Review of New Drug Development Challenges for the Research-Based Industry Kenneth I Kaitin, Ph.D. Director, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development Prof. of Medicine, Prof. of Pharmacology & Exp. Therapeutics ASENT Annual Meeting Drug Development: Challenges, Consortia, CROs Bethesda, MD, March 5, 2010 Agenda Environment for pharmaceutical innovation TCSDD’s current drug development metrics The evolving landscape for innovation The Current Landscape for Pharma Innovation Current Realities for Pharmaceutical Developers Patents on many high revenue products are expiring Marketplace is highly competitive and reimbursement environment is increasingly restrictive Public support has declined There’s a new regulatory regime in the U.S. and new regulatory hurdles Drug development process is long and risky and increasingly complex and expensive. Patent Expirations for 10 Top Selling Drugs Each Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 Product 2007 Sales ($MM) Product 2007 Sales ($MM) Product 2007 Sales ($MM) Product 2007 Sales ($MM) Prevacid 3,962 Protonix 4,221 Lipitor 13,652 Diovan 5,012 Topamax 2,453 Cozaar/Hyzaar 3,350 Plavix 8,079 Singulair 4,266 Lamictal 2,194 Aricept 3,311 Advair 6,998 Lexapro 3,044 Valtrex 1,868 Levaquin 2,862 Zyprexa 4,761 Viagra 1,764 Cellcept 1,677 Effexor XR 2,464* Actos 4,333 Avandia 1,754 Keppra 1,407 Taxotere 2,569 Seroquel 4,219 Symbicort 1,575 Flomax 1,399 Arimidex 1,730 Avapro 2,685 Zometa 1297 Imitrex 1,370 Gemzar 1,592 Xalatan 1,604 Detrol 1190 Adderall XR 1,031 Coreg 1,174 Avelox 1,013 Geodon 854 Suboxone 282* NovoSeven 1,078 Xeloda 959 Provigil 852 Total $17,643 Total $24,351 Total $48,303 Total $21,608 *US sales only Source: Kaitin, Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2010;87:356-361 http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/v87/n3/full/clpt2009293a.html Patient Access to Selected Biologics Restricted or Denied by NICE Drug Indication Company Patient Access Tysabri (natalizumab) MS Biogen-Idec/Elan Restricted Humira (adalimumab) Psoriatic arthritis Abbott Restricted RA Genentech/BiogenIdec Restricted Fludara (fludarabine) CLL Bayer Denied Gemzar (gemcitabine) Breast cancer Lilly Restricted Avastin (bevacizumab) Colorectal cancer Genentech Denied Erbitux (cetuximab) Colorectal cancer ImClone Systems Denied Rituxan/MabThera (rituximab) Source: BioCentury, 2008 Total U.S. Health Care Expenditures by Category for 2007 Physician & Clinical Services 21% Prescription Drugs 10% Program Administration 7% Investment 7% Nursing Home Care 6% Dental Services 4% Hospital Care 31% Other Spending* 14% *Other spending: Other professional services, other personal healthcare, home healthcare, durable medical products, government public health activities Source: Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2007.pdf Accessed 7/1/08 “Which of these industries do you think are generally honest and trustworthy – so that you normally believe a statement by a company in that industry?” 34% Supermarkets 31% Banks 28% Hospitals 23% Computer Software 16% Airlines 14% Gas and Utilities 9% Automobile Pharmaceuticals 7% Health Insurance 7% 4% Managed Care 3% Oil 2% Tobacco 0 Source: Harris Interactive Inc, 2007 40 FDA’s Very Busy Regulatory Agenda in 2010 FDA’s “21st Century Review Process” (formerly GRMPs) FDA’s “Sentinel Project” (May 2008) (access to 25m patients by 7/1/10; 100m by 2012) REMS and other risk management tools Post approval research requirements Advisory Committee meetings and COI rules Follow-on biologics review process Tobacco regulation Limited resources and low morale Bringing a New Drug to Market: Current Development Metrics The Drug Development Pathway Basic Research Prototype Design or Discovery Preclinical Development IND Filing Phase I Phase II Clinical Development Phase III NDA/BLA Submission FDA Review/ Approval & Launch Phase IV, PMS, Life Cycle Management Clinical and Approval Times over Two Decades 9 PDUFA Enacted 6.8 7.2 6.4 6.3 5.9 7.6 6.1 Years 5.7 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.0 1.4 1.4 1996-98 (n=110) 1999-01 (n=82) 1.5 1.1 0 1984-86 (n=65) 1987-89 (n=55) 1990-92 (n=74) 1993-95 (n=67) Approval Phase Source: Tufts CSDD, 2010 Clinical Phase 2002-04 (n=60) 2005-07 (n=48) Biopharmaceutical Development Times Are Increasing 9 8.2 Approval Phase 7.8 Clinical Phase 6.7 1.1 1.5 6.0 1.2 Years 1.4 4.1 7.1 1.6 5.5 6.3 4.6 2.5 0 1982-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 (n=18) (n=9) (n=20) (n=31) * Through 10/1/09 Source: Tufts CSDD, 2010 2005-09* (n=20) Clinical and Approval Times Vary Across Therapeutic Classes, 2003-07 7.9 Antineoplastic Neuropharmacologic 0.8 7.1 Anesthetic/Analgesic 1.4 5.2 AIDS Antiviral 5.2 0 1.7 0.6 6.9 5.8 Years Clinical Phase * excludes AIDS antivirals Source: Kaitin, Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2010;87:356-361 http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/v87/n3/full/clpt2009293a.html 8.4 7.7 1.7 6.0 Cardiovascular 8.4 1.9 6.5 Antiinfective* 8.8 1.7 7.0 Endocrine 8.7 Approval Phase 10 Overall Clinical Approval Success Rate for NCEs has Dropped to 16% 23.9% Sys. Antiinfective 20.4% Musculoskeletal 19.4% Oncology/Immunology 9.4% GI/Metabolism 8.7% Cardiovascular 8.2% Neuropharmacologic 0 Clinical Approval Success Rate Source: DiMasi et al, Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2010;87:272-277 http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/v87/n3/full/clpt2009295a.html 27 Phase Transition Probabilities SelfOriginated NCEs in Top 50 Firms 100 Transition Probability 1993-1998 1999-2004 67% 64% 63% 41% 66% 39% 16% 17% 0 Phase 1-2 Phase 2-3 Phase 3-NDA subm Source: DiMasi et al, Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2010;87:272-277 http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/v87/n3/full/clpt2009295a.html Phase 1-NDA app Phase Transition Probabilities by Therapeutic Class 100 Musculoskeletal Onc/Immunologic GI/Metabolic Cardiovascular CNS Syst Antiinfective Transition Probability 72% 72% 68% 63% 80% 64% 60% 58% 52% 49% 35% 79% 55% 50% 46% 35% 32% 33% 0 Phase 1-2 Phase 2-3 Source: DiMasi et al, Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2010;87:272-277 http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/v87/n3/full/clpt2009295a.html Phase 3-NDA subm Capitalized Cost per Approved Biotech Product is Similar to that for Pharma 1500 1,318 Millions of 2005 Dollars 1,241 879 626 615 439 0 Non-Clinical Clinical Biotech Pharma (Time Adjusted) Source: DiMasi & Grabowski, Managerial Decision Econ, 2007;28:469-479 Total Costs Time Adjusted Capitalized Clinical Costs by Therapeutic Area 1000 $849 Millions of 2005 Dollars $741 $750 $792 $604 0 Anesth/Analg Cardiovascular Source: DiMasi et al, Drug Info J, 2004;38:211-223 All Antiinfective CNS R&D Project Counts by Therapeutic Category: Oncology Leads Antiinfectives 14% Central Nervous System 17% Cardiovascular 7% Endocrine 6% Respiratory 5% Musculoskeletal 5% Gastrointestinal 4% Genitourinary 4% Blood 3% Oncology and immunomodulators 28% Dermatology 2% Sensory organs 2% Other 3% Source: EvaluatePharma®, Apr 2008; in Parexel Statistical Sourcebook 2008-2009 Global Pharma Sales in 2008 by Therapeutic Category Cardiovascular $84.7 bil $78.0 bil CNS Cancer $59.9 bil Antiinfectives $43.8 bil $34.6 bil Respiratory Diabetes Inflammation $23.9 bil $21.7 bil Vaccines $19.1 bil Hormone Control $18.9 bil Gastrointestinal Hematology $17.1 bil $12.0 bil Source: Lehman Brothers, Sept 2008; in Parexel Statistical Sourcebook 2008-2009 10.3% of Global Market Drivers of Rising R&D Costs Chronic and complex indications Clinical trial size Protocol design complexity Patient recruitment/retention High cost discovery/research tools Regulatory demands Market oriented studies Late-stage attrition New Drug Approvals Are Not Keeping Pace with Rising R&D Spending 52 60 39 45 30 26 New Drug Approvals 13 15 0 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 * Trend line is 3-year moving average; R&D expenditure adjusted for inflation Source: Kaitin, Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2010;87:356-361 http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/v87/n3/full/clpt2009293a.html 1998 2003 0 2008 R&D Expenditures (Billions of 2008$) New Drug Approvals R&D Expenditures For the Research-Based Industry “Business as Usual” is No Longer an Option A Merging of Operational and Strategic Performance Objectives Reported Success Factors – Best Practices of Top-Performing Firms Focus on core competencies, higher level of outsourcing, prioritize resources Active collaboration with global regulatory agencies Enhanced utilization of e-data management technologies Offshoring Source: Tufts CSDD, 2010 Evolving Sponsor/CRO Relationship Structures PROVIDER (Transactional services) PARTNER (Multiple FSPs and Alliances) Ad-Hoc Formalized Capacity-based Virtual/Competency-based Reactive, project task outsourcing Planned, portfolio outsourcing Larger operation, sponsor SOPs Lean operation, coordination SOPs Mid-management governance committee Senior management committee Lowest-bid/Many Providers Few Partner-Providers Demand for Clinical Services Outsourcing is Growing 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009P Annualized Growth Total Global Clinical Spending $27.3 $33.6 $41.5 $49.6 $54.8 9.1% Total Spending on Contract Clinical Services* $2.7 $4.9 $6.4 $8.5 $10.1 13.4% All figures in billions of US$ * Does not include pass-through clinical services, e.g., central lab fees, investigator grants Source: Tufts CSDD, 2010 New R&D Strategies R&D Reorganization Divested functions: e.g., LLY-Chorus/Vanthys; LLY-Covance Focused units: e.g., GSK (CEDDs DPUs), PFE, ROG, NVS, BMS, SAN, LLY, AZN Partnerships Academic institutions, PPPs, Patient groups Large pharma/Small pharma: e.g., GSK and Concert Pharma/Pharma: e.g., MRK & AZN (onc); GSK & PFE (HIV); Enlight Biosciences (JNJ, LLY, MRK, NVS, PFE); Asian Cancer Research Group, non-profit (LLY, PFE, MRK) Risk-sharing: e.g., Quintiles & LLY Innovation Networks FIPCos FIPNets ( VIPNets) [Celtic, Debiopharm, other PDC] A FIPNet Model for New Drug Development Research Pre-Discovery Large Pharma Academia Biotechs/ Small Pharma Discovery Preclinical Early Stage Development Coordination, Management Basic Research Translational Medicine Innovation, Partnerships CROs/Other Partners Source: Kaitin, Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2010;87:356-361 http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/v87/n3/full/clpt2009293a.html Late Stage Development Approval Phase IV Studies Execution, Monitoring, Analysis Large Scale Clinical Trials Data Analysis Medical Writing Regulatory Approval Execution, Monitoring, Analysis Conclusions Conclusions The time, cost, and risk to bring a new medicine to market continue to represent formidable challenges for drug developers. These challenges have led to a heightened focus within the industry on R&D efficiency and performance, and on new strategies, including R&D reorganization, partnerships, and network innovation. “You can be on the right track, and moving in the right direction, but if you’re not moving fast enough, the train will still run you over.” Will Rogers Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Kenneth I Kaitin, Ph.D. Director Professor of Medicine Professor of Pharmacology & Exp. Therapeutics Website http://csdd.tufts.edu Email kenneth.kaitin@tufts.edu