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

Characteristics, clinical benefit and reimbursement of new authorisations for oncohaematology drugs in Spain between 2017 and 2020

OBJECTIVE

To describe the authorisations and funding resolutions for new onco-hematological drugs in Spain between 2017 and 2020, as well as the results of their main trials.

METHODS

Observational, cross-sectional, descriptive study conducted between October and December 2022. Onco-hematology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 2017 and 2020 were included, according to EFPIA patients W.A.I.T Indicator 2021 Survey. Authorisation information was obtained from the main study of the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR). Data were collected on medicines, their authorisation and main study, benefit shown, cost, and status and time to reimbursement.

RESULTS

Forty-one new drugs authorised for 49 indications were identified. More than half (58.5%) were targeted therapies, and 61.2% were for the treatment of solid tumors (61.2%). Most had palliative intent (71.4%) and were indicated in relapsed or refractory disease (55.1%). Of the clinical trials, 57.1% were phase III and 63.3% were randomised. The primary endpoint was overall survival in 16.3%, increasing to 25.8% among randomised clinical trials. Regarding licensed drugs based on response rate, the median response rate was 56.4% (IQI 40.0-66.3). In those authorised on the basis of surrogate time-to-event endpoints, the median Hazard Ratio was 0.54 (IQI 0.38-0.57), and among those using overall survival was 0.71 (IQI 0.59-0.77). Globally, 22.4% had shown benefit in overall survival, with a median gain of 4 months (IQI 3.6-16.7). One third (33.3%) of the indications evaluable according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale showed substantial clinical benefit. Of the indications, 75.5% were funded, half (48.6%; 36.7% of the total) with restrictions. The median time to funding was 19.5 months (IQI 11.4-29.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Most main clinical trials of new onco-haematology drugs approved in Spain used surrogate primary endpoint and, at the time of authorisation, few had shown to prolong overall survival. More than a third were uncontrolled clinical trials.

Clinical trial design and treatment effects: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled and single-arm trials supporting 437 FDA approvals of cancer drugs and indications

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to analyse the association between clinical trial design and treatment effects for cancer drugs with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Data from Drugs@FDA, FDA labels, ClincialTrials.gov and the Global Burden of Disease study.

PARTICIPANTS

Pivotal trials for 170 drugs with FDA approval across 437 cancer indications between 2000 and 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment effects were measured in HRs for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and in relative risk for tumour response. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions explored the association between treatment effect estimates and clinical trial design for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and single-arm trials.

RESULTS

Across RCTs, greater effect estimates were observed in smaller trials for OS (ß=0.06, p<0.001), PFS (ß=0.15, p<0.001) and tumour response (ß=-3.61, p<0.001). Effect estimates were larger in shorter trials for OS (ß=0.08, p<0.001) and PFS (ß=0.09, p=0.002). OS (ß=0.04, p=0.006), PFS (ß=0.10, p<0.001) and tumour response (ß=-2.91, p=0.004) outcomes were greater in trials with fewer centres. HRs for PFS (0.54 vs 0.62, p=0.011) were lower in trials testing the new drug to an inactive (placebo/no treatment) rather than an active comparator. The analysed efficacy population (intention-to-treat, per-protocol, or as-treated) was not consistently associated with treatment effects. Results were consistent for single-arm trials and in multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Pivotal trial design is significantly associated with measured treatment effects. Particularly small, short, single-centre trials testing a new drug compared with an inactive rather than an active comparator could overstate treatment outcomes. Future studies should verify results in unsuccessful trials, adjust for further confounders and examine other therapeutic areas. The FDA, manufacturers and trialists must strive to conduct robust clinical trials with a low risk of bias.

Cancer drug indication approvals in China and the United States: a comparison of approval times and clinical benefit, 2001-2020

Background

Perceived delays in cancer drug approvals have been a major concern for policymakers in China. Policies have been implemented to accelerate the launch of new cancer drugs and indications. This study aimed to assess similarities and differences between China and the United States in the approvals, timing, and clinical benefit evidence of cancer drug indications between 2001 and 2020.

Methods

This study retrospectively identified all cancer drugs and indications approved in both China and the United States from January 1st, 2001 to December 31, 2020, and described differences in approval times as well as in submission and review times. Information on the availability of overall survival benefit evidence by December 31, 2020, was collected. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether evidence of benefit and other factors affected the propensity and timing of approvals of cancer drug indications in China.

Findings

Between 2001 and 2020, 229 indications corresponding to 145 cancer drugs approved in the United States were identified. Of those, 80 indications (34.9%) were also approved in China by the end of 2020. Cancer drug indications were approved in China at a median of 1273.5 days after approval in the United States. The median submission and review time differences for cancer drug indications in China were 1198.0 days and 180.0 days respectively. Submission time differences accounted for most of the approval time differences (p < 0.001). Indications supported by overall survival benefit evidence had shorter median review time differences (145.0 days) than those without such evidence (235.0 days, p = 0.008). Indications with overall survival benefit evidence were 3.94 times more likely to be approved in China compared to those without such evidence (p = 0.001), controlling for approval year, cancer type, and the prevalence of cancer by site.

Interpretation

FDA-approved cancer drug indications demonstrating a survival benefit were more likely to receive approvals in China with shorter regulatory review times compared to indications without such evidence. Given that manufacturer submission times were the main driver of cancer drug approval times in China, factors influencing submission timing should be explored.

Funding

No funding.

Partial Orphan Cancer Drugs: US Food and Drug Administration Approval, Clinical Benefit, Trials, Epidemiology, Price, Beneficiaries, and Spending

OBJECTIVES

The Orphan Drug Act (ODA) incentivizes drug development for rare diseases with limited sales potential. Partial orphans-drugs used to treat rare and common diseases-frequently turn into multi-billion dollar blockbusters. This study analyzes partial orphan cancer drugs' development, approval, and economics.

METHODS

170 drugs with US Food and Drug Administration approval for 455 cancer indications were identified (2000-2021). 110 full, 22 partial, and 38 non-orphan drugs were compared regarding their approval, benefits, trials, epidemiology, price, beneficiaries, and spending with data from regulatory documents, Global Burden of Disease study, and Medicare and Medicaid.

RESULTS

Full orphans, relative to partial and non-orphans, were more frequently monotherapies for hematologic cancers supported by smaller single-arm trials treating diseases with a lower incidence and higher severity. The time from first to second indication approval was 1 year shorter for partial than full orphans. Full orphans offered a greater overall survival (median: 4.0 vs 2.8 vs 2.8 months, P < .001) and progression-free survival benefit (median: 5.1 vs 2.5 vs 3.6 months, P < .001). Monthly prices were higher for full and partial than non-orphan drugs (median: $17 177 vs $13 284 vs $12 457, P < .001). Beneficiaries (8790 vs 4390 vs 1730) and spending ($570 vs $305 vs $156 million) per drug were greater for partial than non-and full orphans.

CONCLUSIONS

Although partial orphans' benefits, trials, and economics are more similar to non-than full orphans, they receive all of the ODA's benefits and are swiftly extended to new indications; resulting in greater spending. A maximum ODA revenue/patient threshold could limit expenditure on partial orphans.

Timely, Cheap, or Risk-Free? The Effect of Regulation on the Price and Availability of New Drugs

The high level of regulation of innovative drugs on the market, which is necessary to protect consumers, produces important effects on drug availability and innovation. In public healthcare systems, the need to curb prices comes from expenditure considerations. The aim of price regulation is to obtain a more equitable allocation of the value of an innovative drug between industries and patients (by reducing prices to make drugs more affordable), but it may also reduce access. (In the listing process, the industry may find it more convenient to limit commercialisation to profitable subgroups of patients.) Furthermore, with the advent of personalised medicine, there is another important dimension that has to be considered, namely, incentives to invest in drug personalisation. In this paper, we review and discuss the impact of different pricing rules on the expenditure and availability of new drugs.

From Indication-Based Pricing to Blended Approach: Evidence on the Price and Reimbursement Negotiation in Italy

BACKGROUND

New indications for existing medicines are increasing over time. In most countries, drug pricing and reimbursement conditions are renegotiated every time a new indication is approved. There is a growing interest in the price negotiation model for new indications, specifically comparing an indication-based versus blended approach. However, little evidence currently exists regarding the complexity of these negotiations and their impact on actual prices. Italy has recently transitioned from an indication-based approach to a blended price model. This study aims to measure the impact of price and reimbursement negotiation of new indications on discounts (i.e. actual prices) and on the negotiation duration, used as a proxy of its complexity.

METHODS

We considered new indications approved through a European centralized procedure from January 2013 to March 2022 for which the price and reimbursement status was approved in Italy between January 2015 and March 2022, amounting to 52 new indications. Data on the timeframe of the Italian price and reimbursement process and its phases were obtained from publicly available sources. Discounts for the first indication and their subsequent increases for new indications were estimated by comparing ex-factory prices and tendered prices. To calculate p-values, we employed the Mann-Whitney test, and multiple regression models were utilized to examine correlations between negotiation time and the characteristics of the medicines.

RESULTS

The mean time to reimbursement was 603 days, in contrast to 583 days for the first launch. Price negotiation took longer for rare diseases, cancer drugs, and in case of therapies with minor added therapeutic value. On average, the additional discount (on top of discounts for prior indications) was 13%, significantly lower than the mean discount for the first indications approved (24.9%). The discounts increment was lower, but negotiation took longer if a Managed Entry Agreement accompanied the final agreement. Additionally, discounts have increased over the years.

CONCLUSION

The negotiation for new indications takes longer than the first one, and provides, on average, an additional discount of 13%. While our findings bear the potential for significant policy implications, they necessitate prudent interpretation due to a limited number of observations. The increasing trend in additional discounts over time applied to all indications in recent negotiations, may suggest a descending trend of value for new indications and a shift from an indication-based pricing approach to a blended model. Otherwise, budget impact considerations might have outweighed a value-based approach in the recent negotiations. If so, two potential options for restoring a value-based approach are returning to an indication-based pricing or giving explicit and higher weight to value within a blended model.

Clinical benefit, development, innovation, trials, epidemiology, and price for cancer drugs and indications with multiple special FDA designations

BACKGROUND

This study analyzes the development, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, benefits, innovation, trials, epidemiology, and price of cancer drugs with multiple special designations: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy.

METHODS

In total, 355 FDA-approved cancer drug indications with 841 special designations were identified (2012-2022). Trial, epidemiology, and price data were collected from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and Medicare and Medicaid. The association between efficacy outcomes and indications' number of special designations were compared in meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Median development times were 7.3, 7.8, and 5.4 months (P = .027) for drugs with 0 to 1, 2 to 3, and 4 to 5 special designations, respectively. Multiple special designations were associated with higher biotechnological and clinical innovation. Median patient enrollment in trials were 615, 471, 398, 168, 104, and 120 (P < .001) for indications with 0 to 5 special designations. Drugs for rare diseases supported by open-label phase 1/2 trials of single-arm design were granted more special designations. Hazard ratios for overall survival (0.80 vs 0.73 vs 0.73 vs 0.69 vs 0.56 vs 0.52; P = .003) and progression-free survival (0.70 vs 0.61 vs 0.59 vs 0.44 vs 0.37 vs 0.67; P < .001) substantially declined while tumor response increased with more special designations. Mean monthly prices increased for drugs with 0 to 4 but not 5 special designations ($21 596 vs $14 753 vs $32 410 vs $41 240 vs $38 703 vs $19 184).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple special designations are associated with faster clinical development and greater benefits for patients with unmet needs but also with nonrobust trial evidence and a tendency toward higher drug prices.

Anastrozole Protects against Human Coronavirus Infection by Ameliorating the Reactive Oxygen Species-Mediated Inflammatory Response

The common human coronavirus (HCoV) exhibits mild disease with upper respiratory infection and common cold symptoms. HCoV-OC43, one of the HCoVs, can be used to screen drug candidates against SARS-CoV-2. We determined the antiviral effects of FDA/EMA-approved drug anastrozole (AZ) on two human coronaviruses, HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-229E, using MRC-5 cells in vitro. The AZ exhibited antiviral effects against HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-229E infection. Subsequent studies focused on HCoV-OC43, which is related to the SARS-CoV-2 family. AZ exhibited anti-viral effects and reduced the secretion of inflammatory cytokines, TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-1β. It also inhibited NF-κB translocation to effectively suppress the inflammatory response. AZ reduced intracellular calcium and reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels, including mitochondrial ROS and Ca2+, induced by the virus. AZ inhibited the expression of NLRP3 inflammasome components and cleaved IL-1β, suggesting that it blocks NLRP3 inflammasome activation in HCoV-OC43-infected cells. Moreover, AZ enhanced cell viability and reduced the expression of cleaved gasdermin D (GSDMD), a marker of pyroptosis. Overall, we demonstrated that AZ exhibits antiviral activity against HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-229E. We specifically focused on its efficacy against HCoV-OC43 and showed its potential to reduce inflammation, inhibit NLRP3 inflammasome activation, mitigate mitochondrial dysfunction, and suppress pyroptosis in infected cells.

Launch and Post-Launch Prices of Injectable Cancer Drugs in the US: Clinical Benefit, Innovation, Epidemiology, and Competition

BACKGROUND

Rising cancer drug prices adversely affect patients' adherence and survival.

OBJECTIVE

We 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 METHODS

All 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.

RESULTS

Of 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer 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.

Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy

BACKGROUND

Over the past decades, US Congress enabled the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to facilitate and expedite drug development for serious conditions filling unmet medical needs with five special designations and review pathways: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy.

OBJECTIVES

This study reviews the FDA's five special designations for drug development regarding their safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, clinical trials, innovation, economic incentives, development timelines, and price.

METHODS

We conducted a keyword search to identify studies analyzing the impact of the FDA's special designations (orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy) on the safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, trials, innovativeness, economic incentives, development times, and pricing of new drugs. Results were summarized in a narrative overview.

RESULTS

Expedited approval reduces new drugs' time to market. However, faster drug development and regulatory review are associated with more unrecognized adverse events and post-marketing safety revisions. Clinical trials supporting special FDA approvals frequently use small, non-randomized, open-label designs. Required post-approval trials to monitor unknown adverse events are often delayed or not even initiated. Evidence suggests that drugs approved under special review pathways, marketed as "breakthroughs", are more innovative and deliver a higher clinical benefit than those receiving standard FDA approval. Special designations are an economically viable strategy for investors and pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for rare diseases with unmet medical needs, due to financial incentives, expedited development timelines, higher clinical trial success rates, alongside greater prices. Nonetheless, patients, physicians, and insurers are concerned about spending money on drugs without a proven benefit or even on drugs that turn out to be ineffective. While European countries established performance- and financial-based managed entry agreements to account for this uncertainty in clinical trial evidence and cost-effectiveness, the pricing and reimbursement of these drugs remain largely unregulated in the US.

CONCLUSION

Special FDA designations shorten clinical development and FDA approval times for new drugs treating rare and severe diseases with unmet medical needs. Special-designated drugs offer a greater clinical benefit to patients. However, physicians, patients, and insurers must be aware that special-designated drugs are often approved based on non-robust trials, associated with more unrecognized side effects, and sold for higher prices.

Cancer Drug Prices in the United States: Efficacy, Innovation, Clinical Trial Evidence, and Epidemiology

OBJECTIVES

Rising cancer drug prices challenge patients and healthcare systems. Although prices are routinely assigned to original drug indications receiving US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, the pricing of supplemental indication approvals remains uncertain. This study identifies and quantifies factors associated with cancer drug prices, distinctly analyzing original and supplemental indications.

METHODS

Clinical trial evidence and epidemiologic data supporting new indications' FDA approval (2003-2022) were collected from the Drugs@FDA database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Global Burden of Disease study. Indication-specific monthly treatment costs were calculated for Medicare patients. The association between log-prices and collected variables were assessed in regression analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 145 drugs approved across 373 cancer indications. Drugs were priced at $24 444 per month on average (median = $16 013). For original indications, prices weakly correlated to improvements in overall survival (β = 0.28, P = .037) and progression-free survival (β = 0.16, P = .001). Original indications' prices were as follows: (1) negatively associated with disease incidence (β = -0.21, P < .001) and prevalence; (2) positively correlated with first-in-class drugs (26%, P = .057), gene and cell therapies (176%, P < .001), hematologic cancers (62%, P < .001), and severe diseases with substantial unmet needs (6% per disability-adjusted life-year, P < .001); and (3) negatively correlated to indications with randomized-controlled phase 3 trials. Prices were poorly associated with supplemental indications' efficacy, clinical evidence, and epidemiology.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer drug prices are set based on the original indication's characteristics, thereby omitting the value of supplemental indications. Indication-specific pricing, coverage, and reimbursement policies considering each indication's safety, efficacy, innovativeness, and unmet needs are necessary to align a drug's value and price.

Regulatory Review Duration and Differences in Submission Times of Drugs in the United States and Europe, 2011 to 2020

The speed of drug regulatory agencies in the United States and Europe is often a source of discussion. The objective of this research was to assess regulatory review duration of first and supplementary indications approved between 2011 and 2020 in the United States and Europe (European Union [EU] and Switzerland) and differences in submission times between the United States and Europe. Descriptive statistics were applied to review times between the jurisdictions and across the therapeutic areas. A regression analysis was done to estimate the association between approval agency and review times. The primary analysis cohort included 241 drugs approved in the United States, the EU, and Switzerland. Of these, 128 drugs had supplemental indications (331 in total) in the United States and 87 had supplemental indications (206 in total) in the EU. Overall median review duration from submission to approval subtracting the clock stop period was 39 weeks in the United States, 44 weeks in the EU, and 44 weeks in Switzerland. When review times within each drug were compared, the European Medicines Agency took a median of 3.7 weeks (IQR, -6.7 to 14.9 weeks) longer than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Swissmedic a median of 0.3 weeks (IQR, -10.6 to 15.3 weeks) longer. Median total review duration for supplemental indications was 26 weeks in the United States and 40 weeks in the EU. Applications were submitted a median of 1.3 and 17.9 weeks later in the EU and Switzerland, respectively, than in the United States. The regression analysis showed small differences in submission times between the United States and the EU (-2.1 weeks [95% CI, -11.7 to 7.6 weeks]) and larger differences between the United States and Switzerland (33.0 weeks [CI, 23.1 to 42.8 weeks]). It would be beneficial for patients if differences in submission times between the United States and Europe continue to be minimized.

Not one, but many: developing a multi-indication pricing model for medicines in Belgium

Back ground: Current pricing and reimbursement models that focus on one indication at a time are not suited to address the market access of multi-indication medicines. Therefore, the aim of this study is to co-create with Belgian stakeholders a multi-indication pricing model and procedural pathway, to identify conditions for implementation, and to illustrate the multi-indication pricing model with a case study. Methods: Different multi-indication pricing models were identified from the literature, case studies and pilots in other countries. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 representatives from the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance, insurance funds, clinicians, patients, the policy cell of the Minister of Health, pharmaceutical industry and academia. These provided insight in the opinions of stakeholders about possible multi-indication pricing models and their feasibility in the Belgian context. Agreement on the preferred multi-indication pricing model and procedural pathway was reached in a multi-stakeholder round table. Results: The international review generated four main multi-indication pricing models that vary in terms of whether a uniform price or differential prices are applied, whether prices are adjusted for the volume and/or value of the medicine in each indication, and whether a proactive or retroactive dynamic pricing approach is used. However, Belgian stakeholders preferred a fifth model, which sets a single price as the volume- and value-weighted average price across all indications at launch. Over time, the price is adapted based on volume and value of the medicine in real-life practice for each indication. To implement this model, a legal framework, horizon scanning and early dialogue, data infrastructure, an evidence plan for the medicine, technical expertise and governance model need to be developed. Conclusion: Although the multi-indication pricing model preferred by Belgian stakeholders raises the administrative burden, it allows for the price of a medicine to vary during the lifecycle based on its initial and real-life performance in multiple indications.

Therapeutic value of first versus supplemental indications of drugs in US and Europe (2011-20): retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the therapeutic value of supplemental indications compared with first indications for drugs approved in the US and Europe.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

New and supplemental indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2011 and 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of first and supplemental indications rated as having high therapeutic value using ratings from the French and German national, independent health authorities.

RESULTS

The cohort study included 124 first and 335 supplemental indications approved by the FDA and 88 first and 215 supplemental indications approved by the EMA between 2011 and 2020; the largest subset was for cancer disorders. Therapeutic ratings were available for 107 (86%) first and 179 (53%) supplemental indications in the US and for 87 (99%) first and 184 (86%) supplemental indications in Europe. Among FDA approved indications with available ratings, 41% (44/107) had high therapeutic value ratings for first indications compared with 34% (61/179) for supplemental indications. In Europe, 47% (41/87) of first and 36% (67/184) of supplemental indications had high therapeutic value ratings. Among FDA approvals, when the sample was restricted to the first three approved indications, second indication approvals were 36% less likely to have a high value rating (relative ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.96) and third indication approvals were 45% less likely (0.55, 0.29 to 1.01) compared with the first indication approval. Similar findings were observed for Europe and when weighting by the inverse number of indications for each drug.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of supplemental indications rated as having high therapeutic value was substantially lower than for first indications. When first or supplemental indications do not offer added therapeutic value over other available treatments, that information should be clearly communicated to patients and physicians and reflected in the price of the drugs.

FDA approval, clinical trial evidence, efficacy, epidemiology, and price for non-orphan and ultra-rare, rare, and common orphan cancer drug indications: cross sectional analysis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, trials, unmet needs, benefit, and pricing of ultra-rare (<6600 affected US citizens), rare (6600-200 000 citizens), and common (>200 000 citizens) orphan cancer drug indications and non-orphan cancer drug indications.

DESIGN

Cross sectional analysis.

SETTING

Data from Drugs@FDA, FDA labels, Global Burden of Disease study, and Medicare and Medicaid.

POPULATION

170 FDA approved drugs across 455 cancer indications between 2000 and 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparison of non-orphan and ultra-rare, rare, and common orphan indications regarding regulatory approval, trials, epidemiology, and price. Hazard ratios for overall survival and progression-free survival were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

161 non-orphan and 294 orphan cancer drug indications were identified, of which 25 were approved for ultra-rare diseases, 205 for rare diseases, and 64 for common diseases. Drugs for ultra-rare orphan indications were more frequently first in class (76% v 48% v 38% v 42%; P<0.001), monotherapies (88% v 69% v 72% v 55%; P=0.001), for hematologic cancers (76% v 66% v 0% v 0%; P<0.001), and supported by smaller trials (median 85 v 199 v 286 v 521 patients; P<0.001), of single arm (84% v 44% v 28% v 21%; P<0.001) phase 1/2 design (88% v 45% v 45% v 27%; P<0.001) compared with rare and common orphan indications and non-orphan indications. Drugs for common orphan indications were more often biomarker directed (69% v 26% v 12%; P<0.001), first line (77% v 39% v 20%; P<0.001), small molecules (80% v 62% v 48%; P<0.001) benefiting from quicker time to first FDA approval (median 5.7 v 7.1 v 8.9 years; P=0.02) than those for rare and ultra-rare orphan indications. Drugs for ultra-rare, rare, and common orphan indications offered a significantly greater progression-free survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.53 v 0.51 v 0.49 v 0.64; P<0.001), but not overall survival benefit (0.50 v 0.73 v 0.71 v 0.74; P=0.06), than non-orphans. In single arm trials, tumor response rates were greater for drugs for ultra-rare orphan indications than for rare or common orphan indications and non-orphan indications (objective response rate 57% v 48% v 55% v 33%; P<0.001). Disease incidence/prevalence, five year survival, and the number of available treatments were lower, whereas disability adjusted life years per patient were higher, for ultra-rare orphan indications compared with rare or common indications and non-orphan indications. For 147 on-patent drugs with available data in 2023, monthly prices were higher for ultra-rare orphan indications than for rare or common orphan indications and non-orphan indications ($70 128 (£55 971; €63 370) v $33 313 v $16 484 v $14 508; P<0.001). For 48 on-patent drugs with available longitudinal data from 2005 to 2023, prices increased by 94% for drugs for orphan indications and 50% for drugs for non-orphan indications on average.

CONCLUSIONS

The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 incentivizes development of drugs not only for rare diseases but also for ultra-rare diseases and subsets of common diseases. These orphan indications fill significant unmet needs, yet their approval is based on small, non-robust trials that could overestimate efficacy outcomes. A distinct ultra-orphan designation with greater financial incentives could encourage and expedite drug development for ultra-rare diseases.

Healthcare Payer Perspectives on the Assessment and Pricing of Oncology Multi-Indication Products: Evidence from Nine OECD Countries

BACKGROUND

New pharmaceuticals are increasingly being developed for use across multiple indications. Countries across Europe and North America have adopted a range of different approaches to capture differences in the value of individual indications.

OBJECTIVE

The three aims of this study were (i) to review the price-setting practice over the past 5 years for multi-indication products across England, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Turkey, Canada and the USA; (ii) to assess the impact of current practices on launch strategy; and (iii) to identify issues in the implementation of indication-based pricing.

METHODS

Ten current and former members of health insurance organisations, healthcare payer organisations or health technology assessment agencies with expertise on pharmaceutical purchasing were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were imported into NVivo 12 for thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The majority of countries studied require full assessments upon launch of a new indication. Five different approaches to pricing were identified: weighted pricing, differential discounting, mandatory discount, price anchoring and free pricing. Manufacturers show a tendency to launch first in niche indications with high unmet need to achieve a high price. Stakeholders from England, France, Italy, Belgium and Switzerland consider their current system fit for purpose, while other countries expressed concern over the administrative burden of monitoring products at indication level.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the high administrative burden, it is questionable whether indication-based pricing would provide additional public benefit above and beyond current weighted dynamic single pricing and differential discounting practices for multi-indication products.

Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin in Combination with Standard Care versus Standard Care Only in the Treatment of Heart Failure Patients in Finland

Purpose

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin has recently been shown to improve the outcomes of heart failure (HF) patients regardless of patient's left ventricular ejection fraction by reducing the combined risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening HF. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding empagliflozin to the standard care (SC) in comparison to SC only in the treatment of HF in Finland.

Patients and Methods

The assessment was performed in the cost-utility framework using two Markov cohort state-transition models, one for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and one for HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The models have been primarily developed based on the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials which informed the modelled patient characteristics, efficacy of treatments in terms of associated risks for heart failure hospitalizations, cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV death, treatment related adverse events (AE), and state- and event-specific health-related quality of life weights (EQ-5D). Direct health care costs were estimated from Finnish published references. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from health care payer perspective based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; cost per quality adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) and probability of cost-effectiveness (at willingness-to-pay [WTP] of 35,000 euros/QALY). The ICER was reported as the weighted (HFrEF, 43.5%; HFpEF, 56.5%) average result of the two models.

Results

Empagliflozin + SC treatment increased the average quality-adjusted life-expectancy, and treatment costs of HF patients by 0.15 QALYs and 1,594 euros, respectively, when compared to SC. An additional QALY with empagliflozin was thus gained at a cost of 10,621 euros. The probability of empagliflozin + SC being cost-effective compared to placebo + SC was 77.6% and 83.5% with WTP of 35,000 and 100,000 euros/QALY, respectively.

Conclusion

Empagliflozin is a cost-effective treatment for patients with HF in the Finnish health care setting.

Prezzo e rimborso dei farmaci in caso di estensione delle indicazioni: i risultati di una survey sui soci di ISPOR Italy Rome Chapter

Multi-indication pricing models for medicines and some international impact evidence are available in the literature. Data on the Italian context are more limited. This paper illustrates the results of a study aimed at gathering the opinion on this topic of experts, members of the ISPOR Italy Rome Chapter.

The opinion was collected through a structured questionnaire, validated by two potential responders, and administered online in the period October/July 2022.

There were 45 responders (20% of the members); 67% of responders work in pharmaceutical companies and 13% in consultancy firms. The remainder belongs to regulators/payers and universities.

The survey highlighted a preference for (i) non-automatic models, as automatic approaches are mainly based on price cuts/discount increases in relation to an increase in volumes, (ii) an “indication-based-pricing” model (where prices are differentiated by indication through discounts/risk sharing agreements), since it is more consistent with a value-based approach, even if more complex to manage, (iii) a mix of discounts/agreements according to existing evidence.

The opinion collected is consistent with the opinions available in the literature, but not consistent with the Italian trend, where, compared to the past, a blended approach is prevailing. A blended pricing envisages a renegotiation of the single price for all indications, essentially based on a change in the discount. Our hope is that in the future the experts’ opinion will be taken into consideration and that a targeted indication-based-pricing will be adopted again.

Overall Survival, Progression-Free Survival, and Tumor Response Benefit Supporting Initial US Food and Drug Administration Approval and Indication Extension of New Cancer Drugs, 2003-2021

PURPOSE

Clinical trial evidence is routinely evaluated for initial drug approvals, yet the benefit of indication extensions remains uncertain. This study evaluates the clinical benefit supporting new cancer drugs' initial and supplemental US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indication approval.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical trial evidence supporting each indication's FDA approval was collected from the Drugs@FDA database between 2003 and 2021. Drug, indication, and clinical trial characteristics are described. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and relative risk for tumor response were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of 124 FDA-approved drugs, 78 were approved across multiple indications. Out of 374 indications, 141 were approved as combination therapies, 255 for solid cancers, 121 with biomarkers, and 182 as first-line therapy. Approval was mostly supported by open-label (267 [71%]) phase III (238 [64%]) concurrent randomized controlled trials (248 [66%]) with a median of 331 enrolled patients (interquartile range [IQR], 123-665 patients). Across 234 randomized controlled trials with available data, drugs' HRs were 0.73 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.75; I² = 29.6%) for OS and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.60; I² = 90.6%) for PFS, whereas tumor response was 1.38 (95% CI, 1.33 to 1.42; I² = 80.7%). Novel pharmaceuticals increased patient survival by a median of 2.80 months (IQR, 1.97-4.60 months) for OS and 3.30 months (IQR, 1.50-5.58 months) for PFS. Initial indications more frequently received accelerated approval, supported by single-arm trials for advanced-line monotherapies, than indication extensions. Initial approvals provided a higher PFS (HR, 0.48 v 0.58; P = .002) and tumor response (relative risk, 1.76 v 1.36; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

New cancer drugs substantially reduce the risk of death and tumor progression, yet only marginally extend patient survival. The FDA, physicians, patients, and insurers must evaluate and decide on a drug's safety and efficacy approval, pricing, coverage, and reimbursement on an indication-specific level.

Cost-Effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl, Evolocumab, Alirocumab, Ezetimibe, or Fenofibrate in Combination with Statins Compared to Statin Monotherapy

Background

Despite treatment with statins, dyslipidaemia patients with elevated cholesterol- and triglyceride-levels remain at high residual risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). New lipid-lowering drugs must prevent the occurrence of MACE and exhibit cost-effectiveness for their successful adoption to clinical practice.

Objective

To assess the cost effectiveness of icosapent ethyl, fenofibrate, ezetimibe, evolocumab, and alirocumab in combination with statins compared to statin monotherapy for cardiovascular prevention from the perspective of UK’s National Health Service.

Methods

A Markov model simulated the progression of cardiovascular disease and MACE, including myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, and coronary revascularisation, in dyslipidaemia patients. The model was populated with cardiovascular outcome trial data for each drug. Cost and utility data were extracted from peer-reviewed literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is reported per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained in 2021 Great Britain Pounds (£).

Results

For primary cardiovascular prevention, icosapent ethyl increased QALYs by 0.79 and costs by £15,421 compared to statin monotherapy (ICER = £19,485/QALY). Fenofibrate yielded 0.62 additional QALYs at cost-savings of − £6127 (ICER = − £9932/QALY). For secondary prevention, the omega-3 fatty acid icosapent ethyl extended QALYs by 0.98 at costs of £12,981 compared to statin monotherapy (ICER = £13,285/QALY). Fenofibrate added 0.85 QALYs whilst saving − £637 (ICER = − £7472/QALY). Ezetimibe increased QALYs by 0.60 at cost reductions of − £2529 (ICER = − £4231/QALY). PCSK9 inhibitors provided QALYs of 0.53 and 0.86 at costs of £45,279 and £46,375 for evolocumab (ICER = £85,193/QALY) and alirocumab (ICER = £54,211/QALY), respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £25,000/QALY, there is a probability of 100% for icosapent ethyl (98% in primary prevention) and 0% for PCSK9 inhibitors to be cost effective in secondary prevention.

Conclusions

Icosapent ethyl is cost effective for primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention at an annual price of £2064 in the UK. For PCSK9 inhibitors, price discounts or prescription restrictions are necessary to achieve cost effectiveness.

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40261-022-01173-3.