health economics communication and fdama section · pdf filehealth economics communication...
TRANSCRIPT
Health Economics Communication and FDAMA Section 114
Peter Neumann May 2, 2013 Presentation to Chicago ISPOR Chapter
Why important?
Intense interest in value From payers
From life science companies
What are the rules for promoting health economic information?
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 2
“At a January conference, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Sara Bloom flagged unsupported promotional claims of economic superiority as a potential area for future enforcement.”
From Sutter, S. Will the FDA’s view on health economic claims change with more government-funded research? The Pink Sheet. 27 Feb 2012.
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 3
What is permissible?
4
Section 114 is “an interesting section, and it’s not entirely simple to figure out what’s included and what’s not included.” - Robert Temple, Feb 9, 2012
Cited in Sutter, S. Will the FDA’s view on health economic claims change with more government-funded research? The Pink Sheet. 27 Feb 2012.
©CEVR All Rights Reserved
Health economics promotion Health economics promotion
Physicians & consumers
Physicians & consumers
“Substantial evidence” “Competent and reliable scientific evidence”
(Section 114)
Plans/payers Plans/payers
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 5
Non-promotional health economic information
Non-promotional health economic information
Unsolicited requests (AMCP dossiers)
6 ©CEVR All Rights Reserved
The FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (Section 114)
“health care economic information”
“formulary committee”
“competent and reliable scientific evidence”
“directly relates to an indication approved”
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 7
Other examples
Utilization endpoints?
Adherence claims?
Extrapolations to other populations?
Extrapolations to other dosages?
Survey of Outcomes Directors at PhRMA companies, 2010
Internet survey
HEOR directors at all PhRMA-member companies and top 11 biotech (n=33)
16/33 respondents (RR=46%)
Source: Neumann et al., Pharmacoeconomics, 2011
Question % Stating familiar or
very familiar
How familiar are you with the FDAMA Section 114? 93.8%
Use of Section 114
Question % Stating
frequently or always
How often do you consider using Section 114 when making promotional claims?
81.3%
Question % Saying yes
Does your company have internal legal/regulatory guidance on Section 114?
100%
Question % Stating
< 50%
For what percent of your drugs that had evidence to support their economic value, did you create a Section 114 promotional piece?
56.3%
Question % Saying 0-2
pieces
For drugs that had evidence to support their economic value, how many Section 114 pieces do you create per drug year?
93.7%
Question
% Agree
What value does your company place on Section 114 promotion, compared to economic information contained in AMCP dossiers?
Promotional economic information is more valuable 62.5%
Equal in value 31.3%
Economic information in AMCP dossiers is more valuable 6.3%
Question % Saying more
often
Did you expect to use Section 114 more often or less often in the future?
75.0%
Question
% Agree
If the FDA were to release guidance on Section 114, what area would be the most critical to address?
Competent and reliable scientific evidence 48.3%
Health care economic information 37.5%
Directly related to an approved indication 12.5%
Formulary committee or other similar entity 6.2%
Objectives
Investigate FDA letters regarding drug firms’ health economic promotions.
How frequently has FDA considered such promotions false or misleading?
Under what circumstances?
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 22
Methods
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 23
Reviewed warning letters and notices of violation (“untitled letters”) from DDMAC (OPDP).
Analyzed violations related to “health economic promotion.”
598 letters sent by FDA to drug companies, 2002-2011
291 DDMAC (OPDP) letters
120 candidate economic violation letters
35 economic violation letters (12% of DDMAC letters)
Methodology
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 24
“Health economic violations” categories
Violation
Productivity
Comparative clinical claim in economic claim
Cost-saving claims to broader audience
Cost claims of incomparable dosages
Other misleading price or cost comparisons
Section 114
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 25
Violation n %
Productivity 20 56
Comparative clinical claim in economic claim 7 19
Cost-saving claims to broader audience 3 8
Cost claims of incomparable dosages 3 8
Other misleading price or cost comparisons 3 8
Section 114 0 0
Total 36* 100
Results
*35 letters considered, one letter contained two types of violations
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 26
Indication n %
Psychiatric 6 17
Pain 6 17
Cancer 4 12
HIV 3 9
Nasal/respiratory 3 9
Irritable bowel syndrome 2 6
Other 11 32
Total 35 100
By indication
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 28
“Today, David and his excellent sense of taste
are back on the job, making great wines…”
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 31
Misleading comparison in economic claim
“Many prescription plans are
raising the co-payment cost of
Clarinex*, Zyrtec*, and
Allegra*. But 99%
of prescription plans cover
FLONASE.*”
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 34
Why no Section 114 letters?
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 35
Lack of 114 promotions?
Challenges in regulating such promotions?
Limitations
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 36
Don’t know how much economic promotion occurs
Did not include adherence/convenience or PRO claims
Conclusions
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 37
Companies are actively promoting on value
FDA concerns about work function and “backdoor” clinical claims within economic promotions
Absence of letters citing Section 114
More guidance from FDA needed?
A proposal
Expand 114 to include CER
Remove “directly-related” from 114
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 40
Type of information Evidentiary standard Intended Audience
Legal authority
Clinical data from RCTs
Substantial evidence Physician and consumers
FDCA
Health care economic information
CRSE* Payers FDAMA Section 114
CER using observational data
CRSE* Payers Proposed legislative change
Proposal
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 41
*Competent and reliable scientific evidence
Benefits
Allow promotion to plans of settings, endpoints not in RCTs
E.g., adherence, hospitalizations
Encourage standards for CER
Decrease “asymmetry”
Retain “guard rails”
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 42
Challenges
Already existing channels for CER promotion E.g., unsolicited requests, peer-reviewed articles
Concerns about misleading audiences with non-RCT data
Remove incentive to conduct actual RCTs
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 43
Conclusions
©CEVR All Rights Reserved 44
Intense interest in promoting on “value”
FDA concerns about “backdoor” clinical claims within economic promotions.
Section 114 allows promotion of HCEI to health plans but has restrictions and there has been no guidance.
New legislation extending 114 to CER may help