Prices and Clinical Benefit of National Price-Negotiated Anticancer Medicines in China

Impact of competition on reimbursement decisions for cancer drugs in China: an observational study

Background

Annual Chinese National negotiations for including innovative drugs in the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) reveal an increasing number of new drugs with overlapping action mechanisms of action and similar indications. Yet, it is unclear if competition affects reimbursement decisions. Thus, we explored the impact of competition on reimbursement decisions for cancer drugs in China.

Methods

We identified the cancer drugs involved in NRDL negotiations from 2017 to 2022 and focused on the initial reimbursement decision for eligible newly negotiated drugs. Drugs were classified as within-class competitors based on their equivalent biological mechanisms of action and approved indications, including identified and potential competitors. Other variables included drug type, clinical benefit and safety, monthly drug cost, and disease incidence rate. We employed traditional univariate and multivariate Firth's penalized logistic regression to assess the association between reimbursement decisions and variables at the indication and drug levels.

Findings

Between 2017 and 2022, 102 cancer drugs corresponding to 141 indications were studied, and 66 drugs (64.7%) covering 95 indications (67.4%) were added to the NRDL. The proportion of reimbursements for indications with identified competition was significantly higher than that for indications without identified competition (84.6% vs 52.6%, p < 0.0001). However, the difference in reimbursement proportions between groups with and without potential competition was not statistically significant (66.7% vs 68.3%, p = 0.84). Firth's penalized logistic regression showed that identified competition was positively correlated with successful NRDL inclusion, whereas potential competition had no significant effect on negotiation outcomes. Improved overall survival or progression-free survival were positively associated with NRDL inclusion, whereas disease incidence negatively impacted reimbursement decisions.

Interpretation

Improved clinical benefit and identified competition were positively correlated with NRDL inclusion. In China's value-based negotiation model, clinical benefits served as a crucial foundation of price negotiation for cancer drugs, and market competition helped these drugs enter the NRDL at more reasonable prices. This has important implications for reimbursement decisions and accessibility and affordability improvement for innovative drugs worldwide.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 72104151).

Sugemalimab combined with chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

This study aims to systematically analyze the cost-effectiveness of the combination therapy comprising sugemalimab and chemotherapy in the management of advanced ESCC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Methods

An advanced ESCC patient simulation partitioned survival approach model was developed to mimic the disease progression of patients undergoing treatment with sugemalimab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. To ensure accuracy and precision, clinical data, treatment costs, and utility values were collected from comprehensive clinical trials and reliable economic databases. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted by assessing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in relation to the established willingness-to-pay threshold. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results

The cumulative expenditure for the group of patients administered with sugemalimab amounted to US$ 41734.87, whereas the placebo group was associated with a total cost of US$ 22926.25. By evaluating the ICER, which quantifies the additional cost incurred per QALY gained, a value of US$ 61066.96 per QALY was determined. It is imperative to note that this ICER value surpasses the predetermined threshold for WTP in China, set at US$ 39,855.79 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results were sensitive to the cost of sugemalimab, progression-free survival, and utility values. These fluctuations did not result in a reversal of the study findings.

Conclusion

The combination of sugemalimab with chemotherapy for the treatment of ESCC in China is currently not considered a cost-effective therapeutic approach. However, it is suggested that additional reductions in price may facilitate the potential for achieving cost-effectiveness.

List prices and clinical value of anticancer drugs in China, Japan, and South Korea: a retrospective comparative study

Background

High prices of anticancer drugs have raised concerns due to their financial impact on patients and healthcare systems. This study aimed to assess the initial and latest list prices and clinical value of reimbursed anticancer drugs in China, Japan, and South Korea.

Methods

We identified anticancer drugs newly approved by the National Medical Products Administration of China from January 2012 to June 2022, and by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency of Japan and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of South Korea up until June 2022. We compared initial and latest treatment prices between countries and assessed clinical value using patients' survival, quality of life (QoL), and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We calculated Spearman rank correlation coefficients of treatment prices with clinical value for individual countries and employed regression analyses to investigate whether the relationship between prices and clinical value was modified by the country setting.

Findings

Our cohort included 91 anticancer drug indications, with 60 listed for reimbursement in China, 91 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea. Median treatment prices were highest in Japan, followed by South Korea, and lowest in China, both for initial prices (US$64082 vs. US$45529 vs. US$19144, p < 0.0001) and latest prices (US$50859 vs. US$31611 vs. US$18666, p < 0.0001). Over time, China (β = -0.047, p < 0.0001) and South Korea (β = -0.049, p < 0.0001) witnessed more significant price reductions compared to Japan (β = -0.013, p = 0.011). The correlations between both initial and latest treatment prices and clinical value (QoL and ESMO-MCBS) were more significant and stronger in China and South Korea than in Japan, although Japan exhibited slightly stronger correlations in terms of survival compared to China and South Korea. The relationship between clinical value and treatment prices may not be modified by the country setting.

Interpretation

In comparison, South Korea's list prices and their correlations with clinical value appear reasonable. Policymakers in Japan could enhance efficiency by controlling prices and aligning them with clinical value, while China would need to take substantial steps to expand anticancer drug coverage.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (72374149 and 72074163), and China Center for South Asian Studies, Sichuan University.

Association of Launch Price and Clinical Value With Reimbursement Decisions for Anticancer Drugs in China

BACKGROUND

The potential role played by launch price and clinical value in reimbursement decisions has not been sufficiently established in China. This study aimed to investigate the association of launch price and clinical value with reimbursement decisions for anticancer drugs after the implementation of reimbursement-linked price negotiation in China.

METHODS

Anticancer drugs approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) of China from January 2017 to June 2022 were eligible for inclusion. Approval and reimbursement dates of included drug indications were retrieved from publicly available resources. We collected measures of clinical value, including survival, quality of life (QoL), and overall response rate from pivotal clinical trials and calculated treatment price at launch. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were employed to estimate the association between launch price, clinical value, and reimbursement decisions of anticancer drugs in China.

RESULTS

The median reimbursement lag was 579 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 402-936) for 93 indications supported by randomized controlled trials and 637 days (IQR: 373-858) for 42 indications supported by single-arm clinical trials. Reimbursement was granted to 60 (65%) and 23 (55%) indications supported by randomized controlled and single-arm clinical trials, respectively. The launch price of anticancer drugs was not associated with reimbursement decisions in multivariate regression analyses. Indications supported by randomized controlled trials with higher clinical value were more likely to be reimbursed (hazard ratio [HR] for survival=1.07, 95% CI: 1.00-1.15, P=.037), while the overall response rate of indications supported by single-arm clinical trials was not associated with the likelihood of being reimbursed (HR=2.09, 95% CI: 0.14-32.28, P=.595).

CONCLUSION

The launch price of anticancer drugs may not have a significant impact on reimbursement decisions, while the implementation of reimbursement-linked price negotiation in China has prioritized anticancer drugs with higher clinical value, but only for indications supported by randomized controlled trials. Efforts are needed to prioritize indications supported by single-arm clinical trials that have higher value during the process of price negotiation.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background

Recently, several novel programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors have been approved for second-line treating advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), including camrelizumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, sintilimab and tislelizumab. However, the optimal treatment regimen remained ambiguous.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety and economy of available PD-1 inhibitors to determine the optimal treatment from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Design

A systematic review and economic evaluation.

Data sources and methods

A systematic review was undertaken utilizing PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus databases to identify eligible studies until 31 August 2023. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). We also developed a partitioned survival model at 3-week intervals based on five clinical trials to predict long-term costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for various treatment options. Direct medical costs and utility values were obtained from public drug bidding databases, clinical trials or published literature. The parameter uncertainties within the model were determined via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials involving 2837 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with other treatments examined, camrelizumab provided the best PFS benefits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.86], and pembrolizumab provided the best OS benefits (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.82). Nivolumab caused a relatively lower incidence of treatment-related AEs (HR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.05-0.20) and grade 3-5 AEs (HR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.21) than other immunotherapy regimens. In the economic evaluation, average 10-year costs ranged from $5,433.86 (chemotherapy) to $50,617.95 (nivolumab) and mean QALYs ranged from 0.55 (chemotherapy) to 0.82 (camrelizumab). Pembrolizumab was eliminated because of dominance. Of the remaining strategies, when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were 1, 2 and 3 times GDP per capita in 2022, sintilimab, tislelizumab and camrelizumab were the most cost-effective treatment options, respectively.

Conclusion

Sintilimab might be the optimal treatment alternative for second-line therapy of advanced OSCC in China, followed by tislelizumab and camrelizumab.

Trial registration

This study has been registered on the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42023495204.

Price negotiation and pricing of anticancer drugs in China: An observational study

BACKGROUND

While China has implemented reimbursement-linked drug price negotiation annually since 2017, emphasizing value-based pricing to achieve a value-based strategic purchase of medical insurance, whether drug prices became better aligned with clinical value after price negotiation has not been sufficiently established. This study aimed to assess the changes in prices and their relationship with the clinical value of anticancer drugs after the implementation of price negotiations in China.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this observational study, anticancer drug indications that were negotiated successfully between 2017 and 2022 were identified through National Reimbursement Drug Lists (NRDL) of China. We excluded extensions of indications for drugs already listed in the NRDL, indications for pediatric use, and indications lacking corresponding clinical trials. We identified pivotal clinical trials for included indications by consulting review reports or drug labels issued by the Center for Drug Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration. We calculated treatment costs as outcome measures based on publicly available prices and collected data on clinical value including safety, survival, quality of life, and overall response rate (ORR) from publications of pivotal clinical trials. The associations between drug costs and clinical value, both before and after negotiation, were analyzed using regression analyses. We also examined whether price negotiation has led to a reduction in the variation of treatment costs for a given value. We included 103 anticancer drug indications, primarily for the treatment of blood cancer, lung cancer, and breast cancer, with 76 supported by randomized controlled trials and 27 supported by single-arm clinical trials. The median treatment costs over the entire sample have been reduced from US$34,460.72 (interquartile range (IQR): 19,990.49 to 55,441.66) to US$13,688.79 (IQR: 7,746.97 to 21,750.97) after price negotiation (P < 0.001). Before price negotiation, each additional month of survival gained was associated with an increase in treatment costs of 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) [2.1, 4.8], P < 0.001) for indications supported by randomized controlled trials, and a 10% increase in ORR was associated with a 6.0% (95% CI [1.6, 10.3], P = 0.009) increase in treatment costs for indications supported by single-arm clinical trials. After price negotiation, the associations between costs and clinical value may not have changed significantly, but the variation of drug costs for a given value was reduced. Study limitations include the lack of transparency in official data, missing data on clinical value, and a limited sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that the implementation of price negotiation in China has led to drug pricing better aligned with clinical value for anticancer drugs even after substantial price reductions. The achievements made in China could shed light on the price regulation in other countries, particularly those with limited resources and increasing drug expenditures.

The correlation between the costs and clinical benefits of national price-negotiated anticancer drugs for specific cancers in China

Background

The high costs of novel anticancer drugs have caused concern among healthcare stakeholders. To address the knowledge gap on the proportion of survival benefit with the related economic expenditure, we aimed to assess the correlation between the costs and value of innovative drugs targeted to specific tumours, before and after price negotiation policy implementation.

Methods

We identified new drugs for lung and breast cancer that entered the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) through price negotiation from 2016 to 2023. Therapeutic value consisted of traditional clinical endpoints, like the percentage improvement of overall survival (ΔOS%) and progression-free survival (ΔPFS%), and the quantified gains of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We calculated monthly drug costs and used Spearman's correlation coefficient and Cohen's kappa statistics for statistical analysis.

Results

Twenty-nine innovative price-negotiated drugs were collected between 2016 and 2023. The median monthly costs were US$3381.31 out of NRDL and US$1095.88 within NRDL, with an ΔOS% of 22.24% (IQR = 6.45-29.48) and a ΔPFS% of 83.82% (IQR = 50.41-104.05). The median ASCO-VF score was 40.98, and 17 drugs scored the meaningful benefit of ESMO-MCBS. We found no association between clinical benefits and their costs before and after NRDL, either overall or for specific cancers. The agreement between the two frameworks was stable.

Conclusions

The negotiation policy decreased medication costs, but did not generate the expected correlation between the value and costs of anticancer drugs. Comprehensive value assessments need to be performed in the future to explore more in-depth findings and promote the affordability and availability of effective anticancer drugs.

Global inequalities in availability of systemic therapies for cancer care and strategies to address them

Many Low and middle-income countries face challenges in delivering chemotherapy services due to limitations in infrastructure, inadequate healthcare facilities, and a shortage of trained medical professionals. High-income countries often have well-developed healthcare systems and advanced technology.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to the standard first-line therapy of advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) with gemcitabine and cisplatin from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

The partitioned survival model developed from clinical data obtained in The KEYNOTE-966 trial served as the basis for a simulation in the TreeAge Pro 2011 software. The objective of the research was to estimate the 10-year life expectancy and total healthcare costs of patients with BTC, utilizing primary outcomes that evaluated costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). To establish the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, the 2022 Chinese per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of $37304.346/QALY was adopted. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis was conducted to ascertain the study's results under varying levels of uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared to chemotherapy alone, the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy has been shown to yield an incremental gain of 0.184 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) at an additional cost of $103940.706. This translates into an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $564895.141/QALY, which exceeds the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold in China. One-way sensitivity analyses performed on the model recognize the utility of PD, subsequent cost, and the cost of Pembrolizumab 100 mg had a major influence on the outcomes. However, no parameter elicited an ICER lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, the utilization of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as an first-line treatment option for BTC does not appear to be a cost-effective approach compared to chemotherapy as a standalone therapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab as first-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab as first-line treatment for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was created to evaluate costs and health outcomes. The model's robustness was evaluated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Serplulimab demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $104,537.375/quality-adjusted life-year in the overall population group. Subgroup analysis showed that serplulimab had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $261,750.496/quality-adjusted life-year and $68,107.997/quality-adjusted life-year in the populations with PD-L1 1 ≤ combined positive score <10 and PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10, respectively. Conclusion: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of serplulimab therapy were found to exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,304.34. Thus, serplulimab is not cost-effective compared with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 as the first-line treatment for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced gastric or Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma

Background: The SPOTLIGHT trial demonstrated that zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 (ZOL-FO) as a first-line regimen compared with placebo plus mFOLFOX6 (PLB-FO) conferred clinical benefits to patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. However, due to the high cost of zolbetuximab, whether ZOL-FO is cost-effective compared with PLB-FO is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ZOL-FO as a first-line treatment option for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: Markov models with three different health states were developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ZOL-FO as a first-line treatment option for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Clinical efficacy data were obtained from the SPOTLIGHT trial; the drug's cost was calculated at national bid prices, and other costs and utility values were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes included total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The model's robustness was verified using one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: The ZOL-FO group gained 1.64 QALYs at $87,746.35, while the PLB-FO group gained 1.23 QALYs at $11,947.81. The ICER for ZOL-FO versus PLB-FO was $185,353.28 per QALY gained. The parameters exerting an important impact on the model results were the price of zolbetuximab, body surface area, and progression-free survival utility. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,201/QALY, ZOL-FO had a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness compared with PLB-FO. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, ZOL-FO is unlikely to be cost-effective as the first-line treatment option for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

Objective

The ASTRUM-007 trial (NCT03958890) demonstrated that serplulimab plus chemotherapy administered every 2-week significantly improved progression-free and overall survival in patients with previously untreated, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC). This study was aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC.

Methods

A partitioned survival model with a 2-week cycle and a 10-year time horizon was constructed from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. The survival data, direct medical costs and utilities were derived from the ASTRUM-007 trial, YAOZHI database and published sources. Total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty around model parameters.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy provided additional 0.27 QALYs with an incremental cost of $33,460.86, which had an ICER of $124,483.07 per QALY. The subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of serplulimab plus chemotherapy were $134,637.42 and $105,589.71 in advanced ESCC patients with 1 ≤ CPS < 10 and CPS ≥ 10, respectively. The price of serplulimab, patient weight, utility values and discount rate were the most influential parameters on base-case results. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times per capita GDP ($40,587.59) in 2022, the probability of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 0% compared with chemotherapy. When the price of serplulimab decreased by 70%, the probabilities of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective were 81.42%, 67.74% and 96.75% in advanced ESCC patients with PD-L1-positive, PD-L1 1≤CPS<10 and CPS≥10, respectively.

Conclusion

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC might not be cost-effective in China.

Trends in antineoplastic drug use, cost and prescribing patterns among patients with lung cancer in nine major cities of China, 2016-2020: a retrospective observational study based on inpatient and outpatient hospital data

OBJECTIVES

It is unclear whether the use of antineoplastic drugs for patients with lung cancer in China has changed after the implementation of the national drug price negotiation in 2016 and continual update of clinical guidelines. This study aims to evaluate the trends in antineoplastic drug use, cost and prescribing patterns among patients with lung cancer in major cities of China.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective observational study using data from January 2016 to December 2020.

SETTING

This study used prescription records based on inpatient and outpatient hospital data from 97 hospitals in 9 major cities of China.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 218 325 antineoplastic drug prescriptions in patients with lung cancer were retrospectively collected from the Hospital Prescription Analysis Cooperative Project during the study period.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Trends in antineoplastic drug use, cost and prescribing patterns among patients with lung cancer.

RESULTS

The yearly antineoplastic prescriptions increased by 85.6% from 28 594 in 2016 to 53 063 in 2020 (Z=1.71, p=0.086). Significant increases were seen in the prescriptions for protein kinase inhibitors (PKIs) and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), whereas significant decreases were observed in antimetabolites, plant alkaloids and platinum compounds. The yearly cost increased progressively by 145.0% from ¥113.6 million in 2016 to ¥278.3 million in 2020 (Z=2.20, p=0.027). The top three anticancer drug classes in terms of total cost were PKIs, antimetabolites and mAbs. In prescribing patterns of antineoplastic agents for lung cancer, monotherapy, and triple or more drug combinations gradually increased, while dual combinations decreased significantly from 30.8% to 19.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescription practices among patients with lung cancer in China underwent major changes during the study period. The observed trends can aid in understanding the present medication use status of patients with lung cancer in China and provide information for future drug management.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of PD-1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma in China

Objective: This study was aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of all available programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A partitioned survival model with a 3-week cycle and a 10-year time horizon was constructed based on a network meta-analysis. The survival data and utility values were derived from clinical trials, and the direct medical costs were collected from public drug bidding database and published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty around model parameters. Results: Compared with mono-chemotherapy, toripalimab, sintilimab and camrelizumab plus chemotherapy were cost-effective treatment regimens, while serplulimab, pembrolizumab and nivolumab plus chemotherapy were not cost-effective options. Toripalimab plus chemotherapy provided the highest QALYs of 0.95 with the lower cost of $8,110.53 compared to other competing alternatives. The robustness of the base-case results was confirmed by scenario and one-way sensitivity analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times per capita gross domestic product ($38,351.20) in 2021, the probability of toripalimab plus chemotherapy being the optimal option was 74.25% compared with other six competing alternatives. Conclusion: Toripalimab plus chemotherapy represented the most cost-effective option as the first-line therapy for advanced ESCC patients in China.

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).

Correlation of Anticancer Drug Prices with Outcomes of Overall Survival and Progression-Free Survival in Clinical Trials in Japan

Drug pricing methods vary extensively across countries. Japan calculates drug prices using cost accounting and based on the efficacy of similar drugs. This study investigated the relationship between drug prices and their clinical efficacy and usefulness using public information on anticancer drugs reimbursed by the National Health Insurance price listing between January 2009 and March 2020. We investigated drug characteristics, prices, and clinical benefits based on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Eighty anticancer drugs were approved in Japan during the study period. The largest number (28 drugs, 35.0%) was approved based on PFS, 18 (22.5%) were approved based on OS, and 13 (16.3%) based on the response rate. The mean (±SD) drug price was JPY 88,416.2 (±148,974.7), while the median drug price (with quartiles) was JPY 21,694 (JPY 4855.0-JPY 93,396.8). Drug prices were significantly higher for PFS than for OS, while cost index-the drug price to extend PFS or OS by one day-did not differ significantly between PFS and OS. The relationship between the 46 drugs approved based on OS or PFS and their prices was examined. A correlation was found between drug prices and their clinical usefulness in terms of OS but not PFS.

Value assessment of NMPA-approved new cancer drugs for solid cancer in China, 2016-2020

Background

Whether the high cost of cancer drugs is commensurate with their value to patients, which has become the focus of public concern. We aimed to assess the value of new cancer drugs approved for solid cancer in China and to explore the association between price and value of drugs.

Methods

We identified all new drugs for solid tumor that approved by the China's National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) between 2016 and 2020. The value of these drugs was assessed according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We calculated Cohen's κ statistic to describe agreement between the two frameworks. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between price and value of drugs.

Results

Between 2016 and 2020, 37 new drugs were approved by the NMPA for solid tumor and we could evaluate the value of 28 drugs (76%). Eight (29%) of drugs were approved for non-small-cell lung cancer and 6 (21%) for breast cancer. ASCO-VF scores had a range of -20 to 110.1, and the median score was 43.3 (inter-quartile range 27.1-58.35). Only seven drugs (25%) met the ASCO-VF cutoff score. By the ESMO-MCBS, 13 drugs showed a meaningful value. Agreement between these two frameworks thresholds was only fair (κ = 0.515, P < 0.05). We found no statistically significant correlation between launch price of drugs and clinical benefit according to both frameworks.

Conclusions

Not all NMPA-approved new cancer drugs had meaningful value as measured by ASCO-VF or ESMO-MCBS. There was no significant correlation between drug price and the level of clinical benefit.

Value assessment of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of oesophageal and gastrointestinal cancers

Background: Evidence of efficacy and safety of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors in oesophageal cancer (EC), gastric cancer (GC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) was inconsistent, obscuring their clinical application and decision-making. The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the value of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in EC, GC and CRC to select valuable PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and to assess the association between the value and cost of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Methods: A comprehensive search of trials of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in EC, GC and CRC was performed in Chinese and English medical databases with a cut-off date of 1 July 2022. Two authors independently applied the ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS to assess the value of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to establish the predictive value of the ASCO-VF score to meet the threshold of the ESMO-MCBS grade. Spearman's correlation was used to calculate the relationship between the cost and value of drugs. Results: Twenty-three randomized controlled trials were identified: ten (43.48%) in EC, five (21.74%) in CRC, and eight (34.78%) in GC or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC). For advanced diseases, ASCO-VF scores ranged from -12.5 to 69, with a mean score of 26.5 (95% CI 18.4-34.6). Six (42.9%) therapeutic regimens met the ESMO-MCBS benefit threshold grade. The area under the ROC curve was 1.0 (p = 0.002). ASCO-VF scores and incremental monthly cost were negatively correlated (Spearman's ρ = -0.465, p = 0.034). ESMO-MCBS grades and incremental monthly cost were negatively correlated (Spearman's ρ = -0.211, p = 0.489). Conclusion: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors did not meet valuable threshold in GC/GEJC. Pembrolizumab met valuable threshold in advanced microsatellite instability-high CRC. The value of camrelizumab and toripalimab may be more worth paying in EC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sugemalimab vs. chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer

Objective: Sugemalimab is approved in China as a first-line treatment in combination with chemotherapy for metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line additional sugemalimab in combination with chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Materials and methods: A three-state Markov model was designed to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of first-line sugemalimab combination with chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy over a 10-year period. Data on clinical outcomes were obtained from GEMSTONE-302 clinical trials. Costs and health utilities were collected from local databases and published literature. The uncertainty of the model parameters was explored through sensitivity analysis. Results: Compared to chemotherapy, sugemalimab treatment for NSCLC resulted in an extra 0.50 QALYs at an additional cost of $73627.99, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 148354.07/QALY at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37663.26/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the primary motivator in this model was the cost of sugemalimab. However, none of the parameters significantly affected the model's results. Conclusion: Sugemalimab combination therapy is not economically advantageous for the first-line management of metastatic non-squamous NSCLC, according to the Chinese healthcare system.