Trends in the Price per Median and Mean Life-Year Gained Among Newly Approved Cancer Therapies 1995 to 2017

Spending on anticancer drugs among Medicare beneficiaries: Analyzing predictors of drug expenditures

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the factors associated with Medicare spending on newly approved anticancer drugs in the US from 2012 through 2021.

PATIENT AND METHODS

Using a cross-sectional analysis, we searched US FDA new oncology drug approvals (2012-2021). We analyzed clinical attributes and institutional factors influencing the annual cost of new anticancer drugs in the US. Annual treatment cost was calculated based on average spending per beneficiary from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, with product factors sourced from the FDA's annual New Drug Therapy Approval reports and drug package inserts at the time of approval.

RESULTS

Over a ten-year period, 112 new anticancer drugs were approved, of which 97 met the study's criteria. A significant majority, 93 %, received expedited development designations from the FDA. At the time of approval, 40 % of these drugs had data on progression-free survival, and 19 % had data on overall survival; 29 % were first-in-class. The study found a significant relationship between the year of approval and factors associated with the size of the treatment population. No statistically significant relationship was found between the clinical value of a drug and its price.

CONCLUSIONS

Spending on anticancer drugs by Medicare are predominantly determined by reference pricing and the size of the anticipated treatment population, without an association with therapeutic value. The study advocates for reforms in reimbursement mechanisms for drugs lacking comparator arms and greater transparency for patients treated with these drugs.

Market Entry Agreements for Innovative Pharmaceuticals Subject to Indication Broadening: A Case Study for Pembrolizumab in The Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Managed entry agreements and especially financial-based agreements are commonly used in European countries for innovative cancer pharmaceuticals. These agreements facilitate access to innovative treatments while mitigating financial risks for payers. This study focuses on the confidential price agreement made by the Dutch government for the reimbursement of pembrolizumab, the implications of broadening indications on cost-effectiveness, and the viability or desirability of said agreement.

METHODS

We selected 5 indications in which pembrolizumab was deemed effective and developed portioned survival models for each indication. Survival and progression-free survival data from the published trials were utilized to recreate individual patient data, and we extrapolated-using parametric models-to a time horizon of 30 years. Inputs for both quality of life and costs were derived from the available literature and were indexed.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between €35 313 and €322 349 per quality-adjusted life-year, depending on the indication. Only 1 indication fell under the €80 000 (or €100 000) cost-effectiveness threshold. When applying the average reported discount on intramural pharmaceuticals in The Netherlands, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between €20 881 and €252 934 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and the €80 000 (or €100 000) threshold was met in 3 indications out of 5.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that pembrolizumab could be cost-effective in some indications, depending on the confidential price agreement established. However, the possibility of reimbursing not cost-effective care when the price is anchored in 1 indication remains possible. Indication-based pricing could help align value and price for innovative pharmaceuticals that are subject to indication broadening.

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.

Growing Financial Burden From High-Cost Targeted Oral Anticancer Medicines Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Cancer

PURPOSE

The rapidly rising costs of targeted oral anticancer medicines (TOAMs) raise concerns over their affordability. Our goal was to examine recent trends in the uptake of TOAMs among cancer patients with Medicare Part D, the share of TOAM users who reached catastrophic coverage, and the annual spending on TOAMs in the catastrophic phase.

METHODS

Using the 5% SEER-Medicare, we included patients age 65 years and older who had one primary cancer diagnosis between 2011 and 2016. We included person-years where patients were enrolled in a Part D plan for the entire year, did not receive the low-income subsidy at any time of the year, and received anticancer systemic therapies. We estimated the trends in the share of patients who used TOAMs, the percentage of TOAM users reaching catastrophic coverage, and the total and patient out-of-pocket spending on TOAMs in the catastrophic phase in a year.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2016, the uptake of TOAMs among our study population increased from 3.6% to 8.9%. The percentage of non-low-income subsidy TOAM users who reached catastrophic coverage increased from 54.6% to 60.3%. Among those who reached the catastrophic phase, mean total gross spending on TOAMs in the catastrophic phase increased from $16,074 (USD) to $64,233 (USD) and mean patient out-of-pocket spending from $596 (USD) to $2,549 (USD). The mean 30-day total spending increased from $4,011 (USD) to $8,857 (USD), and the mean 30-day out-of-pocket spending from $154 (USD) to $328 (USD).

CONCLUSION

The high and growing burden from TOAMs highlighted the need for reining in drug prices and capping out-of-pocket spending.

Trends in endpoint use in pivotal trials and efficacy for US Food and Drug Administration–approved solid tumor therapies, 1995-2021

BACKGROUND: Many cancer therapies are now approved based on surrogate endpoints such as progression-free survival (PFS) to ensure that patients have speedy access to life-saving cancer medicines. However, the link between surrogate endpoints and overall survival (OS) is not well established in many cancers. OBJECTIVE: To characterize trends in endpoints used in pivotal trials leading to approval for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved solid tumor therapies and their efficacy from 1995 to 2021. METHODS: We reviewed the FDA Oncology (Cancer)/Hematologic Malignancies Approval Notifications webpage to extract data on median OS and PFS among solid tumor therapy approvals from 1995 to 2021. We summarized trends in percentage of trials reporting OS vs PFS, median OS and PFS, and trial designs. We conducted subgroup analyses for lung and breast cancer therapies. RESULTS: Median OS was reported more frequently until 2010 to 2012, when median PFS and OS were reported in 65.2% and 60.9% of trials, respectively. Between 1995 and 2021, there were no observable trends in median OS over time for solid tumor therapy approvals. Median PFS increased by 3.0 months over time. For lung cancer therapies, median OS increased by 6.8 months between the time periods of 1998-2000 and 2019-2021, whereas median PFS increased by 5.0 months between the time periods of 2007-2009 and 2019-2021. For breast cancer therapy, median OS slightly decreased over time, whereas median PFS has increased by 3.4 months since 1995. There has been a recent shift in use of single-arm trials leading to oncology drug approvals. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a transition from reporting OS to PFS, and median PFS has increased by 3 months while median OS has remained stable. The different trends in overall and progression-free survival highlights the challenge and importance of measuring the value of oncology drugs. DISCLOSURES: Dr Suh reports personal fees from Bayer US LLC.

Physicians' Perspectives on Ethical Issues Regarding Expensive Anti-Cancer Treatments: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

When anti-cancer treatments have been given market authorization, but are not (yet) reimbursed within a healthcare system, physicians are confronted with ethical dilemmas. Arranging access through other channels, e.g., hospital budgets or out-of-pocket payments by patients, may benefit patients, but leads to unequal access. Until now, little is known about the perspectives of physicians on access to non-reimbursed treatments. This interview study maps the experiences and moral views of Dutch oncologists and hematologists.

METHODS

A diverse sample of oncologists and hematologists (n = 22) were interviewed. Interviews were analyzed thematically using Nvivo 12 qualitative data software.

RESULTS

This study reveals stark differences between physicians' experiences and moral views on access to anti-cancer treatments that are not (yet) reimbursed: some physicians try to arrange other ways of access and some physicians do not. Some physicians inform patients about anti-cancer treatments that are not yet reimbursed, while others wait for reimbursement. Some physicians have principled moral objections to out-of-pocket payment, while others do not.

CONCLUSION

Oncologists and hematologists in the Netherlands differ greatly in their perspectives on access to expensive anti-cancer treatments that are not (yet) reimbursed. As a result, they may act differently when confronted with dilemmas in the consultation room. Physicians working in different healthcare systems may face similar dilemmas.

Spending On Targeted Therapies Reduced Mortality In Patients With Advanced-Stage Breast Cancer

Costly targeted therapies are playing an increasingly important role in treating cancer. To characterize trends in spending on targeted therapies for breast cancer and to estimate the association of these therapies with cancer mortality, we analyzed cancer diagnoses in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-Medicare linked database. We categorized total cancer spending into spending on targeted therapies, spending on nontargeted therapies, and spending on other cancer care. Diagnosis-year spending on targeted therapies increased from $1,024 per patient in 2000 to $18,809 per patient in 2015 for patients with advanced-stage cancer and from $82 to $3,289 for patients with early-stage cancer. For patients with advanced-stage cancer, a $1,000 increase in spending on targeted therapies in the diagnosis year was associated with a 0.55-percentage-point decrease in adjusted three-year cancer mortality, whereas for patients with early-stage cancer, there was no association. The other two types of spending (on nontargeted therapies and other cancer care) were not associated with mortality among patients with either advanced- or early-stage cancer. Our results indicate that among various types of cancer treatments, only targeted therapies generated meaningful survival gains for patients with advanced-stage breast cancer.

Population-level changes in outcomes and Medicare cost following the introduction of new cancer therapies

OBJECTIVE

To examine the population-level impacts of the introduction of novel cancer therapies with high cost in the United States, using immunotherapies in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as an example.

DATA SOURCES

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data in 2012-2015 linked to Medicare fee-for-service claims until 2016.

STUDY DESIGN

We examined population-level trends in treatment patterns, survival, and Medicare spending in patients diagnosed with advanced NSCLC, the leading cause of cancer death in the United States, between 2012 and 2015. We estimated the percentage of patients who received any antineoplastic therapy within two years of diagnosis, including novel immunotherapies. We compared the trends in overall survival and mean two-year Medicare spending per each patient before and after the introduction of immunotherapies in 2015.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Not Applicable.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The percentage of patients treated with any antineoplastic therapy remained the same at 46.7% in 2012 and 2015, whereas the use of immunotherapies increased from 0% to 15.2%. The two-year survival rate and median survival increased by 3.3 percentage points (95% CI: 2.0, 4.5) and 0.4 months (CI: 0.0, 0.9), respectively, during the same period. The mean two-year total Medicare spending and outpatient spending per patient increased by $5735 (CI: 3479, 8040) and $7661 (CI: 5902, 9311), respectively, which were largely attributable to the increases in immunotherapy spending by $5806 (CI: 5165, 6459).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of lung cancer immunotherapies was accompanied by improvements in survival and increases in spending between 2012 and 2015 in the Medicare population. As novel immunotherapies and other target therapies continue to change the clinical management of various cancers, further efforts are needed to ensure their effective and efficient use, and to understand their population-level impacts in the United States.