Mark R. Trusheim

Stratified medicine: strategic and economic implications of combining drugs and clinical biomarkers

The potential to use biomarkers for identifying patients that are more likely to benefit or experience an adverse reaction in response to a given therapy, and thereby better match patients with therapies, is anticipated to have a major effect on both clinical practice and the development of new drugs and diagnostics. In this article, we consider current and emerging examples in which therapies are matched with specific patient population characteristics using clinical biomarkers — which we call stratified medicine — and discuss the implications of this approach to future product development strategies and market structures.

Quantifying factors for the success of stratified medicine

Co-developing a drug with a diagnostic to create a stratified medicine — a therapy that is targeted to a specific patient population on the basis of a clinical characteristic such as a biomarker that predicts treatment response — presents challenges for product developers, regulators, payers and physicians. With the aim of developing a shared framework and tools for addressing these challenges, here we present an analysis using data from case studies in oncology and Alzheimers disease, coupled with integrated computational modelling of clinical outcomes and developer economic value, to quantify the effects of decisions related to key issues such as the design of clinical trials. This illustrates how such analyses can aid the coordination of diagnostic and drug development, and the selection of optimal development and commercialization strategies. It also illustrates the impact of the interplay of these factors on the economic feasibility of stratified medicine, which has important implications for public policy makers.

Translational Medicine Guide transforms drug development processes: the recent Merck experience.

Merck is implementing a question-based Translational Medicine Guide (TxM Guide) beginning as early as lead optimization into its stage-gate drug development process. Initial experiences with the TxM Guide, which is embedded into an integrated development plan tailored to each development program, demonstrated opportunities to improve target understanding, dose setting (i.e., therapeutic index), and patient subpopulation selection with more robust and relevant early human-based evidence, and increased use of biomarkers and simulations. The TxM Guide is also helping improve organizational learning, costs, and governance. It has also shown the need for stronger external resources for validating biomarkers, demonstrating clinical utility, tracking natural disease history, and biobanking.

“Threshold‐crossing”: A Useful Way to Establish the Counterfactual in Clinical Trials?

A central question in the assessment of benefit/harm of new treatments is: how does the average outcome on the new treatment (the factual) compare to the average outcome had patients received no treatment or a different treatment known to be effective (the counterfactual)? Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the standard for comparing the factual with the counterfactual. Recent developments necessitate and enable a new way of determining the counterfactual for some new medicines. For select situations, we propose a new framework for evidence generation, which we call “threshold‐crossing.” This framework leverages the wealth of information that is becoming available from completed RCTs and from real world data sources. Relying on formalized procedures, information gleaned from these data is used to estimate the counterfactual, enabling efficacy assessment of new drugs. We propose future (research) activities to enable “threshold‐crossing” for carefully selected products and indications in which RCTs are not feasible.

Comparison of Stakeholder Metrics for Traditional and Adaptive Development and Licensing Approaches to Drug Development

This study evaluates whether an adaptive development and licensing approach to drug development, compared with approaches widely used today, might have tangible advantages across stakeholder groups, thereby facilitating the future adoption. Details involving actual and modeled clinical development and licensing programs for 3 case studies were used as inputs into a discounted cash flow spreadsheet model. Outputs included net present value and expected net present value, which are metrics considered as key incentives for pharmaceutical developers, and change in patient access over the product life and numbers of appropriately and inappropriately treated patients, which are metrics considered as key incentives for regulators, patients, and prescribers. Actual and modeled development programs were compared using an “adaptiveness” scoring algorithm. Generally, the more adaptive programs correlated with more favorable stakeholder outcomes. However, favorable outcomes may be overwhelmed in some cases, and the causative conditions and stakeholder reactions need to be defined.

Economic challenges and possible policy actions to advance stratified medicine

In this article, we present a simple economic model to illustrate the economic challenges facing an oncology stratified medicine developer when scientific discoveries lead to ever smaller, targeted patient populations.We provide preliminary empirical evidence suggesting that at least some developers and their investors are retreating. We then examine the armamentarium of policy actions beyond higher reimbursement that may be employed to enhance the economic incentives for developing stratified medicines. In the absence of significant pricing and total oncology outlay flexibility by payers, our analysis suggests that private sector investment in small oncology segments, and in stratified medicine generally, may not prove economically sustainable, thus endangering the translation of scientific advances into bedside medicines. Beyond increasing reimbursement, decreasing development cycle time and costs, or both, would most directly improve the economic incentives facing developers. By contrast, extending exclusivity periods, or initiating advance market commitments and awarding prizes would likely have less impact and involve greater implementation challenges.

Uncertain prognosis for high-quality diagnostics: clinical challenges, economic barriers and needed reforms

Quality healthcare, as measured by outcomes and costs, needs high-quality diagnostics whose use governs the evidence-based flow of patients from screening to treatment to outcomes monitoring. The current patent, regulatory and reimbursement environment may be inadequate to spur their development, thereby placing in jeopardy the goals of healthcare reform and the aspirations of personalized medicine. Policy actions to ensure consistent quality standards and to increase development incentives through research support, reimbursement reform, increased intellectual property protection and market-making activities may be required to obtain the well-characterized, clinically proven diagnostics that US healthcare requires.

The clinical benefits, ethics, and economics of stratified medicine and companion diagnostics

The stratified medicine companion diagnostic (CDx) cut-off decision integrates scientific, clinical, ethical, and commercial considerations, and determines its value to developers, providers, payers, and patients. Competition already sharpens these issues in oncology, and might soon do the same for emerging stratified medicines in autoimmune, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, respiratory, and other conditions. Of 53 oncology targets with a launched therapeutic, 44 have competing therapeutics. Only 12 of 141 Phase III candidates addressing new targets face no competition. CDx choices might alter competitive positions and reimbursement. Under current diagnostic incentives, payers see novel stratified medicines that improve public health and increase costs, but do not observe companion diagnostics for legacy treatments that would reduce costs. It would be in the interests of payers to rediscover their heritage of direct investment in diagnostic development.

Market watch: Defining and quantifying the use of personalized medicines

United States EU5 Japan Despite the great attention given to personalized medicines, the pace at which they are being added to the pharmacopaeia and adopted into clinical practice has been limited. Quantifying the use of personalized medicines in multiple geographical regions over time would help monitor the extent to which different policies and health care systems might support their adoption. Here, we propose a definition for personalized medicines and provide — to our knowledge — the first replicable, objective and longitudinal quantification of worldwide use of personalized medicines, which could serve as a baseline from which to measure their future uptake. To establish a reliable baseline, a standardized definition of personalized medicines is necessary. Here, we define a personalized medicine on the basis of it meeting one of the following two criteria: • A medicine that has a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or a European Medicines Agency label stating that its M A R K E T WAT C H

Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients (MAPPs): A Story of International Collaboration Leading to Implementation

After nearly a decade of discussion, analysis, and development, the Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients (MAPPs) initiative is beginning to see acceptance from regulators, industry, patients, and payers, with the first live pilot project initiated under the guidance of the European Medicines Agency in 2014. Although it is a significant achievement to see the first asset being placed into human trials under an adaptive pathway, there is much to be learned regarding the multinational and multi-stakeholder effort that has driven the growing acceptance of MAPPs as a methodology and concept, as well as the need for continued and increasing international collaboration to foster the wider adoption of MAPPs. Changes in available science and technology, as well as a number of challenges in the current system, outlined in this paper, are transforming approaches to medicines development and approval. It is these challenges that have led directly to the groundbreaking MAPPs collaboration between the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Biomedical Innovation’s New Drug Development Paradigms Initiative, the EMA, patient, payer and health technology assessment groups, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, and the Innovative Medicines Initiative—a European public-private partnership. This article examines the development of MAPPs, from inception of the concept, to the establishment of this trans-Atlantic initiative, and examines challenges for the future.