The COVID‐19 pandemic has driven an unprecedented level of global activity in drug discovery and clinical development for effective therapeutics targeting the coronavirus disease. There are currently 744 therapeutics being tested in 2879 clinical trials globally. Almost 90% of these clinical trials are focused on monotherapies. Combination therapies are the mainstay of antiviral therapeutics to increase the potency of the individual compounds and to combat the rapid evolution of resistance, although combination therapies have inherently complex clinical and regulatory development challenges. Increased understanding of the SARS‐CoV‐2 lifecycle and COVID‐19 pathology provides a scientific rationale for evaluating the effectiveness of different combinations. In this paper, we provide an overview of the current clinical trial landscape for combination therapeutics targeting COVID‐19 through weekly scanning of national and international clinical trial registries. Our analysis delves specifically into dual combination therapies in what can be defined as “pivotal clinical trials” (active, randomised, controlled and at least phase II), with a focus on new and repurposed therapeutic candidates that have shown positive signals and/or been granted authorisation for emergency use based on positive efficacy and safety data.

IntroductionWhile various criteria exist to define or categorize innovative medicines as new or repurposed, to our knowledge there are no standardized systems that sufficiently capture the range of pipeline products. The National Institute for Health and Care Research Innovation Observatory (NIHR IO) undertakes routine horizon scanning to support health technology assessment (HTA) in England and maintains a comprehensive Medicines Innovation Database (MInD). The aim of this project is to develop a ‘technology type’ (new versus repurposed) classification system for application within the MInD and to provide a high-level analysis of the emergent data.MethodsWe reviewed gray literature, regulatory websites, and drug repositories to identify existing ‘technology type’ classification criteria. Preliminary definitions and classifications for use on the MInD were discussed, refined, and agreed by consensus. Innovative medicines on the MInD were classified as either new or repurposed based on their regulatory approval status (Marketing Authorization) using data from the electronic medicines compendium. For repurposed medicines, further classification was undertaken using abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) data from the FDA Orange Book to identify generic medicines (patency and exclusivity status). We combined a range of semi-automated and manually derived data during this process.ResultsSix technology types were identified and applied to the MInD: (i) new technology; (ii) repurposed technology (on-patent/branded); (iii) repurposed drug (off-patent/generic); (iv) repurposed technology (never commercialized); (v) new and repurposed technology (combinations); and (vi) repurposed technology (combinations). Preliminary analysis of a subset of MInD records identified in July 2021 (n = 113) found mainly 52 percent new technologies, 27 percent new and repurposed technologies (combinations) and 14 percent repurposed technology (never commercialized). Further analysis of approximately 7000 MInD records are ongoing and will report temporal trends, regulatory status, and key challenges.ConclusionsOur novel evidence-based approach to developing classifications for technology types of innovative medicines resulted in six mutually exclusive states that can be applied to a larger dataset. We believe this offers HTA stakeholders a mechanism to gain valuable insights into the innovation trends, gaps, and areas of unmet need.

IntroductionThe National Institute for Health and Care Research Innovation Observatory (IO) is a horizon scanning centre based at Newcastle University, United Kingdom. The IO provides horizon scanning intelligence on new and innovative medicinal products to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as technology briefing notifications (TBNs). We present an analysis of how TBNs produced between April 2017 and October 2021 feed into the NICE HTA process and used to inform their Technology Appraisal (TA) programme.MethodsTBNs were mapped to relevant published NICE TA guidance and time from horizon scanning identification to NICE recommendation was studied. For mapping technologies undergoing appraisal, provisional guidance-in-development (GID) identification numbers (IDs) were used. For technologies that had not reached the NICE scoping stage yet, the NICE Topic Selection decision and ID was used.ResultsSix hundred and ninety-three TBNs were submitted to NICE between April 2017 and October 2021; 653 were prioritised for TA. Of those, eleven percent mapped to a published NICE TA guidance; forty-three percent to a GID, twenty-two percent were undergoing consultation, and three percent were not traced. Further twenty-one percent mapped to a suspended or terminated TA. Reasons for this included HTA timeliness, regulatory issues or companies unwilling to submit evidence to NICE. Time from technology identification to TA guidance publication ranged from twenty-two to 115 months. The average time from TBN submission to NICE recommendation was thirty months.ConclusionsTimely notification is key in achieving TA recommendation aligned with market authorization but not the only influencing factor. After issuing a TBN, the NICE appraisal process might be terminated, suspended or withdrawn due to unforeseen factors. Horizon scanning plays a key role triggering the NICE TA process; understanding factors that influence the successful TA completion would streamline processes and find efficiencies.

No abstract