insulin products approved from 1986 to 2019 to extend periods of market exclusivity.
We used the publicly available Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) to identify all approved biosynthetic insulin products. Individual products approved under the same New Drug Application (NDA)-e.g., a vial and pen-were considered as separate products for the purposes of analysis. We recorded all patents and regulatory exclusivities listed in the Orange Book on each product and used Google Patents to extract the timing of patent application and whether patents were obtained on delivery devices or others aspects of the product. The primary outcome was the duration of expected protection, which was determined by subtracting the FDA approval date for each product from its last-to-expire patent or regulatory exclusivity (whichever occurred later). We performed a secondary analysis that considered overall protection on insulin lines-defined as groups of products approved under the same NDA with the same active ingredients manufactured by the same company. We also examined competition from follow-on insulin products-defined as products approved with the same active ingredients as originators but manufactured by different companies (approved via a specific drug approval pathway under section 505(b)(2) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). During the study period, the FDA approved 56 individual products across 25 different insulin lines and 5 follow-ons across 3 different insulin lines. Thirty-three (59%) of the 56 products were drug-device combinations. Manufacturers of 9 products approved during the study period obtained patents filed after FDA approval that extended their duration of expected protection (by a median of 6 years). Approximately 63% of all patents on drug-device combinations approved during the study period were related to delivery devices. The median duration of expected protection on insulin products was 16.0 years, and the median protection on insulin lines was 17.6 years. An important limitation of our analysis is that manufacturers may continue to add patents on existing insulin products while competitors may challenge patents; therefore, periods of protection may change over time.
Among several strategies that insulin manufacturers have employed to extend periods of market exclusivity on brand-name insulin products are filing patents after FDA approval and obtaining a large number of patents on delivery devices. Policy reforms are needed to promote timely competition in the pharmaceutical market and ensure that patients have access to low-cost drugs.
In 1996 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created an "exception from informed consent" (EFIC) pathway for trials conducted on people incapacitated by life-threatening conditions with a ...therapeutic time window too narrow for reliable surrogate consent. The goals were to promote therapeutic innovation and encourage rigorous but ethical experimentation on this vulnerable population. To evaluate outcomes of this pathway, we reviewed the complete FDA docket of EFIC trials from the past two decades, encompassing forty-one trials. Among the 46,964 patients included in this review, ninety-six percent were enrolled without consent, and fewer than 1 percent withdrew before the primary endpoint. Two (8 percent) of the twenty-four superiority trials demonstrated a benefit from the experimental interventions. Many interventions were associated with adverse effects, including increased mortality, neurological deficits, and myocardial infarctions. Nearly one-third of US patients in EFIC trials were African American. While EFIC trials have yielded medical advances, investigators in future trials must pay better attention to managing withdrawals and ensuring fair demographic representation.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) requires Medicare to negotiate prices for some high-spending drugs but exempts drugs approved solely for the treatment of a single rare disease.
To estimate Medicare ...spending and global revenues for drugs that might have been exempt from negotiation from 2012 to 2021.
This cross-sectional study analyzed drugs that met the IRA threshold for price negotiation (Medicare spending >$200 million/y) in any year from 2012 to 2021 and had an Orphan Drug Act designation. We stratified drugs into 4 mutually exclusive categories: approved for a single rare disease (sole orphan), approved for multiple rare diseases (multiorphan), initially approved for a rare disease and subsequently approved for a nonrare disease (orphan first), and initially approved for a nonrare disease and subsequently approved for a rare disease (non-orphan first).
The primary outcomes were the number of sole orphan drugs, estimated Medicare spending on those drugs from 2012 to 2021, and global revenue since launch.
Among 282 drugs, 95 (34%) were approved to treat at least 1 rare disease, including 25 sole orphan drugs (26%), 20 multiorphan drugs (21%), 13 orphan first drugs (14%), and 37 non-orphan first drugs (39%). From 2012 to 2021, Medicare spending on sole orphan drugs increased from $3.4 billion to $10.0 billion. Each year, a median (IQR) of $2.5 ($1.9-$2.6) billion in Medicare spending would have been excluded from price negotiation because of the sole orphan exemption. The cumulative global revenue of the median (IQR) sole orphan drug was $11 ($6.6-$19.2) billion.
The sole orphan exemption will exclude billions of dollars of Medicare drug spending from price negotiation. The high level of global revenues achieved by these drugs, however, suggests that special exemption is unnecessary for them to achieve financial success. Congress could consider removing the sole orphan exemption to obtain additional savings for patients and taxpayers and to eliminate any potential disincentive for developing additional indications for these drugs.
PDF
