When quantitative and qualitative Field Medical KPIs and metrics are aligned with the organization’s strategic plan, these measurements demonstrate value. Defining and communicating this value is an essential task as Field Medical solidifies its role as a strategic pillar within the organization.
This paper addresses the complexities of prioritizing contemporary journal offerings to accomplish article objectives and overall publication planning goals.
Through generation of Medical Insights, MA enhances its “third pillar” role within the pharmaceutical company and demonstrates value as a key driver in activities directly affecting patient outcomes.
This position paper is intended outline the roles and responsibilities expected of an MSL and provide clarity on the juxtaposition of MSLs and Sales representatives (SRs) when it comes to scientific exchange versus promotional messaging.
External Education is the provision of diverse learning opportunities to facilitate knowledge exchange, learning, and skills acquisition through funding of independent medical education (accredited or non-accredited), industry-led medical education, or collaborations addressing knowledge, competence, and performance gaps for HCPs, payers, and patients/caregivers. However, External Education has long been without a standardized language and practice. It is with this background in mind that the MAPS External Education Focus Area Working Group (FAWG) developed the comprehensive Standards & Guidance resource available to MAPS members here.
MedInfo Teams contribute to the business with clinical expertise, extensive knowledge of the company products and medical literature, insights of customer needs, and a strong understanding of the business.
This report shares the key insights from a MAPS special session on Field Medical engagement and provides further context from Medical Affairs colleagues who have first-hand knowledge of the ever-changing Field Medical role.
In this module you will: review the changing role of Medical Affairs and how it has become a strong strategic partner in product launch excellence (LE); gain insights into the components of LE; identify processes, systems, and tools to support LE; utilize templates to support LE planning.
Download the full article here
By Robert Honigberg, MBA, MD, MS&T Consulting, LLC
Neil Belson, JD, Law Office of Neil A Belson, LLC
The 21st Century Cures Act, enacted in 2016, requires the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assess the use of Real-World Evidence (RWE) for applications that include new drug indications and satisfying post-approval drug study requirements. RWE can contribute to showing that a drug or medical device is safe and effective, within the context of the FDA’s “totality of evidence approach” for evaluating regulatory submissions. The FDA has approved both drugs and medical devices based on regulatory submissions which have included RWE.
KEY WORDS: Real-World Data (RWD), Real-World Evidence (RWE), totality of evidence, FDA
The 21st Century Cures Act (2016) requires the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assess the use of Real-World Evidence (RWE) for applications that include new drug indications and satisfying post-approval1,2. The FDA issued a final guidance document for medical devices in 2017, in which the Agency stated that the applicant could use Real-World Data (RWD) to support regulatory determinations under the right conditions3. While the FDA has not yet followed up with a guidance for pharmaceutical products, their 2018 Framework for FDA’s Real-World Evidence Program outlined the potential applications of RWE for regulatory decision-making regarding the effectiveness of marketed products4. In the instance of an original approval for a product, the FDA recommended that an evidence package could contain three types of studies: clinical pharmacology, non-clinical toxicology, and clinical studies. However, for post-marketing labeling changes (i.e., use in a new population or a new indication), the evidence package could include prior submitted evidence and new evidence, traditionally represented by randomized clinical studies but also RWE studies. What is important for Medical Affairs and Regulatory teams to understand is that regardless of study type, setting, or design, the FDA does not have to evaluate one study type (i.e., Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT)) only when making regulatory decisions. Instead, the FDA uses a totality of evidence approach, examining all available evidence in the regulatory materials submitted including the quality of the studies and context of the manufacturer’s request4.
“While Real-World Evidence analysis will not replace the randomized controlled trial, it already has been used as effective support data for drug and device labeling changes and for rare disease submissions.”
Bob Honigberg MD
Several applications for labeling expansions and other regulatory approvals have successfully incorporated RWD and RWE. The purpose of this Elevate article is to provide regulatory examples of how various companies have negotiated with the FDA and successfully utilized RWE within regulatory submissions.
Regulatory submissions that involve the submission of RWD can come from data sources that routinely collect health-related information such as claims data, electronic health records, patient reported outcomes (questionnaires and devices), registries, as well as public and private databases. The use of RWE implies the analyses of RWD through applied research methods, such as for historical controls, or other types of analyses using records that were initially collected from sources other than randomized clinical trials. It is important to first target an opportunity where the use of RWE will add to the “totality of evidence.” The role of RWD and RWE has been especially useful for rare diseases as well as for the expansion of labeling to a more broad or newly defined sub-population, and the evolution of procedural medical device techniques. Using a “totality of evidence” approach, one can determine if the new evidence from RWD sources or RWE analyses can add to the existing evidence to create a new evidence package that has value from a clinical and regulatory perspective.
A White Paper prepared in December 2019 by the Duke Margolis Center for Health Policy5 examined non-traditional study designs which have used RWE, including open-label, single-arm studies, retrospective observational and case series, retrospective cohort studies using RWD sources, non-inferiority studies, RWE-generated historical controls, the use of concurrent control groups, and the use of post-market surveillance and registry data. Table 1 is an adapted summary of examples of approvals and labeling changes for drugs using evidence generated from these non-traditional studies. This article discusses three pharmaceutical case examples in this communication: Ibrance for male breast cancer, Invega Sustenna for schizoaffective disorder and Brineura for treatment of a form of Batten disease. The article also examines the label expansion of a medical device based on RWE to include a minimally-invasive approach to aortic valve replacement using Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR).
Ibrance (Palbociclib) was approved for metastatic breast cancer in 2019. The approval was based on two large randomized controlled trials (the PALOMA studies) in women and supported by clinical pharmacology and non-clinical toxicology studies. Evidence for clinical benefit in male breast cancer was noted from post-marketing reports, insurance claims data and electronic health records. Male breast cancer is a rare condition with a high unmet need for treatment; there were approximately 2,500 new cases and 500 deaths in 2019. The FDA submission included evidence derived from RWD sources including: the IQVIA insurance database, Flatiron Health breast cancer database, and the Pfizer global safety database. The FDA noted in its approval letter that “Given the extensive established efficacy and safety of the use of Palbociclib in women observed in randomized controlled trials, the additional RWE data provided in this application for the use in men, modest as it is, does support the expansion of the Palbociclib indication to provide for the treatment of men with metastatic breast cancer.”6
In 2011, the FDA approved the Sapien 3 device for TAVR, a novel approach that provided a minimally invasive alternative to open heart surgery for clinically appropriate patients. Post-marketing surveillance requirements included the collection of data in over 100,000 procedures in the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry, which included a subset in 600 patients that underwent the valve-in-valve variant of the procedure. Although this procedural variant was considered off-label, the valve-in-valve procedure was shown to be an improvement as it allowed the new valve to be placed inside the diseased valve. The FDA evaluated the clinical and functional data for this procedure from the registry to expand the indication for the TAVR-enabling device. The FDA announced that even though the United States had been only the 42nd country to approve the original TAVR device, through the use of creative regulatory procedures the United States became the first country to approve the new indication.
Invega Sustenna (paliperidone palmitate) is a centrally active anti-psychotic and the only once-monthly long-acting injectable (LAI) for schizoaffective disorder. There have been several expansions to the label since its original approval in 2006 for acute schizophrenia. In 2018, a labeling change was approved related to the time to treatment failure compared to oral anti-psychotics using an unconventional clinical trial design that was more representative of the disease population. Prior RCTs had excluded adult subjects with recent incarceration or substance abuse from the trial. The PRIDE trial, which was a randomized open-label pragmatic trial, recruited many subjects from jail-release programs, homeless shelters and soup kitchens. The trial was able to build on the existing evidence provided by published RCTs and include a broader and more representative population using an unconventional RWE clinical trial design that not only showed a time to treatment failure benefit but also a medication adherence benefit compared to oral anti-psychotics.
The FDA’s approval of Brineura (cerliponase alfa) in 2017 as a treatment for a form of Batten disease, is an example of the agency comparing a “single-arm” clinical study of a prospective drug treatment against a natural history “control” obtained from RWD. This use of natural history “controls” in single-arm clinical studies of prospective treatments for rare diseases has historically been among the most common uses of RWD to support regulatory approvals7. Brineura, an enzyme replacement therapy, was the first FDA-approved treatment for slowing the progressive loss of walking ability in patients with late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis type 2 (CLN2). CLN2 disease is a rare inherited disorder which occurs in approximately two to four of every 100,000 U.S. live births. Signs and symptoms in the late infantile form of this disease typically begin between ages two and four. Individuals with this condition often require use of a wheelchair by late childhood and typically do not survive past their teens. The clinical trial which established Brineura’s efficacy was a non-randomized, single-arm dose escalation clinical study in 22 symptomatic pediatric patients. The “control” or comparator was a group of 42 untreated CLN2 patients from a natural history cohort (an independent historical control group). Patients treated with Brineura suffered fewer declines in walking ability compared to the untreated patients in the natural history cohort.8
The 21st Century Cures Act directed FDA to evaluate the use of Real-World Data (RWD) and Real-World Evidence (RWE) in regulatory submissions. The objective of this Elevate article is to examine some of the approaches accepted by the FDA for using RWE to obtain regulatory approvals for drugs and devices. It is important to select new indication and expansion targets where there is an opportunity for RWE analysis to credibly add to the existing evidence base using a “totality of evidence” approach.
“While our understanding of the potential applications of RWE and the appropriate standards for its use is still evolving, RWE will almost certainly have an increasingly important role in future regulatory submissions for drugs and medical devices.”
Neil Belson JD
|
1 |
PRODUCT |
SPONSOR |
DISEASE |
STUDY DESIGN |
|
Bavencio (avelumab) |
Pfizer and Merck KGaA |
Metastatic merkel cell CA |
Open-label single-arm multicenter trial |
|
|
2 |
Blincyto (blinatumomab) |
Amgen |
B-cell precursor ALL |
Open-label single-arm multicenter trial |
|
3 |
Brineura (cerliponase alfa) |
Biomarin |
Infantile Batten Disease |
Non-randomized single-arm dose-escalation study Non-randomized comparison with natural history cohort |
|
4 |
Carbaglu (carglumic acid) |
Recordati Rare Diseases |
Hyper-ammonemia |
Retrospective unblinded uncontrolled case series |
|
5 |
Cordarone (amio darone HCl tabs) |
Sanofi |
Arrhythmia |
Retrospective open-label self-controlled study |
|
6 |
Ibrance |
Pfizer |
Male breast cancer |
Retrospective cohort study using HER data, insurance billing data, and post-marketing studies |
|
7 |
Inactivated polio vaccine |
NFIP (March of Dimes) |
Polio |
Randomized blinded placebo-controlled trial with additional observed controls |
|
8 |
Intravenous ganciclovir |
Exela Pharma Sciences |
AIDS and CMV retinitis |
Retrospective non-randomized study |
|
9 |
Invega Sustenna (paliperidone palmitate) |
Janssen |
Schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder |
Prospective randomized open-label active-controlled parallel-group trial |
|
10 |
Luthathera (lutetium Lu 177 dotatate) |
Advanced Accelerator Applications (Novartis) |
Somatostatin receptor positive GEP-NETs |
Randomized open-label, active-controlled multicenter trial Retrospective study |
Murali Gopal, MD, Vice President | Global Medical Department at Mallinckrodt
Murali Gopal, MD, remembers being a young clinician in the bygone era of giveaways during conference meetings when he would walk by pharma booths and pick up a water bottle or a tie or whatever they may be giving away. Would he ever wear the tie or use the water bottle? Probably not. But it cost him nothing and so why not? Now Murali compares this might-as-well approach to the biopharmaceutical industry’s traditional (and increasingly outdated) model of brand planning. As Vice President of the Global Medical Department at Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, he is helping his organization evolve into a future that includes the contributions of science and business to attain the goal of innovation. Here the Medical Affairs Professional Society (MAPS) talks with Murali about the strategy he uses to guide this change – Integrated Brand Planning – which he not only credits with bridging the gap between science and business in biopharmaceutical organizations, but sees as a philosophy that has led to his personal development as a leader and decision-maker.
MAPS: Okay, you have to start by telling us how brand planning is like stocking up on conference giveaways.
Murali: Think about what happens when Medical Affairs comes over and says we can generate X, Y and Z data for an asset – if you’re a Commercial person and you’re trying to maximize the opportunity of the molecule, and have no financial downside or obligation…why wouldn’t you take all options? It’s the same mentality as conference swag: If you can get something for nothing, you do it. That may have worked well without today’s challenges. But now companies that still use this model place themselves at a disadvantage.
MAPS: You’re saying this model of saying yes to all possibilities for a new drug leads to inefficiencies?
Murali: Yes, I am saying that, and that it also leads to increased costs and the need for increased resources. At a previous position, we ended up with 7,000 different promotional materials for one molecule in one year. Some were used once and some just sat in warehouses. A handful of them would be the key materials that were used over and over. It was as if we were creating things for the sake of creating things and not focusing on what the external stakeholder may have felt was most compelling or intriguing. Another example can be that perhaps the organization may determine they need some data without fully understanding that it may take five years to conclude a particular study, or may cost, say, $3 million dollars.
MAPS: And how is Integrated Brand Planning different?
Murali: With Integrated Brand Planning, or what some organizations call the General Manager model, the GM becomes responsible for the profit and loss of a molecule. What this means is that everything becomes visible. Commercial, safety, R&D all becomes visible, because they’re all centered around some level of cost. It forces the organization to align on their priorities and to create targeted strategies.
MAPS: It sounds like you’re talking about a more integrated flow of information between science and business during brand planning?
Murali: Traditionally the separation between science and business was intentional. Many scientists felt, and some may still feel, that science and business need to be separated and if Medical Affairs or Commercial has input to science, it takes away some of the scientific credibility. I like business but I’m a scientist at heart – I want to be measured against the science we engage in, and fortunately the GM model allows us to do both so that I can continue to grow my business acumen as well.
MAPS: What do you mean?
Murali: Let’s say our end goal is innovation – we live longer today because innovation helped us learn to deal with illnesses that would have killed us in our 30s and 40s. And look at the effect of the cholesterol medicine race in the cardiovascular space, heart transplants, etc. or the vaccine industry in general. The biopharmaceutical industry has always struggled to articulate the impact of innovation on society. But combining the business impact and scientific development aspects together, we can now measure and even predict how a therapy is going to provide value, as well as, to understand its economic impact so that we can make better decisions.
MAPS: You’re saying business has a role in innovation?
Murali: Certainly. At a previous position, we hired a top scientist in their field to work with a new molecule. He had great relationships, knew the unmet need, knew what the molecule could do, but he didn’t take into account what other companies were doing, or the needs of payor organizations, or the high level of focus on pricing at that time. When we got ready to introduce the molecule, the potential price and utilization scared the payors – they said it was going to break the healthcare system and that we would need to somehow restrict who is eligible for the therapy, and if we couldn’t do that, possibly no one would get it. Our internal leader couldn’t accept these business realities and the drug was by many measures unsuccessfully launched. For me, that was a very poignant experience. The fact is, you need relationships with scientific leaders, but to run a therapeutic area, you need just as much acumen on the landscape and business side to marry with the scientific aspects to be successful.
MAPS: This sounds like a cautionary tale of science overbalancing business, but of course we have cautionary tales in which business overbalances science as well.
Murali: I believe there are companies out there increasing profitability and cost because they can, but there are also companies trying to do the right thing, and it all gets lumped together. Integrated Brand Planning creates checks and balances.
MAPS: Oh, interesting! And how is that?
Murali: It’s about collaboration at the stage of annual planning. Instead of Commercial proposing studies to R&D, or R&D proposing studies to Commercial, with Integrated Brand Planning, it’s a collaborative, open discussion from the start. Scientists don’t need to also be MBAs and Commercial doesn’t need to hold PhDs, but the dialogue helps scientists elevate their business acumen, and Commercial elevate their scientific acumen. You need the perspective of external stakeholders as well. Most companies will put the patient or a disease at the center of what they do, then you have your organization or company’s resources sitting in the next circle around this center, but there’s an external circle as well that includes: advocacy groups for that therapeutic area, politicians, KOLs in academia, clinicians, etc. This brings the awareness and impact of patient journey and access journey into the planning process.
MAPS: It sounds challenging to help organizations transition from the traditional, siloed way of doing things into this new model of collaboration. What do you do to help generate this?
Murali: Three things. First, I’m trying to educate the scientific organization this can work and not to be afraid, but rather to embrace it. Second, I’m trying to explain what good actually looks like by walking through my own process of evolution from previous experiences at other companies – maybe by seeing how it’s worked elsewhere, we can skip some of the painful learnings. Third, I try to lead by example by sitting in wherever I can as a leader for the Medical organization.
MAPS: With collaboration comes complexity…
Murali: These actions have helped me develop not just as a better leader, but as a better individual. Balancing business and science in this collaborative process of brand planning helps me to not look at things as only black and white. It affects how I approach complex challenges. Sometimes in a discussion, you find out how complex something is and it surprises you through all of the aspects that may need to be considered and planned for. That’s fun for me. How we work together to solve complex problems is fundamentally interesting to me. And when you’re constantly looking at all these variables to make decisions, you get better at it, not just with regard to business decisions, but life decisions as well. When there are things that are hard to pick between, you can use the same mentality to make a well-rounded decision. It might sound strange, but after engaging and leading in this process for so many years, I feel like I ruminate on decisions a lot less, and that I am more secure in my decision-making ability. Don’t get me wrong, it takes effort. You can go through the motions and not get anything out of it. But I dug into it. I really wanted to unpack how far we could take commercial and scientific collaboration and I think it’s facilitated my growth as a leader and attaining this level in my career and in my life.