Dataset Information

Repurposing existing drugs for new uses: a cohort study of the frequency of FDA-granted new indication exclusivities since 1997.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Drug repurposing (i.e., finding novel uses for existing drugs) is essential for maximizing medicines' therapeutic utility, but obtaining regulatory approval for new indications is costly. Policymakers have therefore created temporary indication-specific market exclusivities to incentivize drug innovators to run new clinical investigations. The effectiveness of these exclusivities is poorly understood.

Objective

To determine whether generic entry impacts the probability of new indication additions.

Methods

For a cohort of all new small-molecule drugs approved by the FDA between July 1997 and May 2020, we tracked new indications added for the subset of drugs that experienced generic entry during the observation period and then analyzed how the probability of a new indication changed with the number of years since/to generic entry.

Results

Of the 197 new drugs that subsequently experienced generic entry, only 64 (32%) had at least one new indication added. The probability of a new indication addition peaked above 4% between 7 and 8 years prior to generic entry and then to dropped to near zero 15 years after FDA approval. We show that the limited duration of exclusivity reduces the number of secondary indications significantly.

Conclusion

Status quo for most drug innovators is creating novel one-indication products. Despite indication-specific exclusivities, the imminence of generic entry still has a detectable impact on reducing the chances of new indication additions. There is much room for improvement when it comes to incentivizing clinical investigations for new uses and unlocking existing medicines' full therapeutic potential.

SUBMITTER: Sahragardjoonegani B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7780607 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFinding new therapeutic uses for existing medicines could lead to safe, affordable and timely new treatment options for patients with high medical needs. However, due to a lack of economic incentives, pharmaceutical developers are rarely interested to invest in research with approved medicines, especially when they are out of basic patent or regulatory protection. Consequently, potential new uses for these medicines are mainly studied in independent clinical trials initiated and led by researchers from academia, research institutes, or collaborative groups. Yet, additional financial support is needed to conduct expensive phase III clinical trials to confirm the results from exploratory research.MethodsIn this study, scientific and grey literature was searched to identify and evaluate new mechanisms for funding clinical trials with repurposed medicines. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 European stakeholders with expertise in clinical research, funding mechanisms and/or drug repurposing between November 2018 and February 2019 to consider the future perspectives of applying new funding mechanisms.ResultsTraditional grant funding awarded by government and philanthropic organisations or companies is well known and widely implemented in all research fields. In contrast, only little research has focused on the application potential of newer mechanisms to fund independent clinical research, such as social impact bonds, crowdfunding or public-private partnerships. Interviewees stated that there is a substantial need for additional financial support in health research, especially in areas where there is limited commercial interest. However, the implementation of new funding mechanisms is facing several practical and financial challenges, such as a lack of expertise and guidelines, high transaction costs and difficulties to measure health outcomes. Furthermore, interviewees highlighted the need for increased collaboration and centralisation at a European and international level to make clinical research more efficient and reduce the need for additional funding.ConclusionsNew funding mechanisms to support clinical research may become more important in the future but the unresolved issues identified in the current study warrant further exploration.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious research focused on the clinical evidence supporting new cancer drugs' initial US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. However, targeted drugs are increasingly approved for supplementary indications of unknown evidence and benefit.ObjectivesTo examine the clinical trial evidence supporting new targeted cancer drugs' initial and supplementary indication approval in the US, EU, Canada, and Australia.Data and methods25 cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with FDA approval between 2009-2019. Data on regulatory approval and clinical trials were extracted from the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA), Health Canada (HC), Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and clinicaltrials.gov. Regional variations were compared with χ2-tests. Multivariate logistic regressions compared characteristics of initial and supplementary indication approvals, reporting adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsOut of 100 considered cancer indications, the FDA approved 96, the EMA 92, HC 86, and the TGA 83 (83%, p < 0.05). The FDA more frequently granted priority review, conditional approval, and orphan designations than other agencies. Initial approvals were more likely to receive conditional / accelerated approval (AOR: 2.69, 95%CI [1.07-6.77], p < 0.05), an orphan designation (AOR: 3.32, 95%CI [1.38-8.00], p < 0.01), be under priority review (AOR: 2.60, 95%CI [1.17-5.78], p < 0.05), and be monotherapies (AOR: 5.91, 95%CI [1.14-30.65], p < 0.05) than supplementary indications. Initial indications' pivotal trials tended to be shorter (AOR per month: 0.96, 95%CI [0.93-0.99], p < 0.05), of lower phase design (AOR per clinical phase: 0.28, 95%CI [0.09-0.85], p < 0.05), and enroll more patients (AOR per 100 patients: 1.19, 95%CI [1.01-1.39], p < 0.05).ConclusionsTargeted cancer drugs are increasingly approved for multiple indications of varying clinical benefit. Drugs are first approved as monotherapies in rare diseases with a high unmet need. Whilst expedited regulatory review incentivizes this prioritization, indication-specific safety, efficacy, and pricing policies are necessary to reflect each indication's differential clinical and economic value.

Project description:Background Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a multi-systemic infection caused by the novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), that has become a pandemic. Although its prevailing symptoms include anosmia, ageusia, dry couch, fever, shortness of brief, arthralgia, myalgia, and fatigue, regional and methodological assessments vary, leading to heterogeneous clinical descriptions of COVID-19. Aging, uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and exposure to androgens have been correlated with worse prognosis in COVID-19. Abnormalities in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) and the androgen-driven transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) have been elicited as key modulators of SARS-CoV-2. Main text While safe and effective therapies for COVID-19 lack, the current moment of pandemic urges for therapeutic options. Existing drugs should be preferred over novel ones for clinical testing due to four inherent characteristics: 1. Well-established long-term safety profile, known risks and contraindications; 2. More accurate predictions of clinical effects; 3. Familiarity of clinical management; and 4. Affordable costs for public health systems. In the context of the key modulators of SARS-CoV-2 infectivity, endocrine targets have become central as candidates for COVID-19. The only endocrine or endocrine-related drug class with already existing emerging evidence for COVID-19 is the glucocorticoids, particularly for the use of dexamethasone for severely affected patients. Other drugs that are more likely to present clinical effects despite the lack of specific evidence for COVID-19 include anti-androgens (spironolactone, eplerenone, finasteride and dutasteride), statins, N-acetyl cysteine (NAC), ACE inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), and direct TMPRSS-2 inhibitors (nafamostat and camostat). Several other candidates show less consistent plausibility. In common, except for dexamethasone, all candidates have no evidence for COVID-19, and clinical trials are needed. Conclusion While dexamethasone may reduce mortality in severely ill patients with COVID-19, in the absence of evidence of any specific drug for mild-to-moderate COVID-19, researchers should consider testing existing drugs due to their favorable safety, familiarity, and cost profile. However, except for dexamethasone in severe COVID-19, drug treatments for COVID-19 patients must be restricted to clinical research studies until efficacy has been extensively proven, with favorable outcomes in terms of reduction in hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and death.