The European Commission granted a marketing authorisation valid throughout the European Union for Dinutuximab beta Apeiron on 8 May 2017. It is a orphan medicine and it has been authorised under exceptional circumstances.
This is because it has not been possible to obtain complete information about Dinutuximab beta Apeiron for ethical reasons. As dinutuximab is a recommended treatment for high-risk neuroblastoma, it would not be ethical to carry out a trial in which some patients were given placebo. Dinutuximab beta Apeiron is a cancer medicine used to treat neuroblastoma, a cancer of nerve cells, in patients over 1 year of age. Dinutuximab beta Apeiron is used together with another medicine called interleukin-2 (aldesleukin) in some cases where previous treatments have not worked well enough. The medicine contains the active substance dinutuximab beta.
It is a monoclonal antibody that has been designed to recognise and attach to a structure called GD2 that is present in high amounts on the surface of neuroblastoma cells, but not normal cells. When Dinutuximab beta Apeiron attaches to the neuroblastoma cells, it makes them a target for the body’s immune system, which then kills the cancer cells. Studies have shown that Dinutuximab beta Apeiron is effective at increasing survival in patients with neuroblastoma. Two studies analysed data from 88 children and adults with neuroblastoma that had not improved with other cancer treatments or had come back. Patients were treated with Dinutuximab beta Apeiron plus interleukin-2 and another medicine called isotretinoin. In these studies, 70% and 78% of the patients whose neuroblastoma had not improved with other treatments were still alive 2 years after treatment. Of the patients with neuroblastoma that had come back, 42% and 69% were still alive 2 years after treatment. In a third study, 370 children with high-risk neuroblastoma that had improved after other treatments were given Dinutuximab beta Apeiron and isotretinoin with or without interleukin-2. At the start of treatment some of these patients had no sign of neuroblastoma and some still had some sign of the disease.
Of the patients who had no sign of neuroblastoma, 71% were still alive 3 years after treatment and the results were similar whether the treatment included interleukin-2 or not. Of the patients who had some sign of neuroblastoma, 63% of those given interleukin-2 were still alive 3 years after treatment compared with 54% of patients who did not receive interleukin-2. In these studies, outcomes with Dinutuximab beta Apeiron compared favourably with those previously seen in patients treated for neuroblastoma without Dinutuximab beta Apeiron. The most common side effects with Dinutuximab beta Apeiron are pyrexia and pain, hypersensitivity (allergy), vomiting, diarrhoea, capillary leak syndrome and hypotension.
Pierluigi Petrone is the first Italian and the first European in the Board Of Direction of the Global Virus Network.
The presence of Petrone, CEO of Petrone Group, within the Global Virus Network (GVN) Board of Directors, has been formalized during the International Meeting Pioneers in infectious Agents and Cancers (Bob Gallo’s 80 birthday anniversary) held in Naples on March 22.
Pierluigi Petrone, CEO of Petrone Group
The presence of Petrone in the Board, with the role of business and financial support in the manufacturing at a global level, will strengthen the relation between science and industry, in the effort of answering to a common question, that is to ensure everybody’s health.
Besides Petrone, Lawrence Blatt (global responsible for infectious diseases at Janssen Pharmaceuticals, President and CEO Alios Biopharma), Danny Wronf (Medisun founder and President), Guy Vernet (Scientific Director of Mérieux Foundation), Guangqi Tian (President of Sino Invest Group Limited), Koici Yamanishi (Dg Research Foundation for Microbial Diseases, Osaka Univers ity) and Peter Palese (Microbiology Professor at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine), will all be part of the Board, too.
The Global Virus Network was born in 2011: can you tell us what it is and which objective and mission it has? The GVN is a global network of worldwide experts of viral infections, formed by academics, researchers as well as finance and drug industry representatives. Born in 2011, it has been co-founded by Robert Gallo, GVN Director and co-discover of HIV virus, with the objective of preventing the diffusion and the deaths from viral diseases. GVN accomplishes its mission of strengthening the medical research in that sector, taking action on three fields: support to the vanguard research, public education, advocacy.
You recently entered the GVN Board of Directors. Why did you join it? In the last few years I had the honor and the pleasure of traveling a lot, getting close to American world, where the concept of research and development is more rooted than it is in Europe. More than willing to join the GVN, I have been welcomed. I personally met Bob Gallo, a person and a scientist of substance; I also met many other GVN members, who proved to be very collaborative. I think they all saw in me the right intermediary between science and industry and I will try to strengthen and implement this link among research, production and development.
What could it mean for Italy to have you in the Board of Directors of such an important Network?
To begin with, let me say that as an Italian I am very proud of being part of that Board and so, of representing our country. The task of GVN is to understand the opportunities that our academic and scientific world have in order to face the problems linked to the viral infections, some of them bringing to pathologies that are less studied and less dealt with than others.
We must, instead, try to focus on these, let’s say, “orphan” pathologies: the task of GVN, which I fully share, is the one of spreading culture and raise awareness also in the world of industry about the importance of focusing and investigating in these niche areas. This is, above all, an ethical duty but also a way for the business companies to find a margin; and this is my role in the Board. Indeed, all the ideas that are in the world of research, are precious if they find a path of feasibility in the pharmaceutical manufacturing area. The mission of the new Board is exactly to create a bridge, a trait d’union, between the discoveries coming from the scientific research and the industrial and productive sector.
The GVN is a global network of worldwide experts of viral infections
Moreover, as a European, I would like to spend the American guide lines and researches in the Old Continent too, in order to push Europe to innovate in such direction. I will put all my attention and my availability to find, case by case, any enterprises interested in developing a common and reciprocal path on the bases of the guide lines.
Robert Gallo has announced that he wants to expand the GVN collaborations with the pharmaceutical industry too. Do you already have some ideas you could anticipate and present to the Administration Board in order to push the biomedical research in the virological field? My first objective, now, is to learn and understand more about the other representatives of the Board and see the ongoing projects. Afterwards I will try to give an enterprise character and make money with the results of the research, in a business perspective. Anyway, I want to highlight that the representatives of the scientific world must be a point of reference, in many countries, to establish the guide lines to prevent, rather than to cure, the diffusion of some infections.
The new National Vaccine Plan now launched by the Health Ministry, introduces some novelties in support of a wider vaccination coverage. Does GVN want to increase its knowledge in this field, too?
In my opinion, one of the most interesting aspects of GVN activity is the one of sensitizing, on site too, the local medicine and enacting, widening or starting prevention courses. As an example, I am talking about a place where an outbreak of epidemic is developing but also countries where vaccinations are decreasing. I would like to highlight the alarming data spread in Italy in these days about the drop in vaccinations and the consequent increase of registered cases of measles. Here is one of the fields in which the formation and the information can and must make the difference: to let everybody know the real potentialities of the available products, as in this case vaccines, through a communication accredited by the value of the experts who are part of the network and who guarantee reliability and excellence.
Roche announced today interim results from the phase III HAVEN 2 study evaluating emicizumab prophylaxis in children less than 12 years of age with haemophilia A and inhibitors to factor VIII. At this interim analysis after a median of 12 weeks of treatment, emicizumab prophylaxis showed a clinically meaningful reduction in the number of bleeds over time. These findings are consistent with results from the phase III HAVEN 1 study in adults and adolescents (12 years of age or older) with haemophilia A and inhibitors to factor VIII, in which emicizumab prophylaxis showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in the number of bleeds over time compared to no prophylaxis, as well as compared to prior prophylaxis with bypassing agents. The most common adverse events with emicizumab in the HAVEN2 study were injection site reactions and nasopharyngitis.
OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reported top-line results from the company’s randomized 145-patient Phase 2 PINNACLE clinical trial of tarextumab in combination with etoposide plus either cisplatin or carboplatin chemotherapy (“chemotherapy”) in previously untreated patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. Results for the combination of tarextumab plus chemotherapy were undifferentiated from those of chemotherapy plus placebo, and therefore the trial did not meet its primary endpoint of progression-free survival or secondary endpoints of overall survival and biomarkers reflective of Notch pathway gene activation.
OncoMed also announced that it will discontinue enrollment in the Phase 1b clinical trial of brontictuzumab in combination with trifluridine/tipiracil in third-line colorectal cancer patients. The combination of brontictuzumab plus chemotherapy was not tolerable in this patient population. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) for tarextumab plus chemotherapy was 5.6 months versus 5.5 months for chemotherapy plus placebo (HR=0.969).
Amgen announced detailed results from evolocumab cognitive function trial (EBBINGHAUS) evaluating the impact on cognitive function in 1,974 patients enrolled in the evolocumab cardiovascular outcomes study (FOURIER).
The study demonstrated that the effect of evolocumab on the primary endpoint of executive function was non-inferior to placebo. In addition, there was no statistical difference between evolocumab and placebo on the other cognitive domains tested: working memory, memory function and psychomotor speed (secondary endpoints). In the primary cohort of 1,204 patients, followed for a median of 19 months, the change from baseline raw score of spatial working memory strategy index of executive function was similar in the evolocumab and placebo groups. The primary endpoint was below the pre-specified margin, demonstrating non-inferiority. The primary endpoint was assessed by the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) Spatial Working Memory strategy index of executive function, an established language – and culture –independent computerized, tablet-based cognitive assessment tool. Secondary endpoint results in the three cognitive domains of working memory, memory function and psychomotor speed were consistent with the primary endpoint result. In the EBBINGHAUS study, neurocognitive adverse event rates were similar between treatment arms. In the full cohort, 19 (1.9 percent) neurocognitive adverse events were reported in the Repatha group compared to 16 (1.6 percent) events in the placebo group. In the 27,564-patient Repatha cardiovascular outcomes trial (FOURIER), neurocognitive adverse events were reported in 1.6 percent in the Repatha group compared to 1.5 percent in the placebo group. The adverse events identified in EBBINGHAUS were consistent with the adverse events identified in FOURIER. Evolocumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9). Evolocumab binds to PCSK9 and inhibits circulating PCSK9 from binding to the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor (LDLR), preventing PCSK9-mediated LDLR degradation and permitting LDLR to recycle back to the liver cell surface. By inhibiting the binding of PCSK9 to LDLR, evolocumab increases the number of LDLRs available to clear LDL from the blood, thereby lowering LDL-C levels. Repatha is approved in more than 40 countries, including the U.S., Japan, Canada and in all 28 countries that are members of the European Union.
Xeljanz (active substance tofacitinib) is a medicine for treating adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, a disease that causes inflammation of the joints. Tofacitinib is used together with methotrexate after treatment with one or more medicines known as disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) has not worked well enough or has led to troublesome side effects. It can also be taken alone by patients who cannot take or are intolerant to methotrexate.
Treatment may be stopped in patients who develop infection, which is a known side effect of the medicine, or in those with abnormal blood tests. The dose may also be lowered in some patients with reduced kidney or liver function. Tofacitinib, works by blocking the action of enzymes known as Janus kinases. These enzymes play an important role in the process of inflammation and joint damage that occur in rheumatoid arthritis. By blocking their action, tofacitinib helps reduce the inflammation and other symptoms of the disease. Six studies in over 4,200 patients with rheumatoid arthritis have shown that tofacitinib is effective at reducing joint pain and swelling, improving joint movement and slowing down joint damage. Most patients in these studies had tried other treatments before and most took tofacitinib with methotrexate. In one of the studies, where tofacitinib was taken alone, tofacitinib was more effective than methotrexate at slowing down joint damage and reducing symptoms. In another study, tofacitinib taken alone was more effective than placebo at reducing symptoms, such as pain and swelling. The most common side effects with Xeljanz are headache, infection and inflammation of the nose and throat, diarrhoea, nausea and hypertension. The most common serious side effects seen with tofacitinib are serious infections such as pneumonia, cellulitis, herpes zoster, urinary tract infection, diverticulitis and appendicitis as well as opportunistic infections that can occur in patients with weakened immune systems. Xeljanz must not be used in patients with active tuberculosis, serious infections or any opportunistic infection. Tofacitinib must also not be used in patients with severely reduced liver function or in pregnant and breastfeeding women.
Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Dupixent® (dupilumab) Injection, the first and only biologic medicine approved for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies, or when those therapies are not advisable. Dupixent is a human monoclonal antibody that is designed to specifically inhibit overactive signaling of two key proteins, IL-4 and IL-13, which are believed to be major drivers of the persistent underlying inflammation in AD. Dupilumab comes in a pre-filled syringe and can be self-administered as a subcutaneous injection every other week after an initial loading dose. Dupilumab can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. It should not be used in patients who are allergic to dupilumab or any of the ingredients in Dupixent. Dupilumab was evaluated by the FDA with Priority Review, which is reserved for medicines that represent potentially significant improvements in safety or efficacy in treating serious conditions. The approval of Dupilumab was based on data from the global LIBERTY AD clinical program, which included three randomized Phase 3 pivotal trials known as SOLO 1, SOLO 2 and CHRONOS (enrolled 2,119 total adult patients). The studies examined the use of Dupilumab either alone (SOLO 1 or SOLO 2, 1,379 adult patients enrolled) or with topical corticosteroids (CHRONOS, 740 adult patients enrolled) in patients with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe AD. In all these studies, Dupilumab alone or with topical corticosteroids met the primary and key secondary endpoints. The most common adverse events that were noted to be greater than or equal to one percent with Dupilumab treatment included injection site reactions, eye and eye lid inflammation including redness, swelling, and itching, and cold sores in the mouth or on the lips. In December 2016, the European Medicines Agency accepted for review Sanofi’s and Regeneron’s marketing authorization application (MAA) for Dupilumab for adults with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe AD.
All are rare. Globally, the incidence is fifteen cases per 100.000, about 1.600 cases per year in Italy. The pediatric tumors represent from 0.5% to 2% of all neoplasms with incidences ranging from 1-2 cases per million for cancers really rare as hepatoblastoma up to 35 per million for the acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL).
The European project RARECARE called “rare” any disease whose incidence does not exceed 6 cases per 100.000 person-years. In children, however, the pediatric oncologists call “rare” a neoplasm characterized by an annual rate of less than 2 cases per million.
The Italian project TREP (Rare Cancer in Pediatric Age) of the Italian Pediatric Hematology Oncology Association (AIEOP) tried in the last decade to study these diseases, considered “orphan”. The purpose of TREP is to improve the clinical management and basic research on these tumors. It is clear that these are tumors are causing problems to pediatric oncologists and surgeons, who have to provide adequate care. If some of these tumors are typical of childhood age, other tumors known as rare pediatric tumors are frequent in adults, such as melanoma, gastrointestinal tumors, nasopharyngeal cancer and thyroid cancer. However, in recent years, these rare diseases attracted more attention and several cooperative groups arose on rare tumors as part of the international associations of pediatric oncology. The TREP project has been a model for dedicated network to the children and adolescents management with cancer and rare diseases and led to the creation of the European Project EXPeRT (European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Tumors). With the TREP project, it has been established a register of diagnosed cases, but over time they developed guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of each type of tumor creating a network of experts to help oncologists to manage the patients.
Andrea Ferrrari
To date about 70% of cancer patients in the pediatric age heals. «This figure – explains Andrea Ferrari, pediatric oncologist of National Cancer Institute and coordinator of the Committee on adolescents AIEOP – is obviously the result of an average between diseases that have a cure rate of 90% and cancer with a prognosis still totally unsatisfactory, such as neuroblastoma or metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma. In this sense the need to develop new and effective therapies is fundamental».
If the overall survival rate is good, the downside records that about 30% of children and adolescents with cancer still die, 60-70% of the survivors will have at least one side effect and 30% of these will develop heart diseases, fertility problems or another tumor.
Drugs and therapies
Angelo Ricci
«If we consider the extraordinary successes achieved in terms of cure rates over the years and we compare them to the number of new drugs introduced for the treatment of hemato-oncology diseases we would be surprised to see that there is no connection between these two aspects» – says Angelo Ricci, President of the Italian Federation of Parents Pediatric Hemato-Oncology non-profit organization (FIAGOP) introducing us into the difficult world of pediatrics clinical research.
«All the results so far acquired – continues Ricci – are due to a constant improvement of treatment protocols, namely the comparison of different therapeutic strategies to determine the most effective dose or the most tolerated, with the study of biological and genetic materials. In short, a clarification of the doses – drugs and radiotherapy – aimed to achieve the best therapeutic results with fewer consequences related to the drugs toxicity that interact heavily with healthy cells as well as diseased cells. Patiently everything is monitored in projects, also at European level, taking into account the low incidence of cases».
«In general we make use of adult drugs that are used off-label, not pediatric medicines specifically designed for that category of patients. These drugs are already registered, but used in a different manner than the one authorized and provided in the pharmaceutical product data sheet». During the conference “Perspectives of care and research for rare cancers” that was held in Palazzo Montecitorio (Rome) in October Maria Teresa Fasanelli, President of Peterpan Onlus, a non-profit organization that deals with ill children, intervened pointing out that «over 50% of drugs given to pediatric patients with cancer has not been authorized for children».
«However, this method worthy and well tested – adds Ricci – probably reached its limit – or rather, the drugs used reached this limit». For some forms of cancer affecting mainly children and adolescents, treatment and prognosis are not changed over the last 20-30 years. «The scientific community, and parents with them, knows that it is necessary to rely on new drugs».
The pediatric tumors in fact are not those of adults and children are not adults in miniature. It is important to validate drugs intended for adults also in the pediatric fields but above all to develop specific treatments for children. Currently only 3 out 180 cancer drugs have been tested on children. This is no longer acceptable with the advent of personalized medicine in the era of innovative medicine, «it is essential to move from the logic of the maximum tolerated dose – emphasizes Fasanelli – to that of the minimum adequate dose».
Obstacles in pediatrics clinical research
«Only 2% of resources allocated for research – explains Ricci – regards children».
The pediatric oncology has never been a field of particular interest both for research and clinical trial. The availability of drugs in this area has always been linked to three main factors: the rarity of cases has been an obstacle to the development of clinical trials and protocols specific for children and adolescents; the scarcity of numbers does not push drug companies to invest in this field, especially if not encouraged by appropriate laws and incentives. Also there are ethical and legal complications (i.e. the requirement to activate specific insurance coverage, with the associated costs). In addition to that, there is a problem in all the trials that is linked to the basic research.
«Even on basic research – explains Ferrari – it remains the problem of numbers: the scarcity of biological samples destined to the laboratories does not help the identification of molecular targets on which it is possible to formulate and then test new drugs».
According to Fasanelli, besides that, there is also a second problem related to the privacy. Currently in Italy about 7/8 studies are standing in the field of solid and liquid tumors. «Very few – says Ferrari – reflecting the difficulties of developing clinical trials on children certainly due in large part to the small number of eligible patients».
Wind of change
For several years things are changed for pediatric doctors and with the beginning of precision medicine. In the field of childhood cancer, the European consortium for the development of new drugs, the ITCC (Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer) allows to concentrate the efforts of all the European countries involved in the treatment of childhood cancer and to reduce and modify all the bureaucratic rules.
In 2007 ITCC introduced the PMR (Paediatric Medicines Regulation), European laws that promote the research in all pediatric diseases. According to the European associations of parents and non-profit foundation called Unite2Cure, however, the PMR have not kept their promise to provide safer and more effective drugs. For this, in September 2015, Unite2Cure produced a number of concrete proposals for specific changes in the European legislation gathered in the official document entitled “Making the European Paediatric Medicines Regulation work for children and teenagers with cancer.”
The main focus of the document is the principle that every time a pharmaceutical company develops a drug for an adult disease should also investigate the potential of the new drug in fighting the same disease in children and adolescents. The Pediatric Investigation Plan (PIP), precisely, was introduced with the 2007 PMR and provides that during the early stages of clinical trials in adults, the pharmaceutical company must arrange also the research and the development of the drugs in pediatrics at EMA. Nevertheless, the problem is facing the exceptions: if the treatment under study represents a disease that occurs only in adults, such as ovarian cancer, the company may require to put aside the pediatric studies and to obtain an exception to the rule.
In the first five years of implementation of the European legislation, 26 new drugs for adults with possible results also in children have been developed but more than half were abandoned (ITCC, 2012). In response, the British Institute of Cancer Research said: “We strongly support the replacement of the current system of exemption based on the type of disease (adult/pediatric) with another that looks in the specific mechanism of the drug. We believe that this would result in a considerable increase in the number of pediatric studies for drugs potentially important for childhood cancers”. Even the protocols should be revised. A group of European stakeholders gathered in a platform (CDDF ITCC ENCCA-SIOPE the European Society for Paediatric Oncology Platform) presented a series of proposals. With the arrival of the European centralized database of molecular targets in children, it is possible to define a strategy to assign a priority to drugs that would involve all the people interested, with the help of EMA.
In order to involve the pharmaceutical industry there must be strong incentives for these pediatric studies. Currently the incentives offered to those who complete a PIP for a six-month extension is the exclusive access to the market of the drug, without generating a true commercial interest.
As written in the proposals of Unite2Cure, the biotech industry need long term financial incentives in order to commit to the research for children. In November, the European Commission declares that it does not want to accelerate the revision on the Regulation on childhood cancer (as required by the document Unite2Cure) planned for 2017.
In the European Parliament, on the subject of childhood cancer not much has happened. In 2014 several members have signed a manifesto to support pediatric oncology. «The world of pediatric oncology is still marginal – says Ricci – however there is some interest and there is a group in the European Parliament: Members of the European Parliament against Cancer (MAC), devoted to those issues».
On November 18, in Brussels the scientific world, parents and MAC presented the Cancer Plan for European children and teenagers. This plan is the roadmap of the outcome of the work of the European pediatric oncologists drafted to establish the seven objectives to be achieved by 2020 in the field of pediatric oncology.
Rare diseases are a global problem. While each identifiable rare disease may affect only a small number of patients, rare diseases en masse affect millions of people around the world. Many research projects in this field are growing, although at the moment for the over 7000 rare diseases, in Europe exist less than 100 drugs. Aggregation and networks are necessary to support the research and to ensure access to appropriate healthcare for all patients with rare diseases
There are around six to eight thousand diseases classified as “rare” or “orphan” in the world and 80% of them are related to genetic alterations. About 50% of the total affects children. However, the definition varies: in Europe, by definition, a rare disease is defined as a life-threatening or chronically debilitating disease affecting not more than five people in every 10,000; while in America and Japan fall into this category, respectively, diseases that affect no more than 200,000, or 50,000 people.
Categorizations aside, according to data, 30 million people in the US and another 30 million people in Europe suffer from rare diseases (approximately 7-9% of the global population), which means that the number of patients with orphan diseases in total exceeds the sum of patients with tumors or heart disease. Although the high number of patients with rare diseases, only 250 have a definition proposed by the WHO (World Health Organization). The Orphan Drug Act wanted by Ronald Reagan in 1983 marked the beginning of a series of political and economic measures designed to meet the therapeutic needs of patients with rare diseases. Since then, in other countries regulations have been introduced to taking action to encourage industry to invest in this complex field rich of business risks. The first companies, however, have been able to show that it was possible to do business with targeted strategies for innovation and focusing much on biotechnology research and, for that, over the years the production of drugs for the treatment of rare diseases has increased so much that it is estimated that in 2020, 19% of the drug market will be for orphan drugs.
FUNDS AND INCENTIVES FOR PHARMACEUTICAL DEVELOPMENT
The funds made available between public, private and non-profit are increasing as well as the number of companies researching in this field. For example, the $187 million allocated by the European Commission (EC) in March 2013 for 26 new projects aimed at developing new therapeutic strategies within 2020 for 200 rare diseases. There are twenty-nine countries involved between Europe and US with over 300 participants. The funds support the work of the International Rare Diseases Research Consortium, created by the EC and the US National Institute of Health in 2011 with the purpose of coordinating researches in this field. The 26 projects range from clinical trials on specific products, to the development of a global infrastructure called RD-Connect that will be used to share the results of research as an archive of genomic data on orphan diseases. Concerning the development of new orphan drugs, there are different strategies including market exclusivity, assistance in developing new protocols, tax reductions and regulatory Fee waivers (Table 1).
Table 1. Orphan drug incentives around the world
Market exclusivity(years)
Research Grants
Tax Credits
Fast Track approval
Protocol Assistance
Regulatory Fee waivers
US
7
Government grants for clinical research
Up to 50% for clinical expenses
Yes
Yes
Yes
EU
10
Framework programmes plus national measures
Managed by Member States
Yes (centralised approval)
Yes
Yes
JAPAN
10
Government grants for clinical and non-clinical research
15% tax credits; up to 14% corporate tax reduction
Yes
Yes
Yes
AUSTRALIA
5 (as for other drugs)
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
CHINA
n/a
NSFC grants research
n/a
Yes
n/a
n/a
SOUTH KOREA
6
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
TAIWAN
10
Government grants and awards from central competent authority
n/a
Yes
Yes
n/a
Regulation in the EU
In the EU, orphan designation is based on the criteria laid down in Regulation (EC) N° 141/2000, which was published in the Official Journal of the EC on January 22, 2000. This legislation is based on the premise that patients suffering from rare conditions should be entitled to the same quality of treatment as other patients, and provides incentives for the pharmaceutical industry to develop orphan medicinal products.
Pasquale Frega, Celgene
Another important regulation is the one on advanced therapy medicines, 1394/1997. Pasquale Frega, President and CEO of Celgene, reminds us that «the orphan drug designation is granted by the Authority only on three conditions: the disease is serious and rare, that there is a not valid therapy and that the treatment will bring a significant clinical benefit». Since the introduction of the EMA (European Medicines Agency) Orphan Drug Regulation has constantly introduced new development policies on the subject; the rare diseases, in fact, have been identified as a priority within the EU Health Program 2008-2013 with recommendations by the Council of Member States to create plans and national centers to stimulate the research on orphan diseases.
A growing market…
During the last five years one-third of new drugs approved in the world were intended to rare diseases. According to the “Orphan Drug Report 2014” published by Evaluate Pharma, drugs are expected to account for 19% of the total share of prescription drug sales, totalling $176bn, excluding generics. The expected growth in this sector is twice higher than that of pharmaceutical compounds directed to other categories of diseases, excluding generics. Orphan drugs, are estimated to lead a return of the initial investment more than non-orphans drugs. Expected return on investment of phase III filed orphan drugs 1.89 times greater than non-orphan drugs. This is mainly due to the studies on rare diseases that require a significantly reduced number of patients included (median of 538 compared to 1491) with estimated costs of clinical trials of about $99 million vs. $188 million for non-orphans. Note, however, that the timing of development for orphan drugs are still not reduced compared to non-orphans in the American system (2.89 years average). In 2014 the average cost per patient treated with orphan products amounted to $ 137 while stops at 20$ for the traditional products. Therefore, it is a business model that works and repays the pioneering biotech or pharmaceutical companies that have focused on the research of rare diseases after the 80s and that has prompted more companies to focus on research in the field of orphan diseases.
… but with higher business risks
A model that has, however, a downside: the business risk. Frega draws attention to the need of “doing more” in this area and the high risk of failure: «one out of ten drugs designated as “orphans” reaches the authorization to access the market. The risk of failure, always present in the research field is particularly high when we are looking for a treatment that brings a real clinical benefit in diseases that have no available treatments. In Italy Celgene has activated more than one hundred clinical trials that involved more than thousand patients and over a hundred of Italian centers of Hematology and /or Oncology».
Luisa Muscolo, Aifa
«The growth of research projects – explains Luisa Muscolo, Aifa (Italian Medicines Agency) – is partly justified by the recommendations made on 8 June 2009 by the European Community, in identifying a priority in rare diseases research and is partly due to the considerable impact that these studies promise to have even on common diseases, which often have the reference models for understanding them as well as the rare diseases».
«After a pioneering era founded with the birth of the Orphan Drug Act – says Riccardo Palmisano, Vice President Assobiotec and President of Genzyme – there was a second phase in which some companies have shown the ability to realize value also working with extremely low numbers of rare and ultra-rare diseases, reaping the benefits of their research».
«In the last several years – continues Palmisano – we entered into a sort of third phase, in which at the same time we have demonstrate that the model of orphan drugs also works from the economic point of view; in fact, we have witnessed the phenomenon of patent expiration of major blockbusters that have characterized the pharmaceutical industry of the 90s and the first decade of the new millennium».
Riccardo Palmisano, Assobiotec
The combination of a sector of the diseases that are most used now largely treatable with generic products and thus low prices and a huge area of unmet clinical needs in the area of rare diseases, did move interest and investment into this sector, with an increasing number of orphan drug designation. There remain, however, some elements to consider: «first of all – adds Palmisano – there is a highly innovative research but a high risk of failure, secondly even if the numbers of patients are much lower, the cost of development is not proportionately reduced compared to the treatments which faces the traditional pathologies. Inside of the final costs of development for an orphan drug are in fact included all costs incurred to find the right path, which often include a large number of collaborations with external research company, whether public, private or non-profit organizations. In this area, in fact, there is a very developed network aimed at establish partnerships with organizations that lead the most promising research. But only a few of these, however, become effective therapies capable of transforming the lives of rare patients and provide an adequate return on investment. Finally, biotech companies working in the field of orphan drugs and personalized therapy reinvest annually in research very high percentage of revenues, exploring new ways to treat orphan diseases».
System sustainability
In these 31 years after the Orphan Drug Act wanted by Ronald Regan in 1983 to facilitate research in the field of rare diseases we assisted an initial pioneering phase, then a phase of commercial success and now we are about to enter a fourth phase, in which payers and R&D will have to meet to ensure the sustainability of the sector in the coming years. According to pharmacoeconomic data, the commitments at economic and resources level have increased significantly in recent years and in the near future, will increase benefits for patients and orphan drugs. This equation, however, will soon have to take into account also that the increase of orphan drugs available on the market requires an increase in health expenditure of the various states. For the future, it is necessary to find a balance among the interest to invest in this field and the sustainability of the expense.
In general, the care systems are increasingly inclined to deny or severely limit the reimbursement cost of treatment when the clinical value of the medicine is not showing favorable, especially if the criteria for the identification of the target population are not sufficiently defined. In this context have been developed a Managed Entry Agreement Scheme, aimed at limiting the reimbursement of medicines at those subpopulations most likely to benefit from treatment. For example, «one of the most advanced tools developed by the Italian Pharmaceutical Agency (Aifa) – as explains Muscolo – Is the system of monitoring logs. They are designed to determine the eligibility of a patient to the treatment, ensuring the appropriate use of the drug in relation to the indication approved and decisions on its reimbursement. In this way it is possible to acquire specific information regarding the use of a drug in clinical practice, collect epidemiological data on patients exposed to treatment, monitor the safety profile of the product and, ultimately fill those uncertainties related to a drug of first authorization».
The Aifa registers are often linked to other forms of conditional reimbursement related to the clinical outcome and therapeutic success. Aifa has adopted different models of risk sharing and the related costs for pharmaceutical companies. In Italy, they tend to prefer the payment-by-result compared to the cost-sharing and risk-sharing.
Biotechnology for rare diseases
The attention to the rare diseases is undoubtedly growing at all levels; it was and it is a gradual process, but today the awareness of all the players involved in the system is much higher, especially thanks to the endless work of rare patients associations, that fight to make visible what that until a few years ago was for a few insiders. There is still a long way to go, starting with the early diagnosis until the recognition of the social impact of a rare genetic disease in the family, but certainly today the major issue is very clear for all the players in the health world.
The biotech sector is very dynamic and has a very high level of quality. The level of excellence achieved by Red Biotech is confirmed by the commitment in the field of rare diseases and advanced therapies. For example in Italy, the report BioInItaly 2014 Assobiotec identified 21 Italian companies active in the field of orphan diseases, with 47 projects under development of which 10 have obtained the Orphan Drug Designation by the EMA (European Medicine Agency), 7 the by FDA Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD) and 30 by both. If, however, we consider all orphan drugs authorized by AIFA, then the list is even longer (78 drugs approved), since they add orphan-like drugs, and the orphan products, which, having benefited from market exclusivity for 10 years, have been removed from the Community register. The figures indicate that are biotech about 20% of the drugs on the market, 40% of the new drugs and over 60% of those in the developing stage. According to the FirstWord dossier, in Europe, there are more than 40 companies that have obtained the Marketing Authorization for orphan drugs, 30 of which each hold a single MA. Oncology is the main therapeutic area both in Europe and in the US (Box “Therapeutic areas and orphan drugs in EU and US”). Looking at the drugs not yet approved, but in a developing stage of research, the focus is on 1200 designated molecules, but the number of detectable biotechnology is much higher. The research field intended for the cure of rare diseases is mainly, though not exclusively, biotechnology.
THERAPEUTIC AREAS AND ORPHAN DRUGS IN EU AND US
As of October 2014, 80 orphan drugs are authorized in the market in EU (October 2014). The FirstWord dossier presents a classification by therapeutic areas (referred to, however, in October 2013, with 66 orphan drugs approved) (Table 2). In the US, October 2013, were presented on the market 448 orphan drugs, of which 23.1% for oncology indications, 9.1% for immunology and 8.2% for systemic hormones.
Table 2. Orphan drugs authorized in the EU by therapy areas
Therapy area
Authorization
Oncology
23
Metabolism
13
Immunology
7
Cardiovascular
6
CNS
6
Hormones
3
Anti-infective
2
Respiratory
2
Other
4
Total
66
NETWORK
Network, partnerships and collaborations are fundamental at all stages: from the basic research aimed at sharing the expertise in the pre-competitive phase avoiding duplications in partnership among public sector, private sector and no-profit to reach the collaboration between institutions and companies in all the phases: authorization, access to the market and reimbursement. Remembering at all stages the focus on orphan patients and their involvement.
Bibliography
FirstWord Dossier. Market Access for Orphan Drugs: assessing the global landscape. December 2013
EvaluatePharma. Orphan Drug Report 2014. October 2014