Is Drug Development More Aligned With Burden of Disease in the United States or Globally?
Cross-sectional study of recent FDA drug approvals evaluated how closely they were aligned with US and global burden of disease.
A study recently published in the British Medical Journal sought to evaluate the correlation between FDA drug approvals from 2010-2019 and the burdens of disease in the United States and globally.1
“Pharmaceutical innovation can contribute to reducing the burden of disease in human populations. This research asks whether products approved by the FDA from 2010 to 2019 and expedited review programs incentivizing development of products for serious disease were aligned with the US or global burden of disease,” the study authors wrote.
The study utilized 387 FDA approvals from 2010-2019 as data points. Of these, 58.7% were granted at least one designation for expedited review programs, including 12.7% for accelerated approval, 20.2% for breakthrough therapy, 36.7% for fast track designation, and 53.5% for priority review. The study also used burden of disease (disability-adjusted life years [DALYs]), years of life lost (YLL), and years of life lived with disability (YLD) for 122 World Health Organization (WHO) Global Health Estimates (GHE) conditions in the United States and global population to review the approvals’ alignment with their respective burdens of disease.
The authors found that FDA drug approvals during the time period were more strongly aligned with the United States’ burden of disease rather than global. Among the full results, the authors found that the majority of drug approvals were for diseases indicated for conditions in the top quartile of US DALYs. This was not evident for the global burden of disease.
“These analyses demonstrated a strong association between drug approvals and conditions with higher US DALYs. This was evident in the observation that the majority of all approvals had a first indication associated with conditions in the top quartile of US DALYs and that conditions with at least one new drug approval had significantly higher US DALYs than those without new approvals,” the authors wrote. “In contrast, <27% of drug approvals were indicated for conditions in the top quartile of global disease burden, and there was a less pronounced difference in the global burden of disease for conditions with or without new drug approvals.”
The results of this study are consistent with previous research, suggesting that the lack of alignment between US drug approvals and the composite health needs of global human populations has continued to be a challenge, according to the study. Among the limitations of the study, the authors noted that they considered the burden of disease at the level of GHE conditions, which compromises multiple indications. This could lead to an overestimation of the burden of disease when the drug’s usage compromises multiple indications of any particular GHE condition.
“Drug approvals from 2010 to 2019 were more strongly aligned with US disease burden than global disease burden and more strongly associated with YLL than YLD. The likelihood of an approved product receiving one or more designations for expedited review was not positively associated with either the US or global burden of disease and may inadvertently disincentivize product development for diseases that contribute the most to the global disease burden. These results may inform policies to better align pharmaceutical innovation with burdens of disease,”
the authors concluded.
Reference
1. Jackson MJ, Vaughan G, Ledley FD. Association between expedited review designations and the US or global burden of disease for drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, 2010–2019: a cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Open 2024;14:e076542. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076542. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/3/e076542
Behind the Buzz: Why Clinical Research Leaders Flock to SCOPE Summit
February 7th 2025In this episode, we meet with Micah Lieberman, Executive Conference Director for SCOPE Summit (Summit for Clinical Ops Executives) at Cambridge Innovation Institute. We will dive deep into the critical role of collaboration within the clinical research ecosystem. How do we bring together diverse stakeholders—sponsors, CROs, clinical trial tech innovators, suppliers, patients, sites, advocacy organizations, investors, and non-profits—to share best practices in trial design, program planning, innovation, and clinical operations? We’ll explore why it’s vital for thought leaders to step beyond their own organizations and learn from others, exchanging ideas that drive advancements in clinical research. Additionally, we’ll discuss the pivotal role of scientific conferences like SCOPE Summit in fostering these essential connections and collaborations, helping shape the future of clinical trials. Join us as we uncover how collective wisdom and cross-industry partnerships are transforming the landscape of clinical research.
Reaching Diverse Patient Populations With Personalized Treatment Methods
January 20th 2025Daejin Abidoye, head of solid tumors, oncology development, AbbVie, discusses a number of topics around diversity in clinical research including industry’s greatest challenges in reaching diverse patient populations, personalized treatment methods, recruitment strategies, and more.
Phase III Trial Data Show Subcutaneous Pembrolizumab as Noninferior to IV Keytruda
March 31st 2025Subcutaneous administration of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy demonstrated a nearly 50% reduction in patient chair and treatment room time while maintaining efficacy and safety endpoints compared to intravenous Keytruda.
Phase II ALPACA Trial Shows Lepodisiran Produces Significant, Sustained Lipoprotein(a) Reductions
March 31st 2025Eli Lilly’s lepodisiran, an investigational siRNA therapy, achieved significant and durable reductions in lipoprotein(a) levels, a major genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease.
