1 Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore.
2 Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017 Oct;23(10):1078-1082. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.10.1078.
Recent approval of eteplirsen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a rare disease with few treatment alternatives, has reignited the debate over the U.S. drug approval process. The evolution of legal and regulatory restrictions to the marketing and sale of pharmaceuticals has spanned more than a century, and throughout this history, patient advocacy has played a significant role. Scientific evidence from clinical trials serves as the foundation for drug approval, but the patient voice has become increasingly influential. Although the gold standard for establishing safety and efficacy through randomized controlled trials has been in place for more than 50 years, it poses several limitations for rare disorders where patient recruitment for traditional clinical trials is a major barrier. Organized efforts by patient advocacy groups to help patients with rare diseases access investigational therapy have had a legislative and regulatory effect. After approval by the FDA, patient access to therapy may still be limited by cost. A managed care organization (MCO) with the fiduciary responsibility of managing the health of a population must weigh coverage decisions for costly therapies with questionable effectiveness against alternatives within the constraint of a finite budget. Even when the FDA deems a drug safe and effective, an MCO may determine that the drug should only be made available at a tier level where out-of-pocket costs are still too high for many patients. This limitation of availability may be due to cost, other treatment alternatives, or outcomes from existing clinical evidence. However, if the MCO makes a costly new treatment for a rare disease readily available, it may temporarily satisfy a small contingency at the cost of all of its members. This article examines the risks and benefits of patient-centered drug approval and the potential economic effect of patient-centered drug approval on population health.
There is no funding to disclose. Mattingly reports advisory board fees from Summit Therapeutics and an educational grant from ALK, outside of this article. Simoni-Wastila has nothing to disclose. Mattingly took the lead in conceptualizing this Viewpoint article and writing the manuscript, along with Simoni-Wastila. Both authors contributed equally to manucript revision.
探讨以患者为中心的药物审批的风险和益处,以及对人群健康的潜在经济影响。
我们回顾了药品监管和经济学文献,并结合我们的临床经验,讨论了以患者为中心的药物审批的潜在影响。
与以监管为中心的审批相比,以患者为中心的审批可能会增加药物的可及性,但可能会导致医疗资源的过度使用和成本的增加。以患者为中心的审批可能会对药物的安全性和有效性产生积极影响,但也可能会增加假阳性和过度治疗的风险。
以患者为中心的药物审批可能会对药物的可及性和人群健康产生积极影响,但需要权衡其潜在风险和成本。在制定药物审批政策时,需要综合考虑监管、临床和经济因素,以确保药物的安全性、有效性和经济性。