Dataset Information

Trends in the costs of drugs launched in the UK between 1981 and 2015: an analysis of the launch price of drugs in five disease areas.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To investigate the trend in the launch price of new drugs for five common health conditions.

Design

Cross-sectional study using data on new drugs launched in the UK between 1981 and 2015 for hypertension, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, schizophrenia and colorectal cancer.

Data and sources

All drugs marketed in the UK between 1981 and 2015 (inclusive), and licensed specifically for the treatment of one of the five chosen conditions were included in the study. Newly launched medicines and their launch prices were identified by hand-searching all editions of the British National Formulary in addition to searching the websites of relevant regulatory agencies (European Medicines Agency and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency). The launch price in UK pounds for a 28-day supply of each medicine at a typical or usual maintenance dose was adjusted for the effects of general inflation using the gross domestic product deflator series.

Results

104 drugs were included in our study with a mean inflation-adjusted 28-day launch price of £288 (SD £678). The launch price of new drugs varied significantly across the five conditions, with drugs for hypertension having the lowest mean price (£27) and drugs for colorectal cancer having the highest mean price (£1590) (p<0.001). There were large increases in launch prices across the study period, but the magnitude and pattern was markedly different between therapeutic areas. Biological drugs represented 13.5% of all included drugs and had a significantly higher launch price than non- biological drugs (£1233 vs £141, p<0.001). 22.1% of included drugs were first-of-kind and had a significantly higher launch price than follow-on drugs (£768 vs £151) (p<0.0001).

Conclusion

Drugs prices continue to increase across different therapeutic areas. This has some association with novelty, but, it is not clear if this increase in price is associated with medical benefits.

SUBMITTER: Ward DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6501986 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Innovative new drugs offer potential benefits to patients, healthcare systems, governments and the pharmaceutical industry. Recent data suggest annual numbers of new drugs launched in the UK have increased in recent years, and we sought to understand whether this represents increasing numbers of highly innovative drugs being made available or the introduction of increasing numbers of drugs with limited additional therapeutic value. DESIGN AND SETTING:Retrospective observational study of new drug entries in the British National Formulary (BNF). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Number of new drugs launched in the UK each year (based on first appearance in the BNF) from 2001 to 2012, including new chemical entities and new biological drugs, categorised by degree of innovativeness according to published criteria that incorporate both clinical usefulness and the nature of the innovation. RESULTS:Highly innovative, moderately innovative and slightly innovative drugs made up 26%, 18% and 56% of all newly launched drugs, respectively, for the study period (n=290). There was an upward trend in annual numbers of slightly innovative drugs from 2004 onwards (R(2)=0.44), which aligned closely with the recovery in total numbers of new drugs launched each year since that time. There were no discernible time trends in the highly or moderately innovative categories. New drugs for malignancy and skin disease were most likely to be characterised as highly innovative (44% and 57%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Highly innovative new drugs comprise only around a quarter of all new drug launches in the UK. In contrast, drugs categorised as only slightly innovative comprised well over half of all new drugs and annual numbers in this category are increasing. Current policy initiatives that seek to increase the supply of innovative new drugs have long-lead times to impact, and will need careful assessment to ensure they deliver their aims without unintended consequences.

Project description:BackgroundRising cancer drug prices adversely affect patients' adherence and survival.ObjectiveWe aimed to identify and quantify factors associated with launch prices and post-launch price changes of injectable cancer drugs in the US from 2005 to 2023.Data and methodsAll anticancer drugs with US FDA approval between 2000 and 2022 were identified in the Drugs@FDA database. The sample was then restricted to cancer drugs covered under Medicare Part B (injectable drugs). Data characterizing each drug's clinical benefits, disease epidemiology, approved indications, competition, and price were obtained from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The association between launch/post-launch prices and collected variables was assessed in random-effects regressions.ResultsOf 170 cancer drugs with FDA approval between 2000 and 2022, we identified 66 (39%) injectable cancer drugs with quarterly price data from 2005 to 2023. In 2023, mean prices amounted to $27,688 per month, with an average price increase of 94% from 2005 to 2023. Launch and post-launch price changes were significantly associated with the treated disease epidemiology. A 1% decline in disease incidence was associated with a 0.2511% (p = 0.008) increase in launch prices and a 0.0086% (p = 0.032) annual increase in post-launch prices. Accordingly, launch prices were 120% (p = 0.051) higher for orphan than non-orphan drugs, with 3% (p = 0.008) greater annual post-launch price increases. Post-launch prices declined by up to -2% annually as new supplemental indications were approved for the same drug. We found no consistent association between launch/post-launch prices and the drugs' clinical benefit in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor response. The market entry of new competitors was not associated with price reductions. 28 of 33 drug pairs within the same class had positive correlation coefficients. Pearson correlation coefficients were high (>0.80) for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, CD38 antibodies, CD20 antibodies, HER2 antibodies, and mTOR inhibitors.ConclusionsCancer drug prices regularly increase faster than inflation; however, there is no evidence that launch prices and post-launch price changes are aligned with the clinical benefit a drug offers to patients. In particular, patients with rare diseases experience greater price increases for their orphan drugs. There is no evidence that brand-brand competition results in drug price reductions.

Project description:BackgroundThe real burden of human cystic echinococcosis (CE) remains elusive, due to the peculiar characteristics of the disease and the heterogeneous and incomplete data recording of clinical cases. Furthermore, official notification systems do not collect pivotal clinical information, which would allow the comparison of different treatment outcomes, and thus circumvent the difficulty of implementing clinical trials for CE. The Italian Register of CE (RIEC) was launched in 2012 and expanded in 2014 into the European Register of CE (ERCE). The primary aim of the ERCE was to highlight the magnitude of CE underreporting, through the recording of cases that were not captured by official records. We present an overview of data collated in the ERCE and discuss its future, five years after its inception.MethodsThe ERCE database was explored on March 31st 2019; data concerning participating centres and registered cases were descriptively analysed.ResultsForty-four centres from 15 countries (7 non-European) were affiliated to the ERCE. Thirty-four centres (77%) registered at least one patient; of these, 18 (53%) recorded at least one visit within the past 18 months. A total of 2097 patients were registered, 19.9% of whom were immigrants. Cyst characteristics were reported for at least one cyst at least in one visit in 1643 (78.3%) patients, and cyst staging was used by 27 centres. In total, 3386 cysts were recorded at first registration; mostly located in the liver (75.5%). Data concerning clinical management could be analysed for 920 "cyst stage-location-management" observations, showing great heterogeneity in the implementation of the stage-specific management approach recommended by the WHO.ConclusionsThe ERCE achieved its goal in showing that CE is a relevant but neglected public health problem in Europe and beyond, since a proportion of patients reaching medical attention are not captured by official notification systems. The ERCE may provide a valuable starting platform to complement hospital-derived data, to obtain a better picture of the epidemiology of clinical CE, and to collect clinical data for the issue of evidence-based recommendations. The ERCE will be expanded into the International Register of CE (IRCE) and restructured aiming to overcome its current criticalities and fulfil these aims.

Project description:ImportancePrice decreases of biologic and biosimilar products in Medicare Part B have been minimal, even with biosimilar competition. Medicare reimburses clinicians for biologics and biosimilars differently than for brand-name and generic drugs, which has generated greater price reductions.ObjectiveTo characterize the nature of price competition among brand-name and generic drugs under Medicare Part B and to estimate the cost savings to the program of subjecting biologic and biosimilar therapies to a similar price competition.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study analyzed all brand-name drugs and their approved generic versions as well as biologics and biosimilars that were reimbursed under Medicare Part B from quarter 1 of 2005 to quarter 2 of 2021. Two separate data sets were created: brand-name and generic drugs as well as biologics and biosimilars data sets. Brand-name products with generic versions that were introduced before 2005 were excluded, and so were vaccines.ExposuresNumber of generic and biosimilar competitors over time.Main outcomes and measuresPrice change as a percentage of the brand-name drug or biologic price in the quarter before generic or biosimilar competition. Price change was modeled using a linear, fixed-effects time series regression, with the number of generic or biosimilar competitors as the main covariate. Time was expressed as the number of quarters since the first generic or biosimilar competitor entered the market. Savings were estimated by projecting the regression model of brand-name and generic drug competition to observed biologic and biosimilar competition and by applying the estimated price reduction to actual Medicare spending for those products from 2015 to 2019.ResultsOf the 988 Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes identified, 50 (5.0%) met the inclusion criteria for the brand-name and generic drug data set and 28 (2.8%) met the criteria for the biologic and biosimilar data set. The first generic competitor was associated with reduced drug prices by 17.0%, the second competitor with a 39.5% decrease, the third competitor with a 52.5% decrease, and the fourth and more competitors with a 70.2% decrease (price decline was measured from brand-name drug price before the first generic competitor rather than from price established with fewer competitors). If biologics and biosimilars were subject to the same Medicare reimbursement framework as brand-name and generic drugs, Medicare spending on these products was estimated to have been 26.6% lower ($1.6 billion) from 2015 to 2019.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found minimal uptake of biosimilars and limited price reductions for biologics and biosimilars under the current Medicare Part B reimbursement policy. Adopting the bundled biosimilar reimbursement structure for biologic and biosimilar therapies may be associated with substantial savings and encourage greater biosimilar market entry.