Breakthroughs Blog: FDA

United States Representatives Jim Cooper (D-TN) and Cynthia Loomis (R-WO) introduced the Research for All Act last week which calls for the inclusion of more women in clinical trials for products submitted for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Drugs can have different effects on women and men, and as women are often underrepresented in clinical trials, there have been products on the market that are unsafe or less effective for women. While the FDA has made strides in recognizing and addressing this disparity and its potential consequences, this bill would require the FDA to “ensure that the design and size of clinical trials for products granted expedited approval … are sufficient to determine the safety and effectiveness of such products for men and women using subgroup analysis." Opponents fear that this legislation could increase the cost or length of clinical trials and consequently, product development. Mark Prausnitz, director of the Center for Drug Design, Development, and Delivery at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has created a small patch covered with 100 minute needles intended to administer vaccines without a syringe and needle. Not only would the vaccination be virtually painless, but it could be self-administered, and it would not need to be refrigerated, making it accessible in remote areas with a paucity of skilled health workers or unreliable electricity. The patch has been used successfully to administer the measles vaccine to animals, and clinical trials in humans are expected to start in 2017. Prausnitz will also be testing a flu vaccine patch on 100 volunteers this summer. While the vaccine’s cost will remain the same, Prausnitz hopes the patch will be cheaper than syringes and needles. Researchers at the University of Notre Dame have created simple, paper cards that can identify low-quality or counterfeit malaria medicines. The cards have 12 bars that change color when exposed to a crushed-up pill, and those bars indicate the presence and quantity of six different antimalarial agents. One third of antimalarials in sub-Saharan Africa are either entirely fake, diluted with different ingredients, or contain inadequate amounts of the antimalarial agents. These drugs can cause drug resistance and the additional ingredients can be harmful to patients. The cards, which currently cost US$0.50 each, are intended for use by pharmacists and customs offices, but only work for non-artemisinin-based antimalarials. The leading approach to treating river blindness—mass administration of the medicine ivermectin—can be deadly to patients co-infected with Loa loa worms. However, the detection of these worms can be a challenge, requiring a microscope and a health worker trained to identify the worms in the patient’s blood. Daniel Fletcher, a professor of bioengineering at the University of California, Berkeley, has developed a microscope that connects to a smartphone, takes a video of a blood sample, and detects the movement of Loa loa worms. The entire process takes about three minutes, a much shorter process than transporting a blood sample to a laboratory and counting the worms individually. While this device is an invaluable diagnostic tool, the article highlights the need for research and development of a drug that can combat both the Loa loa worms and the parasites responsible for river blindness.

In this regular feature on Breakthroughs, we highlight some of the most interesting reads in global health research from the past week. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg announced last week that she intends to resign from her position in March. The FDA’s Chief Scientist Dr. Stephen Orstroff will serve as the interim Commissioner. Dr. Robert Califf, founding director of the Clinical Research Institute at Duke University, and recently appointed deputy commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco at the FDA, is expected to be the principal candidate to fill the role permanently. The Global Health Innovative Technology (GHIT) Fund and the Gates Foundation launched a Grand Challenge last week to combat neglected diseases, including malaria, tuberculosis, Chagas disease, and visceral leishmaniasis. The Fund intends to grant US$2 million per year for the research and development (R&D) of new drugs, vaccines, or diagnostics, and up to $1 million per year for each product. GHIT also announced last week that it will invest $637,000 into the development and testing of chemical compounds in the pursuit of more effective products to prevent and treat malaria. The funding will be directed into a partnership between GHTC member Medicines for Malaria Venture and Japanese pharmaceutical company Daiichi Sankyo. Policy Cures—an independent research group and author of the annual G-FINDER report which analyzes global spending on global health R&D—released its first-ever report on reproductive health R&D for developing countries. The report reveals that just $88 million was spent on developing country-specific reproductive health R&D in 2013, $63 million of which was spent on contraceptive R&D. The report explores the limited funding and major gaps in reproductive health R&D, highlighting the need for affordable products that are easily delivered, administered, or stored; have multiple purposes; and do not have major side-effects. A recent study reveals that the United Kingdom’s top 25 universities—in terms of public funding for medical research—spend just 1.7 percent of their health research budgets on neglected diseases. The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine topped the list, spending 68 percent of their health research on diseases that impact people in developing countries, however, all but 5 of the top 25 allocated less than 10 percent of their medical research budgets to neglected diseases.

In this regular feature on Breakthroughs, we highlight some of the most interesting reads in global health research from the past week. Last week the House Appropriations Committee easily approved the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee’s (SFOPS) appropriations bill. Both chambers have also released their accompanying reports which provide policy language that gives further clarity on the policymakers’ thinking and intent. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released a guidance to assist sponsors in drug development for the treatment and prevention of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) for low- and middle-income countries. The guidance is intended to represented the FDA’s current thinking regarding drug development for NTDs, including clinical trial designs and internal review standards to support approval of drugs. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has called for a global action plan to effectively treat drug-resistant superbugs. Prime Minister Cameron appointed ex-Goldman Sachs Chief Economist Jim O’Neill to lead the analysis on the issue and identify why few new antibiotics are being developed. The O’Neill Commission will also develop a plan for “encouraging and accelerating antibiotic development,” as well as explore incentive mechanisms for drug makers to produce antibiotics even if they are rarely used. Global Health Council (GHC) Executive Director Christine Sow recently wrote about the top ten trends shaping today’s global health outlook. Sow—who was made executive director of the GHC last November—went on a “listening tour” over the last three months to get a better sense of the global health community’s priorities and needs. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on global tuberculosis (TB) in the United Kingdom has released a new report on research and development for global health. The report seeks to explain why diseases that kill so many are neglected in research efforts, and provides a wide range of views and ideas on how to solve the problem.

As the DC summer kicks into full swing, Congress has had a busy month moving forward fiscal year (FY) 2015 funding legislation for a variety of government programs including global health research and development (R&D). Global health R&D at USAID: Yesterday, both the House and Senate State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) appropriations subcommittees held mark-ups of their draft bills. The House draft provides only topline spending numbers, with the addition of family planning/reproductive health, polio, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and the Global Fund funding levels. The House funded the overall account above the White House request, but below what was appropriated in FY 2014. Including the State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) numbers, funding was $132 million below the numbers Congress appropriated in FY 2014, but a welcome $257 million more than what the White House had requested. For a quick comparison of numbers, check out the Kaiser Family Foundation’s SFOPs policy analysis. The other accounts called out in the House bill were $59 million for polio (the same as FY 2014, but 18 percent higher than the President’s request) and family planning at $461 million. Funding for family planning was a significant but not unexpected cut from both the FY 2014 number (24 percent cut) and the White House request (28 percent cut). As the full House appropriations committee has not yet marked up the bill (and it’s not clear that they will), details on the contents of the bill report’s priorities and other policy riders are not yet known. We do know the House bill reinstates the Mexico City Policy—which prevents nongovernmental organizations who receive federal dollars from promoting abortion services as part of family planning­—or prohibits any funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The full committee may take the bill up for consideration sometime next week. The Senate summary provides considerably more specific account figures for global health than the House bill. The Senate bill flat-funds the Global Fund and PEPFAR compared with FY 2014 and is even with the White House request—it’s interesting to note that for this overall account, the House bill appears to provide a higher funding level, even though we don’t yet know the exact funding distribution. Most other accounts were funded at levels either matching or slightly above FY 2014 funding. One exception is the tuberculosis (TB) account, which faces an $11 million cut from FY 2014 levels, although it is not as dire as the proposed White House funding level, which would have cut an additional $23 million. There is better news to be found for family planning and reproductive health, neglected tropical diseases, polio, and vaccine access. There’s no explicit word in either the House or Senate bills regarding the overall Maternal and Child Health account. NIH, CDC, and FDA Last week the Senate held its Labor, Health, and Human Services (LHHS) subcommittee mark-up and released a summary of their draft bill. A full Senate committee mark-up has yet to be scheduled, and the House has yet to move forward with its own draft bill. This account remains one of the most contentious, both because of ongoing efforts to alter the health care reform programs and because of a Senate plan to use the Overseas Contingency Operations account as a complicated and likely unsustainable mechanism to boost up funding for domestic priorities. The committee requested $30.459 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an increase to both the White House and FY 2014 levels by $324.0 million and $605.7 million, respectively, but still far less than the $32 billion needed. Global health programs within both NIH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also did quite well in the Senate bill—the CDC’s Centers for Global Health and Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Diseases, the NIH’s National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the Fogarty International Centers were nearly all funded at levels above both FY 2014 and the White House request. Both the House and Senate have also marked-up their legislation to fund the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The House bill funds the FDA at $2.583 billion (this number represents budget authority and does not include user fees), which is a $23 million increase over FY 2014 and is about level with the White House request. The Senate bill funds the FDA at $2.588 billion, an increase of $36 million over FY 2014. The Senate is taking up this bill as part of a “minibus” along with the bills from the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee, the Transportation subcommittee, and the Housing and Urban Development subcommittees. The Senate version of the bill also included some interesting report language around FDA’s international leadership to combat threats to global health and the global drug supply chain.  Defense The House Appropriations Committee approved their FY 2015 bill which essentially flat funds Department of Defense (DoD) R&D—which includes all research at DoD, not just neglected disease R&D—from FY 2014 levels. The American Association for the Advancement of Science provides a helpful summary of R&D funding within the draft bill which can be found here. The Senate Appropriations Committee has yet to mark-up a bill. In both the House and Senate, we see policymakers diverging from the priorities emphasized by the White House in its original budget request: there is little mention of any implementation of the infamous Opportunity, Growth, and Security account suggestions for global health or health research, although the Senate Appropriations Committee has developed its own plan for handling the declining budget caps while still supporting accounts they view as important to US health research programs. While the progress we’ve seen so far is commendable, Congress must speed its efforts to enact smart, evidence-based appropriations for global health R&D programs and their overarching accounts. As the end of the current fiscal year looms closer, policymakers must work together to avoid the stalemate that caused the government shutdown of the fall of 2013 and should support strong funding levels for global health R&D.