The UK Cancer Drugs Fund Experiment and the US Cancer Drug Cost Problem: Bearing the Cost of Cancer Drugs Until It Is Unbearable

Can Machine Learning Overcome the 95% Failure Rate and Reality that Only 30% of Approved Cancer Drugs Meaningfully Extend Patient Survival?

Despite implementing hundreds of strategies, cancer drug development suffers from a 95% failure rate over 30 years, with only 30% of approved cancer drugs extending patient survival beyond 2.5 months. Adding more criteria without eliminating nonessential ones is impractical and may fall into the "survivorship bias" trap. Machine learning (ML) models may enhance efficiency by saving time and cost. Yet, they may not improve success rate without identifying the root causes of failure. We propose a "STAR-guided ML system" (structure-tissue/cell selectivity-activity relationship) to enhance success rate and efficiency by addressing three overlooked interdependent factors: potency/specificity to the on/off-targets determining efficacy in tumors at clinical doses, on/off-target-driven tissue/cell selectivity influencing adverse effects in the normal organs at clinical doses, and optimal clinical doses balancing efficacy/safety as determined by potency/specificity and tissue/cell selectivity. STAR-guided ML models can directly predict clinical dose/efficacy/safety from five features to design/select the best drugs, enhancing success and efficiency of cancer drug development.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line versus second-line use of brigatinib followed by lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer

Background

The ALTA-1 L trial and EXP-3B arm of NCT01970865 trial found that both brigatinib and lorlatinib showed durable and robust responses in treating ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, brigatinib and lorlatinib treatments are costly and need indefinite administration until the disease progression. Thus, it remains uncertain whether using brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy is cost-effective compared to reserving these two drugs until progression after chemotherapy.

Methods

We used a Markov model to assess clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of treating ALK-positive NSCLC individuals with brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy versus a strategy of reserving these drugs until progression after chemotherapy. Transition probabilities were estimated using parametric survival modeling based on multiple clinical trials. The drug acquisition costs, adverse events costs, administration costs were extracted from published studies before and publicly available data. We calculated lifetime direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from the perspective of a United States payer.

Results

Our base-case analysis indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of using first-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib compared with second-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib is $-400,722.09/QALY which meant that second-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib had less costs and better outcomes. Univariate sensitivity analysis indicated the results were most sensitive to the cost of brigatinib. Probability sensitivity analysis revealed that using brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy had a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness versus delaying these two drugs until progression after chemotherapy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses conducted revealed the robustness of this result, as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios never exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold.

Conclusion

Using brigatinib as first-line treatment followed by lorlatinib for ALK-positive NSCLC may not be cost-effective given current pricing from the perspective of a United States payer. Delaying brigatinib followed by lorlatinib until subsequent lines of treatment may be a reasonable strategy that could limit healthcare costs without affecting clinical outcomes. More mature data are needed to better estimate cost-effectiveness in this setting.

Does Therapeutic Repurposing in Cancer Meet the Expectations of Having Drugs at a Lower Price?

Therapeutic repurposing emerged as an alternative to the traditional drug discovery and development model (DDD) of new molecular entities (NMEs). It was anticipated that by being faster, safer, and cheaper, the development would result in lower-cost drugs. As defined in this work, a repurposed cancer drug is one approved by a health regulatory authority against a non-cancer indication that then gains new approval for cancer. With this definition, only three drugs are repurposed for cancer: Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine (superficial bladder cancer, thalidomide [multiple myeloma], and propranolol [infantile hemangioma]). Each of these has a different history regarding price and affordability, and it is not yet possible to generalize the impact of drug repurposing on the final price to the patient. However, the development, including the price, does not differ significantly from an NME. For the end consumer, the product's price is unrelated to whether it followed the classical development or repurposing. Economic constraints for clinical development, and drug prescription biases for repurposing drugs, are barriers yet to be overcome. The affordability of cancer drugs is a complex issue that varies from country to country. Many alternatives for having affordable drugs have been put forward, however these measures have thus far failed and are, at best, palliative. There are no immediate solutions to the problem of access to cancer drugs. It is necessary to critically analyze the impact of the current drug development model and be creative in implementing new models that genuinely benefit society.

Osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in patients with previously treated EGFR T790M advanced non-small cell lung cancer: An updated AURA3 trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

A recently overall survival (OS) analysis from the AURA3 trial indicated that osimertinib improves median OS versus platinum-pemetrexed for patients with previously treated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of second-line osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed, from the perspectives of the United States payer and the Chinese health care system.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed to compare the costs and health outcomes of osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in second-line treatment of EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC. Life years (LYs), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model. Cost-effectiveness was examined in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and central nervous system (CNS) metastases population.

Results

In the United States, compared with platinum-pemetrexed, osimertinib yielded additional effectiveness of 0.43 QALYs and -0.12 QALYs, with incremental costs of $67,588 and $16,465 in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively. The ICERs of osimertinib over platinum-pemetrexed were $159,126/QALY and $-130,830/QALY, respectively. The probability of osimertinib being cost-effective was 37% and 5.76%, respectively, at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. In China, osimertinib showed incremental effectiveness of 0.34 QALYs and -0.14 QALYs, with incremental costs of $1,663 and $-505, resulting in ICERs of $4,950/QALY and $3,754/QALY in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively. At the WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, there was a 100% and 26% likelihood that osimertinib was cost-effective in the ITT population and CNS metastases population.

Conclusion

In the United States, second-line osimertinib treatment for EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC is not cost-effective compared to platinum-pemetrexed under the current WTP threshold. When the osimertinib price reduces, the economic outcome may become favorable. In China, assuming a WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, osimertinib is the dominant treatment strategy compared with platinum-pemetrexed in the ITT population and provides cost savings for CNS metastases patients.

For Whom the Price Escalates: High Price and Uncertain Value of Cancer Drugs

The price of cancer drugs has skyrocketed, yet it is not clear whether their value is commensurate with their price. More cancer drugs are approved under expedited review, which considers less rigorous clinical evidence, yet only 20% of them show an overall survival gain in the confirmatory trial. Moreover, clinical data are often generated based on small, single-arm studies with surrogate outcomes, challenging economic evaluation. With their high price and uncertain (marginal) clinical value, cancer drugs are frequently rejected by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies. Therefore, agencies, including the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), have adopted cancer drug funds (CDF) or risk-sharing schemes to provide extra access for expensive cancer drugs which fail to meet NICE's cost effectiveness threshold. With rising pricing and fewer new cancer medications with novel mechanisms of action, it is unclear if newly marketed cancer therapies address unmet clinical needs or whether we are paying too much. Transparency, equity, innovativeness, and sustainability are all harmed by a "special" approach for cancer medications. If early access is allowed, confirmatory trials within a certain time frame and economic evaluation should be conducted, and label changes or disinvestment should be carried out based on those evaluations.

What do we mean, 'necessary'?-Achieving balance and recognizing limits in primary healthcare and universal healthcare

Sturmberg and Martin make a compelling case for primary healthcare (PHC) to be the foundation for universal healthcare (UHC). They state that a system should have necessary resources, but what does that mean? Basic economic theory postulates that all resources are limited and that choices must be made between competing options. For a UHC system to be successful and resilient, it must accept that healthcare is a limited right, there will always be inequalities in healthcare delivery and outcomes, primary care physicians and their teams must accept the added burden of balancing the needs of their personal patients with the greater system, leaders and observers of healthcare systems must accept that moderation and balance will often be the best outcome even though they are difficult to measure, and leaders of healthcare systems must accept that they cannot control the system, but contribute by providing context and limited constraints, information, and resources. A deeper understanding of complex adaptive systems will best guide these necessary changes.

First-Line ICI Monotherapies for Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Patients With PD-L1 of at Least 50%: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objective: Three immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), pembrolizumab, atezolizumab and cemiplimab, have been successively approved as first-line treatments for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with programmed cell death ligand 1(PD-L1) expression of at least 50%. This study was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of these three novel therapies in this patient population.

Material and Methods: Using Markov model and network meta-analysis, we conducted separate cost-effectiveness analyses for cemiplimab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab among advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 of at least 50% from the United States health care sector perspective. Health states included progression-free survival, progressive disease, end-stage disease, and death. Clinical efficacy and safety data were derived from phase III clinical trials and health state utilities and costs data were collected from published resources. Two scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of varying subsequent anticancer therapies on the cost-effectiveness of these 3 ICIs and cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy versus these 3 first-line ICI monotherapies.

Results: In base case analysis, cemiplimab compared with pembrolizumab was associated with a gain of 0.44 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and an increased cost of $23,084, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $52,998/QALY; cemiplimab compared with atezolizumab was associated with a gain of 0.13 QALYs and a decreased cost of $104,642, resulting in its dominance of atezolizumab. The first scenario analysis yielded similar results as our base case analysis. The second scenario analysis founded the ICERs for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy were $393,359/QALY, $190,994/QALY and $33,230/QALY, respectively, compared with cemiplimab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab.

Conclusion: For advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 of at least 50%, cemiplimab was a cost-effective option compared with pembrolizumab and a dominant alternative against atezolizumab. Our scenario analysis results supported the cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as a second-line therapy and suggested an extended QALY but overwhelming cost linking to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Frontline Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Immunotherapies

Background: Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve patient outcomes, but whether these novel agents are cost-effective for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) remains unclear.

Materials and Methods: A microsimulation model was created to project the healthcare costs and outcomes of six strategies (lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, avelumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib monotherapy) for patients with aRCC. Transition probability of patients was estimated from CLEAR, CheckMate 9ER, CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE-426, JAVELIN Renal 101, and other data sets by using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct medical costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated from a United States payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, along with multiple scenario analyses, to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results: Of the six competing strategies, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib yielded the most significant health outcomes, and the sunitinib strategy was the least expensive option. The cost-effective frontier consisted of the nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib strategies, which displayed the ordered ICERs of $81282/QALY for pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib vs sunitinib and $453391/QALY for nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib vs pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib. The rest of the strategies, such as lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, and avelumab-plus-axitinib, were dominated. The cost of sunitinib drove the model most influentially.

Conclusions: For aRCC, the pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib strategy is likely to be the most cost-effective alternative at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.

Impact of geography on prognostic outcomes of 21,509 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer enrolled in clinical trials: an ARCAD database analysis

BACKGROUND

Benchmarking international cancer survival differences is necessary to evaluate and improve healthcare systems. Our aim was to assess the potential regional differences in outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) participating in international randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

Countries were grouped into 11 regions according to the World Health Organization and the EUROCARE model. Meta-analyses based on individual patient data were used to synthesize data across studies and regions and to conduct comparisons for outcomes in a two-stage random-effects model after adjusting for age, sex, performance status, and time period. We used mCRC patients enrolled in the first-line RCTs from the ARCAD database, which provided enrolling country information. There were 21,509 patients in 27 RCTs included across the 11 regions.

RESULTS

Main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with other regions, patients from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland were proportionaly over-represented, older, with higher performance status, more frequently male, and more commonly not treated with biological therapies. Cohorts from central Europe and the United States (USA) had significantly longer OS compared with those from UK and Ireland (p = 0.0034 and p < 0.001, respectively), with median difference of 3-4 months. The survival deficits in the UK and Ireland cohorts were, at most, 15% at 1 year. No evidence of a regional disparity was observed for PFS. Among those treated without biological therapies, patients from the UK and Ireland had shorter OS than central Europe patients (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant international disparities in the OS of cohorts of mCRC patients enrolled in RCTs were found. Survival of mCRC patients included in RCTs was consistently lower in the UK and Ireland regions than in central Europe, southern Europe, and the USA, potentially attributed to greater overall population representation, delayed diagnosis, and reduced availability of therapies.

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Versus Second-Line Use of Daratumumab in Older, Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Multiple Myeloma

PURPOSE

The MAIA trial found that addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd). However, daratumumab is a costly treatment and is administered indefinitely until disease progression. Therefore, it is unclear whether it is cost-effective to use daratumumab in the first-line setting compared with reserving its use until later lines of therapy.

METHODS

We created a Markov model to compare healthcare costs and clinical outcomes of transplant-ineligible patients treated with daratumumab in the first-line setting compared with a strategy of reserving daratumumab until the second-line. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for first-line daratumumab versus second-line daratumumab from a US payer perspective.

RESULTS

First-line daratumumab was associated with an improvement of 0.52 QALYs and 0.66 discounted life-years compared with second-line daratumumab. While both treatment strategies were associated with considerable lifetime expenditures ($1,434,937 v $1,112,101 in US dollars), an incremental cost of $322,836 for first-line daratumumab led to an ICER of $618,018 per QALY. The cost of daratumumab would need to be decreased by 67% for first-line daratumumab to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

Using daratumumab in the first-line setting for transplant-ineligible patients may not be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying daratumumab until subsequent lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit healthcare costs without significantly compromising clinical outcomes. Mature overall survival data are necessary to more fully evaluate cost-effectiveness in this setting.

Paving the Way toward Successful Multiple Myeloma Treatment: Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy

Despite the significant progress of modern anticancer therapies, multiple myeloma (MM) is still incurable for the majority of patients. Following almost three decades of development, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy now has the opportunity to revolutionize the treatment landscape and meet the unmet clinical need. However, there are still several major hurdles to overcome. Here we discuss the recent advances of CAR T-cell therapy for MM with an emphasis on future directions and possible risks. Currently, CAR T-cell therapy for MM is at the first stage of clinical studies, and most studies have focused on CAR T cells targeting B cell maturation antigen (BCMA), but other antigens such as cluster of differentiation 138 (CD138, syndecan-1) are also being evaluated. Although this therapy is associated with side effects, such as cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity, and relapses have been observed, the benefit–risk balance and huge potential drive the ongoing clinical progress. To fulfill the promise of recent clinical trial success and maximize the potential of CAR T, future efforts should focus on the reduction of side effects, novel targeted antigens, combinatorial uses of different types of CAR T, and development of CAR T cells targeting more than one antigen.

Oncology from an HTA and Health Economic Perspective

In this chapter, we will present and discuss the challenges of assessing oncology products from a health economic perspective. We will provide a brief introduction on the need for economic evaluation in health care and focus on cost-effectiveness and comparative aspects of the evaluation of oncology products, which are of paramount interest to HTA decision-making bodies using economic evaluation in their decision-making framework. As the burden of oncology is well-documented, we do not discuss it in detail here. Before we address the specific issue of oncology, we will briefly define the critical aspects of HTA assessment and also define what a cost-effectiveness analysis is and why economic modelling is the most appropriate tool to assess the cost-effectiveness of oncology products. We will touch upon the prices of oncology drugs and the questions that high prices raise regarding funding and availability. We then present an overview of the general structure of an oncology cost-effectiveness model. Usually, this is quite simple, representing response, progression, advanced-stage disease and death. Despite the relative simplicity of these models, some issues may render the evaluation more complex; we will touch upon these in this chapter: Issue with clinical inputs due to the design of randomised clinical trials (e.g. cross-over designs involving a treatment switch) Need for survival extrapolation and limitations of current parametric models Rare conditions with limited economic and comparative evidence available High pace of clinical development Finally, we will conclude with a discussion of the uncertainty around the evaluation of oncology products and the major evolution expected in health economics in oncology.

Economic Impact of Oral Therapies for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia-the Burden of Novelty

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and BCL2 inhibitors are oral targeted therapies that have changed the treatment approach to patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The aim of this review is to summarize the relevant literature on the economic impact of oral novel therapies for the treatment of CLL and discuss the underlying factors and suggested solutions for high drug prices.

RECENT FINDINGS

The cost of therapy for CLL has increased substantially since the introduction of oral therapies. This increase in cost is caused by multiple factors including cost of drug development, alternate reimbursement patterns, lack of transparency, and lack of free market competition. Oral therapies for CLL have dramatically increased costs for both patients and payers. Some solutions to overcome this include value-based pricing, transparency, and legal action that allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers.

Value and Cost of Myeloma Therapy

Major advances have occurred in the treatment of multiple myeloma, including several new drugs that typically cost more than $100,000 per year. Although the gains in myeloma therapy improve overall survival considerably, they are available to only a fraction of the population of patients with myeloma in the world because of regulatory barriers and cost. Myeloma is an example of what is happening in cancer on a much larger scale. Many of the problems discussed call for a wider discussion across all cancers, but they are amplified in myeloma because of the need for multidrug regimens that combine three or more expensive new drugs for prolonged periods of time. In this article, the reasons for the high cost of cancer drugs and possible solutions are examined. The lack of correlation of value and price, the remarkable rise in prices of existing old medications over time, and the lack of access to lifesaving drugs across various countries are also discussed.

LEGITIMACY OF MEDICINES FUNDING IN THE ERA OF ACCELERATED ACCESS

OBJECTIVES

In recent years, numerous frameworks have been developed to enhance the legitimacy of health technology assessment processes. Despite efforts to implement these "legitimacy frameworks," medicines funding decisions can still be perceived as lacking in legitimacy. We, therefore, sought to examine stakeholder views on factors that they think should be considered when making decisions about the funding of high-cost breast cancer therapies, focusing on those that are not included in current frameworks and processes.

METHODS

We analyzed published discourse on the funding of high-cost breast-cancer therapies. Relevant materials were identified by searching the databases Google, Google Scholar, and Factiva in August 2014 and July 2016 and these were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

We analyzed fifty published materials and found that stakeholders, for the most part, want to be able to access medicines more quickly and at the same time as other patients and for decision makers to be more flexible with regards to evidence requirements and to use a wider range of criteria when evaluating therapies. Many also advocated for existing process to be accelerated or bypassed to improve access to therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results illustrate that a stakeholder-derived conceptualization of legitimacy emphasizes principles of accelerated access and is not fully accounted for by existing frameworks and processes aimed at promoting legitimacy. However, further research examining the ethical, political, and clinical implications of the stakeholder claims raised here is needed before firm policy recommendations can be made.

Overuse of Health Care Services in the Management of Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Overuse, the provision of health services for which harms outweigh the benefits, results in suboptimal patient care and may contribute to the rising costs of cancer care. We performed a systematic review of the evidence on overuse in oncology.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS databases, and 2 grey literature sources, for articles published between December 1, 2011 and March 10, 2017. We included publications from December 2011 to evaluate the literature since the inception of the ABIM Foundation's Choosing Wisely initiative in 2012. We included original research articles quantifying overuse of any medical service in patients with a cancer diagnosis when utilizing an acceptable standard to define care appropriateness, excluding studies of cancer screening. One of 4 investigator reviewed titles and abstracts and 2 of 4 reviewed each full-text article and extracted data. Methodology used PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified 59 articles measuring overuse of 154 services related to imaging, procedures, and therapeutics in cancer management. The majority of studies addressed adult or geriatric patients (98%) and focused on US populations (76%); the most studied services were diagnostic imaging in low-risk prostate and breast cancer. Few studies evaluated active cancer therapeutics or interventions aimed at reducing overuse. Rates of overuse varied widely among services and among studies of the same service.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recent attention to overuse in cancer, evidence identifying areas of overuse remains limited. Broader investigation, including assessment of active cancer treatment, is critical for identifying improvement targets to optimize value in cancer care.

Next-generation multiple myeloma treatment: a pharmacoeconomic perspective

Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma have come at a rapid pace, especially with several new drugs entering the market in the last few years. However, access to and affordability of new treatments poses a major challenge, both in the United States and around the world. High costs of life-saving drugs are detrimental to both the personal finances of the individual patient, as well as society which must bear the increasing costs in terms of increased health insurance premiums, taxes, or both. The challenges are not unique to myeloma, but are commonly encountered in several other cancers as well. But to some extent these pharmacoeconomic concerns are amplified in myeloma due to the need for multidrug regimens that combine 2 or more expensive new drugs, continuous therapy, and the prolonged disease course in most patients. We examine current myeloma therapy from a pharmacoeconomic perspective, and discuss the costs involved. We outline the underlying reasons why cancer drugs are so expensive, the measures that are required to lower cost, and propose potential ways in which costs can be reduced while still delivering high-quality care.