You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 14, Issue 3
  • Association between expedited review designations and the US or global burden of disease for drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, 2010–2019: a cross-sectional analysis

Article Text

Article menu
Global health
Original research
Association between expedited review designations and the US or global burden of disease for drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, 2010–2019: a cross-sectional analysis
  1. Matthew J Jackson1,2,
  2. Gregory Vaughan1,
  3. Fred D Ledley1,2
  1. 1 Bentley University, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA
  2. 2 Center for Integration of Science and Industry, Bentley University, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Fred D Ledley; GA_sciindustry{at}bentley.edu

Abstract

Objectives Pharmaceutical innovation can contribute to reducing the burden of disease in human populations. This research asks whether products approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2010 to 2019 and expedited review programmes incentivising development of products for serious disease were aligned with the US or global burden of disease.

Design Cross-sectional study.

Outcome measures Association of FDA product approvals (2010–2019), first approved indications, designations for expedited review with the burden of disease (disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)), years of life lost (YLL) and years of life lived with disability (YLD) for 122 WHO Global Health Estimates (GHE) conditions in US and global (ex-US) populations.

Results The FDA approved 387 drugs in 2010–2019 with lead indications associated with 59/122 GHE conditions. Conditions with at least one new drug had greater US DALYs (p=0.001), US YLL (p<0.001), global DALYs (p=0.030) and global YLL (p=0.004) but not US YLD (p=0.158) or global YLD (p=0.676). Most approvals were for conditions in the top quartile of US DALYs or YLL, but <27% were for conditions in the top quartile of global DALYs or YLL. The likelihood of a drug having one or more designations for expedited review programmes was negatively associated (OR<1) with US DALYs, US YLD and global YLD. There was a weak negative association with global DALYs and a weak positive association (OR>1) with US and global YLL.

Conclusions FDA drug approvals from 2010 to 2019 were more strongly aligned with US than global disease burden. Designations for expedited review were not aligned with either the US or global burdens of disease and may inadvertently disincentivise development of products addressing global disease burdens. These results may inform policies to better align pharmaceutical innovation with the burdens of disease.

  • Health policy
  • PUBLIC HEALTH
  • Quality of Life

Data availability statement

Data are available in a public, open access repository. All data used in writing this article are publicly available from sources referenced in the text. All extracted data is provided in supplemental materials. Raw data from statistical outputs are provided in online supplemental materials.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076542

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • Extensively characterised dataset of drugs approved by US Food and Drug Administration over 10-year period.

    • Logistic regression used to estimate the association (OR) between a product being designated for expedited approval and the burden of disease for Global Health Estimates (GHE) condition that includes the first approved indication.

    • Drugs assigned WHO burden of disease metrics for GHE condition including ICD-10 code for lead indication, which may not capture follow-on indications or off-label use.

    • GHE condition may include ICD-10 codes for which the drug is not indicated.

    • GHE conditions do not delineate the disease burden associated with subsets or stages of disease.

    Introduction

    This study explores the relationships between the burden of disease in US and global populations, drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2010 to 2019, and expedited review programmes designed to promote development of drugs for ‘serious diseases’ with selected characteristics. Previous work suggests that the number of drug approvals in different therapeutic areas is generally aligned with their US burden of disease1 but not their contribution to global disease burden.1–6 In the context of evidence that pharmaceutical R&D is driven by the available market size and anticipated returns on investment,2 7–11 industry’s underinvestment in products for morbidities more prevalent outside the USA5 6 can be seen as a market failure in which the pharmaceutical industry fails to develop products for markets that are inadequate to justify the investment cost.12–14 While alternative business models involving intergovernmental organisations, non-governmental organisations, public–private partnerships, non-profit entities and philanthropies have had notable success,14–16 it is classically the role of government to rectify market failures through regulatory or economic policy.17

    Over the past 40 years, regulations in the USA and EU have been implemented to redress market failures involving rare (orphan) diseases, paediatric disorders and serious diseases with attributes that make investment in these products unattractive.18–21 The prototype for such regulations was the US Orphan Drug Act of 1983,22 which successfully promoted drug development for rare diseases,23 24 but had unanticipated consequences related to drug pricing and applications to precision medicine.25 Subsequently, four expedited review programmes were legislated: ‘fast track’, ‘breakthrough’, ‘accelerated’ and ‘priority’ (online supplemental table 1) to incentivise development of products that address significant unmet medical needs, provide substantial improvement over existing therapies, require surrogate endpoints to establish efficacy, offer significant improvements in safety or effectiveness, or address paediatric, tropical, or infectious diseases.20 26–28 While questions have been raised about the efficacy, safety and innovativeness of products approved through these programmes,20 29–31 the majority of drugs coming to market now have at least one designation for expedited review programmes.20 Additionally, the Qualified Infectious Disease Product designation, created through the 2012 ‘Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now’ (GAIN) Act, provides selected products with fast track and priority review designations as well as greater market exclusivity.28

    Supplemental material

    While the FDA does not have jurisdiction over product approvals outside the USA, US markets influence the development priorities of the global pharmaceutical industry32 and most new drugs are approved by the FDA before being approved by the European Medicines Agency or other regulatory authorities in other countries.30 33 As such, it has been observed that programmes designed to selectively incentivise product development in the USA may shape the portfolio of products available to global populations.34–36 For example, most neglected tropical diseases are rare in the USA and qualify for FDA review and approval under the Orphan Drug Act.35 36 Additionally, products to prevent or treat certain tropical diseases may qualify sponsors for a priority review voucher that can be sold to sponsors of other (unrelated) drugs, reducing the net cost of developing drugs for tropical disease.37 38 While a number of drugs for tropical disease have taken advantage of this programme,39 40 recent analyses suggest there is insufficient evidence to assess its impact on promoting development of products for tropical disease.37 41

    Objectives

    The objective of this study was to ask whether the FDA-approved drugs from 2010 to 2019 were aligned with measures of the US or global burden of disease at the outset of the decade and whether this alignment was promoted by the four expedited review programmes in the USA. Specifically, this study identified drugs approved by the FDA, designations for expedited review programmes, their first approved indications, the Global Health Estimates (GHE) conditions associated with these indications, and WHO metrics describing the US and global burden of disease associated with these conditions. The burden of disease is classically measured in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs),42 43 calculated as the sum of years of potential life lost (YLL) and years of healthy life lost to disability (YLD). YLL measures the disease burden associated with premature mortality calculated from the age of death to life expectancy. YLD measures the disease burden associated with morbidity, calculated as the product of a condition’s disability weight and its prevalence in a population.44 45

    The analysis describes the relationship between the number of product approvals for indications in each GHE condition and its US or global disease burden measured by DALYs, YLL or YLD. The analysis further estimates the relative likelihood (OR) of a product receiving one or more designations for expedited review based on metrics of disease burden for the condition comprising the first approved indication. These results are discussed in the context of the intended and unintended consequences of expedited review programmes and the continuing challenge of achieving global equity in pharmaceutical innovations that address humankind’s most burdensome diseases.

    Methods

    Study design

    This cross-sectional study describes associations between the lead indications for drugs approved by the FDA from 2010 to 2019, designations of these products for expedited review, and WHO GHE metrics for the US and global burden of disease of conditions comprising these indications.

    Data sources

    FDA-approved products from 2010 to 2019 (New Drug Application (NDA) or Biologics License Application (BLA)) and dates of first approval were identified from annual FDA reports (CDER46; CBER47). Products derived from blood or tissue, diagnostic agents and vaccines were excluded. The 2010–2019 range excludes products developed and practices implemented during COVID-19.

    Expedited and orphan designations for products approved by CDER were identified in the CDER annual reports or the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action for each product. The first approved indication was identified in the Full Prescribing Information for each product,48 matched to corresponding ICD-10 code via the WHO ICD-10 lookup tool,49 and categorised by GHE condition. Each GHE condition comprises one or more ICD-10 codes (online supplemental table 2).50 For some analyses, GHE conditions were further categorised into 13 therapeutic areas adapted from the WHO Global Health Observatory (GHO) data repository disease hierarchy.51

    DALYs, YLL and YLD for US and global (ex-US) populations for 2010 were obtained from the WHO GHO data repository GHE-2020 for all 132 available GHE conditions.52 Ten GHE conditions in the categories ‘sudden infant death syndrome’ and ‘injuries’ were excluded. The final dataset consisted of 122 GHE conditions.

    Statistical methods

    Differences between the burden of disease metrics for conditions with one or more drug approvals or no drug approvals were analysed with Mann-Whitney tests. Significance is inferred with p<0.05. Bonferroni corrections of 8 were applied to account for multiple testing, with a corrected p<0.0065 corresponding to the p=0.05 threshold. Alignment of drug approvals with disease burden was assessed from the number of drug approvals associated with each quartile of GHE conditions ranked by US or global DALYs, YLD or YLL with Q4 representing the greatest disease burden and Q1 the lowest.

    Probability estimates (OR) of a product receiving an expedited designation (dependent variable) as a function of the DALYs, YLL or YLD for the GHE condition associated with its indication (independent variable) were assessed using univariate binary logistic regression models (model 1):

    Model 1: Yi~ β0+β1Xi

    OR=Exp(β1)

    where Yi indicates designation or no designation for a drug i, β0 represents the Y intercept, β1 represents the slope coefficient, Xi represents the independent variable (DALYs, YLL or YLD) of the disease corresponding to drug i, and Exp(x) is ex. Analysis was performed independently for each expedited designation and metric of disease burden. Model 1 was used for datasets comprising all drugs, drugs indicated for neoplastic disease and drugs indicated for non-neoplastic disease.

    Mann-Whitney tests were performed comparing ranked DALYs, YLL or YLD for neoplasm versus non-neoplasm GHE conditions. Mann-Whitney and logistic regression were performed in SPSS Statistics V.27 (IBM). All other analyses were performed in Excel.

    This manuscript follows Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines where applicable.

    Patient and public involvement

    None.

    Results

    Drug approvals, expedited review designations and first approved indications

    The FDA approved 387 drugs from 2010 to 2019 excluding vaccines and biological products derived from blood or tissues (online supplemental table 3). Of these, 227/387 (58.7%) were granted at least one designation for expedited review programmes including 49 (12.7%) for accelerated approval, 78 (20.2%) for breakthrough therapy, 142 (36.7%) for fast track and 207 (53.5%) for priority review. Across all approved products, there was an average of 1.2 designations for expedited review programmes. These fractions are consistent with observations by others (table 1).29 53 54 Seventeen products were associated with the GAIN Act, which includes priority review, and is not considered separately.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Number of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2010–2019, and designations for expedited review by therapeutic area

    The first approved indications for products in this dataset were associated with 188 unique ICD-10 codes (online supplemental table 3) corresponding to 59/122 (48%) GHE conditions (online supplemental table 2). The GHE conditions were further categorised into 13 therapeutic areas (table 2). The largest fraction of drug approvals was for ‘neoplasms’ (n=97/387) followed by ‘endocrine, blood and immune disorders’ (n=73/387) and ‘neurological and sense organ’ (n=50/387). Drugs for infectious and parasitic disease included treatments for hepatitis C, HIV, malaria, Chagas disease, leishmaniasis, fascioliasis, onchocerciasis and tuberculosis, diseases of particular concern in the tropical and developing world. Table 2 shows the US and global burden of disease for all 122 GHE conditions categorised by therapeutic area measured by DALYs, YLL and YLD. Notably, the US burden estimates represent <6% of global DALYs, YLL and YLD.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    US and global burden of disease estimates (‘000s) by therapeutic area as measured by DALYs, YLL and YLD (GHE-2020)

    Products indicated for neoplasm were most likely to have expedited designations, with 90/97 (92.8%) having at least one expedited designation and an average of 2.1 designations per product. Products for infectious and parasitic diseases were also likely to have expedited designations, with 28/37 (75.7%) having at least one expedited designation and an average of 1.7 designations per product (table 1). Seven drugs were indicated for diseases explicitly listed by the FDA as tropical diseases eligible for a priority review voucher (online supplemental table 4). Therapeutic areas with the lowest average number of expedited designations were diabetes mellitus (0.1 designations per product), maternal, neonatal and congenital (0.3 designations per product), musculoskeletal (0.3 designations per product) and mental and substance use (0.4 designations per product) (table 1).

    Associations between drug approvals and US or global burden of disease

    Table 3 compares US and global DALYs, YLL and YLD for 59 conditions associated with at least one new drug approval versus 63 conditions with no approval. US DALYs and YLL were significantly higher for conditions with at least one new drug approval (US DALYs, U=1193, p=0.001; US YLL, U=1144, p<0.001). Global DALYs and YLL were also higher for conditions with at least one new drug approval (global DALYs, U=1436, p=0.030; global YLL, U=1304, p=0.004), though the difference in global DALYs was not significant after Bonferroni correction.

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Mann-Whitney analysis of differences in disease burden between GHE disease states with or without drug approvals, 2010–2019

    There was no significant difference in the YLD for conditions with drug approvals and without an approved drug (US YLD, U=1583, p=0.158; global YLD, U=1777, p=0.676). When the analysis was repeated using only non-neoplastic conditions, US DALYs and YLL remained significantly higher for conditions with at least one approval (US DALYs, U=761, p=0.003; US YLL, U=724, p=0.001). There was no significant difference between conditions with or without at least one drug approval across any of the global burden of disease measures (table 3).

    Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between US and global DALYs for the 122 GHE conditions ranked by US DALYs, the boundaries of quartiles 1–4 of US to global DALYs, and the number of new drugs for indications in each condition. While the US and global DALYs are highly correlated (R=0.615, p<0.001), there are also substantive differences (online supplemental table 5). For example, multiple neoplasms, cardiovascular diseases, drug and alcohol use disorders, skin diseases, digestive diseases, osteoarthritis and neurological conditions were in Q4 (the top quartile) of the US disease burden but were in Q2 or Q3 of the global burden. Conversely, tuberculosis, meningitis, maternal conditions, rheumatic heart disease, and parasitic and vector diseases were in Q1 (the lowest quartile) of the US disease burden but were in Q3 or Q4 of the global burden (online supplemental table 2). Figure 1 also illustrates the number of drug approvals for indications in each condition, illustrating the greater number of drugs for conditions in the highest quartiles of US disease burden and the distribution of these conditions across all four quartiles of the global burden.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Relationship between Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals and the US or global burden of disease of Global Health Estimates (GHE) conditions associated with their lead indications. The 122 GHE conditions in the GHE-2020 study were ranked by US disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Bars indicate disease burden measured in US DALYs (left, blue) or global DALYs (right, orange). Bars are coloured by the number of products approved by the FDA, 2010–2019, with first approved indications for that condition. Empty bars indicate no approvals. Darker bars indicate larger numbers of approvals. Grid lines indicate quartiles of GHE conditions ranked by disease burden measured in DALYs with Q4 representing conditions with the highest disease burden and Q1 representing conditions with the lowest disease burden.

    Figure 2A shows the number of drugs for conditions in each quartile of disease burden measured by DALYs, YLL or YLD for both US and global populations (data breakdown in online supplemental table 6). The majority of drug approvals were for diseases indicated for conditions in the top quartile (Q4) of US DALYs. This was not evident for the global burden of disease, where <27% of products were approved for conditions in the top quartile of global DALYs, YLL or YLD (figure 2A, online supplemental table 6). Similarly, Mann-Whitney analysis shows that conditions with at least one drug approval had significantly higher US DALYs and YLL than conditions without approved products but lower global burden of disease metrics than those without an approved product (table 3).

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Association of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals and designations for expedited review across quartiles of US and global burden of disease. (A) Number of FDA drug approvals, 2010–2019, is shown for quartiles of Global Health Estimates (GHE) conditions ranked by US (blue) or global (orange) burden of disease. The burden of disease is measured by DALYs, YLL or YLD as shown. The number of FDA approvals is shown for neoplastic (patterned fill) and non-neoplastic conditions (solid fill). (B) The proportion of drugs approved, 2010–2019, with at least one expedited designation across quartiles of GHE conditions ranked by disease burden. The burden of disease for 122 GHE conditions is measured by DALYs, YLL and YLD and was divided by quartile with Q1 representing conditions with the lowest disease burden and Q4 representing conditions the highest disease burden. DALYs, disability-adjusted life years; YLD, years of life lived with disability; YLL, years of life lost.

    These analyses demonstrate a strong association between drug approvals and the US burden of disease measured by DALYs or YLL and a demonstrably weaker association between drug approvals and global disease metrics. These analyses also show that these associations are largely limited to measures of premature mortality (YLL) and that there is little association between drug approvals and measures of disability (YLD).

    Figure 2A also illustrates differences in the association of drugs for neoplastic disease and non-neoplastic disease and quartiles of US or global disease burden. Drugs for neoplasms are predominantly associated with conditions in the top two quartiles of US DALYs and YLL, the lowest two quartiles of US and global YLD, and widely across quartiles of global DALYs and YLL. This suggests that the large number of approvals for neoplastic indications contributes to the overall absence of an association between drug approvals and either US or global YLD. This is particularly pronounced for global YLD, where most neoplastic conditions are in the lowest quartile (figure 2A). Nevertheless, there were fewer products for conditions in the top quartile of both US and global YLD than for conditions in the third quartile.

    Association between expedited review designations and burden of disease

    Figure 2B shows the relationship between the fraction of approvals having one or more expedited designations and the quartiles of US or global DALYs, YLL or YLD. Figure 3A,C shows the calculated ORs of a product having at least one designation for expedited review as a function of US or global burden of disease metrics associated with the condition comprising the lead indication.

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    ORs representing the likelihood of receiving an expedited designation as a function of burden of disease. The OR of an approved drug having a designation for expedited review was calculated as a function of burden of disease metrics for Global Health Estimates conditions comprising the first approved indication. Data are shown for analyses of DALYs, YLL or YLD associated with the US burden of disease (A, B) or global burden of disease (C, D) using either the full data set (A, C) or excluding drugs indicated for neoplasm (B, D). Analyses were performed separately for accelerated, breakthrough, fast track or priority designations or at least one designation (‘1+designation’). (A) OR calculated for 387 products approved in 2010–2019 and US burden of disease metrics. (B) OR calculated for 290 products indicated for non-neoplastic conditions and US burden of disease metrics. (C) OR calculated for 387 products approved in 2010–2019 and global burden of disease metrics. (D) OR calculated for 290 products indicated for non-neoplastic conditions and global burden of disease metrics approved in 2010–2019. Data are shown as the average and 95% CI. Filled symbols represent data with p<0.0065 corresponding to the significance threshold of p=0.05 after a Bonferroni correction of 8 to account for multiple testing. DALYs, disability-adjusted life years; YLD, years of life lived with disability; YLL, years of life lost.

    There was a negative trend in the fraction of drugs with at least one expedited review designation across quartiles for either US or global DALYs (figure 2B). This trend was also evident with ORs significantly <1 for a product having at least one expedited review designation as a function of US DALYs (OR=0.526, 95% CI 0.335 to 0.826, p=0.005) (figure 3A) and a negative association with global DALYs (OR=0.673, 95% CI 0.428 to 1.057, p=0.085) (figure 3C).

    There was a positive trend in the fraction of drugs having at least one expedited designation across quartiles of either US or global YLL (figure 2B). This was also evident by the OR of >1 for a product having at least one designation for expedited review as a function of US or global YLL (US: OR=1.274, 95% CI 0.924 to 1.758, p=0.140; global: OR=1.501, 95% CI 1.150 to 1.958, p=0.003) (figure 3A,C).

    In contrast, there was a negative trend in the fraction of drugs having at least one expedited designation across quartiles of US or global YLD (figure 2B). This trend was also evident in the statistically significant ORs <1 for a product having at least one expedited designation as a function of US or global YLD (US: OR=0.243 95% CI 0.168 to 0.352, p<0.001; global: OR=0.215, CI 0.149 to 0.311, p<0.001) (figure 3A,C). ORs and full binary logistic regression variables for US and global expedited designations are shown in figure 3 and online supplemental table 7, respectively. ORs for each individual designation were similar to ORs for having at least one expedited designation (figure 3A–D).

    Similar patterns were observed when considering the 290 drugs approved across 97 non-neoplastic conditions (figure 3B,D). For these drugs, the OR of having at least one expedited review designation was significantly <1 as a function of US DALYs and not significantly <1 as a function of global DALYs (US: OR=0.440 95% CI 0.269 to 0.719, p=0.001; global: OR=0.751, CI 0.454 to 1.243, p=0.265). As a function of US and global YLD, the OR of non-neoplastic drugs having at least one expedited review designation was significantly <1 (US: OR=0.375 95% CI 0.098 to 0.131, p<0.001; global: OR=0.315, CI 0.197 to 0.505, p<0.001).

    Analysis of the 97 products indicated for neoplastic disease was limited by the paucity of products without expedited designations and, consequently, large SEs. These results are shown in online supplemental table 8.

    Discussion

    This research examined the association between the first approved indication for FDA-approved drugs from 2010 to 2019 and the US or global burden of disease for the associated GHE disease condition. Specifically, this analysis asked two questions; first, whether drug approvals for each GHE condition were related to the US or global burden of disease measured by DALYs, YLL or YLD; and second, whether products with indications having greater US or global burden of disease were more likely to be eligible for incentives associated with expedited review programmes.

    Drug approvals and the US or global burden of disease

    These analyses demonstrated a strong association between drug approvals and conditions with higher US DALYs. This was evident in the observation that the majority of all approvals had a first indication associated with conditions in the top quartile of US DALYs and that conditions with at least one new drug approval had significantly higher US DALYs than those without new approvals. In contrast, <27% of drug approvals were indicated for conditions in the top quartile of global disease burden, and there was a less pronounced difference in the global burden of disease for conditions with or without new drug approvals.

    These results are consistent with previous studies showing that US drug approvals are more closely associated with the US burden of disease than the global burden of disease.1 2 4–6 55 Since the global (ex-US) burden of disease represents >96% of the total DALYs associated with the 122 GHE conditions, these results suggest there is little alignment between US drug approvals and the composite health needs of global human populations.

    An unexpected finding in this work was the disparity between the strong association observed between US drug approvals and the disease burden associated with premature death (YLL) and the absence of any association between drug approvals and years of life lived with disability (YLD). While this disparity was partially related to the large number of drugs for neoplastic conditions with high YLL and lower YLD, the disparity was still evident when considering only drugs for non-neoplastic conditions.

    The under-representation of drugs indicated for conditions with the highest burden of disability is paradoxical given that the burden of disability measured by US YLD represents 42% of the total US disease burden measured by US DALYs. Evidence suggests that new drug launches can significantly reduce broad measures of disability56 and that individuals with disabilities filled an average of five times more prescriptions than those without disabilities,57 generating sales representing 32% of the US pharmaceutical market.57

    Expedited review designations and the burden of disease

    It has been suggested that expedited review programmes designed to incentivise development of products for serious diseases and unmet needs26 could also incentivise product development for conditions with the greatest burden of disease.35 36 58 The present analysis does not support this association. These data show no significant association between the likelihood of a drug having at least one designation for expedited review and the burden of disease associated with the approved indications, whether or not drugs for neoplastic disease are included in the analysis. Particularly notable was the strong negative association between each of the expedited review designations and YLL in US and global populations. These results suggest a dissociation between programmes designed to incentive development of products that ‘… address unmet medical need[s] in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening conditions’26 and the need for products that address the greatest burden of disease in US or global populations. While the large number of drugs for rare diseases in this dataset (43% had Orphan Drug Designation) could contribute to the absence of a positive association between expedited review designations and disease burden, such an analysis would require different analytical methods that do not aggregate indications into GHE disease states.

    Given the importance of US markets in shaping the global portfolio of products, these results raise concerns that US policies for incentivising drug development for certain classes of serious disease through expedited review may unintentionally disincentivise product development for conditions contributing the greatest burden of human disease. To the extent that the failure of industry to address the global disease burden represents a market failure in which the anticipated economic returns from these markets are inadequate to justify investments in product development, policies that selectively reduce the timelines or costs of developing products addressing lesser disease burden may make the return on investing in products that address the greatest burden of disease even less attractive. These results further suggest that such disincentives may be particularly acute for products addressing long-term morbidities over those addressing premature death. Additional research is required to assess the impact of expedited review programmes on product development for different therapeutic areas, specific diseases or individual indications. Research should also be directed towards developing evidence-based solutions to rectify any unanticipated consequences of policies for expedited review programmes that further complicate development of products addressing the health needs of global human populations.

    Limitations

    First, this study considers the burden of disease at the level of GHE conditions, many of which comprise multiple indications based on their ICD-10 codes. This may lead to overestimation of the burden of disease when the drug’s indications comprise a fraction of the potential indications associated with the GHE condition. Second, the study design focuses explicitly on the first approved indication for each drug, many of which subsequently receive supplemental indications or have off-label applications. This may lead to underestimation of the burden addressed for drugs that have indications for more than one GHE condition. Third, the statistical inferences in this work relate to a population of GHE conditions; no inferences should be drawn to individual disease states or subsets. Fourth, this work looks explicitly at the burden of disease measured by WHO global burden of disease metrics and may not fully account for comorbidities or economic costs associated with disorders or their treatments. Fifth, this analysis does not assess the availability of FDA-approved drugs or the association between a product’s availability and the burden associated with its indication in any country outside the USA. Thus, no inferences can be made regarding the association between the burden of disease and new drug approvals in any one nation or region. Finally, this analysis explicitly excluded the years of the COVID-19 pandemic and does not reflect changes in practice implemented in response to the pandemic.

    Conclusion

    Drug approvals from 2010 to 2019 were more strongly aligned with US disease burden than global disease burden and more strongly associated with YLL than YLD. The likelihood of an approved product receiving one or more designations for expedited review was not positively associated with either the US or global burden of disease and may inadvertently disincentivise product development for diseases that contribute the most to the global disease burden. These results may inform policies to better align pharmaceutical innovation with burdens of disease.

    Significance is inferred with a Bonferroni correction of 8, such that a calculated p value of 0.0065 is equivalent to a threshold of 0.05.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available in a public, open access repository. All data used in writing this article are publicly available from sources referenced in the text. All extracted data is provided in supplemental materials. Raw data from statistical outputs are provided in online supplemental materials.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    This study did not involve research on human subjects and was exempt from ethics review under the Declaration of Helsinki.

    Acknowledgments

    We would like to thank Dr Michael Boss, Dr Nancy Hsiung and Bruce Leicher, Esq., for advice and critical reading of the manuscript as well as Juliana Harrison, MBA, for managing and editing this submission.

    References

    1. ↵
      2. George T ,
      3. Ballreich J ,
      4. Trujillo A , et al
      . The association between drug approvals and burden of disease from 1990 to 2017. J Gen Intern Med 2021;36:3615–7. doi:10.1007/s11606-020-06525-3
      OpenUrl
    2. ↵
      2. Barrenho E ,
      3. Miraldo M ,
      4. Smith PC
      . Does global drug innovation correspond to burden of disease? The neglected diseases in developed and developing countries. Health Econ 2019;28:123–43. doi:10.1002/hec.3833
      OpenUrl
    3. ↵
      2. Milne C-P ,
      3. Kaitin KI
      . Are regulation and innovation priorities serving public health needs. Front Pharmacol 2019;10:144. doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.00144
    4. ↵
      2. Lichtenberg FR
      . Pharmaceutical innovation and the burden of disease in developing and developed countries. J Med Philos 2005;30:663–90. doi:10.1080/03605310500421421
      OpenUrlPubMed
    5. ↵
      2. Trouiller P ,
      3. Olliaro P ,
      4. Torreele E , et al
      . Drug development for neglected diseases: a deficient market and a public-health policy failure. Global Health 2002:267–73. doi:10.4324/9781315254227
    6. ↵
      2. Pécoul B ,
      3. Chirac P ,
      4. Trouiller P , et al
      . Access to essential drugs in poor countries: a lost battle. JAMA 1999;281:361–7. doi:10.1001/jama.281.4.361
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      2. Blume-Kohout ME ,
      3. Sood N
      . The impact of Medicare Part D on pharmaceutical R&D. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2008.
    8. ↵
      2. Acemoglu D ,
      3. Linn J
      . Market size in innovation: theory and evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2004;119:1049–90. doi:10.1162/0033553041502144
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      2. Acemoglu D ,
      3. Cutler D ,
      4. Finkelstein A , et al
      . Did Medicare induce pharmaceutical innovation. Am Econ Rev 2006;96:103–7. doi:10.1257/000282806777211766
      OpenUrl
    10. ↵
      2. Lakdawalla D ,
      3. Sood N
      . Incentives to innovate. In: The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of the Biopharmaceutical Industry. Oxford University Press New York, 2012: 143–66. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199742998.001.0001
    11. ↵
      2. Dubois P ,
      3. de Mouzon O ,
      4. Scott‐Morton F , et al
      . Market size and pharmaceutical innovation. Rand J Econ 2015;46:844–71. doi:10.1111/1756-2171.12113
      OpenUrl
    12. ↵
      2. Kremer M
      . Pharmaceuticals and the developing world. J Econ Perspect 2002;16:67–90. doi:10.1257/089533002320950984
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      2. Kremer M ,
      3. Glennerster R
      . Strong Medicine: Creating Incentives for Pharmaceutical Research on Neglected Diseases. Princeton University Press, 2004.
    14. ↵
      1. WHO
      . Research and development to meet health needs in developing countries: strengthening global financing and coordination: report of the consultative expert working group on research and development: financing and coordination. World Health Organization; 2012.
    15. ↵
      2. Chesbrough H ,
      3. Ahern S ,
      4. Finn M , et al
      . Business models for technology in the developing world: the role of non-governmental organizations. California Management Review 2006;48:48–61. doi:10.2307/41166349
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      2. Cohen JP ,
      3. Sturgeon G ,
      4. Cohen A
      . Measuring progress in neglected disease drug development. Clin Ther 2014;36:1037–42. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.05.004
      OpenUrl
    17. ↵
      2. Stiglitz J
      . Regulation and failure. In: Moss D , Cisternino J , eds. New perspectives on regulation. The Tobin Project, 576. 2009: 11–23.
    18. ↵
      2. Frakt AB
      . The risks and benefits of expedited drug reviews. JAMA 2018;320:225–6. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.8262
      OpenUrl
    19. ↵
      2. Hwang TJ ,
      3. Darrow JJ ,
      4. Kesselheim AS
      . The FDA’s expedited programs and clinical development times for novel therapeutics, 2012-2016. JAMA 2017;318:2137–8. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.14896
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. ↵
      2. Kesselheim AS ,
      3. Darrow JJ
      . FDA designations for therapeutics and their impact on drug development and regulatory review outcomes. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2015;97:29–36. doi:10.1002/cpt.1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      2. Kesselheim AS ,
      3. Wang B ,
      4. Franklin JM , et al
      . Trends in utilization of FDA expedited drug development and approval programs, 1987-2014: cohort study. BMJ 2015;351:h4633. doi:10.1136/bmj.h4633
    22. ↵
      2. Waxman HA
      . The history and development of the orphan drug act. In: Scheinberg IH , Walsh JM , eds. Orphan Diseases and Orphan Drugs. Manchester University Press, 1986: 228.
    23. ↵
      2. Braun MM ,
      3. Farag-El-Massah S ,
      4. Xu K , et al
      . Emergence of orphan drugs in the United States: a quantitative assessment of the first 25 years. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010;9:519–22. doi:10.1038/nrd3160
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      2. Miller KL ,
      3. Lanthier M
      . Investigating the landscape of US orphan product approvals. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2018;13:183. doi:10.1186/s13023-018-0930-3
    25. ↵
      2. Bagley N ,
      3. Berger B ,
      4. Chandra A , et al
      . The orphan drug act at 35: observations and an outlook for the twenty-first century. Innov Policy Econ 2019;19:97–137. doi:10.1086/699934
      OpenUrl
    26. ↵
      1. FDA
      . Expedited programs for serious conditions–drugs and Biologics. US Food and Drug Administration; 2017.
    27. ↵
      2. Field MJ ,
      3. Boat TF
      . Rare Diseases and Orphan Products: Accelerating Research and Development. National Academies Press, 2011: 1–420.
    28. ↵
      1. FDA
      . Antibacterial therapies for patients with an unmet medical need for the treatment of serious bacterial diseases. Guidance for Industry C.f.D.E.a. Research; 2017.
    29. ↵
      2. Darrow JJ ,
      3. Avorn J ,
      4. Kesselheim AS
      . FDA approval and regulation of pharmaceuticals, 1983-2018. JAMA 2020;323:164–76. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.20288
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    30. ↵
      2. Vokinger KN ,
      3. Kesselheim AS ,
      4. Glaus CEG , et al
      . Therapeutic value of drugs granted accelerated approval or conditional marketing authorization in the US and Europe from 2007 to 2021. JAMA Health Forum 2022;3:e222685. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2685
    31. ↵
      2. Mostaghim SR ,
      3. Gagne JJ ,
      4. Kesselheim AS
      . Safety related label changes for new drugs after approval in the US through expedited regulatory pathways: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2017:j3837. doi:10.1136/bmj.j3837
    32. ↵
      2. Goldman D ,
      3. Lakdawalla D
      . The global burden of medical innovation. Leonard Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, 2018: 2.
    33. ↵
      2. Downing NS ,
      3. Zhang AD ,
      4. Ross JS
      . Regulatory review of new therapeutic agents—FDA versus EMA, 2011–2015. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1386–7. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1700103
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. ↵
      2. Grabowski HG
      . Increasing R&D incentives for neglected diseases: lessons from the Orphan Drug Act. International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, Cambridge University Press, 2005: 457–80. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511494529
    35. ↵
      2. Sachs-Barrable K ,
      3. Conway J ,
      4. Gershkovich P , et al
      . The use of the United States FDA programs as a strategy to advance the development of drug products for neglected tropical diseases. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 2014;40:1429–34. doi:10.3109/03639045.2014.884132
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    36. ↵
      1. FDA
      . Guidance for industry neglected tropical diseases of the developing world: developing drugs for treatment or prevention; 2016.
    37. ↵
      1. GAO
      . FDA’s priority review voucher programs, GAO-20-251; 2020.
    38. ↵
      2. Jain N ,
      3. Hwang T ,
      4. Franklin JM , et al
      . Association of the priority review voucher with neglected tropical disease drug and vaccine development. JAMA 2017;318:388–9. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7467
      OpenUrl
    39. ↵
      2. Olliaro PL ,
      3. Kuesel AC ,
      4. Halleux CM , et al
      . Creative use of the priority review voucher by public and not-for-profit actors delivers the first new FDA-approved treatment for river blindness in 20 years. PLOS Negl Trop Dis 2018;12:e0006837. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0006837
    40. ↵
      2. Ridley DB ,
      3. Ganapathy P ,
      4. Kettler HE
      . US tropical disease priority review vouchers: lessons in promoting drug development and access. Health Affairs 2021;40:1243–51. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2020.02273
      OpenUrl
    41. ↵
      2. Kerr KW ,
      3. Henry TC ,
      4. Miller KL
      . Is the priority review voucher program stimulating new drug development for tropical diseases. PLOS Negl Trop Dis 2018;12:e0006695. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0006695
    42. ↵
      2. Murray CJ
      . Quantifying the burden of disease: the technical basis for disability-adjusted life years. Bull World Health Organ 1994;72:429–45.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    43. ↵
      2. Murray CJ ,
      3. Acharya AK
      . Understanding Dalys (disability-adjusted life years). J Health Econ 1997;16:703–30. doi:10.1016/s0167-6296(97)00004-0
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    44. ↵
      1. WHO
      . WHO methods and data sources for global burden of disease estimates 2000-2019. In: Global Health Estimates Technical Paper. World Health Organization, 2019.
    45. ↵
      2. Charalampous P ,
      3. Polinder S ,
      4. Wothge J , et al
      . A systematic literature review of disability weights measurement studies: evolution of methodological choices. Arch Public Health 2022;80:91. doi:10.1186/s13690-022-00860-z
    46. ↵
      1. FDA
      . New drugs at FDA: CDER’s new molecular entities and new therapeutic biological products. 2011-2020. Available: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/new-drugs-fda-cders-new-molecular-entities-and-new-therapeutic-biological-products
    47. ↵
    48. ↵
      1. FDA
      . Drugs@FDA: FDA-approved drugs. 2023. Available: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm
    49. ↵
      1. WHO
      . International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems 10th revision. 2016. Available: https://icd.who.int/browse10/2016/en
    50. ↵
      1. GHDx
      . Global burden of disease study 2019 (GBD 2019) cause list mapped to ICD codes. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluations (IHME): Global Health Data Exchange; 2020.
    51. ↵
      1. WHO
      . The global health Observatory data repository. 2019. Available: https://www.who.int/data/gho
    52. ↵
      Global health estimates 2020: disease burden by cause, age, sex, by country and by region, 2000-2019. Geneva World Health Organization; 2020.
    53. ↵
      2. Monge AN ,
      3. Sigelman DW ,
      4. Temple RJ , et al
      . Use of US food and Drug Administration expedited drug development and review programs by orphan and nonorphan novel drugs approved from 2008 to 2021. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5:e2239336. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.39336
    54. ↵
      2. Hwang TJ ,
      3. Ross JS ,
      4. Vokinger KN , et al
      . Association between FDA and EMA expedited approval programs and therapeutic value of new medicines: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2020;371:m3434. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3434
    55. ↵
      2. Milne CP ,
      3. Kaitin KI
      . Are regulation and innovation priorities serving public health needs. Front Pharmacol 2019;10:144. doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.00144
    56. ↵
      2. Lichtenberg FR
      . The impact of pharmaceutical innovation on disability days and the use of medical services in the United States, 1997–2010. J Hum Cap 2014;8:432–80. doi:10.1086/679110
      OpenUrl
    57. ↵
      2. Khavjou OA ,
      3. Anderson WL ,
      4. Honeycutt AA , et al
      . State-level health care expenditures associated with disability. Public Health Rep 2021;136:441–50. doi:10.1177/0033354920979807
      OpenUrl
    58. ↵
      2. Villa S ,
      3. Compagni A ,
      4. Reich MR
      . Orphan drug legislation: lessons for neglected tropical diseases. Int J Health Plann Manage 2009;24:27–42. doi:10.1002/hpm.930
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @sciindustry

    • Contributors FL contributed as corresponding author. MJJ, GV and FL designed the study. MJJ, GV and FL analysed and interpreted the data and performed the statistical analyses. MJJ and FL drafted the initial manuscript. MJJ, GV and FL reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript. FL is the guarantor and accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.

    • Funding This work was supported by grants to Bentley University from the National Biomedical Research Foundation and the Institute for New Economic Thinking (grant numbers: N/A). The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The sponsors did not have the right to veto publication or to control the decision regarding to which journal the paper was submitted.

    • Competing interests The authors report no competing interests. Since 2020, FL has received grant funding at Bentley University from the National Biomedical Research Foundation, Institute for New Economic Thinking, West Health Policy Center and the National Pharmaceutical Council.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.