Real-world Use of and Spending on New Oral Targeted Cancer Drugs in the US, 2011-2018

Overall survival benefits of cancer drugs initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration on the basis of immature survival data: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

New cancer drugs can be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of surrogate endpoints while data on overall survival are still incomplete or immature, with too few deaths for meaningful analysis. We aimed to evaluate whether clinical trials with immature survival data generated evidence of overall survival benefit during the period after marketing authorisation, and where that evidence was reported.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, we searched Drugs@FDA to identify cancer drug indications approved between Jan 1, 2001, and Dec 31, 2018, on the basis of immature survival data. We systematically collected publicly available data on postapproval overall survival results in labelling (Drugs@FDA), journal publications (MEDLINE via PubMed), and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov). The primary outcome was availability of statistically significant overall survival benefits during the period after marketing authorisation (until March 31, 2023). Additionally, we evaluated the availability and timing of overall survival findings in labelling, journal publications, and ClinicalTrials.gov records.

FINDINGS

During the study period, the FDA granted marketing authorisation to 223 cancer drug indications, 95 of which had overall survival as an endpoint. 39 (41%) of these 95 indications had immature survival data. After a minimum of 4·3 years of follow-up during the period after marketing authorisation (and median 8·2 years [IQR 5·3-12·0] since FDA approval), additional survival data from the pivotal trials became available in either revised labelling or publications, or both, for 38 (97%) of 39 indications. Additional data on overall survival showed a statistically significant benefit in 12 (32%) of 38 indications, whereas mature data yielded statistically non-significant overall survival findings for 24 (63%) indications. Statistically significant evidence of overall survival benefit was reported in either labelling or publications a median of 1·5 years (IQR 0·8-2·3) after initial approval. The median time to availability of statistically non-significant overall survival results was 3·3 years (2·2-4·5). The availability of overall survival results on ClinicalTrials.gov varied considerably.

INTERPRETATION

Fewer than a third of indications approved with immature survival data showed a statistically significant overall survival benefit after approval. Notable inconsistencies in timing and availability of information after approval across different sources emphasise the need for better reporting standards.

FUNDING

None.

Financial impact of integrated specialty pharmacy efforts to avoid oral anticancer medication waste

BACKGROUND

The growing number of oral anticancer medications represents a significant portion of pharmacy spending and can be costly for patients. Patients taking oral anticancer medications may experience frequent treatment changes following necessary safety and effectiveness monitoring, often resulting in medication waste. Strategies to avoid medication waste could alleviate the financial burden of these costly therapies on the payer and the patient.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact on waste and cost avoidance of reviewing the amount of medication patients have on hand and the presence of upcoming follow-up (ie, provider visit, laboratory testing, or imaging) before requesting a prescription refill renewal for patients taking oral anticancer medications through an integrated health system specialty pharmacy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients filling oral anticancer medications prescribed by a Vanderbilt University Medical Center provider and dispensed by Vanderbilt Specialty Pharmacy between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Specialty pharmacists received a system-generated refill renewal request for oral anticancer medications when the final prescription refill was dispensed, prompting the pharmacist to review the patient's medical record for continued therapy appropriateness and to request a new prescription. If the patient had a sufficient supply on hand to last until an upcoming follow-up (ie, provider visit, imaging, or laboratory assessment), the pharmacist postponed the renewal until after the scheduled follow-up. Patients were included in the analysis if the refill renewal request was postponed after review of the amount of medication on hand and the presence of an upcoming follow-up. Medication outcomes (ie, continued, dose changed, held, medication changed to a different oral anticancer medication, or discontinued) resulting from the follow-up were collected. Cost avoidance in US dollars was assigned based on the outcome of follow-up by calculating the price per unit times the number of units that would have been unused or in excess of what was needed if the medication had been dispensed before the scheduled follow-up. The average wholesale price minus 20% (AWP-20%) and wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) were used to report a range of costs avoided over 12 months.

RESULTS

The total cost avoidance over 12 months associated with postponing refill renewal requests in a large academic health system with an integrated specialty pharmacy ranged from $549,187.03 using WAC pricing to $751,994.99 using AWP-20% pricing, with a median cost avoidance per fill of $366.04 (WAC) to $1,931.18 (AWP-20%). Refill renewal requests were postponed in 159 instances for 135 unique patients. After follow-up, medications were continued unchanged in only 2% of postponed renewals, 56% of follow-ups resulted in medication discontinuations, 32% in dose changes, 5% in medication changes, and 5% in medication holds.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrated health system specialty pharmacist postponement of refill requests after review of the amount of medication on hand and upcoming follow-up proved effective in avoiding waste and unnecessary medication costs in patients treated with oral anticancer medications at a large academic health system.

Generating and using real-world data: A worthwhile uphill battle

The precision oncology paradigm challenges the feasibility and data generalizability of traditional clinical trials. Consequently, an unmet need exists for practical approaches to test many subgroups, evaluate real-world drug value, and gather comprehensive, accessible datasets to validate novel biomarkers. Real-world data (RWD) are increasingly recognized to have the potential to fill this gap in research methodology. Established applications of RWD include informing disease epidemiology, pharmacovigilance, and healthcare quality assessment. Currently, concerns regarding RWD quality and comprehensiveness, privacy, and biases hamper their broader application. Nonetheless, RWD may play a pivotal role in supplementing clinical trials, enabling conditional reimbursement and accelerated drug access, and innovating trial conduct. Moreover, purpose-built RWD repositories may support the extension or refinement of drug indications and facilitate the discovery and validation of new biomarkers. This perspective explores the potential of leveraging RWD to advance oncology, highlights its benefits and challenges, and suggests a path forward in this evolving field.

Prior Authorization and Association With Delayed or Discontinued Prescription Fills

PURPOSE

Prior authorization requirements are increasing but little is known about their effects on access to care. We examined the association of a new prior authorization policy with delayed or discontinued prescription fills for oral anticancer drugs among Medicare Part D beneficiaries.

METHODS

Using Medicare part D claims data from 2010 to 2020, we studied beneficiaries regularly filling one of 11 oral anticancer drugs, defined as three 30-day fills in 120 days preceding the plan's prior authorization policy change on that drug and continuously enrolled in the same plan for 120 days before and after the policy change at the start of a new year. The control group consisted of beneficiaries meeting the same utilization criteria, but who were enrolled in plans at the same time that did not implement a prior authorization policy change. The outcomes of interest were discontinuation of the drug within 120 days (analyzed with regression analyses) and time (in days) to next fill after a prior authorization policy change (analyzed using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences event study).

RESULTS

The introduction of a new prior authorization on an established drug increased the odds of discontinuation within 120 days (adjusted odds ratio, 7.1 [95% CI, 6.0 to 8.5]; P < .001) and increased time to next fill by 9.7 days (95% CI, 8.2 to 11.2; P < .001), relative to patients whose plans did not have a prior authorization policy change.

CONCLUSION

Introduction of a new prior authorization policy on an established drug regimen is associated with increased probability of discontinued and delayed care. For some conditions, this may represent a clinically consequential barrier to access. Waiving prior authorization for patients already established on a drug may improve adherence.

The impact of level of documentation on the accessibility and affordability of new drugs in Norway

Introduction: Over the preceding decade, an increasing number of drugs have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with limited knowledge of their relative efficacy. This is due to the utilization of non-randomized, single-arm studies, surrogate endpoints, and shorter follow-up time. The impact of this trend on the accessibility and affordability of newly approved drugs in Europe remains uncertain. The primary objective of this study is to provide insights into the issues of accessibility and affordability of new drugs in the Norwegian healthcare system. Method: The presented study entails an analysis of all reimbursement decisions for hospital drugs in Norway spanning 2021-2022. The included drugs were approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2022, with the majority (91%) receiving approval between 2018 and 2022. The drugs were categorized based on the level of documentation of relative efficacy. Approval rates and costs (confidential net-prices) were compared. Results: A total of 35% (70/199) of the reimbursement decisions were characterized by limited certainty regarding relative efficacy and as a consequence the Norwegian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body did not present an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the HTA report. Within this category, a lower percentage of drugs (47%) gained reimbursement approval compared to those with a higher certainty level, which were presented with an ICER (58%). On average, drugs with an established relative efficacy were accepted with a 4.4-fold higher cost (confidential net-prices). These trends persisted when specifically examining oncology drugs. Conclusion: Our study underscores that a substantial number of recently introduced drugs receive reimbursement regardless of the level of certainty concerning relative efficacy. However, the results suggest that payers prioritize documented over potential efficacy. Given that updated information on relative efficacy may emerge post-market access, a potential solution to address challenges related to accessibility and affordability in Europe could involve an increased adoption of market entry agreements. These agreements could allow for price adjustments after the presentation of new knowledge regarding relative efficacy, potentially resolving some of the current challenges.

Evidence into practice: a national cohort study of NICE-recommended oncological drug therapy utilisation among women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in England

BACKGROUND

Multiple drug treatments are approved for invasive breast cancer (IBC). We investigated uptake of NICE-recommended oncological drugs and variation by age, comorbidity burden and geographical region.

METHODS

Women (aged 50+ years) diagnosed with IBC from 2014 to 2019, were identified from England Cancer Registry data and drug utilisation from Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy data. Interrupted time series analysis assessed national-level changes in drug use after publication of NICE recommendations. Regression models analysed variation in use.

RESULTS

This national cohort included 168,449 women. Use of drugs recommended for first-line treatment varied, from 26.6% for CDK 4/6 inhibitors to 63.8% for HER2-targeting therapies. Utilisation of drugs with a NICE recommendation published between 2014 and 2019, increased among patients diagnosed around the time of publication, except in the case of pertuzumab for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) which was previously accessible via the Cancer Drugs Fund (though use of pertuzumab for MBC increased from 34.1% to 75.0% across the study period). Use of trastuzumab and neoadjuvant/adjuvant pertuzumab varied by geographical region. Use was low for ribociclib (2.2%), abemaciclib (2.3%) and for drugs recommended beyond the first-line setting. For all drugs, use after NICE recommendation varied by age at diagnosis and increased as stage increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of NICE-recommended drugs for IBC in routine care is variable, with lowest use among women aged 70+ years. Improving access to effective treatments is an important step in improving outcomes.

Feasibility of Weekly Electronic Health Record-Embedded Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients Starting Oral Cancer-Directed Therapy

PURPOSE

To examine the feasibility of integrating a symptom management platform into the electronic health record (EHR) using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) during oral cancer-directed therapy (OCDT) and explore the impact of prompting oncology nurse navigators (ONNs) to respond to severe symptomatic adverse events (SAEs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adults prescribed OCDT at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute were consecutively invited to participate. Participants received weekly messages to complete ePROs. The first half enrolled in a passive (P) group where ePROs responses could be viewed anytime, but outreach was not expected. The second half enrolled in an active (A) group where severe SAEs prompted emails to ONNs for outreach within 1 business day. Feasibility was the proportion of participants completing ≥2 ePROs during the first 30 days. Participants were followed for up to 90 days.

RESULTS

From June 25, 2019, to August 18, 2021, 100 participants enrolled, and 96 remained enrolled for at least 30 days. Overall, average age was 59 years, 80% female, and 9% used the platform in Spanish. Twenty-two A (45%) and 27 P (57%) participants met the feasibility threshold (P = .26). ePROs returned at 30 days were similar (P = .50): 0 ePROs 17 A, 13 P; 1 ePRO 10 A, 7 P; 2 ePROs 3 A, 5 P; 3 ePROs 1 A, 4 P; 4 ePROs 7 A, 8 P; and 5 ePROs 11 A, 10 P. Documented telephone encounters at 30 days were similar (109 A, 101 P; P = .86).

CONCLUSION

EHR-embedded ePROs administered weekly for people on OCDT was feasible, although many went incomplete. ePRO completion was not clearly affected by nursing calls for severe SAEs. Future efforts will investigate improving engagement and addressing symptoms proactively.

Changes in Prescription Drug and Health Care Use Over 9 Years After the Large Drug Price Increase for Colchicine

Importance

Prescription drug prices are a leading concern among patients and policy makers. There have been large and sharp price increases for some drugs, but the long-term implications of large drug price increases remain poorly understood.

Objective

To examine the association of the large 2010 price increase in colchicine, a common treatment for gout, with long-term changes in colchicine use, substitution with other drugs, and health care use.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study examined MarketScan data from a longitudinal cohort of patients with gout with employer-sponsored insurance from 2007 through 2019.

Exposures

The US Food and Drug Administration's discontinuation of lower-priced versions of colchicine from the market in 2010.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Mean price of colchicine; use of colchicine, allopurinol, and oral corticosteroids; and emergency department (ED) and rheumatology visits for gout in year 1 and over the first decade of the policy (through 2019) were calculated. Data were analyzed between November 16, 2021, and January 17, 2023.

Results

A total of 2 723 327 patient-year observations were examined from 2007 through 2019 (mean [SD] age of patients, 57.0 [13.8] years; 20.9% documented as female; 79.1% documented as male). The mean price per prescription of colchicine increased sharply from $11.25 (95% CI, $11.23-$11.28) in 2009 to $190.49 (95% CI, $190.07-$190.91) in 2011, a 15.9-fold increase, with the mean out-of-pocket price increasing 4.4-fold from $7.37 (95% CI, $7.37-$7.38) to $39.49 (95% CI, $39.42-$39.56). At the same time, colchicine use declined from 35.0 (95% CI, 34.6-35.5) to 27.3 (95% CI, 26.9-27.6) pills per patient in year 1 and to 22.6 (95% CI, 22.2-23.0) pills per patient in 2019. Adjusted analyses showed a 16.7% reduction in year 1 and a 27.0% reduction over the decade (P < .001). Meanwhile, adjusted allopurinol use rose by 7.8 (95% CI, 6.9-8.7) pills per patient in year 1, a 7.6% increase from baseline, and by 33.1 (95% CI, 32.6-33.7) pills per patient through 2019, a 32.0% increase from baseline over the decade (P < .001). Moreover, adjusted oral corticosteroid use exhibited no significant change in the first year, then increased by 1.5 (95% CI, 1.3-1.7) pills per patient through 2019, an 8.3% increase from baseline over the decade. Adjusted ED visits for gout rose by 0.02 (95% CI, 0.02-0.03) per patient in year 1, a 21.5% increase, and by 0.05 (95% CI, 0.04-0.05) per patient through 2019, a 39.8% increase over the decade (P < .001). Adjusted rheumatology visits for gout increased by 0.02 (95% CI, 0.02-0.03) per patient through 2019, a 10.5% increase over the decade (P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study among individuals with gout, the large increase in colchicine prices in 2010 was associated with an immediate decrease in colchicine use that persisted over approximately a decade. Substitution with allopurinol and oral corticosteroids was also evident. Increased ED and rheumatology visits for gout over the same period suggest poorer disease control.

Marketing authorisation and pricing of FDA-approved cancer drugs in Brazil: a retrospective analysis

Background

Most cancer drugs enter the US market first. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of new cancer drugs may influence regulatory decisions in other settings. The study examined whether characteristics of available evidence at FDA approval influenced time-to-marketing authorisation (MA) in Brazil, and price differences between the two countries.

Methods

All new FDA-approved cancer drugs from 2010 to 2019 were matched to drugs with MA and prices approved in Brazil by December 2020. Characteristics of main studies, availability of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), overall survival (OS) benefit, added therapeutic benefit, and prices were compared.

Findings

Fifty-six FDA-approved cancer drugs with matching indications received a MA at the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa) after a median of 522 days following US approval (IQR: 351-932). Earlier authorisation in Brazil was associated with availability of RCT (median: 506 vs 760 days, p = 0.031) and evidence of OS benefit (390 vs 543 days, p = 0.019) at FDA approval. At Brazilian marketing authorisation, a greater proportion of cancer drugs had main RCTs (75% vs 60.7%) and OS benefit (42.9% vs 21.4%) than that in the US. Twenty-eight (50%) drugs did not demonstrate added therapeutic benefit over drugs for the same indication in Brazil. Median approved prices of new cancer drugs were 12.9% lower in Brazil compared to the US (adjusted by Purchasing Power Parity). However, for drugs with added therapeutic benefit median prices were 5.9% higher in Brazil compared to the US, while 17.9% lower for those without added benefit.

Interpretation

High-quality clinical evidence accelerated the availability of cancer medicines in Brazil. The combination of marketing and pricing authorisation in Brazil may favour the approval of cancer drugs with better supporting evidence, and more meaningful clinical benefit albeit with variable degree of success in achieving lower prices compared to the US.

Funding

None.

Financial toxicity: A practical review for gynecologic oncology teams to understand and address patient-level financial burdens

Financial toxicity describes the adverse impact patients experience from the monetary and time costs of cancer care. The financial burden patients experience comes from substantially increased out-of-pocket spending that often occurs concurrent with reduced income due to sick leave from work. Financial toxicity is common affecting approximately half of patients with a gynecological cancer depending on the validated instrument used for measurement. Financial toxicity is experienced by patients in three domains: economic hardship affecting patients' material conditions (i.e., medical debt), psychological response (i.e., distress), and health-related coping behaviors that patients adopt (i.e., foregoing care due to costs). Higher financial toxicity among cancer patients has been associated with decreased quality of life, impaired adherence to recommended care, and worse overall survival. In this review, we describe the current literature on financial toxicity, including how it can be assessed with validated tools, the downstream impact on patients, risk factors, and employment concerns of survivors. Whenever possible, we highlight data from research featuring patients with gynecologic cancer specifically. We also review studies with interventions aimed to mitigate financial toxicity and offer the reader real world examples of interventions currently being used. Lastly, we provide an overview of health policy developments relevant to financial toxicity and advocate for innovation in the development and implementation of strategies to decrease the financial toxicity patients experience following a diagnosis of gynecologic cancer.

Harnessing Real-World Evidence to Advance Cancer Research

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) form a cornerstone of oncology research by generating evidence about the efficacy of therapies in selected patient populations. However, their implementation is often resource- and cost-intensive, and their generalisability to patients treated in routine practice may be limited. Real-world evidence leverages data collected about patients receiving clinical care in routine practice outside of clinical trial settings and provides opportunities to identify and address gaps in clinical trial evidence. This review outlines the strengths and limitations of real-world and RCT evidence and proposes a framework for the complementary use of the two bodies of evidence to advance cancer research. There are challenges to the implementation of real-world research in oncology, including heterogeneity of data sources, timely access to high-quality data, and concerns about the quality of methods leveraging real-world data, particularly causal inference. Improved understanding of the strengths and limitations of real-world data and ongoing efforts to optimise the conduct of real-world evidence research will improve its reliability, understanding and acceptance, and enable the full potential of real-world evidence to be realised in oncology practice.

The price, efficacy, and safety of within-class targeted anticancer medicines between domestic and imported drugs in China: a comparative analysis

Background

Affordability to novel anticancer drugs has become a major health issue in China. It is encouraging to note that China initiated its drug regulatory reform and national price negotiation policies since 2015. As a growing number of domestic within-class targeted anticancer drugs are approved in China, it is expected that this may reduce the price of novel anticancer drugs and improve the affordability of anticancer drugs. This study aimed to evaluate the price, efficacy, and safety of the within-class anticancer drugs between domestic and imported drugs approved in China from 2010 to 2022.

Methods

The domestic and imported within-class targeted drugs for solid cancers approved in China between 2010 and 2022 were extracted. We classified it as a class of anticancer drugs based on the same indication and similar biological mechanism. The published literature derived from pivotal clinical trials of these domestic and imported drugs was identified based on the review report and the latest labels issued by the China National Medical Products Administration. We evaluated the monthly treatment price at launch and the latest (2022), primary efficacy endpoint and safety between domestic and imported anticancer drugs. Meta-analyses were further employed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the domestic and imported anticancer drugs, including pooled hazard ratios (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rates (ORR) for solid cancers, and relative risk for serious adverse events (SAE) and Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs).

Findings

In our cohort study, 12 within-class anticancer drugs with 7 cancer diseases were analyzed, including 18 domestic (21 indications; 21 pivotal trials) and 18 imported (21 indications; 27 pivotal trials) novel anticancer drugs, respectively. The median monthly treatment price of domestic and imported drugs from the years of launch to 2022 had significantly decreased by 71% and 62%, respectively. Moreover, the median monthly treatment price of domestic targeted anticancer drugs on the market at launch ($3786 vs. $5393, P = 0.007) and the latest ($1222 vs. $2077, P = 0.011) was significantly lower than that of imported drugs. No significant differences in median PFS gains (9.0 vs. 11.0 months; P = 0.24), OS gains (9.3 vs 10.6 months; P = 0.66), and ORR (57% vs 62%, P = 0.77) of targeted anticancer drugs in their pivotal trials were observed between the domestic and imported drugs. Additionally, there was no significant difference between domestic and imported drugs in the incidence of SAE (23% vs. 24%; P = 0.41) and Grade ≥3 AEs (59% vs. 57%; P = 0.45). These findings were also further confirmed in the meta-analyses for primary efficacy endpoints and safety outcomes.

Interpretation

The prices of both domestic and imported anticancer drugs significantly decreased after market entry mainly due to the role of national price negotiations. The median monthly treatment price of domestic within-class targeted anticancer drugs was significantly lower than that of imported drugs. Furthermore, the efficacy and safety of domestic anticancer drugs were comparable to that of imported drugs. This evidence implicated that the development of within-class anticancer drugs with national price negotiations in China significantly improved the affordability for patients.

Funding

This study was supported by postdoctoral fellowship from Tsinghua-Peking Joint Centers for Life Sciences (CLS).

Overall Survival Benefits of Cancer Drugs Approved in China From 2005 to 2020

IMPORTANCE

Of approximately 9 million patients with cancer in China in 2020, more than half were diagnosed with late-stage cancers. Recent regulatory reforms in China have focused on improving the availability of new cancer drugs. However, evidence on the clinical benefits of new cancer therapies authorized in China is not available.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the clinical benefits of cancer drugs approved in China, as defined by the availability and magnitude of statistically significant overall survival (OS) results.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This mixed-methods study comprising a systematic review and cross-sectional analysis identified antineoplastic agents approved in China between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2020, using publicly available data and regulatory review documents issued by the National Medical Products Administration. The literature published up to June 30, 2021, was reviewed to collect results on end points used in pivotal trials supporting cancer drug approvals.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was a documented statistically significant positive OS difference between a new cancer therapy and a comparator treatment. Secondary outcome measures were the magnitude of OS benefit and other primary efficacy measures in pivotal trials.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2020, 78 cancer drugs corresponding to 141 indications were authorized in China, including 20 drugs (25.6%) (for 30 indications) approved in China only. Of all indications, 26 (18.4%) were evaluated in single-arm or dose-optimization trials, most of which were authorized after 2017. By June 30, 2021, 34 drug indications (24.1%) had a documented lack of OS gain. For 68 indications (48.2%) that had documented evidence of OS benefit, the median magnitude of OS improvement was 4.1 (range, 1.0-35.0) months. After a median follow-up of 1.9 (range, 1.0-11.1) years from approval, OS data for 13 indications (9.2%) were either not reported or were still not mature. Fewer than one-third of cancer drug indications approved in China only had documented evidence of OS benefits (9 of 30 [30.0%]), whereas more than one-half of the cancer drug indications also available in the US or Europe had OS benefits (59 of 111 [53.1%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, almost half of cancer drug indications approved in China had demonstrated OS gain. With the increase of cancer drug approvals based on single-arm trials or immature survival data in recent years, these findings highlight the need to routinely monitor the clinical benefits of new cancer therapies in China.

Precision medicine and the fragmentation of solidarity (and justice)

Solidarity is a fundamental social value in many European countries, though its precise practical and theoretical meaning is disputed. In a health care context, I agree with European writers who take solidarity normatively to mean roughly equal access to effective health care for all. That is, solidarity includes a sense of justice. Given that, I will argue that precision medicine represents a potential weakening of solidarity, albeit not a unique weakening. Precision medicine includes 150 targeted cancer therapies (mostly for metastatic cancer), all of which are extraordinarily expensive. Our critical question: Must a commitment to solidarity as defined mean that all these targeted cancer therapies should be guaranteed to all within each country in the European Union, no matter the cost, no matter the degree of effectiveness? Such a commitment would imply that cancer was ethically special, rightfully commandeering unlimited resources. That in itself would undermine solidarity. I offer multiple examples of how current and future dissemination of these targeted cancer drugs threaten a commitment to solidarity. An alternative is to fund more cancer prevention efforts. However, that too proves a threat to solidarity. Solidarity, with or without a sense of justice, is too abstract a notion to address these challenges. Further, we need to accept that we can only hope to achieve "rough justice" and "supple solidarity." The precise practical meaning of these notions needs to be worked out through a fair and inclusive process of rational democratic deliberation, which is the real and practical foundation of just solidarity.

A Proposal to Increase Value and Equity in the Development and Distribution of New Pharmaceuticals

The process of developing and marketing new pharmaceuticals in the United States is driven by a need to maximize returns to shareholders. This results all too often in the production of new medications that are expensive and of marginal value to patients and society. In line with our heightened awareness of the importance of social justice and public health—and in light of our government‘s alliance with private companies in bringing us COVID-19 vaccines—we need to reconsider how new pharmaceuticals are developed and distributed. Accordingly, we propose the creation of a new agency of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that would direct the whole process. This agency would fund the research and development of high-value medications, closely monitor the clinical studies of these new drugs, and manage their distribution at prices that are value-based, fair, and equitable.