The increasing cost of prescription drugs in the United States has become a source of concern for patients, prescribers, payers, and policy makers.
To review the origins and effects of high drug ...prices in the US market and to consider policy options that could contain the cost of prescription drugs.
We reviewed the peer-reviewed medical and health policy literature from January 2005 to July 2016 for articles addressing the sources of drug prices in the United States, the justifications and consequences of high prices, and possible solutions.
Per capita prescription drug spending in the United States exceeds that in all other countries, largely driven by brand-name drug prices that have been increasing in recent years at rates far beyond the consumer price index. In 2013, per capita spending on prescription drugs was $858 compared with an average of $400 for 19 other industrialized nations. In the United States, prescription medications now comprise an estimated 17% of overall personal health care services. The most important factor that allows manufacturers to set high drug prices is market exclusivity, protected by monopoly rights awarded upon Food and Drug Administration approval and by patents. The availability of generic drugs after this exclusivity period is the main means of reducing prices in the United States, but access to them may be delayed by numerous business and legal strategies. The primary counterweight against excessive pricing during market exclusivity is the negotiating power of the payer, which is currently constrained by several factors, including the requirement that most government drug payment plans cover nearly all products. Another key contributor to drug spending is physician prescribing choices when comparable alternatives are available at different costs. Although prices are often justified by the high cost of drug development, there is no evidence of an association between research and development costs and prices; rather, prescription drugs are priced in the United States primarily on the basis of what the market will bear.
High drug prices are the result of the approach the United States has taken to granting government-protected monopolies to drug manufacturers, combined with coverage requirements imposed on government-funded drug benefits. The most realistic short-term strategies to address high prices include enforcing more stringent requirements for the award and extension of exclusivity rights; enhancing competition by ensuring timely generic drug availability; providing greater opportunities for meaningful price negotiation by governmental payers; generating more evidence about comparative cost-effectiveness of therapeutic alternatives; and more effectively educating patients, prescribers, payers, and policy makers about these choices.
US law requires testing of new drugs before approval to ensure that they provide a well-defined benefit that is commensurate with their risks. A major challenge for the US Food and Drug ...Administration (FDA) is to achieve an appropriate balance between rigorous testing and the need for timely approval of drugs that have benefits that outweigh their risks.
To describe the evolution of laws and standards affecting drug testing, the use of new approval programs and standards, expansions of the role and authority of the FDA, and changes in the number of drugs approved from the 1980s to 2018.
Sources of evidence included principal federal laws and FDA regulations (1962-2018) and FDA databases of approved new drugs (1984-2018), generic drugs (1970-2018), biologics (1984-2018), and vaccines (1998-2018); special development and approval programs (Orphan drug 1984-2018, Fast-Track 1988-2018, Priority Review and its predecessors 1984-2018, Accelerated Approval 1992-2018, and Breakthrough Therapy 2012-2018); expanded access (2010-2017) and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (2008-2018); and user fees paid to the FDA by industry (1993-2018).
From 1983 to 2018, legislation and regulatory initiatives have substantially changed drug approval at the FDA. The mean annual number of new drug approvals, including biologics, was 34 from 1990-1999, 25 from 2000-2009, and 41 from 2010-2018. New biologic product approvals increased from a median of 2.5 from 1990-1999, to 5 from 2000-2013, to 12 from 2014-2018. The median annual number of generic drugs approved was 136 from 1970 to the enactment of the Hatch-Waxman Act in 1984; 284 from 1985 to the enactment of the Generic Drug User Fee Act in 2012; and 588 from 2013-2018. Prescription drug user fee funding expanded from new drugs and biologics in 1992 to generic and biosimilar drugs in 2012. The amount of Prescription Drug User Fee Act fees collected from industry increased from an annual mean of $66 million in 1993-1997 to $820 million in 2013-2017, and in 2018, user fees accounted for approximately 80% of the salaries of review personnel responsible for the approval of new drugs. The proportion of drugs approved with an Orphan Drug Act designation increased from 18% (55/304) in 1984-1995, to 22% (82/379) in 1996-2007, to 41% (154/380) in 2008-2018. Use of Accelerated Approval, Fast-Track, and Priority Review for new drugs has increased over time, with 81% (48/59) of new drugs benefiting from at least 1 such expedited program in 2018. The proportion of new approvals supported by at least 2 pivotal trials decreased from 80.6% in 1995-1997 to 52.8% in 2015-2017, based on 124 and 106 approvals, respectively, while the median number of patients studied did not change significantly (774 vs 816). FDA drug review times declined from more than 3 years in 1983 to less than 1 year in 2017, but total time from the authorization of clinical testing to approval has remained at approximately 8 years over that period.
Over the last 4 decades, the approval and regulation processes for pharmaceutical agents have evolved and increased in complexity as special programs have been added and as the use of surrogate measures has been encouraged. The FDA funding needed to implement and manage these programs has been addressed by expanding industry-paid user fees. The FDA has increasingly accepted less data and more surrogate measures, and has shortened its review times.
The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) accelerated approval pathway allows investigational cancer drugs to be approved by demonstrating a beneficial effect on a surrogate measure (eg, ...progression-free survival) that is expected to predict a real clinical benefit (eg, overall survival). However, these drugs must undergo postapproval confirmatory studies to evaluate their actual clinical benefits. In an assessment of the accelerated approval pathway published in 2018, the FDA concluded that this pathway was successful because only 5 (5%) of 93 accelerated drug approvals had been withdrawn or revoked over the last 25 years.
To compare the end points used in preapproval trials leading to accelerated approval with the end points used in the required confirmatory trials that verified clinical benefit and to update the outcomes of accelerated approvals with confirmatory trials that were ongoing at the time of FDA's review.
A review of the literature on end points used in preapproval and confirmatory trials of cancer drugs that received accelerated approval and a review of the FDA's database of postmarketing requirements and commitments focused on the outcomes of confirmatory trials that were ongoing at the time of FDA's review of cancer drug approvals published in 2018.
End points used as confirmation of clinical benefit in cancer drugs that received accelerated approval, updated status of the confirmatory trials, and regulatory outcomes for cancer drugs that did not meet expectations in the confirmatory trials.
The FDA published a review of 93 cancer drug indications for which accelerated approval was granted from December 11, 1992, through May 31, 2017. Of these approvals, the FDA reported that clinical benefit was adequately confirmed in 51 and confirmatory trials for 15 of these indications (16% of the main sample) accelerated approvals reported improvement in overall survival. For 19 approvals (37%), the confirmatory trials used surrogate measures that were the same as those used in the preapproval trials. In this updated review, confirmatory trials for 19 of 93 (20%) cancer drug approvals reported an improvement in overall survival, 19 (20%) reported improvement in the same surrogate used in the preapproval trial, and 20 (21%) reported improvement in a different surrogate. Five confirmatory trials were delayed, 10 were pending, and 9 were ongoing. For 3 recent approvals, the primary end points were not met in the confirmatory trials; however, 1 cancer drug indication still received full approval.
Confirmatory trials for one-fifth (n = 19 of 93) of cancer drug indications approved via the FDA's accelerated approval pathway demonstrated improvements in overall patient survival. Reassessment of the requirements for confirmatory trials may be necessary to obtain more clinically meaningful information.
Some experts have proposed combating rising drug prices by promoting brand-brand competition, a situation that is supposed to arise when multiple US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved ...brand-name products in the same class are indicated for the same condition. However, numerous reports exist of price increases following the introduction of brand-name competition, suggesting that it may not be effective. We performed a systematic literature review of the peer-reviewed health policy and economics literature to better understand the interplay between new drug entry and intraclass drug prices.
We searched PubMed and EconLit for original studies on brand-brand competition in the US market published in English between January 1990 and April 2019. We performed a qualitative synthesis of each study's data, recording its primary objective, methodology, and results. We found 10 empirical investigations, with 1 study each on antihypertensives, anti-infectives, central nervous system stimulants for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis, histamine-2 (H2) blockers, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors; 2 studies on cancer medications; and 2 studies on all marketed or new drugs. None of the studies reported that brand-brand competition lowers list prices of existing drugs within a class. The findings of 2 studies suggest that such competition may help restrain how new drug prices are set. Other studies found evidence that brand-brand competition was mediated by the relative quality of competing drugs and the extent to which they are marketed, with safer or more effective new drugs and greater marketing associated with higher intraclass list prices. Our investigation was limited by the studies' use of list rather than net prices and the age of some of the data.
Our findings suggest that policies to promote brand-brand competition in the US pharmaceutical market, such as accelerating approval of non-first-in-class drugs, will likely not result in lower drug list prices absent additional structural reforms.
Drugs treating serious or life-threatening conditions can receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval based on showing an effect in surrogate measures that are only reasonably ...likely to predict clinical benefit. Confirmatory trials are then required to determine whether these effects translate to clinical improvements.
To characterize preapproval and confirmatory clinical trials of drugs granted accelerated approval.
Publicly available FDA documents were reviewed to identify the preapproval trials leading to accelerated approval between 2009 and 2013. Information on the status and findings of required confirmatory studies was extracted from the FDA's database of postmarketing requirements and commitments, ClinicalTrials.gov, and matched peer-reviewed publications. Follow-up ended on April 7, 2017.
Granting of accelerated approval.
Characteristics of preapproval and confirmatory studies were compared in terms of study design features (randomization, blinding, comparator, primary end point). Subsequent regulatory decisions and estimated time between accelerated approval and fulfillment of regulatory requirements were summarized.
The FDA granted accelerated approval to 22 drugs for 24 indications (19 for indications involving cancer treatment) between 2009 and 2013. A total of 30 preapproval studies supported the 24 indications. The median number of participants enrolled in the preapproval studies was 132 (interquartile range, 89-224). Eight studies (27%) included fewer than 100 participants and 20 (67%) included fewer than 200. At a minimum 3 years of follow-up, 19 of 38 (50%) required confirmatory studies were completed, including 18 published reports. Twenty-five of the 38 (66%) examined clinical efficacy, 7 (18%) evaluated longer follow-up, and 6 (16%) focused on safety The proportion of studies with randomized designs did not differ before and after accelerated approval (12/30 40% vs 10/18 56%; difference, 16%; 95% CI, -15% to 46%; P = .31). Postapproval requirements were completed and demonstrated efficacy in 10 of 24 indications (42%) on the basis of trials that evaluated surrogate measures. Among the 14 of 24 indications (58%) that had not yet completed all requirements, at least 1 of the confirmatory studies failed to demonstrate clinical benefit in 2 (8%), were terminated in 2 (8%), and were delayed by more than 1 year in 3 (13%). Studies were progressing according to target timelines for the remaining 7 indications (29%). Clinical benefit had not yet been confirmed for 8 indications that had been initially approved 5 or more years prior.
Among 22 drugs with 24 indications granted accelerated approval by the FDA in 2009-2013, efficacy was often confirmed in postapproval trials a minimum of 3 years after approval, although confirmatory trials and preapproval trials had similar design elements, including reliance on surrogate measures as outcomes.
In an analysis of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies for teratogenic drugs, Ameet Sarpatwari, Beatrice Brown and Aaron Kesselheim explore the variation in primary and secondary prevention ...measures.
PDF
