EMBO Mol Med (2019) e9992 Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), including gene therapy, cell therapy, and tissue engineering products, represent a paradigm shift in health care as they have great potential for preventing and treating many diseases (Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2013). By way of example, only 367 (8.0%) of the 4,603 rare diseases and conditions listed by the NIH Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center had at least one FDA‐approved drug therapy in early 2018. An estimated 3,038 (66.0%) of those rare diseases and conditions are congenital and genetic diseases that could potentially be treated by gene therapy. There are already ATMPs under development to address these and many other unmet medical needs (FDA, 2013; MIT NEWDIGS FoCUS Project, 2017) and for the treatment of prevalent conditions, such as cardiovascular, neurologic, and metabolic diseases. However, the high cost of ATMPs has given rise to concerns about the affordability of these breakthrough therapies for health care systems and patients. Furthermore, the projected increase of ATMP approvals in the upcoming decades will create a significant financial challenge for patients, insurance companies, and public health care schemes. During the past decades, the rise of generic markets for drugs and biologics has helped to drive down the costs for many drugs and other medicinal products; a similar market for generic versions of ATMP could therefore help to make these advanced treatments more affordable. Yet, there are several factors that may hinder a future competitive market for ATMPs and thereby affordability. In the USA and Europe, the regulation of ATMPs falls under the biologic licensing procedures of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), respectively. Both agencies have implemented a regulatory framework to expedite the development and approval of ATMPs that address unmet medical needs or provide new therapies for serious …

U.S. laws enacted since 1983 have aimed to enhance the development and marketing of new pharmaceutical products. We thoroughly characterized all new molecular entities, therapeutic biologics, and gene and cell therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the period 1980–2022 in the context of these laws and regulations. Throughout the study period, the FDA approved 1355 new pharmaceutical products. The median FDA review time decreased from 26.6 months prior to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (1992), which authorized the FDA to collect fees from drug companies to 9.9 months after the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (2012), which created new designations that eliminated the requirement for evidence of added therapeutic benefit for FDA expedited drug review. The greatest increase in approvals occurred in antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs, biologics, and orphan drugs. More than half of new drug approvals benefited from regulatory designations and pathways that did not require addressing unmet medical needs or demonstrating therapeutic benefit over available alternatives. The legislative goal of bringing more drugs to the market faster has been achieved. Further studies are needed to determine the therapeutic value to patients of new drugs approved using expedited approval pathways.

The increasing number and high prices of orphan drugs have triggered concern among patients, payers, and policymakers about the affordability of new drugs approved using the incentives set by the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) of 1983. This study evaluated the factors associated to the differences in the treatment cost of new orphan and non-orphan drugs approved by the FDA from 2017 to 2021. A generalized linear model (GLM) with the Gamma log-link analysis was used to ascertain the association of drug characteristics with the treatment costs of orphan and non-orphan drugs. The results of the study showed that the median and interquartile range (IQR) drug cost was USD 218,872 (IQR = USD 23,105) for orphan drugs and USD 12,798 (IQR = USD 57,940) for non-orphan drugs (p < 0.001). Higher market entry prices were associated with biologics (108%; p < 0.001), orphan status (177%; p < 0.001), US sponsor companies (48%; p = 0.035), chronic use (1083%; p < 0.001), treatment intent (163%; p = 0.004), and indications for oncology (624%; p < 0.001) or genetic disorders (624%; p < 0.001). Higher market entry treatment cost for newly approved drugs were associated with biologics, orphan status, US sponsor companies, chronic use, therapeutic intent, and indications for oncology or genetic disorders.

Background: Gene therapy, altering the genes inside human cells, has recently emerged as an alternative for preventing and treating disease. Concerns have been expressed about the clinical value and the high cost of gene therapies. Objective: This study assessed the characteristics of the clinical trials, authorizations, and prices of gene therapies in the United States and the European Union. Research Design: We collected regulatory information from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and manufacturer-listed prices from the United States, UK, and Germany. Descriptive statistics and t tests were conducted in the study. Results: As of January 1, 2022, the FDA and EMA authorized 8 and 10 gene therapies, respectively. The FDA and EMA granted orphan designation to all gene therapies except talimogene laherparepvec. Pivotal clinical trials were nonrandomized, open level, uncontrolled, phase I–III, and included a limited number of patients. Study primary outcomes were mainly surrogate endpoints without demonstration of direct patient benefit. The price of gene therapies at market entry ranged from $200,064 to $2,125,000 million. Conclusions: Gene therapy is used to treat incurable diseases that affect only a small number of patients (orphan diseases). Based on this, they are approved by the EMA and FDA with insufficient clinical evidence to ensure safety and efficacy, in addition to the high cost.

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) typically use several drug treatments during their lifetime. There is a debate about the best second-line therapy after metformin monotherapy failure due to the increasing number of available antidiabetic drugs and the lack of comparative clinical trials of secondary treatment regimens. While prior research compared the cost-effectiveness of two alternative drugs, the literature assessing T2D treatment pathways is scarce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) compared to sulfonylureas (SU) as second-line therapy in combination with metformin in patients with T2D. A Markov model was developed with four health states, 1 year cycle, and a 25-year time horizon. Clinical and cost data were collected from previous studies and other readily available secondary data sources. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated from the US third party payer perspective. Both, costs and outcomes, were discounted at a 3% annual discount rate. One way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainty on the base-case results. The discounted incremental cost of metformin+DPP-4i compared to metformin+SU was $11,849 and the incremental life-years gained were 0.61, resulting in an ICER of $19,420 per life-year gained for patients in the metformin+DPP-4i treatment pathway. The ICER estimated in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis was $19,980 per life-year gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results of the study were not sensitive to changes in the parameters used in base-case. The metformin+DPP-4i treatment pathway was cost-effective compared to metformin+SU as a long-term second-line therapy in the treatment of T2D from the US health care payer perspective. Study findings have the potential to provide clinicians and third party payers valuable evidence for the prescription and utilization of cost-effective second-line therapy after metformin monotherapy failure in the treatment of T2D.