Public funding for transformative drugs: the case of sofosbuvir.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Barenie RE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7528745 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Public funding for transformative drugs: the case of sofosbuvir.
Barenie Rachel E RE Avorn Jerry J Tessema Frazer A FA Kesselheim Aaron S AS
Drug discovery today 20201001 1
The approval of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) in 2013 transformed chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) care, but its high cost was criticized in part because of reports of substantial public involvement in its development. We developed a methodology to assess the public's contribution through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in developing sofosbuvir. Using key terms from the timeline of sofosbuvir, we identified articles in PubMed; linked them to federal funding using the NIH RePORTER; reviewed the tit ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Central to research funding are grant proposals that researchers send in to potential funders for review, in the hope of approval. A survey of policies at major research funders found that there is room for more transparency in the process of grant review, which would strengthen the case for the efficiency of public spending on research. On that basis, debate was invited on which transparency measures should be implemented and how, with some concrete suggestions at hand. The present article adds to this discussion by providing further context from the literature, along with considerations on the effect size of the proposed measures. The article then explores the option of opening to the public key components of the process, makes the case for pilot projects in this area, and sketches out the potential that such measures might have to transform the research landscape in those areas in which they are implemented.
| S-EPMC4280101 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundWe examined how conditional market approval of cancer pharmaceuticals by Health Canada (hc) affects public funding recommendations by the pan-Canadian Oncology Review (pcodr). We were also interested to see how often hc conditions are enforced.MethodsHealth Canada and pcodr databases for 2010-2017 were analyzed for patterns in hc conditional authorization and post-authorization reviews of cancer drugs and for correlation with pcodr reimbursement recommendations.ResultsBetween 2010 and 2017, pcodr reviewed 105 unique drug-indication pairings; 21% (n = 22) had conditional hc authorization. In all cases, conditional authorization was given on the basis of preliminary data in a surrogate endpoint and was contingent on further data showing benefit in more robust outcome measures (for example, overall survival). Of those 22 drugs, 36% did not have updated data, 36% had updated data that met hc conditions, and 27% had data that met some, but not all, conditions. During the period considered, hc never revoked conditional authorization for failure to meet conditions. None of the 22 drugs was given an unconditional positive recommendation for public reimbursement by pcodr. A conditional recommendation was given to 11 of the drugs (50%), and reimbursement was not recommended for 6 drugs (27%) because of insufficient evidence.ConclusionsOne fifth of the cancer drugs reviewed for public reimbursement in Canada were conditionally authorized by hc based on preliminary data. Conditional authorization was associated with a recommendation against public funding by pcodr. No drugs had their conditional market authorization revoked for failure to meet conditions, suggesting that a more robust hc reappraisal framework is needed.
| S-EPMC6380633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLack of transparency around manufacturing costs, who bears the bulk of research and development costs and how total costs relate to the pricing of products, continue to fuel debates. This paper considers the case of olaparib (Lynparza®), recently indicated for use among BRCA-mutant breast cancer patients, and estimates the extent of public and philanthropic R&D funding.MethodsWe know from previous work that attempting to ascertain the amount of public and philanthropic funding using purely bibliographic sources (i.e., authors' declarations of funding sources and amounts traced through funders) is limited. Since we knew that a publically funded research unit was pivotal in developing olaparib, we decided to supplement bibliographic data with a Freedom of Information request for administrative records on research funding data from this research centre.ResearchIn terms of stages of product development, work conducted in the pre-clinical research stage was the most likely to report non-industry funding (> 90% of pre-clinical projects received public or philanthropic funding). Clinical trials were least likely to be funded through non-industry sources-although even here, contrary to the popular assertion that this is wholly industry-financed, we found public or philanthropic funding declared by 23% of clinical trials. Using information reported in the publications, we identified approximately £128 million of public and philanthropic funding that may have contributed to the development of olaparib. However, this amount was less than one-third of the total amount received by one research institute playing a pivotal role in product discovery. The Institute of Cancer Research reported receiving 38 funding awards to support olaparib work for BRCA-mutant breast cancer totalling over £400 million.ConclusionsGovernment or charitable funding of pharmaceutical product development is difficult to trace using publicly available sources, due to incomplete information provided by authors and/or a lack of consistency in funding information made available by funders. This study has shown that a Freedom of Information request, in countries where such requests are supported, can provide information to help build the picture of financial support. In the example of olaparib, the funding amounts directly reported considerably exceeded amounts that could be ascertained using publically available bibliographic sources.
| S-EPMC9379234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOver the past two decades, genomics has evolved as a scientific research discipline. Genomics research was fueled initially by government and nonprofit funding sources, later augmented by private research and development (R&D) funding. Citizens and taxpayers of many countries have funded much of the research, and have expectations about access to the resulting information and knowledge. While access to knowledge gained from all publicly funded research is desired, access is especially important for fields that have broad social impact and stimulate public dialogue. Genomics is one such field, where public concerns are raised for reasons such as health care and insurance implications, as well as personal and ancestral identification. Thus, genomics has grown rapidly as a field, and attracts considerable interest.ResultsOne way to study the growth of a field of research is to examine its funding. This study focuses on public funding of genomics research, identifying and collecting data from major government and nonprofit organizations around the world, and updating previous estimates of world genomics research funding, including information about geographical origins. We initially identified 89 publicly funded organizations; we requested information about each organization's funding of genomics research. Of these organizations, 48 responded and 34 reported genomics research expenditures (of those that responded but did not supply information, some did not fund such research, others could not quantify it). The figures reported here include all the largest funders and we estimate that we have accounted for most of the genomics research funding from government and nonprofit sources.ConclusionAggregate spending on genomics research from 34 funding sources averaged around $2.9 billion in 2003-2006. The United States spent more than any other country on genomics research, corresponding to 35% of the overall worldwide public funding (compared to 49% US share of public health research funding for all purposes). When adjusted to genomics funding intensity, however, the United States dropped below Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as measured both by genomics research expenditure per capita and per Gross Domestic Product.
| S-EPMC2576262 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1200573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Spending on cancer drugs has risen dramatically in recent years compared to other areas of health care, due in part to higher prices associated with newly approved drugs and increased demand for these drugs. Addressing this situation requires making difficult trade-offs between cost, harms, and ability to benefit when using public resources, making it important for policy makers to have input from many people affected by the issue, including citizens. METHODS:In September 2014, a deliberative public engagement event was conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), on the topic of priority setting and costly cancer drugs. The aim of the study was to gain citizens' input on the topic and have them generate recommendations that could inform cancer drug funding decisions in BC. A market research company was engaged to recruit members of the BC general public to deliberate over two weekends (four days) on how best to allocate resources for expensive cancer treatments. Participants were stratified based on the 2006 census data for BC. Participants were asked to discuss disinvestment, intravenous versus oral chemotherapy delivery, and decision governance. All sessions were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 11 software. RESULTS:Twenty-four individuals participated in the event and generated 30 recommendations. Participants accepted the principle of resource scarcity and the need of governments to make difficult trade-offs when allocating health-care resources. They supported the view that cost-benefit thresholds must be set for high-cost drugs. They also expected reasonable health benefits in return for large expenditures, and supported the view that some drugs do not merit funding. Participants also wanted drug funding decisions to be made in a non-partisan and transparent way. CONCLUSION:The recommendations from the Vancouver deliberation can provide guidance to policy makers in BC and may be useful in challenging pricing by pharmaceutical companies.
| S-EPMC5941483 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Previous studies have shown that National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding contributed >$187 billion for basic or applied research related to the 356 drugs approved 2010-2019. This analysis asks how much of this funding led to patents cited as providing market exclusivity, patents that would be subject to the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act that promote and protect the public interest. The method involves identifying published research in PubMed related to the approved drugs (applied research) or their targets (basic research). NIH-funded projects (grants) funding these publications and patents arising from these projects were both identified in RePORT. Patents cited as providing market exclusivity were identified in DrugPatentWatch (which incorporates FDA Orange Book). NIH funded basic or applied research related to all 313 FDA-approved drugs 2010-2019 with at least one patent in DrugPatentWatch. This research comprised 350 thousand publications (9% applied research; 91% basic research) supported by 341 thousand fiscal years (project years) of NIH funding and $164 billion in NIH project year costs (17% applied research; 83% basic research). These NIH projects also produced 22,360 patents, 119 of which were cited in DrugPatentWatch as protecting 34/313 drugs. These patents were associated with 769 project years of NIH funding (0.23% total) and project year costs of $0.95 billion (0.59% total). Overall, only 1.5% of total NIH funding for applied research and 0.38% of total NIH funding for basic research was associated with patents in DrugPatentWatch. This analysis shows that very little of the NIH funding for research that contributes to new drug approvals leads to patents that provide market exclusivity and are subject to the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act that promote the public interest in practical applications of the research, reasonable use and pricing, and a return on this public sector investment. This suggests that the Bayh-Dole Act is limited in its ability to protect the public interest in the pharmaceutical innovations driven by NIH-funded research.
| S-EPMC10370755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We evaluated the effectiveness of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) in treating hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 and SOF/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) for all genotypes among people who inject drugs (PWID) and those not injecting drugs and who were on or off opioid agonist therapy (OAT). Study participants comprised a population-based cohort in British Columbia, Canada. The British Columbia Hepatitis Testers Cohort includes data on individuals tested for HCV from 1990 to 2016 that are integrated with medical visits, hospitalization, and prescription drug data. We classified study participants as off OAT/recent injection drug use (off-OAT/RIDU), off OAT/past IDU (off-OAT/PIDU), off OAT/no IDU (off-OAT/NIDU), on OAT/IDU (on-OAT/IDU), and on OAT/no IDU (on-OAT/NIDU). We assessed sustained virologic response (SVR) 10 weeks after HCV treatment among study groups treated with LDV/SOF or SOF/VEL until January 13, 2018. Analysis included 5,283 eligible participants: 390 off-OAT/RIDU, 598 off-OAT/PIDU, 3,515 off-OAT/NIDU, 609 on-OAT/IDU, and 171 on-OAT/NIDU. The majority were male patients (64%-74%) and aged ≥50 years (58%-85%). The SVRs for off-OAT/RIDU, off-OAT/PIDU, off-OAT/NIDU, on-OAT/IDU, and on-OAT/NIDU were 91% (355/390), 95% (570/598), 96% (3,360/3,515), 93% (567/609), and 95% (163/171), respectively. Among those with no SVR, 14 individuals died while on treatment or before SVR assessment, including 4 from illicit drug overdose. In the overall multivariable model, off-OAT/RIDU, on-OAT/IDU, male sex, cirrhosis, treatment duration <8 weeks, treatment duration 8 weeks, and treatment with SOF/VEL were associated with not achieving SVR. Conclusion: In this large real-world cohort, PWID and/or those on OAT achieved high SVRs, although slightly lower than people not injecting drugs. This finding also highlights the need for additional measures to prevent loss to follow-up and overdose-related deaths among PWID.
| S-EPMC6442698 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study examines the role of information in shaping public opinion in the context of support for education spending. While there is broad public support for increasing government funding for public schools, Americans tend to underestimate what is currently spent. We embed a series of experiments in a nationally representative survey administered in 2012 (n = 2,993) to examine whether informing citizens about current levels of education spending alters public opinion about whether funding should increase. Providing information on per-pupil spending in a respondent's local school district reduces the probability that he or she will express support for increasing spending by 22 percentage points on average. Informing respondents about state-average teacher salaries similarly depresses support for salary increases. These effects are larger among respondents who underestimate per-pupil spending and teacher salaries by a greater amount, consistent with the idea that the observed changes in opinion are driven, at least in part, by informational effects, as opposed to priming alone.
| S-EPMC4884814 | biostudies-other
Project description:South Africa's expenditure on tuberculosis (TB) research and development (R&D) is insignificant relative to both its disease burden and the expenditure of some comparator countries with a minimal TB incidence. In 2010, the country had the second highest TB incidence rate in the world (796 per 100,000 population), and the third highest number of new TB cases (490,000 or 6% of the global total). Although it has a large TB treatment program (about $588 million per year), TB R&D funding is small both in absolute terms and relative to its total R&D expenditure. Given the risk and the high cost associated with drug discovery R&D, such neglect may make strategic sense. However in this analysis it is shown that TB R&D presents a unique opportunity to the national treasuries of all high-burden countries. Using two separate estimation methods (global justice and return on investment), it is concluded that most countries, including South Africa, are under-investing in TB R&D. Specific investment targets for a range of countries, particularly in areas of applied research, are developed. This work supports the outcome of the World Health Organization's Consultative Expert Working Group on Research and Development: Financing and Coordination, which has called for "a process leading to the negotiation of a binding agreement on R&D relevant to the health needs of developing countries".
| S-EPMC3599983 | biostudies-literature