Over 30 years of reporting on Congress, federal agencies and the White House for corporate America as well as national trade and professional associations.

NIH Establishes Early Version of Personalized Medicine Platform

P&T Journal - for the original article go HERE.  For a PDF version go HERE.

Congress has been pumping money into the precision-medicine initiative at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The first, early results of that spending were announced on May 7, when the All of Us research project went live with three types of aggregate health data on 142,000 individuals. It was the first wave of what is expected to amount to, or hoped to amount to, one million participants. All of Us grew out of the 21st Century Cures Act and is a favored target for federal funding. President Trump has proposed a 12% cut in NIH funding for fiscal 2020 (starting on October 1, 2019), which Congress is likely to reverse, as it has done in the last few years when similar cuts were asked for by the White House. However, the President’s 2020 budget does contain $313 million for All of Us.

The program was kicked off one year ago in seven cities around the country, with a particular emphasis on convincing members of underrepresented and minority communities to come forward with their health data. The idea is eventually to be able to check genomic data against environmental experience with a view to finding clues on the origin of various health conditions, so as to better target prevention and treatment measures. So far, more than 206,000 people have begun the enrollment process, and more than 142,000 have completed all the steps in the protocol. Most participants (> 75%) are from communities that have been underrepresented in biomedical research. “Those people are often left behind,” said Francis Collins, Director of NIH. “We’re hoping to chip away at vexing health disparities.”

A number of universities around the country have received grants to pay for participant enlistment efforts, including the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). Bruce Korf, MD, Chief Genomics Officer, UAB Medicine, says, “The All of Us research program is creating an unprecedented rich set of medical and biological data on one million participants who reflect the diversity of the United States. It will provide the foundation for the broad application of precision medicine for years to come, including the development of approaches to predict individuals at risk of disease and more precise and effective treatments.”

The NIH program is headed by Eric Dishman, former vice president of the Health and Life Sciences Group at Intel Corporation, where he was responsible for driving global strategy, research and development, product and platform development, and policy initiatives for health and life science solutions. Dishman––and Collins, among others––spoke at the one-year anniversary conference held at NIH on May 6. He explained that All of Us works with a consortium of 2,000 organizations and people from local communities to convince individuals to provide three types of data: electronic health records, responses to survey questions, and physical measurements. The data are available on the All of Us website (https://databrowser.researchallofus.org/.), where one can view, for example, the top 10 health conditions and then drill down in each category to get breakdowns, such as the age of those people affected and other measures.

Dishman was honest in his appraisal of the initial product. “Our tools are pretty crude,” he said. “Over time, the viewer experience will get better.” He noted that the early data can’t be sorted by ethnicity or race, which would seem like a pretty important goal considering that the project’s overarching objective is mining health statistics from the African American and Hispanic populations.

Gary Gibbons, MD, Director of the Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at NIH, posited the potential by explaining that further study of genomic variations among African Americans could help explain the root causes of sickle cell disease. He noted that individuals’ African roots may have caused variations in their hemoglobin genes via interaction with malaria vectors, and ultimately resulted in the sickle cell trait. An individual could have one genetic copy of that trait, or two, and that difference would have health implications. On one hand, the variations could have been protective, against malaria. On the other hand, that same sickle cell trait may predispose African Americans to chronic kidney disease, for which they are at higher risk.

Beyond sickle cell disease, Gibbons noted that genomic/environmental interaction could identify people who are at increased risk for heart disease, hypertension, coronary disease, and asthma. “We’re working toward a day when we can predict that you’ll have atrial fibrillation, which today may only become manifest when you come to an emergency room feeling dizzy and short of breath with a rapid heartbeat. But if we already know from your polygenic risk score that you are [susceptible to] atrial fibrillation, you may be wearing a watch that detects your heart rhythm, allowing us to detect the arrhythmia and provide an electric jolt to short-circuit it.”

Much of the promise of the All of Us initiative appears to rest on genomic exploration, and there are no genomic data available at present. Collins said that the data would be included in 2020 and that the program has a “bold timetable” for enrolling the 800,000 individuals who would complete the cohort of one million.

Author bio: 
Mr. Barlas is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C. who covers issues inside the Beltway.

House Democrats Push Competing Drug Price Transparency Bills

P&T Journal - for the original article go HERE.  For a PDF version go HERE.

May Provide Useful Data, But Not Downward Pressure on Prices

It was undoubtedly a coincidence that Novartis subsidiary AveXis announced “innovative access” programs on May 24, 2019, for its new drug Zolgensma (the highest-priced ever) three days after the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee was considering new bills to rein in costs of new and existing drugs. Zolgensma (onasemnogene abeparvovecxioi) is the latest entrant in the expensive gene-therapy category; the onetime treatment for a fatal early childhood disease is projected to cost somewhere around $2 million. This price is based on the fair-price analysis that the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review carried out, and which Avexis cited in its May announcement (although they didn’t include the dollar amount). Avexis argued that Zolgensma’s one-time cost will be 50% lower than the current 10-year cost of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) therapy.

Novartis’ agreeing to some form of value-based pricing with several health insurers is unlikely to silence criticism of the $2 million pricetag, however. What’s more likely is that Zolgensma will become a topic of congressional rhetoric as Sovaldi and Firdapse did during the May 21 hearings. Those hearings featured two competing drug price “transparency” bills, which Democrats are pushing as part of their effort to reduce high prices.

One bill––Stopping the Pharmaceutical Industry from Keeping Drugs Expensive Act, aka the “SPIKE Act” (H.R. 2069)––has already passed the House Ways and Means Committee. The Energy and Commerce health subcommittee also considered the Fair Accountability and Innovative Research Drug Pricing Act or “FAIR Drug Pricing” Act (H.R. 2296).

The two bills are similar, as both require companies to notify the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) when the price of an existing drug increases by a certain percentage, or when a new drug is introduced whose price exceeds some threshold (SPIKE Act only). That notification must include certain information, including total expenditures on R&D, as well as revenue and profit for the applicable drug. Neither bill limits price increases.

Mark Miller, until recently the executive director of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, said the bills might produce some useful information, “but in and of themselves [they] won’t be enough to affect the drug price issues you’re facing now.”

Fred Isasi, Executive Director of Families USA, was particularly critical of Sovaldi and Firdapse’s makers. Gilead ended up with Sovaldi after purchasing Pharmasett, which had undertaken substantial R&D in 2011. Isasi stated that Gilead asked someone on Wall Street how it should price Sovaldi, got an answer, and then quadrupled the recommended price. Sovaldi, used to treat hepatitis C, was originally priced around $84,000.

Raymond Schinazi, who is now a professor at Emory University and Co-Director of the HIV Cure Scientific Working Group within the Emory University Center for AIDS Research, was co-founder of Pharmasett and did some of the early research on Sovaldi. Schinazi says, “Gilead bought Pharmasset for $11.4 billion but made more than $15 billion selling Sovaldi in the next 12 to 14 months after launch. Pretty impressive! I wasn’t involved in any way in the pricing, but I do feel it was somewhat excessive [as] this isn’t an orphan disease... more than 71 million people are infected globally.”
He adds, “When Gilead bought Pharmasset, the drug wasn’t perfect [because] it had to be combined with something other than interferon and/or ribavirin. There was no guarantee the drug was going to be approved. Gilead did do a lot of R&D and sponsored many clinical trials that led to Sovaldi’s approval.”

Firdapse, which is used to treat a rare neuromuscular disease, was acquired last year by Catalyst Pharmaceuticals from Jacobus Pharmaceutical. Its cost increased to $375,000 per year, after having been free through the FDA’s compassionate-use program for people who needed it. Extraordinary price hikes for long-existing generic drugs such as insulin have also been the subject of previous congressional hearings.

The consulting firm KEI submitted a paper to the health subcommittee noting that many developed countries limit annual price increases for drugs. Canada limits increases to the consumer price index increase (CPI). “It should be noted that the United States is an outlier regarding the freedom to increase prices beyond the general rate of inflation,” KEI reported.

Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI) has introduced a bill that would limit price increases. The Stop Price Gouging Act (H.R. 1093) imposes an excise tax on companies selling prescription drugs that are subject to price spikes and that exceed the annual percentage increase in the Chained CPI.
Pocan’s bill wasn’t included in the May 21 hearing, and there was no response from his spokesman as to why.

Miller informed the health subcommittee about several options for Congress to rein in high drug prices, particularly regarding Medicare Parts B and D. He has endorsed a number of initiatives that the Trump administration has either proposed or accomplished via rulemaking. However, the bills that the House subcommittee considered on May 21 touched on very few items on Miller’s list, if any.

Author bio: 
Mr. Barlas is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C. who covers issues inside the Beltway.