Dataset Information

Value and Price of Multi-indication Cancer Drugs in the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Oncology drugs are often approved for multiple indications, for which their clinical benefit varies. Aligning a single price to this differing value remains a challenge. This study examines the clinical and economic value, price, and reimbursement of multi-indication cancer drugs across seven countries, representing different approaches to value assessment, pricing, and coverage decisions: the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland.

Methods

Twenty-five multi-indication cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval between 2009 and 2019. For each indication data on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) recommendations, disease prevalence, and drug prices were obtained. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, disease prevalence, list prices, and HTA outcomes were then compared across indications and regions.

Results

First approved indications provide a higher clinical benefit whilst targeting a smaller patient group than indication extensions. Quality-adjusted life year gains were higher for first (0.99, 95% CI 0.05-3.25) compared to second (0.51, 95% CI 0.02-1.63, p < 0.001) and third (0.58, 95% CI 0.05-2.07, p < 0.01) approved indications. Disease prevalence per 100,000 inhabitants was 20.7 (95% CI 0.2-63.3) for first compared to 27.1 (95% CI 1.5-109.6, p = 0.907) for second and 128.3 (95% CI 3.1-720.1, p < 0.001) for third approved indications. With each approved indication drug prices declined in Germany and France, remained constant in the UK, Canada, and Australia, whilst they increased in the USA. Negative HTA outcomes, clinical restrictions, and managed entry agreements (MEAs) were more frequently observed for indication extensions.

Conclusions

Results suggest that indication development is prioritised according to clinical value and disease prevalence. Countries employ different mechanisms to account for each indication's differential benefit, e.g., weighted-average prices (Germany, France, Australia), differential discounts (England, Scotland), clinical restrictions, and MEAs (England, Scotland, Australia, Canada). Value-based indication-specific pricing can help to align the benefit and price for multi-indication cancer drugs.

SUBMITTER: Michaeli DT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9385843 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Value and Price of Multi-indication Cancer Drugs in the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland.

Michaeli Daniel Tobias DT Mills Mackenzie M Kanavos Panos P

Applied health economics and health policy 20220711 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>Oncology drugs are often approved for multiple indications, for which their clinical benefit varies. Aligning a single price to this differing value remains a challenge. This study examines the clinical and economic value, price, and reimbursement of multi-indication cancer drugs across seven countries, representing different approaches to value assessment, pricing, and coverage decisions: the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland.<h4>Methods</h4>Twenty-f ...[more]

PMID: 35821360

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess if different forms of regulation lead to differences in the quality of journal advertisements.DesignCross-sectional study.ParticipantsThirty advertisements from family practice journals published from 2013 to 2015 were extracted for three countries with distinct regulatory pharmaceutical promotion systems: Australia, Canada and the USA.Primary and secondary outcome measuresAdvertisements under each regulatory system were compared concerning three domains: information included in the advertisement, references to scientific evidence and pictorial appeals and portrayals. An overall ranking for advertisement quality among countries was determined using the first two domains as the information assessed has been associated with more appropriate prescribing.ResultsAdvertisements varied significantly for number of claims with quantitative benefit (Australia: 0.0 (0.0-3.0); Canada: 0.0 (0.0-5.0); USA: 1.0 (0.0-6.0); p=0.01); statistical method used in reporting benefit (relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat; Australia: 6.7%, n=2; Canada: 10.0%, n=3; USA: 36.6%, n=11; p=0.02); mention of adverse effects, warnings or contraindications (Australia: 13.3%, n=4; Canada: 23.3%, n=7; USA: 53.3%, n=16; p=0.002); equal prominence between safety and benefit information (Australia: 25.0%, n=1; Canada: 28.6%, n=2; USA: 75.0%, n=12; p=0.04); and methodological quality of references score (Australia: 0.4150 (0.25-0.70); Canada: 0.25 (0.00-0.63); USA: 0.25 (0.00-0.75); p<0.001). The USA ranked first, Canada second and Australia third for overall quality of journal advertisements. Significant differences for humour appeals (Australia: 3.3%, n=1; Canada: 13.3%, n=4; USA: 26.7%, n=8; p=0.04), positive emotional appeals (Australia: 26.7%, n=8; Canada: 60.0%, n=18; USA: 50.0%, n=15; p=0.03), social approval portrayals (Australia: 0.0%, n=0; Canada: 0.0%, n=0; USA: 10.0%, n=3; p=0.04) and lifestyle or work portrayals (Australia: 43.3%, n=13; Canada: 50.0%, n=15; USA: 76.7%, n=23; p=0.02) were found among countries.ConclusionsDifferent regulatory systems influence journal advertisement quality concerning all measured domains. However, differences may also be attributed to other regulatory, legal, cultural or health system factors unique to each country.

Dataset Information

Value and Price of Multi-indication Cancer Drugs in the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Value and Price of Multi-indication Cancer Drugs in the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets