User login
Medicare insulin negotiations seen saving $17 billion
Medicare could have saved more than $16.7 billion on three kinds of insulin products from 2011 to 2017 if it had secured the same discounts other federal health programs get through negotiations, House Democrats argue in a new report.
On Dec. 10, Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a final majority staff report, which they say is the culmination of an almost 3-year investigation into pharmaceutical pricing and business practices. The report draws from 1.5 million pages of internal company documents, the committee says.
Documents from insulin makers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi indicate these firms “raised their prices in lockstep in order to maintain ‘pricing parity’,” with senior executives encouraging the practice, the committee staff writes in the report.
“In a discussion among Novo Nordisk employees about an Eli Lilly price increase for a different diabetes product on Dec. 24, 2015, a Novo Nordisk pricing analyst remarked, ‘[M]aybe Sanofi will wait until tomorrow morning to announce their price increase ... that’s all I want for Christmas,’” the report states.
House Democrats are seeking to use the report findings to aid their Senate colleagues’ attempt to pass the sweeping Build Back Better bill, which includes many provisions addressing drug costs.
It’s still unclear when the Senate will act on the measure. The House passed the Build Back Better bill, 220-213, in November. It includes a provision that would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain drugs covered by Part D pharmacy plans.
That would mark a reversal of the stance taken when Congress created the pharmacy benefit in a 2003 law, which left negotiations to insurers that cover Part D plans.
Republicans have long argued insurers get the best deals on drugs for people on Medicare. Democrats say this approach sacrifices much of Medicare’s bargaining clout, scattering it among plans.
“This fight has been going on since the Medicare Part D legislation which gave away the store” to drugmakers, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a Dec. 10 press conference about the House Oversight report. “And they got used to having the store to themselves.”
The Endocrine Society is urging the Senate to protect the insulin affordability provisions included in the Build Back Better Act and move quickly to pass this crucial legislation.
“We implore all Senators to ensure these provisions are not scaled back. The Build Back Better Act represents the best opportunity to address the price of insulin. Millions of Americans cannot wait any longer for a solution,” it said in a statement issued Dec. 14.
Better deals for military, medicaid programs
Medicare is unusual among federal programs in that it doesn’t directly leverage its clout to lower drug costs.
Total Part D expenditures were approximately $105 billion last year, according to Medicare’s board of trustees. This spending is divided among the many insurers that run Part D plans, which then make a myriad of decisions about formularies and other factors that affect pricing.
For drugs administered by clinicians, and thus covered by Medicare Part B, the program pays a premium of the reported average sales price. Part B drug spending was $39 billion in 2019, an increase of about 11.6% from the previous year, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
In contrast, federal law calls for steep reductions in drug prices for people on Medicaid.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Defense Department (DoD)’s Tricare program use several bargaining strategies to lower prices. To control costs, VA and DoD often use formularies of preferred drugs, steer patients to lower-cost drugs, and buy drugs in large volumes, “all of which increase their leverage with drug manufacturers,” the staff of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in a Feb. 2021 report.
The CBO report examines how those different federal agencies’ approaches played out in terms of prices, net of applicable rebates, and discounts of 176 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare Part D.
The average price for this group of drugs was $118 in Medicaid. And for VA and DoD, the average prices were $190 and $184, respectively, for drugs dispensed at the agencies’ medical facilities or by mail.
But for Medicare Part D, the average price was $343, CBO said in the report, which was one of the sources consulted by House Oversight staff when developing their report released on Dec. 10.
Insulin still of interest, 100 years after its discovery
The House Oversight report runs to almost 270 pages. It addresses several issues with drug prices, including strategies pharmaceutical companies have used to thwart generic competition. On Monday, the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans separately released its own report looking at patents and delays to the introduction of generic drugs.
Yet, much of the debate on drug prices has focused on one of the oldest widely produced prescription drugs, insulin.
Even with the allowance of generic competition for the essential medicine, branded versions of insulin have been some of the costliest products for Medicare in recent years. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi dominate the insulin market.
Medicare Part D spent about $2.5 billion in 2019 on Sanofi’s Lantus Solostar insulin, or about $2,585 per person in the program using it. The program also paid about $1.1 billion for another form of Lantus, or about $2,746 per patient.
Medicare Part D also spent about $1.84 billion in 2019 on Novo Nordisk’s NovoLog FlexPen, or about $3,063 per person.
Medicare Part D’s drug spending dashboard also lists eight versions of Lilly’s Humalog, with combined 2019 spending of more than $2 billion. The cost per patient in Medicare Part D ranges from $5,619 to $1,462.
“Over the past 20 years, they have repeatedly and dramatically raised the list prices of their rapid-acting and long-acting insulins and reaped billions of dollars in revenues,” write the House Oversight staff in their report.
Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee disagree with their Democratic colleagues on many points in the debate on drug prices, but they also looked at insulin as a cause for concern.
GOP members of the committee released a separate report on Dec. 10. They call for greater clarity into the role middlemen in the drug-supply chain – known as pharmaceutical benefit managers – may play in the rising costs of medicines. The GOP report notes that there are bills pending in the House that would seek to steer any discounts offered on insulin within the supply chain toward consumers (Insulin Price Reduction Act H.R. 4906, Insulin Cost Reduction Act H.R. 5623).
Democratic staff in the committee’s report seek to draw attention to how manufacturers priced their insulin products, including the comment by the Novo Nordisk employee about wishing for a price hike for a competitor’s product.
In a statement provided to this news organization, Novo Nordisk said the committee’s report reflects “a limited picture of the efforts put forth by our company and other companies to manage formulary access.”
“This glimpse into the complexity of pricing, formularies, and the health care system demonstrates why Novo Nordisk continues to advocate for comprehensive solutions,” Denmark’s Novo Nordisk said in the statement.
$35 a month for insulin?
Paris-based Sanofi said it makes insulin-pricing decisions independently from competitors. Sanofi said the net price of its insulins has declined by 53% since 2012, arguing the high prices charged to patients reflect decisions made elsewhere in the supply chain.
“Over the same period, the net price for commercial and Medicare Part D plans of Lantus has fallen 44.9%, while average out-of-pocket costs for patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Part D has risen approximately 82%,” Sanofi said.
“For all the focus on the growth of list prices, today, the average net price of Lantus is below 2006 levels. That is why we support policy reforms to require health plans to share negotiated savings with patients by requiring patient cost-sharing be tied to the net prices.”
Indianapolis-based Lilly offered a similar response in a statement to this news organization.
“Lilly, like other companies, monitors competitor list-price changes that are available through publicly available services,” the company said. “However, any changes we make to our list prices are independent decisions, and to the extent they consider competitors they are informed only through publicly available data.”
Despite rising insurance deductibles, the average monthly out-of-pocket cost for Lilly insulin has dropped 27% to $28.05 over the past 4 years, the company said in an interview. Lilly also noted that there are “several affordability options now available” allowing people to purchase their monthly prescription of its insulin for $35, “whether they are uninsured or use commercial insurance, Medicaid, or a participating Medicare Part D plan.”
In 2020, Lilly had announced that people with commercial insurance and those without insurance would be able to get monthly prescriptions of Lilly insulin for $35.
The Build Back Better Act would require insurers, including Medicare Part D plans and private group or individual health plans, to charge patient cost-sharing of no more than $35 per month for insulin products, said the staff of the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in a review of the bill.
“Private group or individual plans would not be required to cover all insulin products, just one of each dosage form (vial, pen) and insulin type (rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting), for no more than $35,” the KFF staff state in the report.
People enrolled in Medicare can already choose to enroll in a Part D plan participating in a federal test program that can secure certain insulin products for them at a monthly copayment of $35. In 2022, a total of 2,159 Part D plans will participate in this model, a 32% increase in participating plans since 2021, KFF said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medicare could have saved more than $16.7 billion on three kinds of insulin products from 2011 to 2017 if it had secured the same discounts other federal health programs get through negotiations, House Democrats argue in a new report.
On Dec. 10, Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a final majority staff report, which they say is the culmination of an almost 3-year investigation into pharmaceutical pricing and business practices. The report draws from 1.5 million pages of internal company documents, the committee says.
Documents from insulin makers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi indicate these firms “raised their prices in lockstep in order to maintain ‘pricing parity’,” with senior executives encouraging the practice, the committee staff writes in the report.
“In a discussion among Novo Nordisk employees about an Eli Lilly price increase for a different diabetes product on Dec. 24, 2015, a Novo Nordisk pricing analyst remarked, ‘[M]aybe Sanofi will wait until tomorrow morning to announce their price increase ... that’s all I want for Christmas,’” the report states.
House Democrats are seeking to use the report findings to aid their Senate colleagues’ attempt to pass the sweeping Build Back Better bill, which includes many provisions addressing drug costs.
It’s still unclear when the Senate will act on the measure. The House passed the Build Back Better bill, 220-213, in November. It includes a provision that would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain drugs covered by Part D pharmacy plans.
That would mark a reversal of the stance taken when Congress created the pharmacy benefit in a 2003 law, which left negotiations to insurers that cover Part D plans.
Republicans have long argued insurers get the best deals on drugs for people on Medicare. Democrats say this approach sacrifices much of Medicare’s bargaining clout, scattering it among plans.
“This fight has been going on since the Medicare Part D legislation which gave away the store” to drugmakers, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a Dec. 10 press conference about the House Oversight report. “And they got used to having the store to themselves.”
The Endocrine Society is urging the Senate to protect the insulin affordability provisions included in the Build Back Better Act and move quickly to pass this crucial legislation.
“We implore all Senators to ensure these provisions are not scaled back. The Build Back Better Act represents the best opportunity to address the price of insulin. Millions of Americans cannot wait any longer for a solution,” it said in a statement issued Dec. 14.
Better deals for military, medicaid programs
Medicare is unusual among federal programs in that it doesn’t directly leverage its clout to lower drug costs.
Total Part D expenditures were approximately $105 billion last year, according to Medicare’s board of trustees. This spending is divided among the many insurers that run Part D plans, which then make a myriad of decisions about formularies and other factors that affect pricing.
For drugs administered by clinicians, and thus covered by Medicare Part B, the program pays a premium of the reported average sales price. Part B drug spending was $39 billion in 2019, an increase of about 11.6% from the previous year, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
In contrast, federal law calls for steep reductions in drug prices for people on Medicaid.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Defense Department (DoD)’s Tricare program use several bargaining strategies to lower prices. To control costs, VA and DoD often use formularies of preferred drugs, steer patients to lower-cost drugs, and buy drugs in large volumes, “all of which increase their leverage with drug manufacturers,” the staff of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in a Feb. 2021 report.
The CBO report examines how those different federal agencies’ approaches played out in terms of prices, net of applicable rebates, and discounts of 176 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare Part D.
The average price for this group of drugs was $118 in Medicaid. And for VA and DoD, the average prices were $190 and $184, respectively, for drugs dispensed at the agencies’ medical facilities or by mail.
But for Medicare Part D, the average price was $343, CBO said in the report, which was one of the sources consulted by House Oversight staff when developing their report released on Dec. 10.
Insulin still of interest, 100 years after its discovery
The House Oversight report runs to almost 270 pages. It addresses several issues with drug prices, including strategies pharmaceutical companies have used to thwart generic competition. On Monday, the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans separately released its own report looking at patents and delays to the introduction of generic drugs.
Yet, much of the debate on drug prices has focused on one of the oldest widely produced prescription drugs, insulin.
Even with the allowance of generic competition for the essential medicine, branded versions of insulin have been some of the costliest products for Medicare in recent years. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi dominate the insulin market.
Medicare Part D spent about $2.5 billion in 2019 on Sanofi’s Lantus Solostar insulin, or about $2,585 per person in the program using it. The program also paid about $1.1 billion for another form of Lantus, or about $2,746 per patient.
Medicare Part D also spent about $1.84 billion in 2019 on Novo Nordisk’s NovoLog FlexPen, or about $3,063 per person.
Medicare Part D’s drug spending dashboard also lists eight versions of Lilly’s Humalog, with combined 2019 spending of more than $2 billion. The cost per patient in Medicare Part D ranges from $5,619 to $1,462.
“Over the past 20 years, they have repeatedly and dramatically raised the list prices of their rapid-acting and long-acting insulins and reaped billions of dollars in revenues,” write the House Oversight staff in their report.
Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee disagree with their Democratic colleagues on many points in the debate on drug prices, but they also looked at insulin as a cause for concern.
GOP members of the committee released a separate report on Dec. 10. They call for greater clarity into the role middlemen in the drug-supply chain – known as pharmaceutical benefit managers – may play in the rising costs of medicines. The GOP report notes that there are bills pending in the House that would seek to steer any discounts offered on insulin within the supply chain toward consumers (Insulin Price Reduction Act H.R. 4906, Insulin Cost Reduction Act H.R. 5623).
Democratic staff in the committee’s report seek to draw attention to how manufacturers priced their insulin products, including the comment by the Novo Nordisk employee about wishing for a price hike for a competitor’s product.
In a statement provided to this news organization, Novo Nordisk said the committee’s report reflects “a limited picture of the efforts put forth by our company and other companies to manage formulary access.”
“This glimpse into the complexity of pricing, formularies, and the health care system demonstrates why Novo Nordisk continues to advocate for comprehensive solutions,” Denmark’s Novo Nordisk said in the statement.
$35 a month for insulin?
Paris-based Sanofi said it makes insulin-pricing decisions independently from competitors. Sanofi said the net price of its insulins has declined by 53% since 2012, arguing the high prices charged to patients reflect decisions made elsewhere in the supply chain.
“Over the same period, the net price for commercial and Medicare Part D plans of Lantus has fallen 44.9%, while average out-of-pocket costs for patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Part D has risen approximately 82%,” Sanofi said.
“For all the focus on the growth of list prices, today, the average net price of Lantus is below 2006 levels. That is why we support policy reforms to require health plans to share negotiated savings with patients by requiring patient cost-sharing be tied to the net prices.”
Indianapolis-based Lilly offered a similar response in a statement to this news organization.
“Lilly, like other companies, monitors competitor list-price changes that are available through publicly available services,” the company said. “However, any changes we make to our list prices are independent decisions, and to the extent they consider competitors they are informed only through publicly available data.”
Despite rising insurance deductibles, the average monthly out-of-pocket cost for Lilly insulin has dropped 27% to $28.05 over the past 4 years, the company said in an interview. Lilly also noted that there are “several affordability options now available” allowing people to purchase their monthly prescription of its insulin for $35, “whether they are uninsured or use commercial insurance, Medicaid, or a participating Medicare Part D plan.”
In 2020, Lilly had announced that people with commercial insurance and those without insurance would be able to get monthly prescriptions of Lilly insulin for $35.
The Build Back Better Act would require insurers, including Medicare Part D plans and private group or individual health plans, to charge patient cost-sharing of no more than $35 per month for insulin products, said the staff of the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in a review of the bill.
“Private group or individual plans would not be required to cover all insulin products, just one of each dosage form (vial, pen) and insulin type (rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting), for no more than $35,” the KFF staff state in the report.
People enrolled in Medicare can already choose to enroll in a Part D plan participating in a federal test program that can secure certain insulin products for them at a monthly copayment of $35. In 2022, a total of 2,159 Part D plans will participate in this model, a 32% increase in participating plans since 2021, KFF said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medicare could have saved more than $16.7 billion on three kinds of insulin products from 2011 to 2017 if it had secured the same discounts other federal health programs get through negotiations, House Democrats argue in a new report.
On Dec. 10, Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a final majority staff report, which they say is the culmination of an almost 3-year investigation into pharmaceutical pricing and business practices. The report draws from 1.5 million pages of internal company documents, the committee says.
Documents from insulin makers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi indicate these firms “raised their prices in lockstep in order to maintain ‘pricing parity’,” with senior executives encouraging the practice, the committee staff writes in the report.
“In a discussion among Novo Nordisk employees about an Eli Lilly price increase for a different diabetes product on Dec. 24, 2015, a Novo Nordisk pricing analyst remarked, ‘[M]aybe Sanofi will wait until tomorrow morning to announce their price increase ... that’s all I want for Christmas,’” the report states.
House Democrats are seeking to use the report findings to aid their Senate colleagues’ attempt to pass the sweeping Build Back Better bill, which includes many provisions addressing drug costs.
It’s still unclear when the Senate will act on the measure. The House passed the Build Back Better bill, 220-213, in November. It includes a provision that would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices of certain drugs covered by Part D pharmacy plans.
That would mark a reversal of the stance taken when Congress created the pharmacy benefit in a 2003 law, which left negotiations to insurers that cover Part D plans.
Republicans have long argued insurers get the best deals on drugs for people on Medicare. Democrats say this approach sacrifices much of Medicare’s bargaining clout, scattering it among plans.
“This fight has been going on since the Medicare Part D legislation which gave away the store” to drugmakers, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a Dec. 10 press conference about the House Oversight report. “And they got used to having the store to themselves.”
The Endocrine Society is urging the Senate to protect the insulin affordability provisions included in the Build Back Better Act and move quickly to pass this crucial legislation.
“We implore all Senators to ensure these provisions are not scaled back. The Build Back Better Act represents the best opportunity to address the price of insulin. Millions of Americans cannot wait any longer for a solution,” it said in a statement issued Dec. 14.
Better deals for military, medicaid programs
Medicare is unusual among federal programs in that it doesn’t directly leverage its clout to lower drug costs.
Total Part D expenditures were approximately $105 billion last year, according to Medicare’s board of trustees. This spending is divided among the many insurers that run Part D plans, which then make a myriad of decisions about formularies and other factors that affect pricing.
For drugs administered by clinicians, and thus covered by Medicare Part B, the program pays a premium of the reported average sales price. Part B drug spending was $39 billion in 2019, an increase of about 11.6% from the previous year, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
In contrast, federal law calls for steep reductions in drug prices for people on Medicaid.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Defense Department (DoD)’s Tricare program use several bargaining strategies to lower prices. To control costs, VA and DoD often use formularies of preferred drugs, steer patients to lower-cost drugs, and buy drugs in large volumes, “all of which increase their leverage with drug manufacturers,” the staff of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) wrote in a Feb. 2021 report.
The CBO report examines how those different federal agencies’ approaches played out in terms of prices, net of applicable rebates, and discounts of 176 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare Part D.
The average price for this group of drugs was $118 in Medicaid. And for VA and DoD, the average prices were $190 and $184, respectively, for drugs dispensed at the agencies’ medical facilities or by mail.
But for Medicare Part D, the average price was $343, CBO said in the report, which was one of the sources consulted by House Oversight staff when developing their report released on Dec. 10.
Insulin still of interest, 100 years after its discovery
The House Oversight report runs to almost 270 pages. It addresses several issues with drug prices, including strategies pharmaceutical companies have used to thwart generic competition. On Monday, the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans separately released its own report looking at patents and delays to the introduction of generic drugs.
Yet, much of the debate on drug prices has focused on one of the oldest widely produced prescription drugs, insulin.
Even with the allowance of generic competition for the essential medicine, branded versions of insulin have been some of the costliest products for Medicare in recent years. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi dominate the insulin market.
Medicare Part D spent about $2.5 billion in 2019 on Sanofi’s Lantus Solostar insulin, or about $2,585 per person in the program using it. The program also paid about $1.1 billion for another form of Lantus, or about $2,746 per patient.
Medicare Part D also spent about $1.84 billion in 2019 on Novo Nordisk’s NovoLog FlexPen, or about $3,063 per person.
Medicare Part D’s drug spending dashboard also lists eight versions of Lilly’s Humalog, with combined 2019 spending of more than $2 billion. The cost per patient in Medicare Part D ranges from $5,619 to $1,462.
“Over the past 20 years, they have repeatedly and dramatically raised the list prices of their rapid-acting and long-acting insulins and reaped billions of dollars in revenues,” write the House Oversight staff in their report.
Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee disagree with their Democratic colleagues on many points in the debate on drug prices, but they also looked at insulin as a cause for concern.
GOP members of the committee released a separate report on Dec. 10. They call for greater clarity into the role middlemen in the drug-supply chain – known as pharmaceutical benefit managers – may play in the rising costs of medicines. The GOP report notes that there are bills pending in the House that would seek to steer any discounts offered on insulin within the supply chain toward consumers (Insulin Price Reduction Act H.R. 4906, Insulin Cost Reduction Act H.R. 5623).
Democratic staff in the committee’s report seek to draw attention to how manufacturers priced their insulin products, including the comment by the Novo Nordisk employee about wishing for a price hike for a competitor’s product.
In a statement provided to this news organization, Novo Nordisk said the committee’s report reflects “a limited picture of the efforts put forth by our company and other companies to manage formulary access.”
“This glimpse into the complexity of pricing, formularies, and the health care system demonstrates why Novo Nordisk continues to advocate for comprehensive solutions,” Denmark’s Novo Nordisk said in the statement.
$35 a month for insulin?
Paris-based Sanofi said it makes insulin-pricing decisions independently from competitors. Sanofi said the net price of its insulins has declined by 53% since 2012, arguing the high prices charged to patients reflect decisions made elsewhere in the supply chain.
“Over the same period, the net price for commercial and Medicare Part D plans of Lantus has fallen 44.9%, while average out-of-pocket costs for patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Part D has risen approximately 82%,” Sanofi said.
“For all the focus on the growth of list prices, today, the average net price of Lantus is below 2006 levels. That is why we support policy reforms to require health plans to share negotiated savings with patients by requiring patient cost-sharing be tied to the net prices.”
Indianapolis-based Lilly offered a similar response in a statement to this news organization.
“Lilly, like other companies, monitors competitor list-price changes that are available through publicly available services,” the company said. “However, any changes we make to our list prices are independent decisions, and to the extent they consider competitors they are informed only through publicly available data.”
Despite rising insurance deductibles, the average monthly out-of-pocket cost for Lilly insulin has dropped 27% to $28.05 over the past 4 years, the company said in an interview. Lilly also noted that there are “several affordability options now available” allowing people to purchase their monthly prescription of its insulin for $35, “whether they are uninsured or use commercial insurance, Medicaid, or a participating Medicare Part D plan.”
In 2020, Lilly had announced that people with commercial insurance and those without insurance would be able to get monthly prescriptions of Lilly insulin for $35.
The Build Back Better Act would require insurers, including Medicare Part D plans and private group or individual health plans, to charge patient cost-sharing of no more than $35 per month for insulin products, said the staff of the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in a review of the bill.
“Private group or individual plans would not be required to cover all insulin products, just one of each dosage form (vial, pen) and insulin type (rapid-acting, short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting), for no more than $35,” the KFF staff state in the report.
People enrolled in Medicare can already choose to enroll in a Part D plan participating in a federal test program that can secure certain insulin products for them at a monthly copayment of $35. In 2022, a total of 2,159 Part D plans will participate in this model, a 32% increase in participating plans since 2021, KFF said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AMA, hospital group sue federal government over surprise billing law
which tilts toward using prevailing rates paid for services.
The American Hospital Association and American Medical Association said they will ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to try to prevent implementation of certain provisions of new federal rules on surprise bills. This court is often a venue for fights over federal rules. Also joining the suit are Nevada-based Renown Health, UMass Memorial Health, and two physicians based in North Carolina, AHA and AMA said.
Federal agencies, including the Department of Health & Human Services, in September had unveiled the rule on surprise medical bills that will take effect Jan. 1.
Under this rule, a key benchmark for payment disputes would be the qualifying payment amount (QPA), which is pegged to median contracted rates. In the dispute-resolution process outlined in the rule, there is a presumption that the QPA is the appropriate out-of-network rate.
The rule allows for exceptions in which the independent mediating organization handling the payment dispute resolution has “credible information” as to why the QPA is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate.
In the view of the federal agencies that issued the rule, this approach “encourages predictable outcomes,” which likely would reduce the number of disputes that go through the resolution process while also “providing equitable and clear standards” for cases to appropriately deviate from QPA. HHS was joined in issuing the rule by the Treasury and Labor Departments and the Office of Personnel Management.
AMA and AHA disagree with their view, seeing this approach as a boon for insurers at the expense of physicians and hospitals.
In a press release, they said the rule’s approach to surprise billing would “all but ensure that hospitals, physicians, and other providers will routinely be undercompensated by commercial insurers, and patients will have fewer choices for access to in-network services.”
The rule is part of the implementation of a federal law passed in December 2020, known as the No Surprises Act. In their statement, AHA and AMA said their legal challenge would not prevent “core patient protections’’ of that law from moving forward.
“No patient should fear receiving a surprise medical bill,” Rick Pollack, AHA president and chief executive, said in the statement. “That is why hospitals and health systems supported the No Surprises Act to protect patients and keep them out of the middle of disputes between providers and insurers. Congress carefully crafted the law with a balanced, patient-friendly approach and it should be implemented as intended.”
AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, added the approach used in the rule on surprise billing could create “an unsustainable situation for physicians.”
“Our legal challenge urges regulators to ensure there is a fair and meaningful process to resolve disputes between health care providers and insurance companies,” Dr. Harmon said.
AHA and AMA included with their statement a link to a November letter from more than 150 members of Congress, who also objected to the approach taken in designing the independent dispute-resolution (IDR) process.
“This directive establishes a de facto benchmark rate, making the median in-network rate the default factor considered in the IDR process. This approach is contrary to statute and could incentivize insurance companies to set artificially low payment rates, which would narrow provider networks and jeopardize patient access to care – the exact opposite of the goal of the law,” wrote the members of Congress, including Rep. Raul Ruiz, MD, a California Democrat, and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, an Indiana Republican.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
which tilts toward using prevailing rates paid for services.
The American Hospital Association and American Medical Association said they will ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to try to prevent implementation of certain provisions of new federal rules on surprise bills. This court is often a venue for fights over federal rules. Also joining the suit are Nevada-based Renown Health, UMass Memorial Health, and two physicians based in North Carolina, AHA and AMA said.
Federal agencies, including the Department of Health & Human Services, in September had unveiled the rule on surprise medical bills that will take effect Jan. 1.
Under this rule, a key benchmark for payment disputes would be the qualifying payment amount (QPA), which is pegged to median contracted rates. In the dispute-resolution process outlined in the rule, there is a presumption that the QPA is the appropriate out-of-network rate.
The rule allows for exceptions in which the independent mediating organization handling the payment dispute resolution has “credible information” as to why the QPA is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate.
In the view of the federal agencies that issued the rule, this approach “encourages predictable outcomes,” which likely would reduce the number of disputes that go through the resolution process while also “providing equitable and clear standards” for cases to appropriately deviate from QPA. HHS was joined in issuing the rule by the Treasury and Labor Departments and the Office of Personnel Management.
AMA and AHA disagree with their view, seeing this approach as a boon for insurers at the expense of physicians and hospitals.
In a press release, they said the rule’s approach to surprise billing would “all but ensure that hospitals, physicians, and other providers will routinely be undercompensated by commercial insurers, and patients will have fewer choices for access to in-network services.”
The rule is part of the implementation of a federal law passed in December 2020, known as the No Surprises Act. In their statement, AHA and AMA said their legal challenge would not prevent “core patient protections’’ of that law from moving forward.
“No patient should fear receiving a surprise medical bill,” Rick Pollack, AHA president and chief executive, said in the statement. “That is why hospitals and health systems supported the No Surprises Act to protect patients and keep them out of the middle of disputes between providers and insurers. Congress carefully crafted the law with a balanced, patient-friendly approach and it should be implemented as intended.”
AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, added the approach used in the rule on surprise billing could create “an unsustainable situation for physicians.”
“Our legal challenge urges regulators to ensure there is a fair and meaningful process to resolve disputes between health care providers and insurance companies,” Dr. Harmon said.
AHA and AMA included with their statement a link to a November letter from more than 150 members of Congress, who also objected to the approach taken in designing the independent dispute-resolution (IDR) process.
“This directive establishes a de facto benchmark rate, making the median in-network rate the default factor considered in the IDR process. This approach is contrary to statute and could incentivize insurance companies to set artificially low payment rates, which would narrow provider networks and jeopardize patient access to care – the exact opposite of the goal of the law,” wrote the members of Congress, including Rep. Raul Ruiz, MD, a California Democrat, and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, an Indiana Republican.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
which tilts toward using prevailing rates paid for services.
The American Hospital Association and American Medical Association said they will ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to try to prevent implementation of certain provisions of new federal rules on surprise bills. This court is often a venue for fights over federal rules. Also joining the suit are Nevada-based Renown Health, UMass Memorial Health, and two physicians based in North Carolina, AHA and AMA said.
Federal agencies, including the Department of Health & Human Services, in September had unveiled the rule on surprise medical bills that will take effect Jan. 1.
Under this rule, a key benchmark for payment disputes would be the qualifying payment amount (QPA), which is pegged to median contracted rates. In the dispute-resolution process outlined in the rule, there is a presumption that the QPA is the appropriate out-of-network rate.
The rule allows for exceptions in which the independent mediating organization handling the payment dispute resolution has “credible information” as to why the QPA is materially different from the appropriate out-of-network rate.
In the view of the federal agencies that issued the rule, this approach “encourages predictable outcomes,” which likely would reduce the number of disputes that go through the resolution process while also “providing equitable and clear standards” for cases to appropriately deviate from QPA. HHS was joined in issuing the rule by the Treasury and Labor Departments and the Office of Personnel Management.
AMA and AHA disagree with their view, seeing this approach as a boon for insurers at the expense of physicians and hospitals.
In a press release, they said the rule’s approach to surprise billing would “all but ensure that hospitals, physicians, and other providers will routinely be undercompensated by commercial insurers, and patients will have fewer choices for access to in-network services.”
The rule is part of the implementation of a federal law passed in December 2020, known as the No Surprises Act. In their statement, AHA and AMA said their legal challenge would not prevent “core patient protections’’ of that law from moving forward.
“No patient should fear receiving a surprise medical bill,” Rick Pollack, AHA president and chief executive, said in the statement. “That is why hospitals and health systems supported the No Surprises Act to protect patients and keep them out of the middle of disputes between providers and insurers. Congress carefully crafted the law with a balanced, patient-friendly approach and it should be implemented as intended.”
AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, added the approach used in the rule on surprise billing could create “an unsustainable situation for physicians.”
“Our legal challenge urges regulators to ensure there is a fair and meaningful process to resolve disputes between health care providers and insurance companies,” Dr. Harmon said.
AHA and AMA included with their statement a link to a November letter from more than 150 members of Congress, who also objected to the approach taken in designing the independent dispute-resolution (IDR) process.
“This directive establishes a de facto benchmark rate, making the median in-network rate the default factor considered in the IDR process. This approach is contrary to statute and could incentivize insurance companies to set artificially low payment rates, which would narrow provider networks and jeopardize patient access to care – the exact opposite of the goal of the law,” wrote the members of Congress, including Rep. Raul Ruiz, MD, a California Democrat, and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, an Indiana Republican.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA puts clozapine REMS requirements on temporary hold
U.S. regulators have put some of the new clozapine risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program on temporary hold because of start-up difficulties, including long telephone wait times.
In a Nov. 19 statement, the Food and Drug Administration announced it is temporarily suspending certain aspects of the program because of challenges reported by medical professionals who were trying to meet the original Nov. 15 deadline.
In response, the FDA has conceded that pharmacists can dispense clozapine without a REMS dispense authorization (RDA). Wholesalers can continue to ship clozapine to pharmacies and health care settings without confirming enrollment in the REMS, the FDA also said.
“We encourage pharmacists and prescribers to continue working with the clozapine REMS to complete certification and patient enrollment,” the FDA said in a statement.
In July, the FDA approved modifications to the clozapine REMS strategy. Clozapine is used to treat schizophrenia that is not well controlled with standard antipsychotics. It is also prescribed to patients with recurrent suicidal behavior associated with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
Although it is highly effective in some patients, it also carries serious risks. Specifically, it can decrease the neutrophil count, which can lead to severe neutropenia, serious infections, and death.
As a result, those taking the drug must undergo regular absolute neutrophil count (ANC) monitoring. Clozapine REMS is intended to maximize the benefits of the drug and minimize risk.
HCP frustration
, including a high call volume and long call wait times for stakeholders.
“We understand that this has caused frustration and has led to patient access issues for clozapine,” the FDA said in a statement.
“Continuity of care, patient access to clozapine, and patient safety are our highest priorities,” the FDA added. “We are working closely with the clozapine REMS program administrators to address these challenges and avoid interruptions in patient care.”
Abrupt discontinuation of clozapine can result in significant complications, the FDA said. The agency urged use of “clinical judgment” with respect to prescribing and dispensing clozapine to patients with an absolute neutrophil count within the acceptable range.
As previously reported by this news organization, the American Psychiatric Association and other national groups in a September letter asked the FDA to delay the implementation of a new REMS program until after Jan. 1, 2022.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. regulators have put some of the new clozapine risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program on temporary hold because of start-up difficulties, including long telephone wait times.
In a Nov. 19 statement, the Food and Drug Administration announced it is temporarily suspending certain aspects of the program because of challenges reported by medical professionals who were trying to meet the original Nov. 15 deadline.
In response, the FDA has conceded that pharmacists can dispense clozapine without a REMS dispense authorization (RDA). Wholesalers can continue to ship clozapine to pharmacies and health care settings without confirming enrollment in the REMS, the FDA also said.
“We encourage pharmacists and prescribers to continue working with the clozapine REMS to complete certification and patient enrollment,” the FDA said in a statement.
In July, the FDA approved modifications to the clozapine REMS strategy. Clozapine is used to treat schizophrenia that is not well controlled with standard antipsychotics. It is also prescribed to patients with recurrent suicidal behavior associated with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
Although it is highly effective in some patients, it also carries serious risks. Specifically, it can decrease the neutrophil count, which can lead to severe neutropenia, serious infections, and death.
As a result, those taking the drug must undergo regular absolute neutrophil count (ANC) monitoring. Clozapine REMS is intended to maximize the benefits of the drug and minimize risk.
HCP frustration
, including a high call volume and long call wait times for stakeholders.
“We understand that this has caused frustration and has led to patient access issues for clozapine,” the FDA said in a statement.
“Continuity of care, patient access to clozapine, and patient safety are our highest priorities,” the FDA added. “We are working closely with the clozapine REMS program administrators to address these challenges and avoid interruptions in patient care.”
Abrupt discontinuation of clozapine can result in significant complications, the FDA said. The agency urged use of “clinical judgment” with respect to prescribing and dispensing clozapine to patients with an absolute neutrophil count within the acceptable range.
As previously reported by this news organization, the American Psychiatric Association and other national groups in a September letter asked the FDA to delay the implementation of a new REMS program until after Jan. 1, 2022.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. regulators have put some of the new clozapine risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program on temporary hold because of start-up difficulties, including long telephone wait times.
In a Nov. 19 statement, the Food and Drug Administration announced it is temporarily suspending certain aspects of the program because of challenges reported by medical professionals who were trying to meet the original Nov. 15 deadline.
In response, the FDA has conceded that pharmacists can dispense clozapine without a REMS dispense authorization (RDA). Wholesalers can continue to ship clozapine to pharmacies and health care settings without confirming enrollment in the REMS, the FDA also said.
“We encourage pharmacists and prescribers to continue working with the clozapine REMS to complete certification and patient enrollment,” the FDA said in a statement.
In July, the FDA approved modifications to the clozapine REMS strategy. Clozapine is used to treat schizophrenia that is not well controlled with standard antipsychotics. It is also prescribed to patients with recurrent suicidal behavior associated with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
Although it is highly effective in some patients, it also carries serious risks. Specifically, it can decrease the neutrophil count, which can lead to severe neutropenia, serious infections, and death.
As a result, those taking the drug must undergo regular absolute neutrophil count (ANC) monitoring. Clozapine REMS is intended to maximize the benefits of the drug and minimize risk.
HCP frustration
, including a high call volume and long call wait times for stakeholders.
“We understand that this has caused frustration and has led to patient access issues for clozapine,” the FDA said in a statement.
“Continuity of care, patient access to clozapine, and patient safety are our highest priorities,” the FDA added. “We are working closely with the clozapine REMS program administrators to address these challenges and avoid interruptions in patient care.”
Abrupt discontinuation of clozapine can result in significant complications, the FDA said. The agency urged use of “clinical judgment” with respect to prescribing and dispensing clozapine to patients with an absolute neutrophil count within the acceptable range.
As previously reported by this news organization, the American Psychiatric Association and other national groups in a September letter asked the FDA to delay the implementation of a new REMS program until after Jan. 1, 2022.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Biden seeks to return Califf as FDA chief
On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.
Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.
The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.
The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.
The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”
But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.
Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”
Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.
Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.
The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.
The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.
The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”
But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.
Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”
Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.
Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.
The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.
The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.
The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”
But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.
Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”
Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA stands firm on deadline for clozapine REMS recertification
Despite objections from the American Psychiatric Association and other national groups, federal regulators are sticking to the Nov. 15 deadline for the modified clozapine risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program.
The modifications will require all those who prescribe and dispense clozapine to be recertified. Prescribers and pharmacies who fail to be certified by this date will no longer be able to prescribe/dispense the drug.
Clozapine is used to treat schizophrenia that is not well controlled with standard antipsychotics. It is also prescribed to patients with recurrent suicidal behavior associated with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
Although it is highly effective in some patients, it also carries serious risks. Specifically, it can decrease the neutrophil count, which can lead to severe neutropenia, serious infections, and death. As a result, those taking the drug must undergo regular absolute neutrophil count (ANC) monitoring. Clozapine REMS is intended to maximize the benefits of the drug and minimize risk.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first announced modifications to the program in July. Under the new rules, pharmacies will no longer be permitted to use telecommunication verification, also known as the switch system, to verify safe use conditions. Instead, the authorization to dispense will be obtained either through the contact center or online via the REMS website.
Furthermore, a new patient status form (PFS) will be used to document absolute ANC monitoring for all outpatients and the form must be submitted monthly.
In addition to the APA, opponents of the new recertification rules include the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists, the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, and the American Pharmacists Association.
No more access to patient data
Among other concerns, the coalition argues the new requirements will make it more difficult for clinicians to access data on patients’ previous clozapine history. Many clinicians depend on these data, which were maintained in the earlier REMS and in previous manufacturer-maintained clozapine monitoring systems.
The FDA told this news organization in a statement that the Clozapine Products Manufacturers’ Group “was not able to incorporate this data into the modified REMS database because of technical reasons. The new REMS contact center will have access to the historical data should a health care provider need the information,” the FDA said.
The FDA could not immediately provide this news organization with more detail on the nature of the “technical reasons” cited as a cause for the new hurdle that prevents clinicians from accessing these previously available data.
In a September letter to the FDA, the coalition pushed back, writing that it is “unreasonable to deny prescribers of this data that they entered. Furthermore, the lack of historical data could result in harm to patients in some circumstances.”
The coalition asked the FDA to intervene and ask the drug’s manufacturers to reinstate prescriber access to the information.
In a response to questions on this issue from this news organization, the FDA said in a written response the historical data had not been lost, but would be maintained “for record-keeping purposes.”
The FDA also said agency officials met on Oct. 10 with members of the professional organizations who authored the letter to hear their concerns about the clozapine REMS program. The CPMG, which has the responsibility for implementing the REMS, was also represented at the meeting, the FDA said.
“Based on concerns raised by stakeholders, the CPMG has recently begun to address some of the concerns raised in the letter including updating the prescriber/prescriber designee relationship and enrollment process to allow for a designee to be affiliated with multiple prescribers,” the FDA told this news organization.
“The recent updates also enable prescriber designees to self-enroll/create credentials, send affiliation requests to prescribers, and attest/perform functions on behalf of prescribers. It is our understanding that the CPMG is disseminating this information to stakeholders,” the agency added.
Bigger burden, bad timing
In an interview, Robert Cotes, MD, who serves as a member of the clinical expert team for Serious Mental Illness Adviser, a joint initiative of the APA and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, said the changes to the clozapine REMS will likely increase the administrative burden on clinicians.
In the letter to the FDA, the APA and other groups in the coalition expressed concern about patient status forms, which are five pages long. The coalition has requested that the FDA develop a form where clinicians can submit monitoring results on multiple patients at one time, with PDF forms presented in a fillable format.
“The concern is that if the workflows become more laborious for people, it could result in treatment interruptions for individuals on clozapine or potentially it may steer prescribers away from using clozapine for people who may need it,” said Dr. Cotes.
Also commenting for this news organization, Raymond C. Love, PharmD, professor and vice chair at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, emphasized the poor timing of the switch to a new clozapine REMS.
“Pharmacies are overloaded right now due to COVID tests and influenza and COVID boosters and COVID vaccinations for kids,” making it a tough time to manage the demands of the clozapine REMS re-enrollment, he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite objections from the American Psychiatric Association and other national groups, federal regulators are sticking to the Nov. 15 deadline for the modified clozapine risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program.
The modifications will require all those who prescribe and dispense clozapine to be recertified. Prescribers and pharmacies who fail to be certified by this date will no longer be able to prescribe/dispense the drug.
Clozapine is used to treat schizophrenia that is not well controlled with standard antipsychotics. It is also prescribed to patients with recurrent suicidal behavior associated with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
Although it is highly effective in some patients, it also carries serious risks. Specifically, it can decrease the neutrophil count, which can lead to severe neutropenia, serious infections, and death. As a result, those taking the drug must undergo regular absolute neutrophil count (ANC) monitoring. Clozapine REMS is intended to maximize the benefits of the drug and minimize risk.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first announced modifications to the program in July. Under the new rules, pharmacies will no longer be permitted to use telecommunication verification, also known as the switch system, to verify safe use conditions. Instead, the authorization to dispense will be obtained either through the contact center or online via the REMS website.
Furthermore, a new patient status form (PFS) will be used to document absolute ANC monitoring for all outpatients and the form must be submitted monthly.
In addition to the APA, opponents of the new recertification rules include the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists, the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, and the American Pharmacists Association.
No more access to patient data
Among other concerns, the coalition argues the new requirements will make it more difficult for clinicians to access data on patients’ previous clozapine history. Many clinicians depend on these data, which were maintained in the earlier REMS and in previous manufacturer-maintained clozapine monitoring systems.
The FDA told this news organization in a statement that the Clozapine Products Manufacturers’ Group “was not able to incorporate this data into the modified REMS database because of technical reasons. The new REMS contact center will have access to the historical data should a health care provider need the information,” the FDA said.
The FDA could not immediately provide this news organization with more detail on the nature of the “technical reasons” cited as a cause for the new hurdle that prevents clinicians from accessing these previously available data.
In a September letter to the FDA, the coalition pushed back, writing that it is “unreasonable to deny prescribers of this data that they entered. Furthermore, the lack of historical data could result in harm to patients in some circumstances.”
The coalition asked the FDA to intervene and ask the drug’s manufacturers to reinstate prescriber access to the information.
In a response to questions on this issue from this news organization, the FDA said in a written response the historical data had not been lost, but would be maintained “for record-keeping purposes.”
The FDA also said agency officials met on Oct. 10 with members of the professional organizations who authored the letter to hear their concerns about the clozapine REMS program. The CPMG, which has the responsibility for implementing the REMS, was also represented at the meeting, the FDA said.
“Based on concerns raised by stakeholders, the CPMG has recently begun to address some of the concerns raised in the letter including updating the prescriber/prescriber designee relationship and enrollment process to allow for a designee to be affiliated with multiple prescribers,” the FDA told this news organization.
“The recent updates also enable prescriber designees to self-enroll/create credentials, send affiliation requests to prescribers, and attest/perform functions on behalf of prescribers. It is our understanding that the CPMG is disseminating this information to stakeholders,” the agency added.
Bigger burden, bad timing
In an interview, Robert Cotes, MD, who serves as a member of the clinical expert team for Serious Mental Illness Adviser, a joint initiative of the APA and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, said the changes to the clozapine REMS will likely increase the administrative burden on clinicians.
In the letter to the FDA, the APA and other groups in the coalition expressed concern about patient status forms, which are five pages long. The coalition has requested that the FDA develop a form where clinicians can submit monitoring results on multiple patients at one time, with PDF forms presented in a fillable format.
“The concern is that if the workflows become more laborious for people, it could result in treatment interruptions for individuals on clozapine or potentially it may steer prescribers away from using clozapine for people who may need it,” said Dr. Cotes.
Also commenting for this news organization, Raymond C. Love, PharmD, professor and vice chair at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, emphasized the poor timing of the switch to a new clozapine REMS.
“Pharmacies are overloaded right now due to COVID tests and influenza and COVID boosters and COVID vaccinations for kids,” making it a tough time to manage the demands of the clozapine REMS re-enrollment, he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Despite objections from the American Psychiatric Association and other national groups, federal regulators are sticking to the Nov. 15 deadline for the modified clozapine risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program.
The modifications will require all those who prescribe and dispense clozapine to be recertified. Prescribers and pharmacies who fail to be certified by this date will no longer be able to prescribe/dispense the drug.
Clozapine is used to treat schizophrenia that is not well controlled with standard antipsychotics. It is also prescribed to patients with recurrent suicidal behavior associated with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
Although it is highly effective in some patients, it also carries serious risks. Specifically, it can decrease the neutrophil count, which can lead to severe neutropenia, serious infections, and death. As a result, those taking the drug must undergo regular absolute neutrophil count (ANC) monitoring. Clozapine REMS is intended to maximize the benefits of the drug and minimize risk.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first announced modifications to the program in July. Under the new rules, pharmacies will no longer be permitted to use telecommunication verification, also known as the switch system, to verify safe use conditions. Instead, the authorization to dispense will be obtained either through the contact center or online via the REMS website.
Furthermore, a new patient status form (PFS) will be used to document absolute ANC monitoring for all outpatients and the form must be submitted monthly.
In addition to the APA, opponents of the new recertification rules include the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists, the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, and the American Pharmacists Association.
No more access to patient data
Among other concerns, the coalition argues the new requirements will make it more difficult for clinicians to access data on patients’ previous clozapine history. Many clinicians depend on these data, which were maintained in the earlier REMS and in previous manufacturer-maintained clozapine monitoring systems.
The FDA told this news organization in a statement that the Clozapine Products Manufacturers’ Group “was not able to incorporate this data into the modified REMS database because of technical reasons. The new REMS contact center will have access to the historical data should a health care provider need the information,” the FDA said.
The FDA could not immediately provide this news organization with more detail on the nature of the “technical reasons” cited as a cause for the new hurdle that prevents clinicians from accessing these previously available data.
In a September letter to the FDA, the coalition pushed back, writing that it is “unreasonable to deny prescribers of this data that they entered. Furthermore, the lack of historical data could result in harm to patients in some circumstances.”
The coalition asked the FDA to intervene and ask the drug’s manufacturers to reinstate prescriber access to the information.
In a response to questions on this issue from this news organization, the FDA said in a written response the historical data had not been lost, but would be maintained “for record-keeping purposes.”
The FDA also said agency officials met on Oct. 10 with members of the professional organizations who authored the letter to hear their concerns about the clozapine REMS program. The CPMG, which has the responsibility for implementing the REMS, was also represented at the meeting, the FDA said.
“Based on concerns raised by stakeholders, the CPMG has recently begun to address some of the concerns raised in the letter including updating the prescriber/prescriber designee relationship and enrollment process to allow for a designee to be affiliated with multiple prescribers,” the FDA told this news organization.
“The recent updates also enable prescriber designees to self-enroll/create credentials, send affiliation requests to prescribers, and attest/perform functions on behalf of prescribers. It is our understanding that the CPMG is disseminating this information to stakeholders,” the agency added.
Bigger burden, bad timing
In an interview, Robert Cotes, MD, who serves as a member of the clinical expert team for Serious Mental Illness Adviser, a joint initiative of the APA and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, said the changes to the clozapine REMS will likely increase the administrative burden on clinicians.
In the letter to the FDA, the APA and other groups in the coalition expressed concern about patient status forms, which are five pages long. The coalition has requested that the FDA develop a form where clinicians can submit monitoring results on multiple patients at one time, with PDF forms presented in a fillable format.
“The concern is that if the workflows become more laborious for people, it could result in treatment interruptions for individuals on clozapine or potentially it may steer prescribers away from using clozapine for people who may need it,” said Dr. Cotes.
Also commenting for this news organization, Raymond C. Love, PharmD, professor and vice chair at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, emphasized the poor timing of the switch to a new clozapine REMS.
“Pharmacies are overloaded right now due to COVID tests and influenza and COVID boosters and COVID vaccinations for kids,” making it a tough time to manage the demands of the clozapine REMS re-enrollment, he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Feds launch COVID-19 worker vaccine mandates
The Biden administration on Nov. 4 unveiled its rule to require most of the country’s larger employers to mandate workers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, but set a Jan. 4 deadline, avoiding the busy holiday season.
The White House also shifted the time lines for earlier mandates applying to federal workers and contractors to Jan. 4. And the same deadline applies to a new separate rule for health care workers.
The new rules are meant to preempt “any inconsistent state or local laws,” including bans and limits on employers’ authority to require vaccination, masks, or testing, the White House said in a statement.
The rule on employers from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will apply to organizations with 100 or more employees. These employers will need to make sure each worker is fully vaccinated or tests for COVID-19 on at least a weekly basis. The OSHA rule will also require that employers provide paid time for employees to get vaccinated and ensure that all unvaccinated workers wear a face mask in the workplace. This rule will cover 84 million employees. The OSHA rule will not apply to workplaces covered by either the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule or the federal contractor vaccination requirement
“The virus will not go away by itself, or because we wish it away: We have to act,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “Vaccination is the single best pathway out of this pandemic.”
Mandates were not the preferred route to managing the pandemic, he said.
“Too many people remain unvaccinated for us to get out of this pandemic for good,” he said. “So I instituted requirements – and they are working.”
The White House said 70% percent of U.S. adults are now fully vaccinated – up from less than 1% when Mr. Biden took office in January.
The CMS vaccine rule is meant to cover more than 17 million workers and about 76,000 medical care sites, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, nursing homes, dialysis facilities, home health agencies, and long-term care facilities. The rule will apply to employees whether their positions involve patient care or not.
Unlike the OSHA mandate, the one for health care workers will not offer the option of frequent COVID-19 testing instead of vaccination. There is a “higher bar” for health care workers, given their role in treating patients, so the mandate allows only for vaccination or limited exemptions, a senior administration official said on Nov. 3 during a call with reporters.
The CMS rule includes a “range of remedies,” including penalties and denial of payment for health care facilities that fail to meet the vaccine mandate. CMS could theoretically cut off hospitals and other medical organizations for failure to comply, but that would be a “last resort,” a senior administration official said. CMS will instead work with health care facilities to help them comply with the federal rule on vaccination of medical workers.
The new CMS rules apply only to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified centers and organizations. The rule does not directly apply to other health care entities, such as doctor’s offices, that are not regulated by CMS.
“Most states have separate licensing requirements for health care staff and health care providers that would be applicable to physician office staff and other staff in small health care entities that are not subject to vaccination requirements under this IFC,” CMS said in the rule.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Biden administration on Nov. 4 unveiled its rule to require most of the country’s larger employers to mandate workers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, but set a Jan. 4 deadline, avoiding the busy holiday season.
The White House also shifted the time lines for earlier mandates applying to federal workers and contractors to Jan. 4. And the same deadline applies to a new separate rule for health care workers.
The new rules are meant to preempt “any inconsistent state or local laws,” including bans and limits on employers’ authority to require vaccination, masks, or testing, the White House said in a statement.
The rule on employers from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will apply to organizations with 100 or more employees. These employers will need to make sure each worker is fully vaccinated or tests for COVID-19 on at least a weekly basis. The OSHA rule will also require that employers provide paid time for employees to get vaccinated and ensure that all unvaccinated workers wear a face mask in the workplace. This rule will cover 84 million employees. The OSHA rule will not apply to workplaces covered by either the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule or the federal contractor vaccination requirement
“The virus will not go away by itself, or because we wish it away: We have to act,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “Vaccination is the single best pathway out of this pandemic.”
Mandates were not the preferred route to managing the pandemic, he said.
“Too many people remain unvaccinated for us to get out of this pandemic for good,” he said. “So I instituted requirements – and they are working.”
The White House said 70% percent of U.S. adults are now fully vaccinated – up from less than 1% when Mr. Biden took office in January.
The CMS vaccine rule is meant to cover more than 17 million workers and about 76,000 medical care sites, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, nursing homes, dialysis facilities, home health agencies, and long-term care facilities. The rule will apply to employees whether their positions involve patient care or not.
Unlike the OSHA mandate, the one for health care workers will not offer the option of frequent COVID-19 testing instead of vaccination. There is a “higher bar” for health care workers, given their role in treating patients, so the mandate allows only for vaccination or limited exemptions, a senior administration official said on Nov. 3 during a call with reporters.
The CMS rule includes a “range of remedies,” including penalties and denial of payment for health care facilities that fail to meet the vaccine mandate. CMS could theoretically cut off hospitals and other medical organizations for failure to comply, but that would be a “last resort,” a senior administration official said. CMS will instead work with health care facilities to help them comply with the federal rule on vaccination of medical workers.
The new CMS rules apply only to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified centers and organizations. The rule does not directly apply to other health care entities, such as doctor’s offices, that are not regulated by CMS.
“Most states have separate licensing requirements for health care staff and health care providers that would be applicable to physician office staff and other staff in small health care entities that are not subject to vaccination requirements under this IFC,” CMS said in the rule.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Biden administration on Nov. 4 unveiled its rule to require most of the country’s larger employers to mandate workers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, but set a Jan. 4 deadline, avoiding the busy holiday season.
The White House also shifted the time lines for earlier mandates applying to federal workers and contractors to Jan. 4. And the same deadline applies to a new separate rule for health care workers.
The new rules are meant to preempt “any inconsistent state or local laws,” including bans and limits on employers’ authority to require vaccination, masks, or testing, the White House said in a statement.
The rule on employers from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will apply to organizations with 100 or more employees. These employers will need to make sure each worker is fully vaccinated or tests for COVID-19 on at least a weekly basis. The OSHA rule will also require that employers provide paid time for employees to get vaccinated and ensure that all unvaccinated workers wear a face mask in the workplace. This rule will cover 84 million employees. The OSHA rule will not apply to workplaces covered by either the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule or the federal contractor vaccination requirement
“The virus will not go away by itself, or because we wish it away: We have to act,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “Vaccination is the single best pathway out of this pandemic.”
Mandates were not the preferred route to managing the pandemic, he said.
“Too many people remain unvaccinated for us to get out of this pandemic for good,” he said. “So I instituted requirements – and they are working.”
The White House said 70% percent of U.S. adults are now fully vaccinated – up from less than 1% when Mr. Biden took office in January.
The CMS vaccine rule is meant to cover more than 17 million workers and about 76,000 medical care sites, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, nursing homes, dialysis facilities, home health agencies, and long-term care facilities. The rule will apply to employees whether their positions involve patient care or not.
Unlike the OSHA mandate, the one for health care workers will not offer the option of frequent COVID-19 testing instead of vaccination. There is a “higher bar” for health care workers, given their role in treating patients, so the mandate allows only for vaccination or limited exemptions, a senior administration official said on Nov. 3 during a call with reporters.
The CMS rule includes a “range of remedies,” including penalties and denial of payment for health care facilities that fail to meet the vaccine mandate. CMS could theoretically cut off hospitals and other medical organizations for failure to comply, but that would be a “last resort,” a senior administration official said. CMS will instead work with health care facilities to help them comply with the federal rule on vaccination of medical workers.
The new CMS rules apply only to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified centers and organizations. The rule does not directly apply to other health care entities, such as doctor’s offices, that are not regulated by CMS.
“Most states have separate licensing requirements for health care staff and health care providers that would be applicable to physician office staff and other staff in small health care entities that are not subject to vaccination requirements under this IFC,” CMS said in the rule.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA posts new websites on accelerated approvals for cancer drugs
, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.
On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:
- Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.
There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.
Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.
In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.
This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.
“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
Excel files, regular updates
For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.
For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.
The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.
The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.
Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.
“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.
The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.
More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.
“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.
However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals.
These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”
This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.
A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.
Six of these withdrawals happened this year.
There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.
Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.
On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:
- Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.
There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.
Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.
In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.
This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.
“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
Excel files, regular updates
For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.
For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.
The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.
The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.
Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.
“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.
The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.
More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.
“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.
However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals.
These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”
This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.
A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.
Six of these withdrawals happened this year.
There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.
Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, including a public list detailing cases where accelerated approvals have been rescinded for lack of evidence.
On Oct. 29, the Food and Drug Administration posted new websites detailing the status of oncology medicines given these special clearances:
- Ongoing | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Verified Clinical Benefit | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
- Withdrawn | Cancer Accelerated Approvals
The FDA’s cancer center also has created a web page called Project Confirm to provide more information on the way it uses accelerated approvals.
There has been increased concern about medicines cleared by accelerated approvals in recent years, culminating in an uproar over the controversial June approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm) for Alzheimer’s disease. This drew more attention to a debate already underway about how much data supports some of the indications for some cancer drugs.
Federal and state officials and advisers are putting more pressure on pharmaceutical companies to prove that medicines that are put on the market through accelerated approval do deliver meaningful benefits for patients.
In addition, earlier this month two of the top health advisers in Barack Obama’s administration proposed a new model through which Medicare could reduce payments for certain cancer drugs cleared through accelerated approvals – and even cut off reimbursements in cases where companies fail to deliver confirmatory evidence for expected benefits.
This “Pay for Drugs That Work Model” was proposed by Richard Frank, PhD, and Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, PhD, in a recent JAMA article. In their view, the FDA’s accelerated drug approval process allows for too many delays in obtaining answers as to whether medicines cleared this way provide expected benefits.
“The proposed Pay for Drugs That Work model could test a modified approach for incentivizing rapid completion of confirmatory trials to inform clinicians and patients about the true risks and benefits of new drugs and improve the value for money of cancer drugs that receive accelerated approval,” they wrote.
Excel files, regular updates
For the FDA, accelerated approvals require balancing an estimated potential benefit for people facing serious diseases (for example, cancer) against serious risks, including potentially exposing patients to costly, toxic drugs that will later be shown not to work for their conditions.
For many years, there has been significant pressure on the FDA to lean toward speedier approvals, with members of Congress, advocacy groups, and drugmakers advocating for broad use of surrogate data in deciding on clearances. The FDA posts biannual reports on its website that highlight how quickly approvals have been granted. But these biannual reports don’t provide much information on the status of accelerated-approval drugs, other than to say if they have been given full approval or withdrawn.
The newly created websites from the FDA’s oncology division appear to reflect growing public interest in knowing what standards the agency sets for confirmatory trials and what deadlines companies face to deliver evidence of significant benefit for their drugs.
The new sortable websites also include details on trials and have links to Excel files which will help researchers and others seeking to track patterns with accelerated approvals. The FDA said in an interview that it intends to update these sites when there are developments with accelerated approvals for cancer drugs, such as new clearances of this type, conversions to regular approvals, and withdrawn approvals.
Julia Beaver, MD, chief of medical oncology at the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, and acting deputy director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described the new websites as part of a “commitment to preserve the integrity” of the accelerated approval program.
“These new web pages will make information on our accelerated approvals more transparent,” Dr. Beaver said in an email to this news organization.
The FDA has been able to speed many medicines to market and clear additional uses for drugs already sold through the program, giving people earlier access in many cases to critical medicines, Dr. Beaver said.
More than 165 oncology indications have received accelerated approval, with almost half converted to regular approval in a median of 3 years. Less than 10% of these indications were withdrawn, Dr. Beaver said.
“Of those accelerated approvals that were converted to regular approval, many demonstrated survival advantages to patients with several types of cancer or provided meaningful therapeutic options where none previously existed,” she said.
However, Dr. Beaver also has made public the FDA’s concerns with what she and Richard Pazdur, MD, director of the Oncology Center of Excellence, have described as “dangling” accelerated approvals.
These are cases where the required trials did not end up confirming benefit for a medicine, yet the manufacturer did not move to withdraw an accelerated approval. The FDA’s cancer center has already announced that it is doing an “industry-wide evaluation of accelerated approvals in oncology in which confirmatory trials did not confirm clinical benefit.”
This stems in part from what can be called the FDA’s “growing pains” in its efforts to manage the rapidly changing landscape for these immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors. This field of medicine has experienced an “unprecedented level of drug development” in recent years, FDA officials said in briefing materials for an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) meeting last April on dangling accelerated approvals.
A newly posted chart on withdrawn oncology accelerated approvals, posted by the FDA’s cancer division, makes it clear that the pace of these rescinded clearances has picked up. The chart lists a total 14 withdrawn indications of oncology accelerated approvals.
Six of these withdrawals happened this year.
There were two withdrawals in 2020, including the December withdrawal of nivolumab, (Opdivo) for a form of metastatic lung cancer.
Then there was a significant gap, with no withdrawals going back to 2013 (when there was one). There were two withdrawals in 2012 and three in 2011.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves avacopan for rare ANCA autoimmune disease
U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.
ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).
This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.
The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.
The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.
Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.
In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”
“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.
In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”
“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.
Previous FDA concerns
In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”
Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.
ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.
On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.
ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.
ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).
This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.
The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.
The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.
Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.
In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”
“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.
In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”
“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.
Previous FDA concerns
In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”
Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.
ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.
On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.
ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.
ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).
This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.
The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.
The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.
Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.
In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”
“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.
In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”
“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.
Previous FDA concerns
In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”
Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.
ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.
On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.
ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Zero benefit of aducanumab for Alzheimer’s disease, expert panel rules
adding to growing opposition from medical experts to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of this controversial drug.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review asked one of its expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, to consider the available data about aducanumab and requested that members vote on whether there was sufficient evidence of a net benefit of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone. All 15 panelists voted no.
Several panelists, including ICER President Steven D. Pearson, MD, talked about their personal experience with family members who have the disease.
There was universal agreement among the panelists that there is an urgent need for effective medications to treat the disease. However, the panel of clinicians and researchers also agreed that the evidence to date does not show that the drug helps patients with this debilitating disease.
Panelist Sei Lee, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said he lost his mother to AD 6 years ago. In addition to his clinical work, Dr. Lee has conducted research focused on improving the targeting of preventive AD interventions for older adults to maximize benefits and minimize harms.
Dr. Lee said he frequently felt completely overwhelmed by the challenges of his mother’s disease.
“I absolutely hear everyone who is saying we need an effective therapy for this,” Dr. Lee said.
Dr. Lee added that, as an experienced researcher who has weighed the aducanumab data, he saw no clear proof of a benefit that would outweigh the drug’s documented side effects in the two phase 3 trials of the drug. Those side effects include temporary brain swelling. Dr. Lee suggested that Biogen do more to address concerns about this side effect, saying it should not be ignored.
“There’s clearly substantial uncertainty” about aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “If I had to guess, I think the data is stronger for net harm than it is for that benefit.”
Questions persist about the data Biogen used in support of aducanumab after announcing that the drug had failed in a dual-track phase 3 program.
In March 2019, it was announced that two phase 3 clinical trials, EMERGE and ENGAGE, were scrapped because of disappointing results. The trials were intended to show that aducanumab could slow progression of cognitive and functional impairment, as measured by changes in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB).
However, in October 2019, there was an about-face – Biogen announced that, in one of the studies, there were positive findings for a subset of patients who received a higher dose of aducanumab.
No treatment benefit was observed in either the high- or low-dose arms at week 78 in the ENGAGE trial. In the EMERGE trial, however, there was a statistically significant difference in change from baseline in CDR-SB score in the high-dose arm (difference vs. placebo, –0.39; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.09) but not in the low-dose arm, ICER noted in a draft report.
Still, there are questions about whether this difference would translate into clinical benefit. “Although statistically significant, the change in CDR-SB score in the high-dose group was less than the 1- to 2-point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” ICER staff wrote.
More push back
Other influential organizations also remain skeptical.
On July 14, the Cleveland Clinic announced it would not use aducanumab at this time, following a staff review of the evidence. Physicians from the clinic could prescribe it to appropriate patients, who would receive their infusions at external facilities, a spokeswoman for the clinic told this news organization. The Cleveland Clinic said it will reevaluate this position as additional data become available.
In addition, as reported by the New York Times, the Mount Sinai Health System in New York also decided not to administer the drug.
The drug received accelerated approval from the FDA. That approval was conditional upon Biogen’s conducting further research by 2030 that demonstrates that the drug has clinical benefit.
On July 14, the executive committee of the American Neurological Association issued a statement asking for a speedier timeline.
The FDA should ensure that Biogen completes the required confirmatory study “as soon as possible, preferably within 3 years, to confirm or not whether clinical efficacy is observed,” the ANA executive committee wrote in the letter.
The ANA executive committee also criticized the FDA’s decision to allow Biogen to begin sales of the drug. In light of the clinical evidence available at this time, aducanumab “should not have been approved” in the first place, the ANA executive committee stated.
drawing from the discussion at the meeting and the panel’s votes. The work of the Boston-based group is used by private insurers to inform medication coverage decisions.
Lawmakers have taken an interest in aducanumab. On July 12, two top Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives released a letter that they had sent to Biogen as part of their investigation into how the FDA handled the aducanumab approval and Biogen’s pricing for the drug.
In the letter, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) wrote that they had “significant questions about the drug’s clinical benefit, and the steep $56,000 annual price tag.”
At the ICER meeting on July 15, Dr. Lee said patients with AD and their caregivers would benefit more from increased spending on supportive services, such as home health care.
“There’s so many things we could do” with money that Biogen may get for aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “To spend it on a medication that is more likely to do more harm than help seems really ill advised.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
adding to growing opposition from medical experts to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of this controversial drug.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review asked one of its expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, to consider the available data about aducanumab and requested that members vote on whether there was sufficient evidence of a net benefit of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone. All 15 panelists voted no.
Several panelists, including ICER President Steven D. Pearson, MD, talked about their personal experience with family members who have the disease.
There was universal agreement among the panelists that there is an urgent need for effective medications to treat the disease. However, the panel of clinicians and researchers also agreed that the evidence to date does not show that the drug helps patients with this debilitating disease.
Panelist Sei Lee, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said he lost his mother to AD 6 years ago. In addition to his clinical work, Dr. Lee has conducted research focused on improving the targeting of preventive AD interventions for older adults to maximize benefits and minimize harms.
Dr. Lee said he frequently felt completely overwhelmed by the challenges of his mother’s disease.
“I absolutely hear everyone who is saying we need an effective therapy for this,” Dr. Lee said.
Dr. Lee added that, as an experienced researcher who has weighed the aducanumab data, he saw no clear proof of a benefit that would outweigh the drug’s documented side effects in the two phase 3 trials of the drug. Those side effects include temporary brain swelling. Dr. Lee suggested that Biogen do more to address concerns about this side effect, saying it should not be ignored.
“There’s clearly substantial uncertainty” about aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “If I had to guess, I think the data is stronger for net harm than it is for that benefit.”
Questions persist about the data Biogen used in support of aducanumab after announcing that the drug had failed in a dual-track phase 3 program.
In March 2019, it was announced that two phase 3 clinical trials, EMERGE and ENGAGE, were scrapped because of disappointing results. The trials were intended to show that aducanumab could slow progression of cognitive and functional impairment, as measured by changes in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB).
However, in October 2019, there was an about-face – Biogen announced that, in one of the studies, there were positive findings for a subset of patients who received a higher dose of aducanumab.
No treatment benefit was observed in either the high- or low-dose arms at week 78 in the ENGAGE trial. In the EMERGE trial, however, there was a statistically significant difference in change from baseline in CDR-SB score in the high-dose arm (difference vs. placebo, –0.39; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.09) but not in the low-dose arm, ICER noted in a draft report.
Still, there are questions about whether this difference would translate into clinical benefit. “Although statistically significant, the change in CDR-SB score in the high-dose group was less than the 1- to 2-point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” ICER staff wrote.
More push back
Other influential organizations also remain skeptical.
On July 14, the Cleveland Clinic announced it would not use aducanumab at this time, following a staff review of the evidence. Physicians from the clinic could prescribe it to appropriate patients, who would receive their infusions at external facilities, a spokeswoman for the clinic told this news organization. The Cleveland Clinic said it will reevaluate this position as additional data become available.
In addition, as reported by the New York Times, the Mount Sinai Health System in New York also decided not to administer the drug.
The drug received accelerated approval from the FDA. That approval was conditional upon Biogen’s conducting further research by 2030 that demonstrates that the drug has clinical benefit.
On July 14, the executive committee of the American Neurological Association issued a statement asking for a speedier timeline.
The FDA should ensure that Biogen completes the required confirmatory study “as soon as possible, preferably within 3 years, to confirm or not whether clinical efficacy is observed,” the ANA executive committee wrote in the letter.
The ANA executive committee also criticized the FDA’s decision to allow Biogen to begin sales of the drug. In light of the clinical evidence available at this time, aducanumab “should not have been approved” in the first place, the ANA executive committee stated.
drawing from the discussion at the meeting and the panel’s votes. The work of the Boston-based group is used by private insurers to inform medication coverage decisions.
Lawmakers have taken an interest in aducanumab. On July 12, two top Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives released a letter that they had sent to Biogen as part of their investigation into how the FDA handled the aducanumab approval and Biogen’s pricing for the drug.
In the letter, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) wrote that they had “significant questions about the drug’s clinical benefit, and the steep $56,000 annual price tag.”
At the ICER meeting on July 15, Dr. Lee said patients with AD and their caregivers would benefit more from increased spending on supportive services, such as home health care.
“There’s so many things we could do” with money that Biogen may get for aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “To spend it on a medication that is more likely to do more harm than help seems really ill advised.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
adding to growing opposition from medical experts to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of this controversial drug.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review asked one of its expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, to consider the available data about aducanumab and requested that members vote on whether there was sufficient evidence of a net benefit of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone. All 15 panelists voted no.
Several panelists, including ICER President Steven D. Pearson, MD, talked about their personal experience with family members who have the disease.
There was universal agreement among the panelists that there is an urgent need for effective medications to treat the disease. However, the panel of clinicians and researchers also agreed that the evidence to date does not show that the drug helps patients with this debilitating disease.
Panelist Sei Lee, MD, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, said he lost his mother to AD 6 years ago. In addition to his clinical work, Dr. Lee has conducted research focused on improving the targeting of preventive AD interventions for older adults to maximize benefits and minimize harms.
Dr. Lee said he frequently felt completely overwhelmed by the challenges of his mother’s disease.
“I absolutely hear everyone who is saying we need an effective therapy for this,” Dr. Lee said.
Dr. Lee added that, as an experienced researcher who has weighed the aducanumab data, he saw no clear proof of a benefit that would outweigh the drug’s documented side effects in the two phase 3 trials of the drug. Those side effects include temporary brain swelling. Dr. Lee suggested that Biogen do more to address concerns about this side effect, saying it should not be ignored.
“There’s clearly substantial uncertainty” about aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “If I had to guess, I think the data is stronger for net harm than it is for that benefit.”
Questions persist about the data Biogen used in support of aducanumab after announcing that the drug had failed in a dual-track phase 3 program.
In March 2019, it was announced that two phase 3 clinical trials, EMERGE and ENGAGE, were scrapped because of disappointing results. The trials were intended to show that aducanumab could slow progression of cognitive and functional impairment, as measured by changes in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB).
However, in October 2019, there was an about-face – Biogen announced that, in one of the studies, there were positive findings for a subset of patients who received a higher dose of aducanumab.
No treatment benefit was observed in either the high- or low-dose arms at week 78 in the ENGAGE trial. In the EMERGE trial, however, there was a statistically significant difference in change from baseline in CDR-SB score in the high-dose arm (difference vs. placebo, –0.39; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.09) but not in the low-dose arm, ICER noted in a draft report.
Still, there are questions about whether this difference would translate into clinical benefit. “Although statistically significant, the change in CDR-SB score in the high-dose group was less than the 1- to 2-point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” ICER staff wrote.
More push back
Other influential organizations also remain skeptical.
On July 14, the Cleveland Clinic announced it would not use aducanumab at this time, following a staff review of the evidence. Physicians from the clinic could prescribe it to appropriate patients, who would receive their infusions at external facilities, a spokeswoman for the clinic told this news organization. The Cleveland Clinic said it will reevaluate this position as additional data become available.
In addition, as reported by the New York Times, the Mount Sinai Health System in New York also decided not to administer the drug.
The drug received accelerated approval from the FDA. That approval was conditional upon Biogen’s conducting further research by 2030 that demonstrates that the drug has clinical benefit.
On July 14, the executive committee of the American Neurological Association issued a statement asking for a speedier timeline.
The FDA should ensure that Biogen completes the required confirmatory study “as soon as possible, preferably within 3 years, to confirm or not whether clinical efficacy is observed,” the ANA executive committee wrote in the letter.
The ANA executive committee also criticized the FDA’s decision to allow Biogen to begin sales of the drug. In light of the clinical evidence available at this time, aducanumab “should not have been approved” in the first place, the ANA executive committee stated.
drawing from the discussion at the meeting and the panel’s votes. The work of the Boston-based group is used by private insurers to inform medication coverage decisions.
Lawmakers have taken an interest in aducanumab. On July 12, two top Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives released a letter that they had sent to Biogen as part of their investigation into how the FDA handled the aducanumab approval and Biogen’s pricing for the drug.
In the letter, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) wrote that they had “significant questions about the drug’s clinical benefit, and the steep $56,000 annual price tag.”
At the ICER meeting on July 15, Dr. Lee said patients with AD and their caregivers would benefit more from increased spending on supportive services, such as home health care.
“There’s so many things we could do” with money that Biogen may get for aducanumab, Dr. Lee said. “To spend it on a medication that is more likely to do more harm than help seems really ill advised.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Contentious Alzheimer’s drug likely to get national coverage plan, CMS says
On July 12, a process that will take until next year to complete.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said it will accept public comments about how Medicare should cover aducanumab through Aug. 11. The agency intends to post a draft decision memo on its coverage approach by Jan. 12, 2022, and then finalize this policy by April 12. Coverage decisions about aducanumab now are being made at the local level by Medicare’s administrative contractors, CMS said in a press release.
The announcement followed separate public calls for such a review by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Alzheimer’s Association.
On June 30, AHIP submitted a formal request to the CMS. In it, AHIP requests that CMS take “swift action” on a national coverage determination for aducanumab. In the request, the organization specifically urged CMS to use a policy known as coverage with evidence development (CED) for Aduhelm.
This CED approach would allow access for patients considered most likely to benefit from the drug while Biogen continues research needed to definitively show its clinical benefit, said AHIP chief executive Matt Eyles.
In June, the Food and Drug Administration approved aducanumab based on data suggesting the drug might slow AD progression using the surrogate marker of a reduction in amyloid plaque.
The FDA’s accelerated approval letter set a 2030 deadline for Biogen to produce evidence from a phase 3 clinical trial definitively proving the drug’s efficacy.
Hefty price tag
Even if Biogen meets the FDA’s deadline, patients with AD, their families, clinicians, and insurers likely will wrestle for years with questions about whether to use this costly drug without clear evidence of benefit. The drug is estimated to cost $56,000 per year.
In addition, patients taking the drug will be required to undergo MRI scans to monitor for brain swelling or bleeding, complications that were experienced by those participating in previous studies of the drug, Mr. Eyles noted in his letter to CMS, which AHIP provided to this news organization.
About 80% of those eligible for aducanumab in the United States are enrolled in Medicare, write James D. Chambers, PhD, MPharm, Tufts University, Boston, and coauthors in a June article in the journal Health Affairs. Like AHIP, these authors also recommended CMS consider the CED path for the drug.
CMS has used the CED approach since 2003 to evaluate interventions such as amyloid PET for clinical evaluation of AD to implantable cardioverter defibrillators.
Applying CED to aducanumab “would provide the medical community, patients, caregivers, and payers with additional information long before the FDA’s required postapproval studies are completed,” Dr. Chambers and coauthors wrote. “It would also ensure that data on every patient treated would add to the knowledge base about how aducanumab impacts patient outcomes such as cognition, function, and quality of life.”
In the AHIP request to CMS, Mr. Eyles also noted that an independent review organization, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, said the evidence from studies done to date on aducanumab is “insufficient” to show a net health benefit for patients with mild cognitive impairment because of AD or mild AD.
At the ICER meeting, which will take place July 15, one of ICER’s expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, said it will further consider all of the available scientific data on aducanumab and vote on a series of questions about its efficacy and value.
ICER’s reports have clout because insurers use its recommendations to help determine how to cover drugs and medical treatments. Among the questions ICER has posted online ahead of the meeting is one about the relative effects of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone.
‘Dark irony’
Even as the medical community waits for Biogen to present clear evidence of a benefit for aducanumab, clinics specializing in AD may get a financial boost, said Jason Karlawish, MD, professor of medicine, medical ethics, health policy, and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and codirector of Penn’s Memory Center.
Some clinicians see the arrival of the drug as a “win” for the field despite lingering concerns about its approval, said Dr. Karlawish at a panel discussion held July 12 by the nonprofit Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute. Dr. Karlawish is a fellow at Hastings.
In May, Dr. Karlawish published an article in STAT titled “If the FDA approves Biogen’s Alzheimer’s treatment, I won’t prescribe it.” Dr. Karlawish told this news organization that he was a site investigator for Biogen studies of aducanumab and has worked on studies sponsored by Lilly and Eisai.
During the discussion July 12, Dr. Karlawish said he had altered his view and now might be a “reluctant prescriber.” This shift is because of his commitment “to preserve, protect and defend their autonomy” of patients with AD.
He also noted the drug could draw more money into the field to help care for patients with AD by providing increased access to diagnostics. Additionally, funds provided to clinics for administering aducanumab will aid specialty memory centers, “which have been basically impoverished since their creation,” Dr. Karlawish said.
“There is a dark irony that it takes a questionably beneficial drug to bring in the revenue to finally get memory centers up and functioning,” Dr. Karlawish said, adding that there needs to be “a larger conversation about how a big, vast, and problematic disease is being treated.”
Aducanumab’s approval shows that diseases in the U.S. are not fully considered as diseases until they have “a business model, and much of that business model relies on the pharmaceutical industry,” he noted.
Dr. Woodcock’s ‘personal commitment’
In early July, the FDA took two highly publicized steps to address criticism of its handling of the aducanumab approval. It revised the drug’s label to limit its use to patients with mild cognitive impairment likely related to AD or those in the mild stages of the disease.
In addition, Janet Woodcock, MD, the FDA’s acting commissioner, took to Twitter and posted a letter she sent to the Office of the Inspector General that called for a federal investigation into the drug’s approval that would examine agency staff interactions with Biogen.
AHIP spokesperson Kristine Grow said July 12 that her organization is still seeking a national Medicare coverage decision, but that the label revision was a “step in the right direction.”
“Patients with Alzheimer’s disease, and their families and caregivers, deserve safe, effective treatments. We applaud the FDA for this label adjustment, which brings indicated patients a bit closer to those included in clinical trials,” Ms. Grow said in an interview.
“At the same time, we remain concerned about the limited clinical evidence demonstrating efficacy and the serious safety risks that aducanumab poses for patients. We look forward to additional information from the FDA and other regulators, including CMS’ coverage guidance for patients who are Medicare eligible,” she added.
The controversy surrounding the approval of aducanumab is drawing more attention to the lack of a confirmed FDA commissioner. But in her letter to OIG, Dr. Woodcock wrote as if she intends to remain at the helm of the agency for at least a while longer. She wrote in her letter that OIG has her “personal commitment” that the FDA will fully cooperate if the investigative unit decides to undertake a review.
Dr. Woodcock also urged that a review be conducted as soon as possible, noting “should such a review result in actionable items, you also have my commitment to addressing these issues.”
A former FDA adviser who resigned over the agency’s handling of aducanumab said July 12 there needs to be a broader investigation of the FDA’s actions.
Attending the Hastings Center event was Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, one of three former members of an FDA advisory committee who resigned over the agency’s handling of aducanumab. Dr. Kesselheim said in an interview that he has no financial relationships to disclose in connection with this discussion.
“I would suggest that instead all aspects of this approval process should be investigated,” Dr. Kesselheim said, including the relationship between FDA and Biogen.
Dr. Karlawish said he was also concerned that Dr. Woodcock’s request for an investigation was “very narrow,” and noted members of Congress have said they are examining the FDA’s handling of this drug.
In a July 9 joint statement, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.), and House Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said they were “pleased” by Dr. Woodcock’s announcement, but they will keep digging into ongoing questions about the drug. In their view, the OIG review of FDA staff interactions with Biogen officials would complement their committees’ “robust investigation of this matter.”
“We continue to have concerns about the approval process for Aduhelm, how Biogen set its price, and the implications for seniors, providers, and taxpayers,” Mr. Pallone and Ms. Maloney added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On July 12, a process that will take until next year to complete.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said it will accept public comments about how Medicare should cover aducanumab through Aug. 11. The agency intends to post a draft decision memo on its coverage approach by Jan. 12, 2022, and then finalize this policy by April 12. Coverage decisions about aducanumab now are being made at the local level by Medicare’s administrative contractors, CMS said in a press release.
The announcement followed separate public calls for such a review by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Alzheimer’s Association.
On June 30, AHIP submitted a formal request to the CMS. In it, AHIP requests that CMS take “swift action” on a national coverage determination for aducanumab. In the request, the organization specifically urged CMS to use a policy known as coverage with evidence development (CED) for Aduhelm.
This CED approach would allow access for patients considered most likely to benefit from the drug while Biogen continues research needed to definitively show its clinical benefit, said AHIP chief executive Matt Eyles.
In June, the Food and Drug Administration approved aducanumab based on data suggesting the drug might slow AD progression using the surrogate marker of a reduction in amyloid plaque.
The FDA’s accelerated approval letter set a 2030 deadline for Biogen to produce evidence from a phase 3 clinical trial definitively proving the drug’s efficacy.
Hefty price tag
Even if Biogen meets the FDA’s deadline, patients with AD, their families, clinicians, and insurers likely will wrestle for years with questions about whether to use this costly drug without clear evidence of benefit. The drug is estimated to cost $56,000 per year.
In addition, patients taking the drug will be required to undergo MRI scans to monitor for brain swelling or bleeding, complications that were experienced by those participating in previous studies of the drug, Mr. Eyles noted in his letter to CMS, which AHIP provided to this news organization.
About 80% of those eligible for aducanumab in the United States are enrolled in Medicare, write James D. Chambers, PhD, MPharm, Tufts University, Boston, and coauthors in a June article in the journal Health Affairs. Like AHIP, these authors also recommended CMS consider the CED path for the drug.
CMS has used the CED approach since 2003 to evaluate interventions such as amyloid PET for clinical evaluation of AD to implantable cardioverter defibrillators.
Applying CED to aducanumab “would provide the medical community, patients, caregivers, and payers with additional information long before the FDA’s required postapproval studies are completed,” Dr. Chambers and coauthors wrote. “It would also ensure that data on every patient treated would add to the knowledge base about how aducanumab impacts patient outcomes such as cognition, function, and quality of life.”
In the AHIP request to CMS, Mr. Eyles also noted that an independent review organization, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, said the evidence from studies done to date on aducanumab is “insufficient” to show a net health benefit for patients with mild cognitive impairment because of AD or mild AD.
At the ICER meeting, which will take place July 15, one of ICER’s expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, said it will further consider all of the available scientific data on aducanumab and vote on a series of questions about its efficacy and value.
ICER’s reports have clout because insurers use its recommendations to help determine how to cover drugs and medical treatments. Among the questions ICER has posted online ahead of the meeting is one about the relative effects of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone.
‘Dark irony’
Even as the medical community waits for Biogen to present clear evidence of a benefit for aducanumab, clinics specializing in AD may get a financial boost, said Jason Karlawish, MD, professor of medicine, medical ethics, health policy, and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and codirector of Penn’s Memory Center.
Some clinicians see the arrival of the drug as a “win” for the field despite lingering concerns about its approval, said Dr. Karlawish at a panel discussion held July 12 by the nonprofit Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute. Dr. Karlawish is a fellow at Hastings.
In May, Dr. Karlawish published an article in STAT titled “If the FDA approves Biogen’s Alzheimer’s treatment, I won’t prescribe it.” Dr. Karlawish told this news organization that he was a site investigator for Biogen studies of aducanumab and has worked on studies sponsored by Lilly and Eisai.
During the discussion July 12, Dr. Karlawish said he had altered his view and now might be a “reluctant prescriber.” This shift is because of his commitment “to preserve, protect and defend their autonomy” of patients with AD.
He also noted the drug could draw more money into the field to help care for patients with AD by providing increased access to diagnostics. Additionally, funds provided to clinics for administering aducanumab will aid specialty memory centers, “which have been basically impoverished since their creation,” Dr. Karlawish said.
“There is a dark irony that it takes a questionably beneficial drug to bring in the revenue to finally get memory centers up and functioning,” Dr. Karlawish said, adding that there needs to be “a larger conversation about how a big, vast, and problematic disease is being treated.”
Aducanumab’s approval shows that diseases in the U.S. are not fully considered as diseases until they have “a business model, and much of that business model relies on the pharmaceutical industry,” he noted.
Dr. Woodcock’s ‘personal commitment’
In early July, the FDA took two highly publicized steps to address criticism of its handling of the aducanumab approval. It revised the drug’s label to limit its use to patients with mild cognitive impairment likely related to AD or those in the mild stages of the disease.
In addition, Janet Woodcock, MD, the FDA’s acting commissioner, took to Twitter and posted a letter she sent to the Office of the Inspector General that called for a federal investigation into the drug’s approval that would examine agency staff interactions with Biogen.
AHIP spokesperson Kristine Grow said July 12 that her organization is still seeking a national Medicare coverage decision, but that the label revision was a “step in the right direction.”
“Patients with Alzheimer’s disease, and their families and caregivers, deserve safe, effective treatments. We applaud the FDA for this label adjustment, which brings indicated patients a bit closer to those included in clinical trials,” Ms. Grow said in an interview.
“At the same time, we remain concerned about the limited clinical evidence demonstrating efficacy and the serious safety risks that aducanumab poses for patients. We look forward to additional information from the FDA and other regulators, including CMS’ coverage guidance for patients who are Medicare eligible,” she added.
The controversy surrounding the approval of aducanumab is drawing more attention to the lack of a confirmed FDA commissioner. But in her letter to OIG, Dr. Woodcock wrote as if she intends to remain at the helm of the agency for at least a while longer. She wrote in her letter that OIG has her “personal commitment” that the FDA will fully cooperate if the investigative unit decides to undertake a review.
Dr. Woodcock also urged that a review be conducted as soon as possible, noting “should such a review result in actionable items, you also have my commitment to addressing these issues.”
A former FDA adviser who resigned over the agency’s handling of aducanumab said July 12 there needs to be a broader investigation of the FDA’s actions.
Attending the Hastings Center event was Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, one of three former members of an FDA advisory committee who resigned over the agency’s handling of aducanumab. Dr. Kesselheim said in an interview that he has no financial relationships to disclose in connection with this discussion.
“I would suggest that instead all aspects of this approval process should be investigated,” Dr. Kesselheim said, including the relationship between FDA and Biogen.
Dr. Karlawish said he was also concerned that Dr. Woodcock’s request for an investigation was “very narrow,” and noted members of Congress have said they are examining the FDA’s handling of this drug.
In a July 9 joint statement, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.), and House Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said they were “pleased” by Dr. Woodcock’s announcement, but they will keep digging into ongoing questions about the drug. In their view, the OIG review of FDA staff interactions with Biogen officials would complement their committees’ “robust investigation of this matter.”
“We continue to have concerns about the approval process for Aduhelm, how Biogen set its price, and the implications for seniors, providers, and taxpayers,” Mr. Pallone and Ms. Maloney added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On July 12, a process that will take until next year to complete.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said it will accept public comments about how Medicare should cover aducanumab through Aug. 11. The agency intends to post a draft decision memo on its coverage approach by Jan. 12, 2022, and then finalize this policy by April 12. Coverage decisions about aducanumab now are being made at the local level by Medicare’s administrative contractors, CMS said in a press release.
The announcement followed separate public calls for such a review by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Alzheimer’s Association.
On June 30, AHIP submitted a formal request to the CMS. In it, AHIP requests that CMS take “swift action” on a national coverage determination for aducanumab. In the request, the organization specifically urged CMS to use a policy known as coverage with evidence development (CED) for Aduhelm.
This CED approach would allow access for patients considered most likely to benefit from the drug while Biogen continues research needed to definitively show its clinical benefit, said AHIP chief executive Matt Eyles.
In June, the Food and Drug Administration approved aducanumab based on data suggesting the drug might slow AD progression using the surrogate marker of a reduction in amyloid plaque.
The FDA’s accelerated approval letter set a 2030 deadline for Biogen to produce evidence from a phase 3 clinical trial definitively proving the drug’s efficacy.
Hefty price tag
Even if Biogen meets the FDA’s deadline, patients with AD, their families, clinicians, and insurers likely will wrestle for years with questions about whether to use this costly drug without clear evidence of benefit. The drug is estimated to cost $56,000 per year.
In addition, patients taking the drug will be required to undergo MRI scans to monitor for brain swelling or bleeding, complications that were experienced by those participating in previous studies of the drug, Mr. Eyles noted in his letter to CMS, which AHIP provided to this news organization.
About 80% of those eligible for aducanumab in the United States are enrolled in Medicare, write James D. Chambers, PhD, MPharm, Tufts University, Boston, and coauthors in a June article in the journal Health Affairs. Like AHIP, these authors also recommended CMS consider the CED path for the drug.
CMS has used the CED approach since 2003 to evaluate interventions such as amyloid PET for clinical evaluation of AD to implantable cardioverter defibrillators.
Applying CED to aducanumab “would provide the medical community, patients, caregivers, and payers with additional information long before the FDA’s required postapproval studies are completed,” Dr. Chambers and coauthors wrote. “It would also ensure that data on every patient treated would add to the knowledge base about how aducanumab impacts patient outcomes such as cognition, function, and quality of life.”
In the AHIP request to CMS, Mr. Eyles also noted that an independent review organization, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, said the evidence from studies done to date on aducanumab is “insufficient” to show a net health benefit for patients with mild cognitive impairment because of AD or mild AD.
At the ICER meeting, which will take place July 15, one of ICER’s expert panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum, said it will further consider all of the available scientific data on aducanumab and vote on a series of questions about its efficacy and value.
ICER’s reports have clout because insurers use its recommendations to help determine how to cover drugs and medical treatments. Among the questions ICER has posted online ahead of the meeting is one about the relative effects of aducanumab plus supportive care versus supportive care alone.
‘Dark irony’
Even as the medical community waits for Biogen to present clear evidence of a benefit for aducanumab, clinics specializing in AD may get a financial boost, said Jason Karlawish, MD, professor of medicine, medical ethics, health policy, and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and codirector of Penn’s Memory Center.
Some clinicians see the arrival of the drug as a “win” for the field despite lingering concerns about its approval, said Dr. Karlawish at a panel discussion held July 12 by the nonprofit Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute. Dr. Karlawish is a fellow at Hastings.
In May, Dr. Karlawish published an article in STAT titled “If the FDA approves Biogen’s Alzheimer’s treatment, I won’t prescribe it.” Dr. Karlawish told this news organization that he was a site investigator for Biogen studies of aducanumab and has worked on studies sponsored by Lilly and Eisai.
During the discussion July 12, Dr. Karlawish said he had altered his view and now might be a “reluctant prescriber.” This shift is because of his commitment “to preserve, protect and defend their autonomy” of patients with AD.
He also noted the drug could draw more money into the field to help care for patients with AD by providing increased access to diagnostics. Additionally, funds provided to clinics for administering aducanumab will aid specialty memory centers, “which have been basically impoverished since their creation,” Dr. Karlawish said.
“There is a dark irony that it takes a questionably beneficial drug to bring in the revenue to finally get memory centers up and functioning,” Dr. Karlawish said, adding that there needs to be “a larger conversation about how a big, vast, and problematic disease is being treated.”
Aducanumab’s approval shows that diseases in the U.S. are not fully considered as diseases until they have “a business model, and much of that business model relies on the pharmaceutical industry,” he noted.
Dr. Woodcock’s ‘personal commitment’
In early July, the FDA took two highly publicized steps to address criticism of its handling of the aducanumab approval. It revised the drug’s label to limit its use to patients with mild cognitive impairment likely related to AD or those in the mild stages of the disease.
In addition, Janet Woodcock, MD, the FDA’s acting commissioner, took to Twitter and posted a letter she sent to the Office of the Inspector General that called for a federal investigation into the drug’s approval that would examine agency staff interactions with Biogen.
AHIP spokesperson Kristine Grow said July 12 that her organization is still seeking a national Medicare coverage decision, but that the label revision was a “step in the right direction.”
“Patients with Alzheimer’s disease, and their families and caregivers, deserve safe, effective treatments. We applaud the FDA for this label adjustment, which brings indicated patients a bit closer to those included in clinical trials,” Ms. Grow said in an interview.
“At the same time, we remain concerned about the limited clinical evidence demonstrating efficacy and the serious safety risks that aducanumab poses for patients. We look forward to additional information from the FDA and other regulators, including CMS’ coverage guidance for patients who are Medicare eligible,” she added.
The controversy surrounding the approval of aducanumab is drawing more attention to the lack of a confirmed FDA commissioner. But in her letter to OIG, Dr. Woodcock wrote as if she intends to remain at the helm of the agency for at least a while longer. She wrote in her letter that OIG has her “personal commitment” that the FDA will fully cooperate if the investigative unit decides to undertake a review.
Dr. Woodcock also urged that a review be conducted as soon as possible, noting “should such a review result in actionable items, you also have my commitment to addressing these issues.”
A former FDA adviser who resigned over the agency’s handling of aducanumab said July 12 there needs to be a broader investigation of the FDA’s actions.
Attending the Hastings Center event was Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, one of three former members of an FDA advisory committee who resigned over the agency’s handling of aducanumab. Dr. Kesselheim said in an interview that he has no financial relationships to disclose in connection with this discussion.
“I would suggest that instead all aspects of this approval process should be investigated,” Dr. Kesselheim said, including the relationship between FDA and Biogen.
Dr. Karlawish said he was also concerned that Dr. Woodcock’s request for an investigation was “very narrow,” and noted members of Congress have said they are examining the FDA’s handling of this drug.
In a July 9 joint statement, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.), and House Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said they were “pleased” by Dr. Woodcock’s announcement, but they will keep digging into ongoing questions about the drug. In their view, the OIG review of FDA staff interactions with Biogen officials would complement their committees’ “robust investigation of this matter.”
“We continue to have concerns about the approval process for Aduhelm, how Biogen set its price, and the implications for seniors, providers, and taxpayers,” Mr. Pallone and Ms. Maloney added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.