You cannot select more than 25 topics
Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
179 lines
8.6 KiB
TeX
179 lines
8.6 KiB
TeX
\documentclass[../Main.tex]{subfiles}
|
|
\graphicspath{{\subfix{Assets/img/}}}
|
|
|
|
\begin{document}
|
|
|
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% What do we know about clinical trials?
|
|
\subsection{What do we know about clinical trials and their success rates?}
|
|
|
|
Most studies of clinical trials attempt to model only those trials
|
|
which are involved in the drug approval process.
|
|
For example,
|
|
|
|
% Hwang, Carpenter, Lauffenburger, et al (2016)
|
|
% - Why do investigational new drugs fail during late stage trials?
|
|
\cite{hwang_failure_2016}
|
|
investigated causes for which late stage (Phase III)
|
|
clinical trials fail across the USA, Europe, Japan, Canada, and Australia.
|
|
They found that for late stage trials that did not go on to recieve approval,
|
|
57\% failed on efficacy grounds, 17\% failed on safety grounds, and 22\% failed
|
|
on commercial or other grounds.
|
|
|
|
% Abrantes-Metz, Adams, Metz (2004)
|
|
% - What correlates with successfully passing clinical trials and FDA review?
|
|
% -
|
|
\cite{abrantes-metz_pharmaceutical_2004}
|
|
described the relationship between
|
|
various drug characteristics and how the drug progressed through clinical trials.
|
|
This descriptive estimate used a
|
|
mixed state proportional hazard model and estimated the impact of
|
|
observed characteristics in each of the three phases.
|
|
They found that as trials last longer, the rate of failure increases for
|
|
Phase I and II trials, while Phase 3 trials generally have a higher rate of
|
|
success than failure after 91 months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\cite{hay_ClinicalDevelopment_2014} tracks clinical trials based on
|
|
the number of indications studied.
|
|
They find that, for given indication, only 10.4\% of all novel drug development paths
|
|
studied in a phase I trial are ultimately approved by the FDA.
|
|
|
|
\cite{wong_EstimationClinical_2019}
|
|
estimate the probability of completing a given phase, conditional on starting a previous phase.
|
|
In doing so, they found that 13.8\% of all drug development programs
|
|
completed successfully. % slightly higherothers have found\cite{hay_ClinicalDevelopment_2014}.
|
|
One cause of this may be that they considered that a single drug might
|
|
be tested for multiple indications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Ekaterina Khmelnitskaya (2021)
|
|
% - separates scientific from market failure of the clinical drug pipeline
|
|
%In her doctoral dissertation, Ekaterina Khmelnitskaya
|
|
\cite{khmelnitskaya_CompetitionAttrition_2021} approaches a slightly
|
|
different problem.
|
|
She created a multistage model to track the transition of
|
|
drug candidates between clinical trial phases.
|
|
Her key contribution was to find ways to disentangle strategic exits where
|
|
firms remove novel from the development pipeline and
|
|
exits due to scientific failures
|
|
(where safety and efficacy did not prove sufficient).
|
|
She estimates that overall 8.4\% of all pipeline exits are due to strategic
|
|
terminations and that the rate of new drug production would be about 23\%
|
|
higher if those strategic terminatations were elimintated.
|
|
|
|
%%%%%%%%% What do we know about drug development incentives?
|
|
\subsection{What do we know about drug development incentives?}
|
|
% Introduce section
|
|
% - Dranov et al 2022 - demand pull seems to bias follow up drug development.
|
|
% - increasing demand doesn't necessarily result in new compounds (check this). Risks.
|
|
\cite{dranove_DoesConsumer_2022} examined whether increased demand for drugs
|
|
will increase the development of novel drugs.
|
|
Using measures of the scientific novelty of drug compounds after the creation
|
|
of Medicare part D, they found that most development occurred in the least
|
|
novel categories of drugs, in spite of a relatively constant growth in novel
|
|
compounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% - acemoglu and linn 2004 - population size matters.
|
|
% - Population ties into the number of drugs available, and operational (recruitment) concerns
|
|
% - In general, there are going to be many confounding variables.
|
|
% -
|
|
% - Exogenous demographic trends has a large impact on the entry of non-generic drugs and new molecular entitites.
|
|
On the side of market analysis, %TODO:remove when other sections are written up.
|
|
\citeauthor{acemoglu_market_2004}
|
|
(\citeyear{acemoglu_market_2004})
|
|
used exogenous deomographics changes to show that the
|
|
entry of novel compounds is highly driven by the underlying aged population.
|
|
They estimate that a 1\% increase in applicable demographics increase the
|
|
entry of new drugs by 6\%, mostly concentrated among generics.
|
|
Among non-generics, a 1\% increase in potential market size
|
|
(as measured by demographic groups) leads to a 4\% increase in novel therapies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Cerda 2007 - Endogenous innovations in the pharmaceutical industry
|
|
% from abstract %TODO: Read better
|
|
% Market size, population, and existence of drugs are endogenous
|
|
% from the abstract I get the impresssion that it is:
|
|
% - large population -> large market -> more profitable -> more drugs
|
|
% - more drugs -> better survivability -> larger market
|
|
% Applicable because: Need to separate population and market effects.
|
|
% Does this mess with my results? I don't think so because of the relatively short time in trials. Not enough time to effect population back, but it might have another effect.
|
|
\cite{cerda_EndogenousInnovations_2007}
|
|
suggests a two-way, long term relationship between market size and drug
|
|
development.
|
|
They suggest that a large population with a condition implies a (relatively)
|
|
larger market, which improves the profitabilty and thus number of drugs with that
|
|
condition.
|
|
Then the drugs improve mortality, increasing the relative population.
|
|
They do find evidence of the impact of both population and market size
|
|
on the creation of new drugs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
% van der gronde et al 2017 Addressing the challenge of high-price prescription drugs
|
|
% Massive number of policies used to try to reduce costs. These will affect production decisions.
|
|
% Some of the unintended consequences of that (in terms of reduced development incentives) include
|
|
% - reducing development costs - side effect of lower quality evidence
|
|
% - Preference policy (e.g. policies about using generics first etc) - side effect of shorter life cycle for patented (novel) drugs.
|
|
% - these are focused on reducing expenditures, i.e. they reduce profit. Some of them feed back into the development process.
|
|
|
|
\cite{vandergronde_AddressingChallenge_2017}
|
|
documents many of the things driving drug development choices.
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item Policies that encourage low cost generics shorten the life cycle of
|
|
patented/novel drugs.
|
|
\item Some diseases have lower safety and efficacy standards applied to them
|
|
compared to similar diseases. These tend to have higher R\&D due to the
|
|
lower costs involved.
|
|
\item As much of the "low hanging fruit" in drug development has been developed,
|
|
R\&D expenses have been increasing.
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Dubois et al 2015 - Market Size and pharmaceutical innovation
|
|
% estimate the relationship between marekt size and the innovation in pharmaceuticals
|
|
% elasticity of innovation w.r.t. expected market size of 0.23, thus $2.5 billion in
|
|
% market size required to get a new chemical entity.
|
|
\cite{dubois_MarketSize_2015}
|
|
examined the ``elasticity of innovation'', i.e. the ``additional revenue required
|
|
to support the invention of a new chemical entity.''
|
|
They found that a marginal drug will require approximately a \$2.5 billon increase
|
|
in expected revenue.
|
|
|
|
% Gupta
|
|
% - Inperfect intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry
|
|
\cite{gupta_OneProduct_2020}
|
|
describes the impact that imperfect intellectual property rights have in the
|
|
the market for pharmaceuticals.
|
|
She describes how overlapping and ambiguous patent rights increase the time
|
|
to entry of generic drugs by about 3 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{What do we know about how Clinical Trials operations?}
|
|
%interview with Adam George
|
|
% - clinical trials are often handled by contractors
|
|
% - they plan sites, start times, etc from beginning.
|
|
% - Running late is normal.
|
|
In a personal interview with someone who works for a company that runs clinical
|
|
trials, I learned about how clinical trials will typically proceed.
|
|
\todo{Figure out best way to cite this}
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item Quote a job (one side of company): N, timeline, etc
|
|
\item Allocate resources (sites, doctors, etc) to try to accomplish
|
|
\item Sales vs Operations conflict, leading to lateness/issues delivering, etc.
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
% Bess Stillman - look at difficulties joining oncology trials
|
|
|
|
% Random sample of Clinicaltrials.gov - how many closed due to operational problems?
|
|
% TODO: random sample 171, about 30% mentioned recruitment issues
|
|
|
|
% Results on enrollment projection
|
|
% - nothing really good exists.
|
|
% - Multiple models, no comparison.
|
|
% - no cross validation, only tested on a few trials.
|
|
|
|
% Thus we should look at the effects that operational concerns have.
|
|
|
|
\end{document}
|