1
|
Guan H, Shi Y, Song J, Cao M, Sun A, Liu S, Chang S, Zhao Z. Impact of competition on reimbursement decisions for cancer drugs in China: an observational study. THE LANCET REGIONAL HEALTH. WESTERN PACIFIC 2024; 50:101157. [PMID: 39156118 PMCID: PMC11326914 DOI: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2024.101157] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2024] [Revised: 06/19/2024] [Accepted: 07/09/2024] [Indexed: 08/20/2024]
Abstract
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).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Haijing Guan
- Department of Pharmacy, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
- China Center for Health Economic Research, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Yin Shi
- China Center for Health Economic Research, Peking University, Beijing, China
- Department of Pharmacy, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
- National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Jiafang Song
- Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Mingnan Cao
- Department of Pharmacy, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Aning Sun
- Department of Pharmacy, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Shao Liu
- Department of Pharmacy, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
- National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Shi Chang
- National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
- Department of General Surgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
- Furong Labratory, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Zhigang Zhao
- Department of Pharmacy, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Michaeli DT, Michaeli T, Albers S, Boch T, Michaeli JC. Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy. THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS : HEPAC : HEALTH ECONOMICS IN PREVENTION AND CARE 2024; 25:979-997. [PMID: 37962724 PMCID: PMC11283430 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-023-01639-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2023] [Accepted: 10/02/2023] [Indexed: 11/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Over the past decades, US Congress enabled the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to facilitate and expedite drug development for serious conditions filling unmet medical needs with five special designations and review pathways: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy. OBJECTIVES This study reviews the FDA's five special designations for drug development regarding their safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, clinical trials, innovation, economic incentives, development timelines, and price. METHODS We conducted a keyword search to identify studies analyzing the impact of the FDA's special designations (orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy) on the safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, trials, innovativeness, economic incentives, development times, and pricing of new drugs. Results were summarized in a narrative overview. RESULTS Expedited approval reduces new drugs' time to market. However, faster drug development and regulatory review are associated with more unrecognized adverse events and post-marketing safety revisions. Clinical trials supporting special FDA approvals frequently use small, non-randomized, open-label designs. Required post-approval trials to monitor unknown adverse events are often delayed or not even initiated. Evidence suggests that drugs approved under special review pathways, marketed as "breakthroughs", are more innovative and deliver a higher clinical benefit than those receiving standard FDA approval. Special designations are an economically viable strategy for investors and pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for rare diseases with unmet medical needs, due to financial incentives, expedited development timelines, higher clinical trial success rates, alongside greater prices. Nonetheless, patients, physicians, and insurers are concerned about spending money on drugs without a proven benefit or even on drugs that turn out to be ineffective. While European countries established performance- and financial-based managed entry agreements to account for this uncertainty in clinical trial evidence and cost-effectiveness, the pricing and reimbursement of these drugs remain largely unregulated in the US. CONCLUSION Special FDA designations shorten clinical development and FDA approval times for new drugs treating rare and severe diseases with unmet medical needs. Special-designated drugs offer a greater clinical benefit to patients. However, physicians, patients, and insurers must be aware that special-designated drugs are often approved based on non-robust trials, associated with more unrecognized side effects, and sold for higher prices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Tobias Michaeli
- Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
- TUM School of Management, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
| | - Thomas Michaeli
- Department of Personalized Oncology, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
- DKFZ-Hector Cancer Institute at the University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
- Division of Personalized Medical Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Sebastian Albers
- Department of Orthopaedics and Sport Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Tobias Boch
- Department of Personalized Oncology, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
- DKFZ-Hector Cancer Institute at the University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
- Division of Personalized Medical Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Michaeli DT, Michaeli T, Albers S, Michaeli JC. Clinical trial design and treatment effects: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled and single-arm trials supporting 437 FDA approvals of cancer drugs and indications. BMJ Evid Based Med 2024:bmjebm-2023-112544. [PMID: 38760158 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112544] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/30/2024] [Indexed: 05/19/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study aims to analyse the association between clinical trial design and treatment effects for cancer drugs with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. DESIGN Cross-sectional study and meta-analysis. SETTING Data from Drugs@FDA, FDA labels, ClincialTrials.gov and the Global Burden of Disease study. PARTICIPANTS Pivotal trials for 170 drugs with FDA approval across 437 cancer indications between 2000 and 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Treatment effects were measured in HRs for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and in relative risk for tumour response. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions explored the association between treatment effect estimates and clinical trial design for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and single-arm trials. RESULTS Across RCTs, greater effect estimates were observed in smaller trials for OS (ß=0.06, p<0.001), PFS (ß=0.15, p<0.001) and tumour response (ß=-3.61, p<0.001). Effect estimates were larger in shorter trials for OS (ß=0.08, p<0.001) and PFS (ß=0.09, p=0.002). OS (ß=0.04, p=0.006), PFS (ß=0.10, p<0.001) and tumour response (ß=-2.91, p=0.004) outcomes were greater in trials with fewer centres. HRs for PFS (0.54 vs 0.62, p=0.011) were lower in trials testing the new drug to an inactive (placebo/no treatment) rather than an active comparator. The analysed efficacy population (intention-to-treat, per-protocol, or as-treated) was not consistently associated with treatment effects. Results were consistent for single-arm trials and in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSIONS Pivotal trial design is significantly associated with measured treatment effects. Particularly small, short, single-centre trials testing a new drug compared with an inactive rather than an active comparator could overstate treatment outcomes. Future studies should verify results in unsuccessful trials, adjust for further confounders and examine other therapeutic areas. The FDA, manufacturers and trialists must strive to conduct robust clinical trials with a low risk of bias.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Tobias Michaeli
- Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Michaeli
- Department of Personalized Oncology, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center-Hector Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
- Division of Personalized Medical Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Sebastian Albers
- Department of Trauma Surgery, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Julia Caroline Michaeli
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Michaeli T, Michaeli DT. Partial Orphan Cancer Drugs: US Food and Drug Administration Approval, Clinical Benefit, Trials, Epidemiology, Price, Beneficiaries, and Spending. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2024; 27:449-457. [PMID: 38244983 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2024.01.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2023] [Revised: 11/14/2023] [Accepted: 01/08/2024] [Indexed: 01/22/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The Orphan Drug Act (ODA) incentivizes drug development for rare diseases with limited sales potential. Partial orphans-drugs used to treat rare and common diseases-frequently turn into multi-billion dollar blockbusters. This study analyzes partial orphan cancer drugs' development, approval, and economics. METHODS 170 drugs with US Food and Drug Administration approval for 455 cancer indications were identified (2000-2021). 110 full, 22 partial, and 38 non-orphan drugs were compared regarding their approval, benefits, trials, epidemiology, price, beneficiaries, and spending with data from regulatory documents, Global Burden of Disease study, and Medicare and Medicaid. RESULTS Full orphans, relative to partial and non-orphans, were more frequently monotherapies for hematologic cancers supported by smaller single-arm trials treating diseases with a lower incidence and higher severity. The time from first to second indication approval was 1 year shorter for partial than full orphans. Full orphans offered a greater overall survival (median: 4.0 vs 2.8 vs 2.8 months, P < .001) and progression-free survival benefit (median: 5.1 vs 2.5 vs 3.6 months, P < .001). Monthly prices were higher for full and partial than non-orphan drugs (median: $17 177 vs $13 284 vs $12 457, P < .001). Beneficiaries (8790 vs 4390 vs 1730) and spending ($570 vs $305 vs $156 million) per drug were greater for partial than non-and full orphans. CONCLUSIONS Although partial orphans' benefits, trials, and economics are more similar to non-than full orphans, they receive all of the ODA's benefits and are swiftly extended to new indications; resulting in greater spending. A maximum ODA revenue/patient threshold could limit expenditure on partial orphans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Michaeli
- Department of Personalized Oncology, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany; DKFZ-Hector Cancer Institute at the University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany; Division of Personalized Medical Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany
| | - Daniel Tobias Michaeli
- Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany; Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Strohbehn GW, Ratain MJ. Special designations and the US Food and Drug Administration's "dual mandate". J Natl Cancer Inst 2024; 116:177-179. [PMID: 38062849 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djad235] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2023] [Accepted: 11/10/2023] [Indexed: 02/10/2024] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Garth W Strohbehn
- Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Institute for Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Mark J Ratain
- Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Michaeli DT, Michaeli T. Launch and Post-Launch Prices of Injectable Cancer Drugs in the US: Clinical Benefit, Innovation, Epidemiology, and Competition. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2024; 42:117-131. [PMID: 37855850 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01320-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/25/2023] [Indexed: 10/20/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rising cancer drug prices adversely affect patients' adherence and survival. OBJECTIVE We aimed to identify and quantify factors associated with launch prices and post-launch price changes of injectable cancer drugs in the US from 2005 to 2023. DATA AND METHODS All anticancer drugs with US FDA approval between 2000 and 2022 were identified in the Drugs@FDA database. The sample was then restricted to cancer drugs covered under Medicare Part B (injectable drugs). Data characterizing each drug's clinical benefits, disease epidemiology, approved indications, competition, and price were obtained from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The association between launch/post-launch prices and collected variables was assessed in random-effects regressions. RESULTS Of 170 cancer drugs with FDA approval between 2000 and 2022, we identified 66 (39%) injectable cancer drugs with quarterly price data from 2005 to 2023. In 2023, mean prices amounted to $27,688 per month, with an average price increase of 94% from 2005 to 2023. Launch and post-launch price changes were significantly associated with the treated disease epidemiology. A 1% decline in disease incidence was associated with a 0.2511% (p = 0.008) increase in launch prices and a 0.0086% (p = 0.032) annual increase in post-launch prices. Accordingly, launch prices were 120% (p = 0.051) higher for orphan than non-orphan drugs, with 3% (p = 0.008) greater annual post-launch price increases. Post-launch prices declined by up to -2% annually as new supplemental indications were approved for the same drug. We found no consistent association between launch/post-launch prices and the drugs' clinical benefit in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor response. The market entry of new competitors was not associated with price reductions. 28 of 33 drug pairs within the same class had positive correlation coefficients. Pearson correlation coefficients were high (>0.80) for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, CD38 antibodies, CD20 antibodies, HER2 antibodies, and mTOR inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS Cancer drug prices regularly increase faster than inflation; however, there is no evidence that launch prices and post-launch price changes are aligned with the clinical benefit a drug offers to patients. In particular, patients with rare diseases experience greater price increases for their orphan drugs. There is no evidence that brand-brand competition results in drug price reductions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Tobias Michaeli
- Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
- Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
| | - Thomas Michaeli
- Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany
- Department of Personalized Oncology, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
- DKFZ-Hector Cancer Institute at the University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
- Division of Personalized Medical Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|