New cancer drugs should see their patents extended six months for companies that conduct clinical trials in older adults or patients with multiple comorbidities, according to a new Institute of Medicine (IOM) report released today. This report deemed that more trials-;plus additional comparative effectiveness research and improved translation of evidence into clinical practice-;were essential for addressing what it termed a crisis in the nation's quality of cancer care.
Those essentials were part of a six-point conceptual framework for improved cancer-care quality laid out by an IOM-appointed committee of 17 experts. The framework also included more patient engagement; better-trained professionals to coordinate care with primary physicians and specialists; greater use of advanced IT; and new payment models that base reimbursement on quality of care rather than quantity of interventions.
"There is great need for high-quality, evidence-based strategies to guide cancer care and ensure efficient and effective use of scarce resources," the IOM concluded in "Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis." "Decisions about cancer care are often not evidence-based. Many patients also do not receive adequate explanation of their treatment goals, and when a phase of treatment concludes, they frequently do not know what they have received or the consequences on their future health."
The committee was chaired by Patricia A. Ganz, director of cancer prevention and control research at the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Los Angeles, Schools of Medicine and Public Health, where she is a distinguished university professor. The committee's recommendation for extending cancer-drug patents was based on results of clinical trials of pediatric drugs that had won additional exclusivity through exclusivity-based incentive provisions introduced in 1997 and made permanent last year.
For trials comparing new cancer treatments to standard therapies, the IOM panel added, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and other agencies should not fund the studies without requiring investigators to "study a population that mirrors the age distribution and health risk profile of patients with the disease."
However, the panel also acknowledged, "Such a mandate could make it more challenging to determine the efficacy and safety of a new treatment. This could make drug development more expensive, potentially require larger trials, and delay or prevent new drugs from entering the market."
During a public webinar today, Dr. Ganz downplayed those possibilities by saying the additional trials did not constitute a change to the current clinical trial system.
This article was reprinted from Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN) with permission from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers. Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN) has retained its position as the number one biotech publisher around the globe since its launch in 1981. GEN publishes a print edition 21 times a year and has additional exclusive editorial content online, like news and analysis as well as blogs, podcasts, webinars, polls, videos, and application notes. GEN's unique news and technology focus includes the entire bioproduct life cycle from early-stage R&D, to applied research including omics, biomarkers, as well as diagnostics, to bioprocessing and commercialization.