Integrating patient preferences into the design of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) may help accelerate innovation for alternative kidney replacement therapy by appropriately selecting a trial's significance level and sample size, and have a meaningful impact on people suffering from kidney failure. While a conventional one-sided significance level threshold of 2.5 % is often used to assess the safety of a proposed device, we show in this study that it is not necessarily consistent with the risk-preferences of patients with dialysis-dependent kidney disease. We apply a Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) framework to results from a patient preference survey and estimate the optimal significance level and sample size required in an RCT to assess the safety of a hypothetical dialysis device. Based on survey responses from 599 patients with dialysis-dependent kidney failure, we found that the optimal significance level threshold differs significantly from the classical 2.5 % threshold used in two-sided hypothesis tests across various patient subgroups. On average, patients tended to require a significance level of 1.2 % for the risk of bleeding and a significance level <0.1 % for the risk of serious infection, suggesting that the survey respondents were not willing to bear either type of additional risk presented by the hypothetical device in exchange for the possible benefits described in the survey. However, there was heterogeneity among the patient subgroups of dialysis modality, age, gender, ethnicity, and time on dialysis. Overall, our study shows that the BDA framework is a robust, systematic, transparent, and reproducible method for incorporating patient preference information into the design and regulatory review process of clinical trials for novel therapeutics.

Clinical trials are critical for advancing medical treatments but remain prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. Accurate prediction of clinical trial outcomes can significantly reduce research and development costs and accelerate drug discovery. While recent deep learning models have shown promise by leveraging unstructured data, their black-box nature, lack of interpretability, and vulnerability to label leakage limit their practical use in high-stakes biomedical contexts. In this work, we propose AutoCT, a novel framework that combines the reasoning capabilities of large language models with the explainability of classical machine learning. AutoCT autonomously generates, evaluates, and refines tabular features based on public information without human input. Our method uses Monte Carlo Tree Search to iteratively optimize predictive performance. Experimental results show that AutoCT performs on par with or better than SOTA methods on clinical trial prediction tasks within only a limited number of self-refinement iterations, establishing a new paradigm for scalable, interpretable, and cost-efficient clinical trial prediction.

Therapeutic development for rare diseases is difficult for pharmaceutical companies due to significant scientific challenges, extensive costs, and low financial returns. It is increasingly common for caregivers and patient advocacy groups to partner with biomedical professionals to finance and develop treatments for rare diseases. This case study illustrates the story of Terry Pirovolakis, a father who partnered with biomedical professionals to develop the novel gene therapy, Melpida, within 36 months of the diagnosis of his infant son. We identify the factors that led to the success of Melpida and analyze the business model of Elpida Therapeutics, a social purpose corporation founded by Pirovolakis to reproduce the success of Melpida for other rare diseases. We conclude with four lessons from Melpida to inform caregivers like Pirovolakis on developing novel gene therapies to save their loved ones.

We propose a new approach to funding disease-specific drug development via a variation of the adaptive platform trial. This trial is designed to test a portfolio of drug candidates in parallel, with the cost of the trial partially covered by investors who receive payments from a royalty fund of the candidates in exchange for investment. Under realistic assumptions for cost, revenue, probability of success, drug sales, and royalty rates, investors may expect a return of 28%, but with a 22% probability of total loss. Such return distributions may be attractive to hedge funds, family offices, and philanthropic investors seeking both social impact and financial return. Return distributions palatable to mainstream investors may be achieved by funding multiple platform trials simultaneously and securitizing the aggregate cash flows.

We apply survival analysis as well as machine learning models to predict the duration of clinical trials using the largest dataset so far constructed in this domain. Neural network-based DeepSurv yields the most accurate predictions and we identify key factors that are most predictive of trial duration. This methodology may help clinical researchers optimize trial designs for expedited testing, and can also reduce the financial risk of drug development, which in turn will lower the cost of funding and increase the amount of capital allocated to this sector.

CONTEXT: Cell and gene therapies (CGTs) offer treatment to rare and oftentimes deadly diseases. Because of their high price and uncertain clinical outcomes, US insurers commonly restrain patient access to CGTs, and these barriers may create or perpetuate existing disparities. A reconsideration of existing insurance policies to improve access and reduce disparities is currently underway. One method insurers use to support access and protect them from large, unexpected claims is the purchase of reinsurance. In exchange for an upfront per-member-per-month (PMPM) premium, the reinsurer pays the claim and rebates the insurer at the end of the contract period if there are funds leftover. However, existing reinsurance plans may not cover CGTs or charge exorbitant fees for coverage.

METHODS: We simulate the incremental annual per-person reinsurer costs to cover CGTs existing or expected between 2023 and 2035 for the US population and by payer type based on previously published estimates of expected US spending on CGTs, assumed US population of 330 persons, and current CGT reinsurance fees. We illustrate our methods by estimating the incremental annual per-person costs overall payers and to state Medicaid plans of sickle cell disease–targeted CGTs.

FINDINGS: We estimate annual incremental spending on CGTs 2023–2035 to amount to $20.4 billion, or $15.69 per person. Total annual estimated spending is expected to concentrate among commercial plans. Sickle cell–targeted CGTs add a maximum of $0.78 PMPM in costs to all payers and will concentrate within state Medicaid programs. Reinsurance fees add to expected costs.

CONCLUSIONS: Annual per-person costs to provide access to CGTs are expected to concentrate in commercial and state Medicaid plans. Policies that improve CGT coverage and affordability are needed.

Biomedicine is experiencing an inflection point in which the origins of many human diseases have been decoded, leading to new treatments and, in some cases, complete cures. Many domain experts acknowledge that the gating factor to innovation is not knowledge, but rather a lack of financial resources to translate theory into practice, the so-called “valley of death” between scientific discovery and the clinical testing that must be done with human subjects before regulators will approve a new drug or medical device. This process of translational medicine is largely an exercise in risk management—organized as a carefully planned sequence of experiments, each one involving a progressively larger number of subjects that may or may not be allowed to continue, depending on the results of the prior experiment. It is, therefore, a natural setting in which to apply modern portfolio theory. The authors describe one such application involving a biotechnology company focused on genetic diseases and the lessons learned from that experience.

For precision genetic medicines to fulfill their potential as treatments for ultra-rare diseases, fresh approaches to academic– industry partnerships and data sharing are needed, together with regulatory change and adaptation of reimbursement models. Advances in gene therapy and gene editing technologies could revolutionize the ability to treat individuals with genetic disease, allowing treatments to be devised that target specific genetic mutations in people with even the rarest of disease indications. In 2018, a seven-year-old child with Batten disease received attention for becoming the first recipient of a customized antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) therapy specifically designed for her unique mutation1. Since then, multiple patients with ultra-rare genetic conditions have been treated with precision ASOs through academic-investigator-initiated programs. Development of these ASOs has been rapid, justified by the severity of the conditions being treated (for example, rapidly progressive neurologic degeneration), following streamlined regulatory processes. Here we discuss possible models for drug development, regulation and reimbursement that could allow these tailored genetic interventions to be scaled.

This paper explores the relationship between a firm's legal contracting environment and its innovation incentives. Using granular data from the pharmaceutical industry, we examine a contracting mechanism through which incumbents maintain market power: "pay-for-delay'' agreements to delay the market entry of competitors. Exploiting a shock where such contracts become legally tenuous, we find that affected incumbents subsequently increase their innovation activity across a variety of project-level measures. Exploring the nature of this innovation, we also find that it is more "impactful’’ from a scientific and commercial standpoint. The results provide novel evidence that restricting the contracting space can boost innovation at the firm level. However, at the extensive margin we find a reduction in innovation by new entrants in response to increased competition, suggesting a nuanced effect on aggregate innovation.

We investigate the impact of information on biopharmaceutical stock prices via an event study encompassing 503,107 news releases from 1,012 companies. We distinguish between pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and apply three asset pricing models to estimate their abnormal returns. Acquisition-related news yields the highest positive return, while drug-development setbacks trigger significant negative returns. We also find that biotechnology companies have larger means and standard deviations of abnormal returns, while the abnormal returns of pharmaceutical companies are influenced by more general financial news. To better understand the empirical properties of price movement dynamics, we regress abnormal returns on market capitalization and a sub-industry indicator variable to distinguish biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and find that biopharma companies with larger capitalization generally experience lower magnitude of abnormal returns in response to events. Using longer event windows, we show that news related to acquisitions and clinical trials are the sources of potential news leakage. We expect this study to provide valuable insights into how diverse news types affect market perceptions and stock valuations, particularly in the volatile and information-sensitive biopharmaceutical sector, thus aiding stakeholders in making informed investment and strategic decisions.

The regulatory approval process for new therapies involves costly clinical trials that can span multiple years. When valuing a candidate therapy from a financial perspective, industry sponsors may terminate a program early if clinical evidence suggests market prospects are not as favorable as originally forecasted. Intuition suggests that clinical trials that can be modified as new data are observed, i.e., adaptive trials, are more valuable than trials without this flexibility. To quantify this value, we propose modeling the accrual of information in a clinical trial as a sequence of real options, allowing us to systematically design early-stopping decision boundaries that maximize the economic value to the sponsor. In an empirical analysis of selected disease areas, we find that when a therapy is ineffective, our adaptive financing method can decrease the expected cost incurred by the sponsor in terms of total expenditures, number of patients, and trial length by up to 46%. Moreover, by amortizing the large fixed costs associated with a clinical trial over time, financing these projects becomes less risky, resulting in lower costs of capital and larger valuations when the therapy is effective.

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences' virtual 2021 conference on gene-targeted therapies (GTTs) encouraged multidisciplinary dialogue on a wide range of GTT topic areas. Each of three parallel working groups included social scientists and clinical scientists, and the three major sessions included a presentation on economic issues related to their focus area. These experts also coordinated their efforts across the three groups. The economics-related presentations covered three areas with some overlap: (1) value assessment, uncertainty, and dynamic efficiency; (2) affordability, pricing, and financing; and (3) evidence generation, coverage, and access. This article provides a synopsis of three presentations, some of their key recommendations, and an update on related developments in the past year. The key high-level findings are that GTTs present unique data and policy challenges, and that existing regulatory, health technology assessment, as well as payment and financing systems will need to adapt. But these adjustments can build on our existing foundation of regulatory and incentive systems for innovation, and much can be done to accelerate progress in GTTs. Given the substantial unmet medical need that exists for these oft-neglected patients suffering from rare diseases, it would be a tragedy to not leverage these exciting scientific advances in GTTs.

BACKGROUND: We consider two key challenges that early-stage biotechnology firms face in developing a sustainable financing strategy and a sustainable business model: developing a valuation model for drug compounds, and choosing an appropriate operating model and corporate structure. We use the specific example of Unravel Biosciences—a therapeutics platform company that identifies novel drug targets through off-target mechanisms of existing drugs and then develops optimized new molecules—throughout the paper and explore a specific scenario of drug repurposing for rare genetic diseases.

RESULTS: The first challenge consists of producing a realistic financial valuation of a potential rare disease repurposed drug compound, in this case targeting Rett syndrome. More generally, we develop a framework to value a portfolio of pairwise correlated rare disease compounds in early-stage development and quantify its risk profile. We estimate the probability of a negative return to be for a single compound and for a portfolio of 8 drugs. The probability of selling the project at a loss decreases from (phase 3) for a single compound to (phase 3) for the 8-drug portfolio. For the second challenge, we find that the choice of operating model and corporate structure is crucial for early-stage biotech startups and illustrate this point with three concrete examples.

CONCLUSIONS: Repurposing existing compounds offers important advantages that could help early-stage biotech startups better align their business and financing issues with their scientific and medical objectives, enter a space that is not occupied by large pharmaceutical companies, and accelerate the validation of their drug development platform.

A fixed one-sided significance level of 5% is commonly used to interpret the statistical significance of randomized clinical trial (RCT) outcomes. While it is necessary to reduce the false positive rate, the threshold used could be chosen quantitatively and transparently to specifically reflect patient preferences regarding benefit–risk tradeoffs as well as other considerations. How can patient preferences be explicitly incorporated into RCTs in Parkinson’s disease (PD), and what is the impact on statistical thresholds for device approval? In this analysis, we apply Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) to PD patient preference scores elicited from survey data. BDA allows us to choose a sample size (n) and significance level (α) that maximizes the overall expected value to patients of a balanced two-arm fixed-sample RCT, where the expected value is computed under both null and alternative hypotheses. For PD patients who had previously received deep brain stimulation (DBS) treatment, the BDA-optimal significance levels fell between 4.0% and 10.0%, similar to or greater than the traditional value of 5%. Conversely, for patients who had never received DBS, the optimal significance level ranged from 0.2% to 4.4%. In both of these populations, the optimal significance level increased with the severity of the patients’ cognitive and motor function symptoms. By explicitly incorporating patient preferences into clinical trial designs and the regulatory decision-making process, BDA provides a quantitative and transparent approach to combine clinical and statistical significance. For PD patients who have never received DBS treatment, a 5% significance threshold may not be conservative enough to reflect their risk-aversion level. However, this study shows that patients who previously received DBS treatment present a higher tolerance to accept therapeutic risks in exchange for improved efficacy which is reflected in a higher statistical threshold.

BACKGROUND: The statistical significance of clinical trial outcomes is generally interpreted quantitatively according to the same threshold of 2.5% (in one-sided tests) to control the false-positive rate or type I error, regardless of the burden of disease or patient preferences. The clinical significance of trial outcomes—including patient preferences—are also considered, but through qualitative means that may be challenging to reconcile with the statistical evidence.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to apply Bayesian decision analysis to heart failure device studies to choose an optimal significance threshold that maximizes the expected utility to patients across both the null and alternative hypotheses, thereby allowing clinical significance to be incorporated into statistical decisions either in the trial design stage or in the post-trial interpretation stage. In this context, utility is a measure of how much well-being the approval decision for the treatment provides to the patient.

METHODS: We use the results from a discrete-choice experiment study focusing on heart failure patients’ preferences, questioning respondents about their willingness to accept therapeutic risks in exchange for quantifiable benefits with alternative hypothetical medical device performance characteristics. These benefit–risk trade-off data allow us to estimate the loss in utility—from the patient perspective—of a false-positive or false-negative pivotal trial result. We compute the Bayesian decision analysis-optimal statistical significance threshold that maximizes the expected utility to heart failure patients for a hypothetical two-arm, fixed-sample, randomized controlled trial. An interactive Excel-based tool is provided that illustrates how the optimal statistical significance threshold changes as a function of patients’ preferences for varying rates of false positives and false negatives, and as a function of assumed key parameters.

RESULTS: In our baseline analysis, the Bayesian decision analysis-optimal significance threshold for a hypothetical two-arm randomized controlled trial with a fixed sample size of 600 patients per arm was 3.2%, with a statistical power of 83.2%. This result reflects the willingness of heart failure patients to bear additional risks of the investigational device in exchange for its probable benefits. However, for increased device-associated risks and for risk-averse subclasses of heart failure patients, Bayesian decision analysis-optimal significance thresholds may be smaller than 2.5%.

CONCLUSIONS: A Bayesian decision analysis is a systematic, transparent, and repeatable process for combining clinical and statistical significance, explicitly incorporating burden of disease and patient preferences into the regulatory decision-making process.