A Quantitative Assessment of Factors Affecting the Technological Development and Adoption of Companion Diagnostics

Abstract

Rapid innovation in (epi)genetics and biomarker sciences is driving a new drug development and product development pathway, with the personalized medicine era dominated by biologic therapeutics and companion diagnostics. Companion diagnostics (CDx) are tests and assays that detect biomarkers and specific mutations to elucidate disease pathways, stratify patient populations, and target drug therapies. CDx can substantially influence the development and regulatory approval for certain high-risk biologics. However, despite the increasingly important role of companion diagnostics in the realization of personalized medicine, in the USA, there are only 23 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved companion diagnostics on the market for 11 unique indications. Personalized medicines have great potential, yet their use is currently constrained. A major factor for this may lie in the increased complexity of the companion diagnostic and corresponding therapeutic development and adoption pathways. Understanding the market dynamics of companion diagnostic/therapeutic (CDx/Rx) pairs is important to further development and adoption of personalized medicine. Therefore, data collected on a variety of factors may highlight incentives or disincentives driving the development of companion diagnostics. Statistical analysis for 36 hypotheses resulted in two significant relationships and 34 non-significant relationships. The sensitivity of the companion diagnostic was the only factor that significantly correlated with the price of the companion diagnostic. This result indicates that while there is regulatory pressure for the diagnostic and pharmaceutical industry to collaborate and co-develop companion diagnostics for the approval of personalized therapeutics, there seems to be a lack of parallel economic collaboration to incentivize development of companion diagnostics.

Being Precise About Precision Medicine: What Should Value Frameworks Incorporate to Address Precision Medicine? A Report of the Personalized Precision Medicine Special Interest Group

“…45 For regulatory approval there is a lack of aligned processes for the constituent components of precision medicine, which causes substantial uncertainty in the potential for return on investment. [46][47][48][49][50][51][52] The advent of tests using NGS is likely to compound regulatory approval of precision medicines. Such issues suggest need for modernized approval mechanisms to guide the required evidence base and address evolving development scenarios.…”

The “rights” of precision drug development for Alzheimer’s disease

“…Candidate target engagement/proof-of-pharmacology biomarkers include peripheral indicators of inflammation and oxidation for use in trials of anti-inflammatory and antioxidant compounds. Sponsors of drug development should advance markers of target engagement in concert with the candidate therapy; these may be used after regulatory approval as companion or complementary biomarkers [110,111]. Demonstration of target engagement does not guarantee efficacy in later stages of development, but target engagement shown by the "right" biomarker provides important de-risking of a candidate treatment by showing biological activity that may translate into clinical efficacy.…”

Applications of molecular testing in surgical pathology of the head and neck

“…As a general category, these markers are often referred to as 'companion diagnostics.' [34][35][36] Companion diagnostics have received national press in the past few years because of the Food and Drug Administration's proposal to implement oversight laboratory developed tests, with a particular focus on companion diagnostics. 4,37,38 In head and neck cancer, relatively few companion diagnostic assays are used in the routine clinical setting.…”