Dataset Information

Analysis of Launch and Postapproval Cancer Drug Pricing, Clinical Benefit, and Policy Implications in the US and Europe.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The high cost of cancer medicines is a public health challenge. Policy makers in the US and Europe are debating reforms to drug pricing that would cover both the prices of new medicines when entering the market and price increases after they are launched.

Objective

To assess launch prices, postlaunch price changes, and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the US compared with 3 European countries (England, Germany, and Switzerland).

Design, setting, and participants

This economic evaluation identified all new drugs that were approved for use in the US, England, Germany, and Switzerland with initial indications for treatment of adult solid tumor and hematologic cancers. Analysis included drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019, and by the European Medicines Agency and Swissmedic until December 31, 2019. Prices were adjusted for currency and inflation. Clinical benefit of drugs indicated for solid tumors was assessed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. Using Spearman rank correlation coefficients, correlations between clinical benefit and launch prices and postlaunch price changes for each country were evaluated.

Main outcomes and measures

Launch prices, postlaunch price changes, and clinical benefit of cancer drugs.

Results

The cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) approved for solid tumors and 18 (28%) for hematologic cancers. In all countries, the lowest median monthly treatment costs at launch were greater in 2018-2019 vs 2009-2010: $14 580 vs $5790 in the US, $5888 vs $4289 in Germany, $6593 vs $5784 in Switzerland, and $6867 vs $3939 in England. Between 2009 and 2019, 48 of 65 (74%) cancer drugs had price increases in the US that were greater than inflation. Only 1 of 62 (2%) drugs in England, 0 of 60 drugs in Germany, and 7 of 56 drugs (13%) in Switzerland had a median price increase greater than inflation. There were no associations between launch prices or postlaunch price changes and clinical benefit in any assessed country.

Conclusions and relevance

During this economic evaluation study period, launch prices of cancer drugs were substantially higher in the US than in the assessed similar high-income European countries, a gap that increased in the years after approval. Cancer drug prices frequently increased faster than inflation in the US but decreased on inflation-adjusted terms in Europe. Price changes were not associated with clinical benefit in any country.

SUBMITTER: Vokinger KN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8251654 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:OBJECTIVES:After regulatory approval, drug companies, public funding agencies and academic researchers often pursue trials aimed at extending the uses of a new drug by testing it in new non-approved indications. Patient burden and clinical impact of such research are not well understood. DESIGN AND SETTING:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of postapproval clinical trials launched within 5?years after the drug's first approval, testing anticancer drugs in monotherapy in indications that were first pursued after a drug's first Food and Drug Administration (FDA) license, for all 12 anticancer drugs approved between 2005 and 2007. FDA, Medline and Embase search date 2019 February 12. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Our primary objective was to measure burden and clinical impact for patients enrolling in these trials. Each trial was sorted into a 'trajectory' defined by the drug and cancer indication. The risk was operationalised by proportions of grade 3-4 severe adverse events and deaths. The clinical impact was measured by estimating the proportion of patients participating in trajectories that resulted in FDA approval, uptake into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines or advancement to randomised controlled trials within 8?years. RESULTS:Our search captured 104 published trials exploring monotherapy, including 69 unique trajectories. In total, trials in our sample enrolled 4699 patients. Grade 3-4 adverse events were experienced by 19.6% of patients; grade 5 events were experienced by 2.8% of patients. None of the trajectories launched after initial drug approval received FDA approval. Five trajectories were recommended by the NCCN within 8?years of the first trial within that trajectory. Eleven trajectories were advanced to randomised controlled testing. CONCLUSIONS:The challenges associated with unlocking new applications for drugs that first received approval from 2005 to 2007 were similar to those for developing new drugs altogether. Our findings can help inform priority setting in research and provide a basis for calibrating expectations when considering enrolment in label-extending trials.

Project description:Background and objectivesExternal reference pricing (ERP) is a price regulation tool widely used by policy makers in the European Union (EU) Member States (MS) to contain drug cost, although in theory, it may contribute to modulate prices up and down. The objective of this article was to summarise and discuss the main findings of part of a large project conducted for the European Commission ('External reference pricing of medicinal products: simulation-based considerations for cross-country coordination'; see www.ec.europa.eu/health/healthcare/docs/erp_reimbursement_medicinal_products_en.pdf) that aimed to provide an overview of ERP systems, both on processes and potential issues in 31 European countries (28 EU MS, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland).MethodsA systematic structured literature review was conducted to identify and characterise the use of ERP in the selected countries, to describe its impact on the prices of pharmaceuticals, and to discuss the possible cross-country coordination issues in EU MS. This research was complemented with a consultation of competent authorities' and international organisations' representatives to address the main issues or uncertainties identified through the literature review.ResultsAll selected countries applied ERP, except the United Kingdom and Sweden. Twenty-three countries used ERP as the main systematic criterion for pricing. In the majority of European countries, ERP was based on legislated pricing rules with different levels of accuracy. ERP was applied either for all marketed drugs or for specific categories of medicines; it was mainly used for publicly reimbursed medicines. The number of reference countries included in the basket varied from 1 to 31. There was a great variation in the calculation methods used to compute the price; 15 countries used the average price, 7 countries used the lowest price, and 7 countries used other calculation methods. Reported limitations of ERP application included the lack of reliable sources of price information, price heterogeneity, exchange rate volatility, and hidden discounts. Spill-over effect and downward price convergence have often been mentioned as ERP's consequences leading to pricing strategies from pharmaceutical companies.ConclusionWhile ERP is widely used in Europe, processes and availability of price information vary from one country to another, thus limiting ERP implementation. Furthermore, ERP spill-over effect is a major concern of pharmaceutical firms leading to implementation of the so-called 'launch sequence strategies'.

Project description:The Lisbon Strategy was adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the European Union (EU) in 2000. By moving science into a central position for the development of a European knowledge-based economy and society, its adoption at political level seems to have been a powerful catalyst for the increased involvement of scientists in science policy in the EU. Recognising the need for scientists to act collectively in order to contribute to shape the future of science policy in Europe, a pioneering group of European science organisations leaders and representatives, as well as other scientists, initiated a European, interdisciplinary, inclusive movement leading to the creation of the European Research Council (ERC) to support basic research of the highest quality. Having scientists' campaign for the funding of bottom-up research by the EU Framework Programmes exclusively on scientific grounds, and for an ERC, was a unique event in the recent history of European science policy. For the first time, the scientific community acted collectively and across disciplinary or national boundaries as a political actor for the sake of a better science policy for Europe. As is often the case when first-hand experience is gained through the creation of a new organization, novel forms of collaboration arise. The European biomedical community has recently proposed the creation of a strategic action plan for health research (the European Council of Health Research; EuCHR), provisionally translated at present into a Scientific Panel for Health (SPH) research in Horizon 2020, the EU's research-funding programme for the period 2014-2020. The creation of such Scientific Panel should be viewed as an important contribution by the biomedical community as a major political agreement has been reached on the need for a comprehensive and long-term scientific strategy to accelerate research and facilitate innovation at EU level. It is our belief that describing and analyzing the process leading to the creation of the ERC and SPH (2002-2014) should be widely shared with the research community in general, as this may contribute to the understanding of the evolving relations between scientists and science-policy making.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can use postmarketing requirements to mandate pharmaceutical companies to conduct clinical trials after the approval of novel therapeutics. Pharmaceutical companies can also agree to conduct nonmandated clinical trials as postmarketing commitments. However, when therapeutics are approved by the FDA without postmarketing requirements or postmarketing commitments, it is not well known how often pharmaceutical companies voluntarily conduct trials and report results monitoring safety or efficacy after approval.ObjectiveTo characterize postapproval clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies of therapeutics initially approved by the FDA without clinical postmarketing requirements or commitments.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional analysis included postapproval clinical trials conducted with at least 1 site in the United States sponsored by pharmaceutical companies of therapeutics first approved by the FDA from 2009 through 2012. Analyses were conducted June 11, 2018, to November 30, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresPostapproval clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov generating safety or efficacy data, characteristics including whether trials focused on approved or unapproved indications, study design elements, and rates of study completion and results reporting.ResultsFrom 2009 through 2012, the FDA approved 110 novel therapeutics for 120 indications, of which 37 novel therapeutics for 39 indications did not have postmarketing requirements or commitments for new clinical studies at the time of first approval. For 31 therapeutics (83.8%), there were 600 postapproval clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Most trials investigated therapeutics for new indications (363 [60.5%]) or expanded populations of the originally indicated disease (122 [20.3%]). Trials were often small (median [interquartile range] enrollment, 44 [21-131] participants), nonrandomized (359 [59.8%]), unblinded (455 [75.8%]), and lacked comparators (381 [63.5%]). Approximately half of the trials (311 [51.8%]) assessed at least 1 clinical outcome. Of 300 terminated or completed trials, 204 trials (68.0%) had reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov a median (interquartile range) 16 (13-25) months after their primary completion date. For the 96 trials (32.0%) without reported results, a median (interquartile range) 35 (13-62) months had passed since their primary completion date.Conclusions and relevancePharmaceutical companies frequently conducted clinical trials after approval, even when there were no clinical postmarketing requirements or commitments at approval. However, most of these trials evaluated new indications or expanded patient populations rather than monitored approved uses, and nearly half of the trials remained incomplete more than 5 years after original therapeutic approval.

Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to determine the association between the stepwise increase in the sustained viral response (SVR) and Swiss and United States (US) market prices of drug regimens for treatment-naive, genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in the last 25 years. We identified the following five steps in the development of HCV treatment regimens: 1) interferon (IFN)-? monotherapy in the early '90s, 2) IFN-? in combination with ribavirin (RBV), 3) pegylated (peg) IFN-? in combination with RBV, 4) the first direct acting antivirals (DAAs) (telaprevir and boceprevir) in combination with pegIFN-? and RBV, and 5) newer DAA-based regimens, such as sofosbuvir (which is or is not combined with ledipasvir) and fixed-dose combination of ritonavir-boosted paritaprevir and ombitasvir in combination with dasabuvir.DesignWe performed a linear regression and mean cost analysis to test for an association between SVRs and HCV regimen prices. We conducted a sensitivity analysis using US prices at the time of US drug licensing. We selected randomized clinical trials of drugs approved for use in Switzerland from 1997 to July 2015 including treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype 1 infection.ResultsWe identified a statistically significant positive relationship between the proportion of patients achieving SVRs and the costs of HCV regimens in Switzerland (with a bivariate ordinary least square regression yielding an R2 measure of 0.96) and the US (R2 = 0.95). The incremental cost per additional percentage of SVR was 597.14 USD in Switzerland and 1,063.81 USD in the US.ConclusionThe pricing of drugs for HCV regimens follows a value-based model, which has a stable ratio of costs per achieved SVR over 25 years. Health care systems are struggling with the high resource use of these new agents despite their obvious long-term advantages for the overall health of the population. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry, health care payers and other stakeholders are challenged with finding new drug pricing schemes to treat the entire population infected with HCV.