Pharmacoeconomic Considerations in CNS Drug Development

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the AAPS Advances in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Series book series (AAPS, volume 10)

Abstract

Recent advances in understanding of the blood–brain barrier (BBB) suggest that we are entering an era in which basic discoveries of BBB structure and function may be parlayed into meaningful disease applications. The development of impactful human therapies is a difficult and lengthy process; nonetheless, many researchers desire to see their work applied to the treatment of human disease. Significant financial reward will follow functional solutions to BBB delivery challenges; however, validating a trans-BBB delivery strategy to support and sustain a clinical program is costly and risky and requires multidisciplinary expertise. Investigators must necessarily garner funding and expertise for such campaigns, mainly through government grants, private investment firms, and industrial partnerships. Among the many considerations for researchers looking to advance brain delivery technology are the commercial aspects of the technology and the requirements attached to the funding mechanisms for clinical development. Early choices about delivery modality and target therapy (indication) have important consequences for the development process. An understanding of the forces that currently drive the pricing of therapeutics and the factors considered by potential investors who can fund expensive clinical development programs is helpful for framing a discussion about the pharmacoeconomics of BBB delivery. Complex multimodal delivery technologies may have added challenges for demonstrating safety and significantly higher drug manufacturing costs that can influence the risk–benefit analysis made by potential investors. Both the therapeutic application and the delivery system influence the path to generating commercial or government interest in advancing a particular brain delivery approach toward the clinic.

Keywords

Venture Capital Commercial Potential Potential Investor Delivery Approach Investigational Agent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviations

BBB

Blood–brain barrier

CNS

Central nervous system

GMP

Good manufacturing practice

NIH

National Institute of Health

QALY

Auality-adjusted life year

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adams CP, Brantner VV (2006) Estimating the cost of new drug development: is it really 802 million dollars? Health Aff (Millwood) 25(2):420–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold RJG (2007) Cost-effectiveness analysis: should it be required for drug registration and beyond? Drug Discov Today 12(21–22):960–965PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu P, Joglekar G, Rai S, Suresh P, Vernon J (2008) Analysis of manufacturing costs in pharmaceutical companies. J Pharm Innov 3(1):30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beg S, Samad A, Alam MI, Nazish I (2011) Dendrimers as novel systems for delivery of neuropharmaceuticals to the brain. CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets 10(5):576–588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bensmail D, Ward AB, Wissel J, Motta F, Saltuari L, Lissens J, Cros S, Beresniak A (2009) Cost-effectiveness modeling of intrathecal baclofen therapy versus other interventions for disabling spasticity. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 23(6):546–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bidros DS, Liu JK, Vogelbaum MA (2010) Future of convection-enhanced delivery in the treatment of brain tumors. Future Oncol 6(1):117–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bisht R (2011) Brain drug delivery system: a comprehensive review on recent experimental and clinical findings. Int J Pharm Sci Res 2(4):792–806Google Scholar
  8. Blasi P, Schoubben A, Giovagnoli S, Rossi C, Ricci M (2011) Solid lipid nanoparticles to improve brain drug delivery. Nanomater Life Sci 10:365–394Google Scholar
  9. Bodor N, Shek E, Higuchi T (1975) Delivery of a quaternary pyridinium salt across the blood-brain barrier by its dihydropyridine derivative. Science 190(4210):155–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cagnoni PJ, Walsh TJ, Prendergast MM, Bodensteiner D, Hiemenz S, Greenberg RN, Arndt CA, Schuster M, Seibel N, Yeldandi V, Tong KB (2000) Pharmacoeconomic analysis of liposomal amphotericin B versus conventional amphotericin B in the empirical treatment of persistently febrile neutropenic patients. J Clin Oncol 18(12):2476–2483PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Celia C, Cosco D, Paolino D, Fresta M (2011) Nanoparticulate devices for brain drug delivery. Med Res Rev 31(5):716–756Google Scholar
  12. Crunkhorn S (2012) Neurological disorders: nanoparticle opens door to cerebral palsy treatment. Nat Rev Drug Discov 11(6):440–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Lissovoy G, Matza LS, Green H, Werner M, Edgar T (2007) Cost-effectiveness of intrathecal baclofen therapy for the treatment of severe spasticity associated with cerebral palsy. J Child Neurol 22(1):49–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Rosa G, Salzano G, Caraglia M, Abbruzzese A (2012) Nanotechnologies: a strategy to overcome blood-brain barrier. Curr Drug Metab 13(1):61–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ding H, Inoue S, Ljubimov AV, Patil R, Portilla-Arias J, Hu J, Konda B, Wawrowsky KA, Fujita M, Karabalin N, Sasaki T, Black KL, Holler E, Ljubimova JY (2010) Inhibition of brain tumor growth by intravenous poly (beta-L-malic acid) nanobioconjugate with pH-dependent drug release [corrected]. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(42):18143–18148PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etame AB, Diaz RJ, Smith CA, Mainprize TG, Hynynen K, Rutka JT (2012) Focused ultrasound disruption of the blood-brain barrier: a new frontier for therapeutic delivery in molecular neurooncology. Neurosurg Focus 32(1):E3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferguson SD, Foster K, Yamini B (2007) Convection-enhanced delivery for treatment of brain tumors. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 7(12 Suppl):S79–S85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frank RT, Aboody KS, Najbauer J (2011) Strategies for enhancing antibody delivery to the brain. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer 1816(2):191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gabathuler R (2010) Approaches to transport therapeutic drugs across the blood-brain barrier to treat brain diseases. Neurobiol Dis 37(1):48–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D, Weinstein MC, Wright TC, Bosch FX, Franco E (2004) Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(8):604–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gosk S, Vermehren C, Storm G, Moos T (2004) Targeting anti-transferrin receptor antibody (OX26) and OX26-conjugated liposomes to brain capillary endothelial cells using in situ perfusion. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 24(11):1193–1204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall WA, Rustamzadeh E, Asher AL (2003) Convection-enhanced delivery in clinical trials. Neurosurg Focus 14(2):E2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haque S, Md S, Alam MI, Sahni JK, Ali J, Baboota S (2012) Nanostructure-based drug delivery systems for brain targeting. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 38(4):387–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herve F, Ghinea N, Scherrmann JM (2008) CNS delivery via adsorptive transcytosis. AAPS J 10(3):455–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iwadate Y, Namba H, Saegusa T, Sueyoshi K (1993) Intra-arterial mannitol infusion in the chemotherapy for malignant brain tumors. J Neurooncol 15(2):185–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jain A, Jain SK (2011) Drug targeting to the brain—a review. Curr Nanosci 7(1):21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jeffrey P, Summerfield S (2010) Assessment of the blood-brain barrier in CNS drug discovery. Neurobiol Dis 37(1):33–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kessel M, Frank F (2007) A better prescription for drug-development financing. Nat Biotechnol 25(8):859–866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kumar K, Kelly M, Pirlot T (2001) Continuous intrathecal morphine treatment for chronic pain of nonmalignant etiology: long-term benefits and efficacy. Surg Neurol 55(2):79–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Landis MS, Boyden T, Pegg S (2012) Nasal-to-CNS drug delivery: where are we now and where are we heading? An industrial perspective. Ther Deliv 3(2):195–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lock K, Wilson K, Murphy D, Riesco JA (2011) A cost-effectiveness model of smoking cessation based on a randomised controlled trial of varenicline versus placebo in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Expert Opin Pharmacother 12(17):2613–2626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loftsson T, Duchene D (2007) Cyclodextrins and their pharmaceutical applications. Int J Pharm 329(1–2):1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Malakoutikhah M, Teixido M, Giralt E (2011) Shuttle-mediated drug delivery to the brain. Angew Chem Int Ed 50(35):7998–8014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Malerba F, Paoletti F, Capsoni S, Cattaneo A (2011) Intranasal delivery of therapeutic proteins for neurological diseases. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 8(10):1277–1296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Malhotra M, Prakash S (2011) Targeted drug delivery across blood-brain-barrier using cell penetrating peptides tagged nanoparticles. Curr Nanosci 7(1):81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marino P, Roche H, Moatti JP (2008) High-dose chemotherapy for patients with high-risk breast cancer: a clinical and economic assessment using a quality-adjusted survival analysis. Am J Clin Oncol 31(2):117–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin-Banderas L, Holgado MA, Venero JL, Alvarez-Fuentes J, Fernandez-Arevalo M (2011) Nanostructures for drug delivery to the brain. Curr Med Chem 18(34):5303–5321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mehta AI, Choi BD, Raghavan R, Brady M, Friedman AH, Bigner DD, Pastan I, Sampson JH (2011) Imaging of convection enhanced delivery of toxins in humans. Toxins 3(3):201–206PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Meropol NJ, Schrag D, Smith TJ, Mulvey TM, Langdon RM Jr, Blum D, Ubel PA, Schnipper LE (2009) American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care. J Clin Oncol 27(23):3868–3874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Misra A (2003) Drug delivery to the central nervous system: a review. J Pharm Pharm Sci 6(2):252–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Moos T, Morgan EH (2001) Restricted transport of anti-transferrin receptor antibody (OX26) through the blood-brain barrier in the rat. J Neurochem 79(1):119–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nair SB, Dileep A, Rajanikant GK (2012) Nanotechnology based diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for neuroscience with special emphasis on ischemic stroke. Curr Med Chem 19(5):744–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Panagiotou T, Fisher RJ (2011) Enhanced transport capabilities via nanotechnologies: impacting bioefficacy, controlled release strategies, and novel chaperones. J Drug Deliv 902403:ePub Apr 26, 1–14Google Scholar
  44. Pardridge WM (2005) The blood-brain barrier: bottleneck in brain drug development. NeuroRx 2(1):3–14PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, Persinger CC, Munos BH, Lindborg SR, Schacht AL (2010) How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9(3):203–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pinheiro E, Vasan A, Kim JY, Lee E, Guimier JM, Perriens J (2006) Examining the production costs of antiretroviral drugs. AIDS 20(13):1745–1752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rajadhyaksha M, Boyden T, Liras J, El-Kattan A, Brodfuehrer J (2011) Current advances in delivery of biotherapeutics across the blood-brain barrier. Curr Drug Discov Technol 8(2):87–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ranson MR, Cheeseman S, White S, Margison J (2001) Caelyx (stealth liposomal doxorubicin) in the treatment of advanced breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 37(2):115–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Raudino G, Caffo M, Caruso G, Alafaci C, Tomasello F (2011) Nanoparticle-based cerebral drug-delivery systems and antiangiogenic approach in gliomas treatment. Recent Pat Nanotechnol 5(3):239–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Regina A, Demeule M, Che C, Lavallee I, Poirier J, Gabathuler R, Beliveau R, Castaigne JP (2008) Antitumour activity of ANG1005, a conjugate between paclitaxel and the new brain delivery vector Angiopep-2. Br J Pharmacol 155(2):185–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rip J, Schenk GJ, de Boer AG (2009) Differential receptor-mediated drug targeting to the diseased brain. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 6(3):227–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosenberg J, Nicas M, Yomashiro Y (2003) Understanding toxic substances. California Hazard Evaluation and Information Service–Occupational Health Branch Service. http://www.lni.wa.gov/wisha/p-ts/pdfs/toxicsubstances.pdf. Accessed 7 Jul 2012
  53. Schneider CK, Salmikangas P, Jilma B et al (2010) Challenges with advanced therapy medicinal products and how to meet them. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9(3):195–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sharma A, Jacob A, Tandon M, Kumar D (2010) Orphan drug: development trends and strategies. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2(4):290–299PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shawkat H, Westwood M-M, Mortimer A (2012) Mannitol: a review of its clinical uses. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care PainGoogle Scholar
  56. Shinde RL, Jindal AB, Devarajan PV (2011) Microemulsions and nanoemulsions for targeted drug delivery to the brain. Curr Nanosci 7(1):119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Su X, Zhan X, Tang F, Yao J, Wu J (2011) Magnetic nanoparticles in brain disease diagnosis and targeting drug delivery. Curr Nanosci 7(1):37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thomas FC, Taskar K, Rudraraju V, Goda S, Thorsheim HR, Gaasch JA, Mittapalli RK, Palmieri D, Steeg PS, Lockman PR, Smith QR (2009) Uptake of ANG1005, a novel paclitaxel derivative, through the blood-brain barrier into brain and experimental brain metastases of breast cancer. Pharm Res 26(11):2486–2494PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tian X, Canton I, Battaglia G (2011) Targeting transcytosis across the blood-brain-barrier. Nanotech conference & expo 2011: an interdisciplinary integrative forum on nanotechnology, biotechnology and microtechnology, vol 3, Boston, 13–16 June 2011, pp 459–462Google Scholar
  60. Tucker IG (2011) Drug delivery to the brain via the blood–brain barrier: a review of the literature and some recent patent disclosures. Ther Deliv 2(3):311–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ugwoke MI, Agu RU, Verbeke N, Kinget R (2005) Nasal mucoadhesive drug delivery: background, applications, trends and future perspectives. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 57(11):1640–1665PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wankhede M, Bouras A, Kaluzova M, Hadjipanayis Costas G (2012) Magnetic nanoparticles: an emerging technology for malignant brain tumor imaging and therapy. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 5(2):173–186PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wermeling DP (1993) Value of investigational drugs. Am J Hosp Pharm 50(8):1576PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Yu YJ, Zhang Y, Kenrick M, Hoyte K, Luk W, Lu Y, Atwal J, Elliott JM, Prabhu S, Watts RJ, Dennis MS (2011) Boosting brain uptake of a therapeutic antibody by reducing its affinity for a transcytosis target. Sci Transl Med 3(84):84ra44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhong XP, NewmanP CM, Loh E (2011) Recent advances in biotherapeutics drug discovery and development. InTech, Shanghai, pp 363–378Google Scholar
  66. Zulsdorf TB, Coenen C, Fiedeler AF, Milburn C, Weinroth M (2011) Quantum engagements: social reflections of nanoscience and emerging technologies. PA, IOS Press, LansdaleGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pfizer Pharmatherapeutics ResearchCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations