evaluating the cost to benefit ratio of a drug delivery platform
DESCRIPTION
This talk calls for a tall order of understanding of the patient needs, techno-innovative and economic aspects of drug delivery platform technologies and in turn making sound decisions in research & development, administration and policy making. In general, therapeutic effect of a drug is determined by its potency as well as by the efficiency of its delivery to the site of action. Thus, therapeutic effects of many drugs are improved and controlled through the use of appropriate new drug delivery systems (NDDS). Often this advantage is associated with the added benefit of improved side effects and patient compliance for most NDDS. NDDS cover a wide range of technologies and routes of administration, such as oral, buccal-mucosal, ophthalmic, transdermal, pulmonary and colonic – to name a few. Understanding the key patient needs and the resolve of devising the best delivery formulations have revolutionized the platform technologies. For example, in oral modified release (MR) technology, the key need is to optimize bioavailability with much fewer dosing frequency, whereas in ophthalmic MRs, the principal requirements are absence of local toxicity, tolerance, ease of dispensing, sterility, and osmolarity, etc. In this context, therapeutic categories are very relevant (e.g., the challenges and accuracy in technology development in ophthalmic preparation are steeper than oral preparations). For pulmonary delivery systems, the release of the drug in pulmonary tract is more important and beneficial for the patients than controlling the delivery. Similarly, achieving high local concentrations is the main goal in colonic and vaginal technologies. Economic values or improvement in benefit-cost ratio in NDDS come not only from better addressing patient needs (efficacy enhancement, reduced dosing and side effects etc.) and compliance. Economic benefits are explicit in patent extension, increased market share and decreased costs). These benefits are obvious. Subtle and non-obvious benefits become apparent upon thorough cost effectiveness and cost utility analysis of many NDDS technologies. The speaker will give a few examples of substantial gains in quality adjusted life years when a drug was delivered through a delivery technology.TRANSCRIPT
Evaluating the Cost to Benefit Ratio and End User Benefits Ensuring
Best Drug Delivery Platform
Dr. Bhaswat S. ChakrabortySenior Vice President and ChairR&D Science Core CommitteeCadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Presented at NextGen India — Advances in Pharma and Biopharma Drug Delivery, Mumbai, India, 26th July 2012
1
Organization of this Talk• Understanding the key patient needs and
formulation issues• Benefits of matching the patient needs &
convenience • Key therapeutic categories requiring NDDS
platforms• Criteria to choose the best technology• Assessing the cost to benefit ratio• Determining the key selection parameters• Concluding remarks
2
Understanding the Key Needs and Formulation Issues
• Unmet medical needs, cost of illness, cost of drugs and cost of delivery systems
• Three main perspectives– Patients – Most important humanistic aspect– Drug Delivery Technology scientists and companies – LCM – Decision Makers (Pharma Cos., Formulary, Insurance,
Hospitals…) – Balance of factors• Health implications without an optimum delivery• Value addition by delivery technology• Data for appropriate cost effectiveness & budget impact
analysis• Selection criteria for “best” technology
3
Cardizem BID (Hoechst Marion Roussel) achieved $260 million (1988), Cardizem SR TID (Elan) $400 million (1989) & Cardizem CD OD (Biovail) $900 million (1996)
LC
ML
CM
Source: Baichwal & Neville (2001) Drug Dev Del4
Why NDDS Platforms?
•Efficacy•Compliance•Controlled drug delivery•Patient convenience•Other needs•Technology exists or•Technology can be developed
•Penetration•Patent Extension•Increased Pipeline•Higher Revenue•New Patients or subpopulations •LCM•Legal competitive advantages (USP)
Science/ Technology Platform Values for Industry/Market
Value Addition by NDDS
Challenge: Design a Good Humanistic and LCM Cost Efficient NDDS Platform
5
Understanding the Key Needs and Formulation Issues
• Key patient needs– Improved efficacy– Reduced side effects– Targeted and controlled drug delivery– Less frequent administration– Better organoleptic properties– More QALDs gained
• Formulation Issues– Matching patient needs– Technical formulation issues– Cost of technology– Priorities– Market and dominance of existing intervention
Initial Cost Modeling & Risk Taking Would Depend on Accurate Estimates of the Variables. 6
Categories of Drug Delivery Technology
• Oral Modified-Release• Oral Mucosal• Colonic• Ophthalmic• Transdermal & Dermal• Implants and Modified Injectables• Pulmonary• Nasal• Vaginal• Others
7
Increasin
g attractiveness for p
atients
IV injection
Intramuscular injection
Subcutaneous injection
Injectable sustained release depot
Transdermal
Nasal
Aerosol
Oral tablet/capsule(>1 per day)
Oral sustained release(1 per day)
Hierarchy of NDDS Platforms
Adapted from: Speers & Bonnano, (1999) Encyclopedia of Controlled Drug Delivery, John Wiley 8
Source: Frost & Sullivan (2011) 9
Matching Patient Needs: Oral CR
• Patient needs: improved efficacy, reduced side effects, targeted & controlled drug delivery, less frequent administration, more QALDs gained etc.
• The technology must be flexible enough to incorporate drugs with varying physicochemical and PK, doses, and desired release profiles
• BCS Class I & II are good candidates (release rate controlled)• Level A IVIVC is a big help• Finished dosage forms can be readily manufactured on
standard equipment– Ease of TT & cost-effective
• Affordable10
TIMERx
11
Geminex
12
Source: Malaterre et al., (2009) Eur J Pharmaceutics Biopharm, 73, 311–323
Oral Osmotically Driven Systems
13
OROS
14
Improving Solubility, Dissolution Rate, and Absorption
• The improvement of the solubility, dissolution rate, and absorption– remains a challenge in development of pharma products
• Two options:– adapt release profiles– exploit the potential to improve delivery of the drug
• Drugs with poor solubility revealed remarkably higher bioavailability when formulated as solid dispersions
• Results– increase the active agent’s bioavailability– reduce side effects– overcome solubility barriers throughout the body– control the duration of the drug’s action in the body
• Example: Meltrex technology15
16
Insoluble Drug Delivery (IDD)
17Source: Modified Release Drug Delivery Technology (2002) Marcel Dekker
18Source: Modified Release Drug Delivery Technology (2002) Marcel Dekker
Mucoadhesive Delivery Systems
• Mucoadhesive delivery systems offer several advantages– Prolongation of residence time of drug in gastrointestinal
tract (GIT).– Targeting and localization of the dosage form at a specific
site– Intimate contact between dosage form and the absorptive
mucosa, results in high drug flux at the absorbing tissue– Low contact angle and reduction of surface and interfacial
energies achieve good amount of mucoadhesion
19
Challenge: permeability enhancement and dosage form retention at the site of application
Diagram to show the anatomic location and extent of masticatory, lining, and specialized mucosa in the oral cavity. [Modified from reference (2).].
Squier C A , Kremer M J J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2001;2001:7-15
© Oxford University Press 20
Slowly Disintegrating Buccal Mucoadhesives
21
22Source: Modified Release Drug Delivery Technology (2002) Marcel Dekker
Ophthalmic MR: Patient & R&D Needs• Deliver the active ingredient to the right place
– high conjunctival levels are useless when targeting the ciliary body
• Improve the ratio of local activity vs. systemic effects.• Reduce the number of installations per day, once-a-day is optimum• Be easy to self-administer.• Not induce a foreign-body sensation, long-lasting blurring, or a very bad
aftertaste.• Not rely on “exotic” ingredients like new chemical entities or difficult-to-
source excipients (unless this is a key element). • Be sterilizable at industrial scale by a recognized process.• Be compatible with an efficient antimicrobial preservative.• Preferably be stored without specific conditions.• Be covered by a patent, since manufacturers can legitimately expect a
return on R&D investment.
23Very different patient needs compared to Oral CRs
Ocusert in Conjunctival sac
24Source: Modified Release Drug Delivery Technology (2002) Marcel Dekker
Economic Analysis “A comparative analysis of alternative
courses of action in terms of both their costs and consequences.”
Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) or its variations are the clearest way to estimate and promote (health) value for money.
25
Pharmacoeconomics
CLINICAL ECONOMIC
Safety
Workproductivity
Direct Medical Costs
Quality of Life
Bothersomeness,tolerability
HUMANISTIC
SatisfactionEfficacy
Resourcesconsumed
Sideeffects
Source: Summers K. Purdue U 26
DURAGESIC® (Fentanyl Transdermal System)
27
Economic Analysis Case StudyFentany Transdermal System
• Cost effectiveness (here a simple cost utility):
Cost of NDDS — Cost of non-NDDSQALD of NDDS — QALD of non-NDDS
28
QALD = quality-adjusted life-days
Pain Management: WHO Guide
29
Source: Neighbors et al (2001). J Pain & Sympt Mgmt, 21: 129-143
30
Source: Neighbors et al (2001). J Pain & Sympt Mgmt, 21: 129-143
31
Pain Control Model1. Model allows patients to experience up to three dose titrations
following the starting dose. – If adequate pain control is not achieved with the third titration (i.e., the fourth
dose level), the patient is assumed to switch to a different method of pain control
2. Patients who successfully complete the titration phase move immediately into the stabilization phase
– Mimics the time frame of several clinical trials of opioids, approximately 1 month. The stabilization phase distinguishes the short-term success of therapy based on toxicity
3. Patients who experience sustained pain control without unacceptable toxicity during the stabilization phase are moved immediately into the third and final long term use phase of the model.
– Events considered in the third phase of the decision-analytic model, moving beyond safety and efficacy
Source: Neighbors et al (2001). J Pain & Sympt Mgmt, 21: 129-143
32
Source: Neighbors et al (2001). J Pain & Sympt Mgmt, 21: 129-143
33
Economic Evaluation of the Fentanyl Transdermal System
• The fentanyl transdermal system (Duragesic) is adequate to treat chronic moderate to severe pain
• Economic value was compared to two long-acting oral opioids– CU analysis was performed using a three-phased decision analytic
model– The transdermal system had the highest expected cost in 1st year of
therapy ($2,491)– A little higher than CR morphine ($2,037) or CR oxycodone ($2,307)– It had highest expected number of quality-adjusted life-days (QALDs)
(244 vs 236 for morphine and 231 for oxycodone)– It achieved incremental cost-utility ratios of $20,709 (vs. morphine)
and $5,273 (vs. oxycodone) per QALY gained– In a conservative modeled analysis, the fentanyl transdermal system
led to increased QALDs at a nominal increased cost
34
yesplatform+mauthorauthor
Concluding Remarks• NDDS cover a wide range of technologies and routes of administration,
such as oral, buccal-mucosal, ophthalmic, transdermal, pulmonary and colonic – to name a few.
• Understanding the key needs and formulation issues provide the best delivery platform
• Specific delivery technologies match the patient’s convenience • Need and Formulation Matching:
• In oral modified release (MR) technology, the key need is to optimize bioavailability with much fewer dosing frequency, whereas in ophthalmic MRs, the principal requirements are absence of local toxicity, tolerance, ease of dispensing, sterility, and osmolarity, etc.
• Therapeutic categories are very relevant in the context of matching needs to technology
• Cost Effectiveness and Cost Utility Analyses are reliable economic analyses• In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, economic analysis models
help clarify cost and outcome trade-offs and provide a consistent theoretical framework for use by individual decision-makers.
35
Thank you Very Much
36