Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development

About: Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Drug development & Clinical trial. The organization has 78 authors who have published 258 publications receiving 16047 citations.

Personalized Medicine's Bottleneck: Diagnostic Test Evidence and Reimbursement.

Abstract: Background: Personalized medicine is gradually emerging as a transformative field. Thus far, seven co-developed drug-diagnostic combinations have been approved and several dozen post-hoc drug-diagnostic combinations (diagnostic approved after the drug). However, barriers remain, particularly with respect to reimbursement. Purpose, methods: This study analyzes barriers facing uptake of drug-diagnostic combinations. We examine Medicare reimbursement in the U.S. of 10 drug-diagnostic combinations on the basis of a formulary review and a survey. Findings: We found that payers reimburse all 10 drugs, but with variable and relatively high patient co-insurance, as well as imposition of formulary restrictions. Payer reimbursement of companion diagnostics is limited and highly variable. In addition, we found that the body of evidence on the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of therapeutics is thin and even less robust for diagnostics. Conclusions, discussion: The high cost of personalized therapeutics and dearth of evidence concerning the comparative clinical effectiveness of drug-diagnostic combinations appear to contribute to high patient cost sharing, imposition of formulary restrictions, and limited and variable reimbursement of companion diagnostics. Our findings point to the need to increase the evidence base supportive of establishing linkage between diagnostic testing and positive health outcomes.

Translational Medicine: An Engine of Change for Bringing New Technology to Community Health

Abstract: Bringing a new medical technology from the lab to the clinic is a daunting prospect, but making sure that same innovation is available to the average patient has proven to be even more challenging. Translational medicine is a movement intended to help bench researchers and bedside clinicians learn from each other for the benefit of patients. This goal can best be accomplished if a patient-centered focus is incorporated throughout the R&D continuum and changes are made so that biomedical innovation serves the broadest needs within the shortest period of time. All sectors of the biomedical enterprise must be engaged and committed for these changes to occur. If actions are taken in concert, we should see real change in one generation.

Development Times and Approval Success Rates for Drugs to Treat Infectious Diseases.

Abstract: We gathered data from three pipeline databases and other public sources on development stage and clinical trial metrics for 1,914 investigational drugs, biologics, and vaccines and 2,769 clinical trials intended to treat a wide variety of infectious diseases. We included new molecular entities (NMEs), new formulations, and new combinations. Clinical trial times decreased from 2000-2008 to 2009-2017, varied by disease class, and were longer for trials with more subjects or more sites. Clinical approval success rates were higher for this set of diseases than those in the published literature for drugs across all therapeutic categories. NMEs to treat HIV had a success rate (16.0%) that was similar to those for drugs in general, whereas NME success rates for influenza and pneumonia were much higher (48.1% and 50.5%, respectively).

Raising orphans: how clinical development programs of drugs for rare and common diseases are different.

Abstract: We compared clinical trials described in package inserts from noncancer orphan and nonorphan drugs from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2011. Among the 37 orphan and 58 nonorphan drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) during this period, orphans had fewer clinical trials (2.8 vs. 3.5, P < 0.05) and fewer total participants (390 vs. 2,566, P < 0.001), but proportions with randomization, blinding, and placebo-controlled clinical end points were similar, as were development times. We conclude that small studies of appropriate design can support US FDA approval of new medicines for rare diseases.