MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7010983085

The Landscape of Cellular and Gene Therapy Products: Cost, Approvals, and Discontinuations

2019· article· en· W7010983085 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueChapman University Digital Commons (Chapman University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood and drug administrationChristian ministryAgency (philosophy)DrugChinaRegulatory agencyGenetic enhancementPublic healthCell therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The past 10 years witnessed a significant increase in the approval of cellular and gene therapy products worldwide. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 3 gene therapy products within the last 4 months of 2017. The objective of this study was to examine the approval characteristics, discontinuations and cost of all cellular and gene therapy products approved worldwide. Data and Methods We conducted an electronic search of approved cell and gene therapy products from the databases of the main drug regulatory agencies including the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the Korea Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS), and Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, China Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health and Social Development-Russia, Health Canada, and the Food and Drug Administration of the Philippines. We also searched the literature using MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and EMBASE databases. Cost information from the US was derived from the Reb Book (Truven Health Analytics). Costs from Europe were derived from Health Technology Assessments and from public sector, financial news and company’s web pages. Where available, we also obtained cost for products approved in other countries from public sector, financial news and company’s web pages. All cost data were converted to USD. Results There were 52 cell and gene therapy products marketed in the world as of September 2018. Of these, 39 (75.0%) were cell therapy medicinal products and 13 (25.0%) were gene therapy medicinal products. Of the approved products, 29 (74.3%) cell and 8 (61.5%) gene therapy products were first approved in the past 10 years (2008-present). Korea had the greatest number of approved cellular therapy-19 followed by US-12, Japan -4, Europe -3 and Canada -1. While Europe had the highest number of approved gene therapies - 5 followed by US - 3, China -2 and Korea, Russia and Philippines one each. Overall, 8 (66.7%) of the approved gene therapy products were granted orphan designation. Three products approved by the EMA were withdrawn or discontinued from the market. Of them, 2 remain currently marketed in the US. Cost of treatment from Gene therapy in US ranged from $447600 to $1,020,000 while in Europe the range was $370000 to $962890. Gene therapies outside US and Europe were relatively cheaper. Cell therapies in North America had a price range from $30,370-$200,000, European cell therapies ranged from $17,658-$105,000. Conclusion In the study period, more autologous cell therapy products were approved than allogenic agents. The cost of gene and cell therapy drugs is much higher in the EU and North America in comparison to Asia. Majority of the gene therapies received orphan designation by the regulatory authorities and had conditional approvals while less than a quarter of cellular therapies received the orphan designation. Most of the gene therapies are approved for rare diseases with smaller patient population, companies find it difficult to make profits which results in market withdrawal of the therapies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.139 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChapman University Digital Commons (Chapman University)Same topicHymenoptera taxonomy and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207