06Jun

Making predictions is always dicey – especially so in this unprecedented global environment. Yet that isn’t stopping EvaluatePharma from predicting Roche will still be the world’s biggest drugmaker 6 years from now.

If that seems a bold forecast – over the years, Roche has moved up and down the list of largest pharmaceutical firms – EvaluatePharma predicts that Bristol-Myers Squibb will drop from 4th this year to 8th in 2026.

Though the firm is projected to grow at a compound annual rate of 8.23% — second only to AstraZeneca’s 8.47% — the company’s lock on at least one of its big sellers will expire, lowering its drug revenues. It broke into the top five through its takeover of Celgene at the end of last year..

Other companies, according to the forecast, will move ahead on the list. By virtue of its merger with Allergan, which closed in May, Abbvie is on track to occupy 4th place in 2026. However, the online publication FiercePharma notes that the company’s big selling Humira is vulnerable to biosimilars which could “eat away at billions in revenue.”

These rankings are all based on prescription and over-the-counter drug sales. On a gross revenue basis, Johnson & Johnson tops the list of largest firms with 2019 revenue of $82.1 billion.

Many big pharma companies have other products that add to their total revenue. Johnson & Johnson manufactures skin and hair care, including such well-known brands as Neutrogena and Aveeno, as well as medical devices.

Solely on its drug sales, EvaluatePharma ranks J&J 3rd in 2026.

The forecast predicts Gilead Sciences will struggle to stay in the top 15. The company is forecast to barely grow through 2026. According to the analysis, “The company is famously under pressure to strike deals, but has steadfastly stuck to bolt-ons to date.”

Acknowledging that the “coronavirus pandemic is making the job of forecasting particularly tough right now,” Evaluate concludes by declaring, “it seems clear that Roche will lead the pack in 2026.”

[bdp_post_carousel]

Jun 6, 2023

COVID-19 Puts Spotlight On Adaptive Clinical Trials

One of the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to be the accelerated acceptance of adaptive clinical trials.

Dr. Anthony Fauci endorsed adaptive trials when he announced the effectiveness of redelivering in treating COVID-19 patients.

“The data shows that remdesivir has a clear-cut, significant positive effect in diminishing the time to recover,” Fauci said in a White House briefing April 29.

The data came from a unique type of clinical trial launched in February and sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases where Fauci is director. The Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT) is different from classical clinical trials in that researchers can make changes in dosing, patients and other parts of the study as the data accumulates.

That’s why, not quite two months into the study, Fauci was able to declare remdesivir effective in reducing recovery time for COVID-19 patients. Discussing the trial findings up to that point, Fauci said, “What [the trial] has proven is that a drug can block this virus.”

Adaptive clinical trial design is common in testing medical devices, but much less so in testing drugs and new therapies. Those tests are almost exclusively designed as randomized clinical trials (RCT) in which subjects are divided into at least two groups, with one receiving the new drug and a second a placebo. It’s a double-blind test meaning neither the patient nor the clinical researchers know who is getting what. Once underway, only in the rarest of situations can the process depart from the trial’s original design.

Though considered the gold standard for testing the efficacy and safety of new drugs, the RCT design has been criticized for its cost, duration and inflexibility. As long ago as 2004 the Food and Drug Administration announced a Critical Path Initiative to accelerate drug development. “Modernizing Clinical Trial Designs and Strategies” was one of the programs.

At the end of last year, the FDA issued an industry guidance for pharmaceutical and bioscience firms “on the appropriate use of adaptive designs for clinical trials.”

The guidance notes,

“Adaptive designs can provide a variety of advantages over non-adaptive designs. These advantages arise from the fundamental property of clinical trials with an adaptive design: they allow the trial to adjust to information that was not available when the trial began.

While the ACTT, first launched at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and now involving 68 sites, and other adaptive COVID-19 trials now underway are showing they can deliver results, adaptive trials are unlikely to any time soon – or ever — become the new standard for drug testing.

Dr. Adams Dudley, a drug safety expert at UC San Francisco, told the Los Angeles Times, it’s risky to allow companies with a financial stake in the outcome to change study rules during a trial. However, in a crisis like the current COVID-19 pandemic, Dudley said randomized clinical trials take too long.

Noted the Times, “With thousands of people dying every day of COVID-19, the deliberate pace of this gold standard research may not be the best way to end the crisis quickly.”

Photo by Viki Mohamad on Unsplash

[bdp_post_carousel]

5 Reasons Not to Accept a Counteroffer

Even though a counteroffer may seem attractive, there are many reasons why you should not accept one. Here are 5 reasons you shouldn’t accept a counteroffer.