Can you shed three years of pipeline flab with this one simple trick?
"There’s no trick to it ... it’s just a simple trick!" -Brad Goodman
Getting a drug to market is hard. It is hard in every way a thing can be hard: it takes a long time, it's expensive, it involves a process that is opaque and frustrating, and failure is a much more likely outcome than success. Boston pioneers pointing their wagons west in 1820 had far better prospects for seeing the Pacific Ocean than a new drug, freshly launched into human trials, will ever have for earning a single dollar in sales.
Exact numbers are hard to come by, but the semi-official industry estimates are: about 6-8 years, a couple billion dollars, and more than 80% chance of ultimate failure.
|Is there a secret handshake? Should we bring doughnuts?|
(We should probably bring doughnuts.)
But perhaps all we needed was another meeting.
A recent blog post from Anne Pariser, an Associate Director at FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research suggests that attending a pre-IND meeting can shave a whopping 3 years off your clinical development timeline:
For instance, for all new drugs approved between 2010 and 2012, the average clinical development time was more than 3 years faster when a pre-IND meeting was held than it was for drugs approved without a pre-IND meeting.
For orphan drugs used to treat rare diseases, the development time for products with a pre-IND meeting was 6 years shorter on average or about half of what it was for those orphan drugs that did not have such a meeting.That's it? A meeting? Cancel the massive CTMS integration – all we need are a couple tickets to DC?
Pariser's post appears to be an extension of an FDA presentation made at a joint NORD/DIA meeting last October. As far as I can tell, that presentation's not public, but it was covered by the Pink Sheet's Derrick Gingery on November 1. That presentation covered just 2010 and 2011, and actually showed a 5 year benefit for drugs with pre-IND meetings (Pariser references 2010-2012).
Consider the fact that one VC-funded vendor** was recently spotted aggressively hyping the fact that its software reduced one trial’s timeline by 6 weeks. And here the FDA is telling us that a single sit-down saves an additional 150 weeks.
In addition, a second meeting – the End of Phase II meeting – saves another year, according to the NORD presentation. Pariser does not include EOP2 data in her blog post.
So, time to charter a bus, load up the clinical and regulatory teams, and hit the road to Silver Spring?
Well, maybe. It probably couldn't hurt, and I'm sure it would be a great bonding experience, but there are some reasons to not take the numbers at face value.
- We’re dealing with really small numbers here. The NORD presentation covers 54 drugs, and Pariser's appears to add 39 to that total. The fact that the time-savings data shifted so dramatically – from 5 years to 3 – tips us off to the fact that we probably have a lot of variance in the data. We also have no idea how many pre-IND meetings there were, so we don't know the relative sizes of the comparison groups.
- It's a survivor-only data set. It doesn't include drugs that were terminated or rejected. FDA would never approve a clinical trial that only looked at patients who responded, then retroactively determined differences between them. That approach is clearly susceptible to survivorship bias.
- It reports means. This is especially a problem given the small numbers being studied. It's entirely plausible that just one or two drugs that took a really long time are badly skewing the results. Medians with quartile ranges would have been a lot more enlightening here.
However, it would be great to see more of these metrics, produced in more detail, by the FDA. The agency does a pretty good job of reporting on its own performance – the PDUFA performance reports are a worthwhile read – but it doesn't publish much in the way of sponsor metrics. Given the constant clamor for new pathways and concessions from the FDA, it would be truly enlightening to see how well the industry is actually taking advantage of the tools it currently has.
As Gingery wrote in his article, "Data showing that the existing FDA processes, if used, can reduce development time is interesting given the strong effort by industry to create new methods to streamline the approval process." Gingery also notes that two new official sponsor-FDA meeting points have been added in the recently-passed FDASIA, so it would seem extremely worthwhile to have some ongoing, rigorous measurement of the usage of, and benefit from, these meetings.
Of course, even if these meetings are strongly associated with faster pipeline times, don’t be so sure that simply adding the meeting will cut your development so dramatically. Goodhart's Law tells us that performance metrics, when turned into targets, have a tendency to fail: in this case, whatever it was about the drug, or the drug company leadership, that prevented the meeting from happening in the first place may still prove to be the real factor in the delay.
I suppose the ultimate lesson here might be: If your drug doesn't have a pre-IND meeting because your executive management has the hubris to believe it doesn't need FDA input, then you probably need new executives more than you need a meeting.
[Image: Meeting pictured may not contain actual magic. Photo from FDA's Flikr stream.]
* Disclosure: the author works for one of those.
** Under the theory that there is no such thing as bad publicity, no link will be provided.