Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

340B hospital program leads to higher costs, PhRMA says

  • The 340B Drug Pricing Program costs patients more in the long run by moving care to hospital outpatient settings rather than physicians’ offices, according to a recent analysis commissioned by the drug lobby Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, better known as PhRMA.
  • The research conducted by the Berkeley Research Group is the latest skirmish in a battle over the program, which the American Hospital Association, America’s Essential Hospitals and the Association of American Medical Colleges argue help safety net hospitals access affordable prescription drugs.
  • The report looked at Medicare Part B reimbursements for physician-administered medicine and found that 30% of payments were at 340B hospitals in 2017, a sizable jump from less than 10% in 2008. Reimbursements at 340B hospitals increased for breast cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple myeloma treatments.

The 340B program aims to help underserved communities get prescription drugs in safety net facilities. More hospitals have joined the program in recent years. In 2017, covered entities purchased more than $19 billion in drugs, a 114% increase since 2014.
With that growth has come controversy, including regulatory and legal fights.
Research has shown that drug spend at 340B hospitals is about one-third higher than at non-340B facilities. A New England Journal of Medicinereport found the 340B project “drives hospital/physician consolidation while not expanding care to low-income populations or improving their mortality rates.”
Critics like PhRMA and some lawmakers charge that the federal government doesn’t provide enough oversight or know how much hospitals are benefiting from the program. The lobbying group has criticized Health and Human Services 340B reform efforts, which it says puts too much burden and risk on drug manufacturers.
The Trump administration has attempted to cut 340B payments by 30%. However, a federal judge rejected those reductions in December. AHA, AEH and other groups that filed the lawsuit alleged the government “exceeded its statutory authority” by trying to cut the payments.
The 340B program changed Jan. 1 to allow participating facilities access to 340B drug manufacturers’ prices and to impose financial penalties for overchargers.
Earlier this month, HHS launched a website with prescription drug ceiling prices for the program. The Office of Pharmacy Affairs 340B Information System allows facilities to register and manage their participation in the program and now lets hospitals check drug prices and verify their accuracy. HRSA could fine drug manufacturers if they overcharge 340B facilities.

Novartis bribery investigation craters after Greek prosecutors clear 4 officials

Greek corruption investigators were looking into charges that Novartis bribed a group of politicians for preferential pricing of its drugs. Now that investigation is falling apart.
On Monday, prosecutors returned a case file to Greek Parliament clearing four politicians in a whistleblower investigation alleging a long-running bribery scheme between the Swiss drugmaker and 10 politicians from the country’s New Democracy party, Kathimerini reported.
The only name still listed on the file was that of former health minister Andreas Loverdos, but the newspaper reported investigators had found no evidence of Loverdos accepting bribes. The prosecutors’ case relies solely on witness testimony, the publication reported.
At least four of the remaining five politicians are expected to be cleared of all charges, the newspaper said, in what New Democracy officials have called a scam led by the country’s governing party, SYRIZA.
The case’s collapse comes after a Novartis internal probe in March found no evidence of “inappropriate payments” between company officials and Greek lawmakers. Those findings reflected a report from an expert panel in Greece, which also said last month that they had found no sign of suspicious payments to key officials, Kathimerini reported.

The bribery allegations, based on three whistleblower accounts, accused Novartis of paying former government officials—including two former prime ministers—millions of euros in exchange for increased sales of its products between 2006 to 2015.
Novartis’ internal probe did not address additional allegations in the suit that the company paid doctors in a kickback scheme to boost prescriptions.
As Novartis’ Greek tragedy unravels, the company is still in hot water with U.S. prosecutors as its earnest CEO Vas Narasimhan has worked to remake the company in his own image.
Last week, a U.S. District judge threw out Novartis’ request for summary judgment in a kickback lawsuit alleging a “companywide” scheme to pay doctors for scripts through sham promotional events.

Among the over-the-top allegations in that suit, prosecutors said Novartis sales officials treated doctors to $10,000 dinners at chic NYC seafood restaurant Nobu, held a promotional event aboard a fishing boat and treated physicians to wild nights at Hooters. That case is expected to go to a jury trial unless a settlement is reached.
Novartis was also flagged by Congress last year after it shelled out $1.2 million to Michael Cohen, the former personal lawyer and “fixer” for President Donald Trump. Novartis said it made the payments after Cohen approached the drugmaker offering insight into the Trump administration after his inauguration in January 2017. Company officials later said they received nothing from the arrangement.

As those dramas play out, Narasimhan, in his second year as CEO, has targeted M&A spending of $10 billion a year to help build out its pipeline in gene and cell therapy and pursue other “transformative” innovation. In 2018, Narasimhan spearheaded the acquisitions of gene therapy company AveXis and radiotherapy company Endocyte for $8.7 billion and $2.7 billion, respectively.
Meanwhile, the company has been shedding assets beyond its prescription drug business. Tuesday, the company wrapped up a spinoff of its eye division Alcon, acquired in a 2010 deal engineered by former CEO Daniel Vasella. The company has also sold some of its Sandoz generics business, and it’s working to segregate that division from the rest of the company in a move some consider a prelude to a sale.

AstraZeneca: Lynparza OKed in EU for HER2-negative advanced breast cancer

AstraZeneca and MSD Inc., Kenilworth, N.J., US (MSD: known as Merck & Co., Inc. inside the US and Canada) today announced the European Commission has approved Lynparza (olaparib)as a monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutations (gBRCAm), and who have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative locally-advanced or metastatic breast cancer.
Under the licensed indication, patients should have previously been treated with an anthracycline and a taxane in the (neo)adjuvant or metastatic setting unless they were unsuitable for these treatments. Patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer should also have progressed on or after prior endocrine therapy, or be considered unsuitable for endocrine therapy.
Dave Fredrickson, Executive Vice President, Oncology, said: ‘With this approval, Lynparza provides patients throughout the EU with a targeted and oral chemotherapy-free treatment option for a difficult-to-treat cancer. It also reinforces the importance of testing for biomarkers including BRCA, hormone receptor and HER2 expression, helping physicians to make the most informed treatment decisions for patients.’
Roy Baynes, Senior Vice President and Head of Global Clinical Development, Chief Medical Officer, MSD Research Laboratories, said: ‘In the OlympiAD trial, which supported this approval, Lynparza demonstrated a meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated metastatic breast cancer. We look forward to making this new option available across the EU, where we hope it will improve outcomes for many patients.’
The approval was based on data from the randomised, open-label, Phase III OlympiAD trial which tested Lynparza vs. physician’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine). In the trial, Lynparza provided patients with a statistically-significant median progression-free survival improvement of 2.8 months (7.0 months for Lynparza vs. 4.2 months for chemotherapy). Patients taking Lynparza experienced an objective response rate (ORR) of 52%, which was double the ORR for those in the chemotherapy arm (23%).
This is the third indication for Lynparza in the EU, and AstraZeneca and MSD are working together to deliver Lynparza as quickly as possible to more patients across multiple settings. Lynparza has a broad clinical development programme, including the ongoing Phase III OlympiA which is testing Lynparza as an adjuvant treatment in patients with gBRCAm HER2-negative breast cancer.

Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Steep drug price hikes made to offset financial woes, Akorn says

Troubled Illinois-based pharmaceutical company Akorn steeply raised prices of at least a dozen drugs last month to try to offset several financial setbacks, according to STAT.
The drugmaker, which mainly develops generic medicines, raised the list price of several drugs by 19.4 percent to 285 percent. The largest increase was a pain relief gel,  Lidocaine HCI, which now costs $56.56 for a monthly supply.
Akorn also increased the list price of Paremyd ophthalmic solution by 202.5 percent. The drug, used for dilating the pupil to allow physicians to perform certain tests, costs $47.36 for a month’s supply.
In March, Akorn accounted for 12 of the 50 largest price increases made by U.S. drugmakers.
The jump in list prices comes after a series of financial setbacks for the drugmaker, including a failed merger, manufacturing woes, pricing pressure and stock dips.
An Akorn spokesperson told STAT that the drugmaker took “the necessary actions to return to profitability,” and that “select price adjustments enable us to continue to provide patients with the products they need, while continuing to invest in R&D and employ approximately 2,000 people around the globe.”

Cancer-killing combination therapies unveiled with new drug-screening tool

UC San Francisco scientists have designed a large-scale screen that efficiently identifies drugs that are potent cancer-killers when combined, but only weakly effective when used alone. Using this technique, the researchers eradicated a devastating blood cancer and certain solid tumor cells by jointly administering drugs that are only partially effective when used as single-agent therapies. The effort, a cross-disciplinary collaboration between UCSF researchers, is described in a study published April 9 in the journal Cell Reports.
When scientists developed the first targeted cancer therapies—drugs that interfere with specific biological circuits that cancer depends on for growth and survival—many thought they had finally cornered cancer. But cancer is a devastatingly clever disease that can outwit these precision medicines by “rewiring” itself to sidestep the circuits switched off by these drugs.
“Many cancers either fail to respond to a single targeted therapy or acquire resistance after initially responding. The notion that combining targeted therapies is a far more effective way to treat cancer than a single-drug approach has long existed. We wanted to perform screens with saturating coverage to understand exactly what combinations should be explored,” said UCSF’s Jeroen Roose, Ph.D., professor of anatomy and senior author of the new study.
Scientists have found that when they target two distinct circuits with two different drugs—each of which is inadequate on its own—the aggregate effect can be greater than sum of its parts. However, figuring out which drugs can synergize to kill cancer remains a challenge.
To demonstrate the power of their screening system, the scientists searched for targeted therapies that could join forces to kill an aggressive blood cancer called T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL). Their hunt began with a drug that targets PI3K, an enzyme that promotes the growth of many cancers, including T-ALL. Though drugs that target PI3K already exist, the current crop of PI3K inhibitors can slow, but normally can’t kill, this type of cancer.
“Nearly 65 percent of T-ALL patients have hyperactive PI3K, but most patients will likely not be cured by single-drug treatments. We wanted to find drugs that would kill T-ALL when combined with a PI3K inhibitor,” said Roose, a member of the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. To find those drugs, the researchers turned to RNA interference (RNAi)—a technique that allows scientists to massively reduce the activity of specific genes. The discovery of RNAi, which occurs naturally in all animals and plants, and is now widely used in research, was a major breakthrough that was recognized with the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
“RNAi is sort of a magic bullet for targeting specific genes,” said Michael T. McManus, Ph.D., professor at the UCSF Diabetes Center and study co-author, who designed the screen with Roose. “Although there is a great deal of fascinating underlying biology that relates to RNAi, most scientists use it as a tool to ‘turn down the volume’ of a specific gene in a cell.”
The gene-editing tool CRISPR has made it possible to completely remove genes. But according to McManus, while eliminating a specific gene is the gold standard—an essential first step in determining its function in —at times, reducing a gene’s activity level using RNAi activity may be more desirable. This is especially true, he says, when researchers are seeking to mimic the effects of drugs, which often reduce the activity associated with a particular gene without completely eliminating it.
“When searching for cancer drugs, for example, RNAi may do a better job of approximating precision therapies, both of which only partially inhibit their biological targets,” McManus said. The researchers have also started exploring CRISPRi and CRISPRa—modified forms of CRISPR that inhibit or amplify the activity of target genes, respectively, without making cuts to the DNA—for these reasons.
Roose and McManus aren’t the first scientists to use RNAi to search for these kinds of combinatorial therapies. But earlier efforts were error-prone because those screens used RNAi libraries that were too small, Roose said. What sets the new study apart is the ultra-complex collection of short hairpin RNAs (shRNAs) that were used. These RNA fragments contain sequences that correspond to those found in messenger RNAs (mRNA)—the molecular arbiters of gene activity in the cell. When an shRNA finds an mRNA that contains a matching sequence, the two molecules bind together to initiate a process that destroys the mRNA and inhibits the activity of that gene. In total, the researchers targeted some 1,800 cancer-associated genes with approximately 55,000 shRNAs, or about 30 shRNAs per gene, “more than enough to eliminate false positives and false negatives,” Roose said.
The screen itself involved growing two different human T-ALL cell lines in the presence of PI3K inhibitors and then simultaneously administering shRNAs to find out which genes, when silenced in the presence of these drugs, killed the cancer. From this comprehensive screen, the researchers then focused on 10 genes whose activity, when curbed with precision medicines, was predicted to kill T-ALL cancer cells in combination with PI3K drugs. They tested these predictions and found that nine of the combined therapies could kill T-ALL—a feat that none of the drugs could achieve on its own. The researchers then tested the most effective of these synergistic drug combinations on mouse models of T-ALL and found that it could extend survival by 150 percent.
The screen also yielded a digital tool that Roose says will be useful for other researchers: a user-friendly, searchable databasebased on results from the screen. The search engine—developed by Marsilius Mues, Ph.D., a former Roose lab postdoc and lead author of the new study—produces mansuscript-quality figures that help resarchers identify  that emerged from the screen as potential targets for combination therapy with PI3K inhibitors.
Recognizing that discoveries made in blood cancers don’t always translate to solid tumors, the researchers also tested the predicted drug combinations on 28 solid tumor cell lines derived from human breast, colorectal, pancreatic and brain cancers. They found that even in these solid tumor cells, the combination therapies synergized to reduce the number of cancer cells by up to 20 percent over the course of the experiment.
“An important message from our work is that scientists can use leukemia cells as a platform to find  combinations that also work in solid tumors. Our screening platform is very generalizable,” Roose said.
Among the most surprising and promising of the results was that the researchers were able to find pairs of drugs that impeded cancer growth, but which had no effect on normal cells.
“Finding therapies that specifically target cancer without harming healthy tissue is the holy grail of cancer research,” Roose said. “This surprising result suggests that our method may aid in the discovery of this kind of -specific precision medicine.”

Explore further

More information: Marsilius Mues et al. High-Complexity shRNA Libraries and PI3 Kinase Inhibition in Cancer: High-Fidelity Synthetic Lethality Predictions, Cell Reports (2019). DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.03.045

Proton therapy shows efficacy, low toxicity in children with neuroblastoma

Researchers from Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania analyzed the largest cohort to date of pediatric patients with high-risk neuroblastoma treated with proton radiation therapy (PRT), finding both that proton therapy was effective at reducing tumors and demonstrated minimal toxicity to surrounding organs.
The study is published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology.
"These data are extremely encouraging and could be a game-changer for a number of reasons," said lead author Christine Hill-Kayser, MD, Chief of the Pediatric Radiation Oncology Service at Penn Medicine and an attending physician at CHOP. "Not only did we observe excellent outcomes and minimal side effects that validate the use of PRT in high-risk neuroblastoma patients, we answered a lingering question about proton therapy -- the concern that because it is so targeted, tumors may come back. Tumors mostly did not come back -- suggesting PRT is effective, less toxic and a superior choice for our young patients who must endure intense treatment modalities in an effort to cure this high-risk cancer."
Neuroblastoma is the most common cancer in infants, accounting for more than 10 percent of all childhood cancer deaths. Primary neuroblastoma tumors are commonly adrenal tumors, which are very close to the kidney, liver, pancreas and bowel in children, making them hard to treat without harming vital organs in tiny bodies. Treatment usually involves a combination of therapies including chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.
Researchers studied 45 patients with high-risk neuroblastoma who received PRT at both institutions between 2010 and 2015. CHOP cancer patients who need radiation therapy are treated at Penn Medicine, including PRT through the Roberts Proton Therapy Center.
Unlike traditional photon radiation using x-rays, PRT is a non-invasive, precise cancer treatment that uses a beam of protons moving at very high speeds to destroy the DNA of cancer cells, killing them and preventing them from multiplying. Highly targeted, PRT has significant promise for treating tumors in very young children and may reduce radiation exposure to healthy, developing tissue that may result in lifelong impacts.
Five years after treatment, the longest recorded period of study in the largest cohort of patients to date, researchers observed excellent outcomes, with 82 percent of patients still alive, and 97 percent free of a primary site tumor reoccurrence.
Toxicities, or side effects, are measured on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most severe. No patient observed in the study experienced grade 3 or 4 long-term acute liver or kidney toxicity, with the majority of patients experiencing grade 1 side effects from PRT. "We've showed PRT is not only effective in the treatment of high-risk neuroblastoma, but it also spared damage to the developing liver, kidneys and bowel that may occur in pediatric patients exposed to traditional radiation," said Hill-Kayser. "While we look forward to longer-range data on these patients 10 years down the road, the excellent outcomes we see here, coupled with the fact the precision proton approach did not increase recurrence rates, support the expanded use of proton therapy in neuroblastoma and other high-risk childhood cancers." Additional studies with extended follow-up and larger patient numbers are planned. The Cancer Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia offers one of the most established and experienced pediatric proton radiation therapy programs, in collaboration with Penn Medicine at the Roberts Proton Therapy Center. For more information, please click here: Pediatric Proton Therapy Center.
This research was supported by institutional funds, without additional grant support.
Story Source:
Materials provided by Children's Hospital of PhiladelphiaNote: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:
  1. Christine E. Hill-Kayser, Zelig Tochner, Yimei Li, Goldie Kurtz, Robert A. Lustig, Paul James, Naomi Balamuth, Richard Womer, Peter Mattei, Stephen Grupp, Yael P. Mosse, John M. Maris, Rochelle Bagatell. Outcomes After Proton Therapy for Treatment of Pediatric High-Risk NeuroblastomaInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 2019; DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.01.095
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190409153631.htm

Alcon to Debut on NYSE Following Novartis Spin

Alcon (NYSE: ALC), the global leader in eye care dedicated to helping people see brilliantly, announced its debut as an independent, publicly traded company and the completion of its separation from Novartis (NYSE: NVS). The company’s shares begin trading today on the SIX Swiss Exchange and New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol “ALC.”
Alcon is the largest eye care device company in the world, with complementary businesses in Surgical and Vision Care. The company has a global presence in 74 countries and serves patients in more than 140, with fast-growing businesses in emerging markets. Alcon has the widest array of eye care offerings in the industry with products that can treat eye disorders at each stage of life.
“For more than 70 years, Alcon has been dedicated to helping people see brilliantly and now, as an independent company, we are pursuing even more opportunities to further that mission,” said David Endicott, Chief Executive Officer of Alcon. “We are poised to achieve sustainable growth and create long-term shareholder value as a standalone company. We have a long history of industry firsts and, as a nimble medical device company, we are sharply focused on providing innovative products that meet the needs of our customers, patients and consumers.”
Eye care is an approximately $23 billion a year market, growing at roughly 4 percent annually. Last year, Alcon had sales of $7.1 billion, including $4.0 billion in Surgical – up 7 percent from the prior year – and $3.1 billion in Vision Care – up 3 percent.
Under the terms of the separation, each Novartis shareholder or ADR (American Depositary Receipt) holder will receive one Alcon share for every five Novartis shares or ADRs they held as of the close of business on April 1, 2019, the record date for the distribution.
As an independent company, Alcon will have more focus and flexibility in pursuing its own growth strategy driven by rapid iterative innovation. The company will have a distinct investment identity with a more efficient capital structure that will allow it to expand markets, enter promising adjacencies and introduce new business models. These benefits, combined with Alcon’s industry-leading customer relationships, favorably position the company to achieve sustainable growth.
Alcon is headquartered in Geneva. The company has maintained a presence in Switzerland for more than 40 years and it is where the company was incorporated prior to the Novartis acquisition. Alcon’s facilities in Fort Worth, Texas, will remain a major operational center and innovation hub with a large base of employees.
Alcon will continue its substantial Corporate Giving efforts, which in 2018 included $62 million in monetary and product donations. Through its charitable organizations, the Alcon Foundation and Alcon Cares, Alcon partners with hundreds of charitable organizations to help increase access to eye care, providing sight-restoring surgeries, eye exams and other services to people in underserved communities around the world. Alcon also sponsors hands-on and virtual eye care provider training and skills-transfer to strengthen the level of care, and supports its communities through charitable donations and associate volunteerism.
Members of the company’s executive leadership team, Board of Directors and Alcon associates will celebrate the milestone by ringing the opening bell at the SIX and NYSE today, April 9.