Drug Prices and Value of Oncology Drugs in Italy

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.

Variables affecting new drug prices in South Korea's pricing system

Objective: The price of pharmaceuticals is important from the economic and industrial perspectives but as well as patients' access to treatment. This study aimed to analyze the variables affecting the prices of new drugs in South Korea's pricing system. Methods: Data on 192 new drugs listed in South Korea from 2012 to 2022 were collected from the official website of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. The independent variables included drugs for severe diseases, alternatives, number of patients, number of advanced 7 countries listed, budget impact, and listing period. The dependent variables included annual treatment cost and the price ratio to the advanced 7 country's average adjusted price. Descriptive statistics of variables, linear correlations between quantitative independent and dependent variables, and associations between independent and dependent variables were analyzed. Results: The mean annual treatment cost and price ratio to the advanced 7 country's average adjusted price were higher for drugs for severe diseases and those with no alternatives. Annual treatment cost and price ratio to the advanced 7 country's average adjusted price were negatively correlated with the number of patients and positively correlated with the number of advanced 7 countries listed. Annual treatment cost was affected by the variables drugs for severe diseases, alternatives, number of patients, number of advanced 7 countries listed, and budget impact. The price ratio to the advanced 7 country's average adjusted price was affected by drugs for severe diseases, alternatives, and the number of patients. Conclusion: This study revealed the effect of different variables on the prices of new drugs in South Korea, allowing for the development of a more effective assessment system to evaluate the prices of new drugs while ensuring profitability for pharmaceutical companies, sustainability of public insurance, and accessibility to drugs by patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of HRD Testing for Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer in Italy

INTRODUCTION

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the eighth most common cancer among women, and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) is present in approximately 50% of these patients. For this group, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are more likely to be effective. The aim of the study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of HRD testing versus BRCA testing (which identifies mutations present only in 25% of patients) in Italy to optimize the treatment management, possibly with PARP inhibitors.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness partition survival model was developed to estimate the expected costs and outcomes (life years, LYs; quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) with lifetime horizon of HRD testing versus BRCA testing alone in women with high-grade serous or endometrioid advanced ovarian cancer. The option to perform the tests in sequence, that is, the BRCA test followed by the HRD test, in patients with BRCA-negative test was also considered, and the model accounted for the National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective in Italy. The treatments represented the best available options according to the initial test results and according to PARP inhibitors available in Italy. A 3% discount rate was applied. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

HRD testing was shown to be a cost-effective strategy compared to BRCA testing (incremental cost-utility ratio 22,610€/QALY) and a cost-saving strategy compared to the sequence of tests. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the HRD test is cost-effective compared to BRCA testing in 98.5% of model simulations considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of 50,000€/QALY.

CONCLUSION

The identification of genetic anomalies in patients with advanced OC is a costly process. Regardless, HRD upfront testing compared to BRCA testing had a cost-effective profile, allowing the efficient use of healthcare resources and better life expectancy and quality of life for patients.

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.

Reporting reimbursement price decisions for onco-hematology drugs in Spain

Introduction

Even using well-established technology assessment processes, the basis of the decisions on drug price and reimbursement are sometimes perceived as poorly informed and sometimes may be seen as disconnected from value. The literature remains inconclusive about how Health Technology Assessment Bodies (HTAb) should report the determinants of their decisions. This study evaluates the relationship between oncology and hematology drug list prices and structured value parameters at the time of reimbursement decision in Spain.

Methods

The study includes all new onco-hematological products (22), with a first indication authorized between January 2017 and December 2019 in Spain and pricing decisions published up until October 2022. For each product, 56 contextual and non-contextual indicators reflecting the structured multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) - Evidence-based Decision-Making (EVIDEM) framework were measured. The relationship between prices and the MCDA-EVIDEM framework was explored using univariate statistical analyses.

Results

Higher prices were observed when the standard of care included for combinations, if there were references to long-lasting responses, for fixed-duration treatment compared to treatment until progression and treatment with lower frequencies of administration; lower prices were observed for oral administration compared to other routes of administration. Statistically significant associations were observed between prices and the median duration of treatment, the impact on patient autonomy, the ease of use of the drug, and the recommendations of experts.

Discussion

The study suggests that indicators related to the type of standard of care, references to long-lasting responders, the convenience of the use of the drug, and the impact of treatment on patient autonomy, as well as contextual indicators such as the existence of previous clinical consensus, are factors in setting oncology drug prices in Spain. The implementation of MCDA-EVIDEM methodologies may be useful to capture the influence on pricing decisions of additional factors not included in legislation or consolidated assessment frameworks such as the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EunetHTA) core model. It may be opportune to consider this in the upcoming revision of the Spanish regulation for health technology assessments and pricing and reimbursement procedures.

Role of Economic Evaluations on Pricing of Medicines Reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study was to explore the extent to which the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), alongside other factors, predicts the final outcome of medicine price negotiation in Italy. The second objective was to depict the mean ICER of medicines obtained after negotiation.

METHODS

Data were extracted from company dossiers submitted to the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) from October 2016 to January 2021 and AIFA's internal database. Beta-based regression analyses were used to test the effect of ICER and other variables on the outcome of price negotiation (ΔP), defined as the percentage difference between the list price requested by manufacturers and the final price paid by the Italian National Health Service (INHS).

RESULTS

In our dataset of 48 pricing and reimbursement procedures, the ICER before negotiation was one of the variables with a major impact on the outcome of negotiation when ≥ 40,000€/QALY. As resulting from multiple regression analyses, the effect of the ICER on ΔP seemed driven by medicines for non-onco-immunological and non-rare diseases. Overall, the negotiation process granted mean incremental costs of €64,688 and mean incremental QALYs of 1.96, yielding an average ICER of €33,004/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides support on the influence of cost-effectiveness analysis on price negotiation in the Italian context, providing an estimate of the mean ICER of reimbursed medicines, calculated using net confidential prices charged by the INHS. The role and use of economic evaluations in medicines pricing should be further improved to get the best value for money.

A Proposal for Value-Based Managed Entry Agreements in an Environment of Technological Change and Economic Challenge for Publicly Funded Healthcare Systems

Managed entry agreements (MEA) represent one of the main topics of discussion between the European National Payers Authorities. Several initiatives on the subject have been organized over the past few years and the scientific literature is full of publications on the subject. There is currently little international sharing of information between payers, mainly as a result of the confidentiality issues. There are potential benefits from the mutual sharing of information, both about the existence of MEAs and on the outcomes and results. The importance of involving all the players in the decision-making process on market access for a medicinal product (MP) is that it may help to make new therapies available to patients in a shorter time. The aim of this project is to propose a new pathway of value-based MEA (VBMEA), based on the analysis of the current Italian pricing and reimbursement framework. This requires elaboration of a transparent appraisal and MEA details with at least a 24-month contract. The price of the MP is therefore valued based on the analysis of the VBMEA registries of the Italian Medicines Agency. Although the proposal focuses on the Italian context, a similar approach could also be adapted in other nations, considering the particularities of the single health technology assessment (HTA)/payer system.

How reliable are ICER's results published in current pharmacoeconomic literature? The controversial issue of price confidentiality

Pharmacoeconomic data are widely used along drug life cycle for supporting decision-making processes on research and development, pricing and reimbursement, and market access. In this context, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is the gold standard of either cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) or cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of pharmaceuticals and health technologies. However, the widespread use of confidentiality clauses in the agreements between pharmaceutical companies and the payers may affect the reliability of ICER value based on transparent price. The aim of this article is to evaluate a case study and simulate the impact of price confidentiality and other managed-entry agreement conditions on the ICER value. The case study was conducted selecting a CEA submitted to the Health Economic Evaluations Office of the Italian Medicines Agency by the pharmaceutical company, which specifically compared two alternative options reimbursed by the Italian NHS using confidential managed-entry agreements. So, a real model was used to collect the output of ICERs generated by the simulation model, considering price inputs of alternative options ranging from the transparent prices to the confidential net price. The simulation showed that price confidentiality may affect the estimated value of the ICER of a new medicine and, consequently, its interpretation. From a different point of view, the published ICER values may also give a completely false economic evidence if non-disclosure agreements are not taken into account. A proposal for editors of pharmacoeconomic journals to improve reliability of CEA is also discussed.

Medicine price transparency and confidential managed-entry agreements in Europe: findings from the EURIPID survey

Pricing of pharmaceuticals is an all-time challenge for healthcare systems. Often public payers agree with companies on confidential managed-entry agreements (MEAs) that, e.g. foresee discounts under specific circumstances. The EURIPID Executive Committee surveyed 22 European countries, who all reported the use of confidential agreements between pharmaceutical companies and public payers, confirming that the actual prices paid are typically lower than the published list price. In 68% of the countries, the confidentiality of MEAs is required by non-disclosure clauses between companies and public payers. In some countries (27%) this is even backed up by a specific law. Our study identified legal constraints for the sharing of information on actual prices and confidential agreements among European countries and consequently restrictions in transparency. In conclusion, the EURIPID survey findings suggest that the current possibility to improve the medicines' price transparency across countries is limited and the issue probably requires international institutional engagement, at least to coordinate initiatives toward a greater collaboration among member states.