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.

Clinical and economic challenges facing pharmacogenomics

Abstract: In this paper, we examine the clinical and economic challenges that face developers of and payers for personalized drugs and companion diagnostics. We review and summarize clinical, regulatory and reimbursement issues with respect to eight, high profile personalized medicines and their companion diagnostics. Subsequently, we determine Medicare parts B and D reimbursement of the eight drugs from publicly available databases. Finally, we utilize surveys-each tailored to three key stakeholders; payers, drug and diagnostic developers, and pharmacogenomic expert analysts-to assess reimbursement of diagnostics, analyze the role that different kinds of evidence have in informing prescribing and reimbursement decisions, as well as the specific clinical, regulatory and economic challenges that confront pharmacogenomics as it moves forward. We found that Medicare beneficiary access to physician-administered (Medicare part B) drugs is relatively unfettered, with a fixed patient co-insurance percentage of 20%. More reimbursement restrictions are placed on self-administered (Medicare part D) drugs, which translates into higher and more variable cost sharing, more use of prior authorization and quantity limits. There is a lack of comprehensive reimbursement of companion diagnostics, even in cases in which the diagnostic is on the label and recommended or required by the Food and Drug Administration. Lack of evidence linking diagnostic tests to health outcomes has caused payers to be skeptical about the clinical usefulness of tests. Expert analysts foresee moderate growth in post-hoc development of companion diagnostics to personalize already approved drugs, and limited growth in the concurrent co-development of companion diagnostics and personalized medicines. Lack of clinically useful diagnostics as well as an evidence gap in terms of knowledge of drug and diagnostic clinical effectiveness appear to be hindering growth in personalized medicine. An increase in comparative effectiveness research may help to close the evidence gap.

Switching prescription drugs to over the counter

Abstract: Appropriate self treatment is an important aspect of both the European and American healthcare systems, but what is really driving increased over the counter availability? Increased numbers of prescription drugs are being made available over the counter worldwide. Recent high profile switches have included drugs in classes previously not eligible, such as omeprazole in Sweden and simvastatin in the United Kingdom. Switches are motivated mainly by three factors: pharmaceutical firms' desire to extend the viability of brand names; attempts by healthcare funders to contain costs; and the self care movement. Making drugs available over the counter affects a large number of stakeholders, including patients, pharmaceutical firms, physicians, pharmacists, drug regulatory agencies, and private and public health funding organisations. In this article, we illustrate the roles that pharmaceutical firms, healthcare organisations, and government regulatory agencies played in three recent switches that have fuelled global debate: simvastatin in the United Kingdom, omeprazole in Sweden, and loratadine in the United States. Generally, a prescription drug becomes a candidate for over the counter availability if it is used for a non-chronic condition that is relatively easy to self diagnose and has low potential for harm from abuse under conditions of widespread availability. Statins do not fit this description. Much has been said about the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency's controversial decision in May 2004 to reclassify simvastatin 10 mg as an over the counter medicine. In a best case scenario, the switch will increase use of simvastatin by people at moderate risk of developing coronary heart disease, resulting in reduced risk. However, there have been no clinical trials of over the counter statins for primary prevention of heart disease. Concern has been raised that the main motive behind the government's decision to allow simvastatin to be sold directly to the public is …

Patient access to pharmaceuticals: an international comparison

Abstract: We have identified eight sub-dimensions of patient access to pharmaceuticals: marketing approvals, time of marketing approval, coverage, cost sharing, conditions of reimbursement, speed from marketing approval to reimbursement, extent to which beneficiaries control choice of their drug benefit, and evenness of the availability of drugs to the population. For a sample of commonly used best-selling drugs in the United States (US), we measured these eight access sub-dimensions across four health systems: France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (UK), and the US. Although the US approved between 15 and 18% more drugs than the other three countries, the US was slower than France and the UK to approve drugs licensed in all four countries. The percentage of drugs covered is approximately the same for all four countries. For covered drugs, we observe the least cost sharing by patients in the Netherlands. The Netherlands imposes conditions of reimbursement on a much larger percentage of drugs. France seems to be the slowest in respect of speed from marketing approval to reimbursement. The US is the most flexible in terms of the extent to which beneficiaries control their choice of drug benefit but it is the least universal in terms of evenness of the availability of drugs to the population. Our study confirms the frequently cited problems of access in European countries: lag between marketing approval and reimbursement, and inflexibility in respect of the extent to which beneficiaries control their choice of drug benefit. At the same time, our study confirms, qualitatively, different kinds of access problems in the US: relatively high patient cost sharing for pharmaceuticals, and wide variation in coverage.

Global Public Attitudes About Clinical Research and Patient Experiences With Clinical Trials.

Abstract: Importance Effective, continuous improvement in patient engagement depends on an intimate understanding of public and patient perceptions and experiences in clinical research. Objectives To identify the views of clinical trial participants and nonparticipants and characterize trends in these views over time. Design, Setting, and Participants In this survey study, a questionnaire was administered online from May 8 to July 24, 2017, by the Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation (CISCRP), and findings were compared with previous studies conducted in 2013 and 2015. The 2017 sample included responses from 12 427 individuals from 68 countries and represents a 10% participation rate. Similar to international assessments conducted by the CISCRP and other organizations, this study drew responses from a convenience sample; any adult older than 18 years who received an email or had online access was eligible to participate. Main Outcomes and Measures Significant changes were observed in the perceptions and clinical trial experiences of the public and study volunteers compared with past CISCRP studies. Results A total of 12 427 individuals (mean [SD] age, 55 [15] years; 7355 [59.2%] female; 10 085 [81.2%] white), 2194 (17.7%) of whom had participated in previous clinical research studies, responded to the survey in 2017. Findings indicated a belief in the importance of clinical research, but limited understanding of the research process persists. In 2017, a total of 10 506 individuals (84.5%) perceived clinical research to be very important to the discovery and development of new medicines; however, 4079 of 6919 respondents (59.0%) were unable to name a place where studies were conducted. A total of 11 182 respondents (90.0%) believed that clinical research is generally safe; however, 5578 of 12 427 individuals (44.9%) reported that clinical trials are rarely considered as an option when discussing treatments or medications with their physician. Clinical trial participation was perceived as inconvenient and burdensome; in the latest survey, 1075 respondents (49.0%) expressed that their clinical trial participation disrupted their daily routine. Conclusions and Relevance The results of this study may provide a foundation from which to build meaningful and effective engagement with the public and patients and revealed roadblocks, including knowledge gaps among the public, limited physician involvement in discussing clinical trials as treatment options, and the inconveniences that patients encounter after they volunteer to participate. These findings may inform patient engagement strategies and tactics and ultimately help accelerate the drug-development process.