Examining Trends in Cost and Clinical Benefit of Novel Anticancer Drugs Over Time

Frequency of use and cost in Japan of first-line palliative chemotherapies for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, novel anticancer drugs have improved the prognosis for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (RM-SCCHN). However, this has increased healthcare expenditures and placed a heavy burden on patients and society. This study investigated the frequency of use and costs of select palliative chemotherapy regimens in Japan.

METHODS

From July 2021 to June 2022 in 54 healthcare facilities, we gathered data of patients diagnosed with RM-SCCHN and who had started first-line palliative chemotherapy with one of eight commonly used regimens. Patients with nasopharyngeal carcinomas were excluded. The number of patients receiving each regimen and the costs of each regimen for the first month and per year were tallied.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 907 patients (674 were < 75 years old, 233 were ≥ 75 years old). 330 (36.4%) received Pembrolizumab monotherapy, and 202 (22.3%) received Nivolumab monotherapy. Over 90% of patients were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. Treatment regimens' first-month costs were 612 851-849 241 Japanese yen (JPY). The cost of standard palliative chemotherapy until 2012 was about 20 000 JPY per month. The incremental cost over the past decade is approximately 600 000-800 000 JPY per month, a 30- to 40-fold increase in the cost of palliative chemotherapy for RM-SCCHN.

CONCLUSION

First-line palliative chemotherapy for RM-SCCHN exceeds 600 000 JPY monthly. Over the last decade, the prognosis for RM-SCCHN has improved, but the costs of palliative chemotherapy have surged, placing a heavy burden on patients and society.

Association between oral targeted cancer drug net health benefit, uptake, and spending

BACKGROUND

Targeted cancer drugs (TCDs) have revolutionized oncology but vary in clinical benefit and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework uses survival, toxicity, and symptom palliation data to quantify the net health benefit (NHB) of cancer drugs. We evaluated associations between NHB, uptake, and spending on oral TCDs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18-64 years with an incident oral TCD pharmacy claim in 2012-2020 in a nationwide deidentified commercial claims dataset. TCDs were categorized as having high (>60), medium (40-60), and low (<40) NHB scores. We plotted the uptake of TCDs by NHB category and used standard descriptive statistics to evaluate patient OOP and total spending. Generalized linear models evaluated the relationship between spending and TCD NHB, adjusted for cancer indication.

RESULTS

We included 8524 patients with incident claims for 8 oral TCDs with 9 first-line indications in advanced melanoma, breast, lung, and pancreatic cancer. Medium- and high-NHB TCDs accounted for most TCD prescriptions. Median OOP spending was $18.78 for the first 28-day TCD supply (interquartile range [IQR] = $0.00-$87.57); 45% of patients paid $0 OOP. Median total spending was $10 118.79 (IQR = $6365.95-$10 600.37) for an incident 28-day TCD supply. Total spending increased $1083.56 for each 10-point increase in NHB score (95% confidence interval = $1050.27 to $1116.84, P < .01 for null hypothesis H0 = $0).

CONCLUSION

Low-NHB TCDs were prescribed less frequently than medium- and high-NHB TCDs. Total spending on oral TCDs was high and positively associated with NHB. Commercially insured patients were largely shielded from high OOP spending on oral TCDs.

The Benefits and Risks of Receiving Investigational Solid Tumor Drugs in Randomized Trials : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many patients participate in cancer trials to access new therapies. The extent to which new treatments produce clinical benefit for trial participants is unclear.

PURPOSE

To estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) advantage of assignment to experimental groups in randomized trials for 6 solid tumors.

DATA SOURCES

ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for trials of investigational drugs with results posted between 2017 and 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Investigational drugs were defined as those not yet having full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the study indication. Trials were included if they were randomized and tested drugs or biologics.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction was completed by 2 independent reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The sample included 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of a new drug and a comparator. These comparisons included 47 050 patients. The pooled hazard ratio for PFS was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85), indicating statistically significant benefit for patients in experimental groups. This corresponded to a median PFS advantage of 1.25 months (CI, 0.80 to 1.68 months). The pooled hazard ratio for OS was 0.92 (CI, 0.88 to 0.95), corresponding to a survival gain of 1.18 months (CI, 0.72 to 1.71 months). The absolute risk for a serious adverse event for comparator group patients was 29.56% (CI, 26.64% to 32.65%), with an increase in risk of 7.40% (CI, 5.66% to 9.14%) for patients in experimental groups.

LIMITATIONS

Trials in this sample were heterogeneous. Comparator group interventions were assumed to reflect standard of care.

CONCLUSION

Assignment to experimental groups produces statistically significant survival gains. However, the absolute survival gain is small, and toxicity is statistically significantly greater. The findings of this review provide reassuring evidence that patients are not meaningfully disadvantaged by assignment to comparator groups.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Evaluation of changes in the clinical benefits of oncology drugs over time following reimbursement using the ASCO-VF and the ESMO-MCBS

PURPOSE

This study aims to estimate changes in the value of oncology drugs over time from initial data of the reimbursement decisions to subsequent publications in Korea, using two value frameworks.

METHODS

We retrieved primary publications assessed for reimbursement between 2007 and July 2021 from the decision documents of Health Insurance Review and Assessment and subsequent publications made available following reimbursement decision from ClinicalTrials.Gov and PubMed databases. Changes in the clinical benefit scores were assessed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). A paired t test was performed to test whether there was a difference in the scores between primary and subsequent publications.

RESULTS

Of 73 anticancer product/indication pairs, 45 (61.6%) had subsequent publications, of which 62.5% were released within 1 year of reimbursement decision. The mean ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF Net Health Benefit scores increased from primary to subsequent publications, although the differences were not significant. The mean ASCO-VF bonus score significantly increased from 15.91 to 19.09 (p = 0.05). The ESMO-MCBS and bonus scores increased by 0.25 and 0.21, respectively, and the bonus score had a greater impact on the ESMO-MCBS score than the preliminary score did.

CONCLUSION

The value of drugs demonstrated in subsequent publications varies considerably among oncology drugs, depending on uncertainty associated with the initial evidence and the availability of updated evidence. As decision-making in the face of uncertainty becomes more prevalent, the value frameworks can serve as simple screening tools for re-evaluation in these cases.

Danish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument

PURPOSE

In this study, we developed Danish utility weights for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30.

METHODS

Following a standardized methodology, 1001 adult participants from the Danish general population were quota-sampled and completed a cross-sectional web-based survey and discrete choice experiment (DCE). In the DCE, participants considered 16 choice sets constructed from the key 10 dimensions of the QLU-C10D and chose their preferred health state for each one. Utility weights were calculated using conditional logistic regression with correction for non-monotonicity.

RESULTS

The sample (n = 1001) was representative of the Danish general population with regard to age and gender. The domains with the largest utility decrements, i.e., the domains with the biggest impact on health utility, were physical functioning (- 0.224), pain (- 0.160), and role functioning (- 0.136). The smallest utility decrements were observed for the domains lack of appetite (- 0.024), sleep disorders (- 0.057), and fatigue (- 0.064). Non-monotonicity of severity levels was observed for the domains sleep disturbances, lack of appetite, and bowel problems. Deviations from monotonicity were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The EORTC QLU-C10D is a relatively new multi-attribute utility instrument and is a promising cancer-specific health technology assessment candidate measure. The country-specific Danish utility weights from this study can be used for cost-utility analyses in Danish patients and for comparison with other country-specific utility data.

Added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 1995 and 2020: retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs, explore their association, and investigate potential discrepancies between added benefit and revenues across different approval pathways of the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Oncology drugs and their indications approved by the EMA between 1995 and 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Added benefit was evaluated using ratings published by seven organisations: health technology assessment agencies from the United States, France, Germany, and Italy, two medical oncology societies, and a drug bulletin. All retrieved ratings were recategorised using a four point ranking scale to indicate negative or non-quantifiable, minor, substantial, or major added benefit. Revenue data were extracted from publicly available financial reports and compared with published estimates of research and development (R&D) costs. Finally, the association between added benefit and revenue was evaluated. All analyses were performed within the overall study cohort, and within subgroups based on the EMA approval pathway: standard marketing authorisation, conditional marketing authorisation, and authorisation under exceptional circumstances.

RESULTS

131 oncology drugs with 166 indications were evaluated for their added benefit by at least one organisation within the required timeframe, yielding a total of 458 added benefit ratings; 189 (41%) were negative or non-quantifiable. The median time to offset the median R&D costs ($684m, £535m, €602m, adjusted to 2020 values) was three years; 50 of 55 (91%) drugs recovered these costs within eight years. Drugs with higher added benefit ratings generally had greater revenues. Negative or non-quantifiable added benefit ratings were more frequent for conditional marketing authorisations and authorisations under exceptional circumstances than for standard marketing authorisations (relative risk 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.89). Conditional marketing authorisations generated lower revenues and took longer to offset R&D costs than standard marketing authorisations (four years compared with three years).

CONCLUSIONS

While revenues seem to align with added benefit, most oncology drugs recover R&D costs within a few years despite providing little added benefit. This is particularly true for drugs approved through conditional marketing authorisations, which inherently appear to lack comprehensive evidence. Policy makers should evaluate whether current regulatory and reimbursement incentives effectively promote development of the most effective drugs for patients with the greatest needs.

The impact of level of documentation on the accessibility and affordability of new drugs in Norway

Introduction: Over the preceding decade, an increasing number of drugs have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) with limited knowledge of their relative efficacy. This is due to the utilization of non-randomized, single-arm studies, surrogate endpoints, and shorter follow-up time. The impact of this trend on the accessibility and affordability of newly approved drugs in Europe remains uncertain. The primary objective of this study is to provide insights into the issues of accessibility and affordability of new drugs in the Norwegian healthcare system. Method: The presented study entails an analysis of all reimbursement decisions for hospital drugs in Norway spanning 2021-2022. The included drugs were approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2022, with the majority (91%) receiving approval between 2018 and 2022. The drugs were categorized based on the level of documentation of relative efficacy. Approval rates and costs (confidential net-prices) were compared. Results: A total of 35% (70/199) of the reimbursement decisions were characterized by limited certainty regarding relative efficacy and as a consequence the Norwegian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body did not present an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the HTA report. Within this category, a lower percentage of drugs (47%) gained reimbursement approval compared to those with a higher certainty level, which were presented with an ICER (58%). On average, drugs with an established relative efficacy were accepted with a 4.4-fold higher cost (confidential net-prices). These trends persisted when specifically examining oncology drugs. Conclusion: Our study underscores that a substantial number of recently introduced drugs receive reimbursement regardless of the level of certainty concerning relative efficacy. However, the results suggest that payers prioritize documented over potential efficacy. Given that updated information on relative efficacy may emerge post-market access, a potential solution to address challenges related to accessibility and affordability in Europe could involve an increased adoption of market entry agreements. These agreements could allow for price adjustments after the presentation of new knowledge regarding relative efficacy, potentially resolving some of the current challenges.

Power and sample size calculation for incremental net benefit in cost effectiveness analyses with applications to trials conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group

BACKGROUND

Historically, a priori power and sample size calculations have not been routinely performed cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA), partly because the absence of published cost and effectiveness correlation and variance data, which are essential for power and sample size calculations. Importantly, the empirical correlation between cost and effectiveness has not been examined with respect to the estimation of value-for-money in clinical literature. Therefore, it is not well established if cost-effectiveness studies embedded within randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) are under- or over-powered to detect changes in value-for-money. However, recently guidelines (such as those from ISPOR) and funding agencies have suggested sample size and power calculations should be considered in CEAs embedded in clinical trials.

METHODS

We examined all RCTs conducted by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group with an embedded cost-effectiveness analysis. Variance and correlation of effectiveness and costs were derived from original-trial data. The incremental net benefit method was used to calculate the power of the cost-effectiveness analysis, with exploration of alternative correlation and willingness-to-pay values.

RESULTS

We identified four trials for inclusion. We observed that a hypothetical scenario of correlation coefficient of zero between cost and effectiveness led to a conservative estimate of sample size. The cost-effectiveness analysis was under-powered to detect changes in value-for-money in two trials, at willingness-to-pay of $100,000. Based on our observations, we present six considerations for future economic evaluations, and an online program to help analysts include a priori sample size and power calculations in future clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

The correlation between cost and effectiveness had a potentially meaningful impact on the power and variance of value-for-money estimates in the examined cost-effectiveness analyses. Therefore, the six considerations and online program, may facilitate a priori power calculations in embedded cost-effectiveness analyses in future clinical trials.

Value elements and methods of value-based pricing for drugs in Japan: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Value-based pricing (VBP) can be a promising tool for optimizing drug prices. However, there is no consensus on the specific value elements and pricing method that should be used for VBP.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a systematic review and narrative synthesis to investigate the value elements and pricing method for VBP. The main inclusion criterion was that value elements, VBP method, and estimated prices for actual drugs were reported. We performed a search in MEDLINE and ICHUSHI Web. Eight articles met the selection criteria. Four studies adopted the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) approach and the others used different approaches. The CEA approach included the value elements of productivity, value of hope, real option value, disease severity, insurance value in addition to costs and quality-adjusted life years. The other approaches used efficacy, toxicity, novelty, rarity, research and development costs, prognosis, population health burden, unmet needs, and effectiveness. Each study used individual methods to quantify these broader value elements.

EXPERT OPINION

Both conventional and broader value elements are used for VBP. To allow VBP to be widely applied to various diseases, a simple, versatile method is preferable. Further research is needed to establish VBP method which enables to incorporate broader values.

Achieving health equity in cancer care in the Philippines

Notwithstanding the progress made across the cancer care continuum, a major problem that many patients with cancer experience is the difficulty of access to global standards of care. Awareness of this problem has been increasing most especially when the economic context of a country forces health systems to deliver quality care despite the rising costs of diagnostic and therapeutic innovations amidst limited resources. Ultimately, inappropriate delivery of care to patients with cancer contributes to inadequate and unequal access to high-value therapy increasing financial toxicity among patients. This paper aims to highlight (1) the economic burden of cancer in the Philippines, (2) the saliency of identifying low-value interventions which come in two forms: the persistent over usage of proven ineffective modalities, and the underusage of potentially effective ones, and (3) the adverse effects of a decentralized health care system. The paper will also provide suggestions to address the challenges of achieving health equity in cancer care.

Incorporating financial toxicity considerations into clinical trial design to facilitate patient-centered decision-making in oncology

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Financial toxicity is increasingly being recognized as an important and devastating consequence of cancer treatment that receives little attention when clinical trials are being designed. There is a significant need to obtain this important information in an era of increasingly expensive anticancer treatments. Patients who are informed of all implications of therapy-efficacy, side effects, cost, and broader financial impact-are able to select the best cancer treatment for themselves.

Assessment of FDA-Approved Drugs Not Recommended for Use or Reimbursement in Other Countries, 2017-2020

Importance

Drug expenditures in the US are higher than in any other country and are projected to continue increasing, so US health systems may benefit from evaluating international regulatory and reimbursement decision-making of new drugs.

Objective

To evaluate regulatory decisions and health technology assessments (HTAs) in Australia, Canada, and the UK regarding new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017 through 2020, as well as to estimate the US cost per patient per year for drugs receiving negative recommendations.

Design and Setting

In this cross-sectional study, recommendations issued by agencies in Australia, Canada, and the UK were collected for new drugs approved by the FDA in 2017 through 2020. All data were current as of May 31, 2022.

Exposures

Authorizations and HTAs in selected countries.

Main Outcomes and Measures

All FDA-approved drugs were matched by active ingredient to decision summary reports published by drug regulators and HTA agencies in Australia, Canada, and the UK. Regulatory approval concordance and reasons for negative recommendations were assessed using descriptive statistics. For drugs not recommended by an international agency, the annual US drug cost per patient was estimated from FDA labeling and wholesale acquisition costs.

Results

The FDA approved 206 new drugs in 2017 through 2020, of which 162 (78.6%) were granted marketing authorization by at least 1 other regulatory agency at a median (IQR) delay of 12.1 (17.7) months following US approval. Conversely, 5 FDA-approved drugs were refused marketing authorization by an international regulatory agency due to unfavorable benefit-to-risk assessments. An additional 42 FDA-approved drugs received negative reimbursement recommendations from HTA agencies in Australia, Canada, or the UK due to uncertainty of clinical benefits or unacceptably high prices. The median (IQR) US cost of the 47 drugs refused authorization or not recommended for reimbursement by an international agency was $115 281 ($166 690) per patient per year. Twenty drugs were for oncology indications, and 36 were approved by the FDA through expedited regulatory pathways or the Orphan Drug Act.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study assessed reasons for which drugs recently approved by the FDA were refused marketing authorization or not recommended for public reimbursement in other countries. Drugs with limited international market presence may require close examination by US health care professionals and health systems.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Frontline Polatuzumab-Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, and Prednisone and/or Second-Line Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Versus Standard of Care for Treatment of Patients With Intermediate- to High-Risk Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

PURPOSE

Recent studies of polatuzumab vedotin and CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) have shown significant improvements in progression-free survival over standard of care (SOC) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, they are costly, and it is unclear whether these strategies, alone or combined, are cost-effective over SOC.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to compare four strategies for patients with newly diagnosed intermediate- to high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: strategy 1: polatuzumab-rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (R-CHP) plus second-line CAR-T for early relapse (< 12 months); strategy 2: polatuzumab-R-CHP plus second-line salvage therapy ± autologous stem-cell transplant; strategy 3: rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus second-line CAR-T for early relapse; strategy 4: SOC (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone plus second-line salvage therapy ± autologous stem-cell transplant). Transition probabilities were estimated from trial data. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from US and Canadian payer perspectives. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $150,000 US dollars (USD) or Canadian dollars (CAD)/QALY were used.

RESULTS

In probabilistic analyses (10,000 simulations), each strategy was incrementally more effective than the previous strategy, but also more costly. Adding polatuzumab-R-CHP to the SOC had an ICER of $546,956 (338,797-1,199,923) USD/QALY and $245,381 (151,671-573,250) CAD/QALY. Adding second-line CAR-T to the SOC had an ICER of $309,813 (190,197-694,200) USD/QALY and $303,163 (221,300-1,063,864) CAD/QALY. Simultaneously adding both polatuzumab-R-CHP and second-line CAR-T to the SOC had an ICER of $488,284 (326,765-840,157) USD/QALY and $267,050 (182,832-520,922) CAD/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Given uncertain incremental benefits in long-term survival and high costs, neither polatuzumab-R-CHP frontline, CAR-T second-line, nor a combination are likely to be cost-effective in the United States or Canada at current pricing compared with the SOC.

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.

Activities against Lung Cancer of Biosynthesized Silver Nanoparticles: A Review

Nanomedicine is an interdisciplinary field where nanostructured objects are applied to treat or diagnose disease. Nanoparticles (NPs) are a special class of materials at nanometric scale that can be prepared from lipids, polymers, or noble metals through bottom-up approaches. Biological synthesis is a reliable, sustainable, and non-toxic bottom-up method that uses phytochemicals, microorganisms, and enzymes to induce the reduction of metal ions into NPs. Silver (Ag) NPs exhibit potent therapeutic properties that can be exploited to overcome the limitations of current treatment modalities for human health issues such as lung cancer (LC). Here, we review the preparation of AgNPs using biological synthesis and their application against LC using in vitro and in vivo models. An overview of the staging, diagnosis, genetic mutations, and treatment of LC, as well as its main subtypes, is presented. A summary of the reaction mechanisms of AgNPs using microbial cell cultures, plant extracts, phytochemicals, and amino acids is included. The use of capping agents in the biosynthesis of AgNPs with anticancer activity is also detailed. The history and biological activities of metal-based nanostructures synthesized with gold, copper, palladium, and platinum are considered. The possible anticancer mechanisms of AgNPs against LC models are covered. Our perspective about the future of AgNPs in LC treatment and nanomedicine is added.

Application of Value Framework to Phase III Trials of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Esophageal and Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent trials testing immune-checkpoint inhibitors in esophago-gastric malignancies have shown mixed results. We aim to assess key subgroups using the ASCO Net Health Benefit Score (NHBS) and ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search for phase III trials of FDA-approved anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 drugs in esophago-gastric cancer trials was identified using www.clinicaltrials.gov. These published studies were scored using the ASCO NHBS and ESMO MCBS. The ASCO NHBS scores were compared by primary site of cancer (esophageal vs gastric) and PD-L1 expression using the Mann-Whitney test and the ESMO-MCBS grading, by Fisher's Exact test.

RESULTS

Fifteen of 45 clinical trials were included. Of them, 6 were primarily esophageal cancer trials, and 9 were primarily gastric cancer trials. Ten stratified their analysis based on PD-L1 expression. The ASCO NHBS score was higher (mean 40, range 20 to 56.6 vs. mean 12, range -1.1 to 18.4, P < .01) for esophageal cancer than gastric cancer. No difference was observed in survival and response endpoints between the 2 groups. Similarly, the ESMO MCBS scored higher for esophageal cancer group than gastric cancer (P < .05). Additionally, the scores were higher in those with high PD-L1 expression vs. low PD-L1 (mean 36, range 11.2-66.6 vs. mean 14, range -19.5 to 43.6, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The ASCO NHB and ESMO scores were consistently higher among esophageal cancer trials than gastric cancer trials and in those with high PD-L1 expression than low expression. Histology and PD-L1 expression should be considered when discussing value of immunotherapy to patients.

The correlation between the costs and clinical benefits of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in malignant tumors: An evaluation based on ASCO and ESMO frameworks

Background: Life expectancy for patients with malignant tumors has been significantly improved since the presence of the programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors in 2014, but they impose heavy financial burdens for patients, the healthcare system and the nations. The objective of this study was to determine the survival benefits, toxicities, and monetary of programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 inhibitors and quantify their values. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for malignant tumors were identified and clinical benefits were quantified by American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The drug price in Micromedex REDBOOK was used to estimate monthly incremental drug costs (IDCs) and the correlation between clinical benefits and incremental drug costs of experimental and control groups in each randomized controlled trial, and the agreement between two frameworks were calculated. Results: Up to December 2022, 52 randomized controlled trials were included in the quantitative synthesis. All the randomized controlled trials were evaluated by American society of clinical oncology value framework, and 26 (50%) met the American society of clinical oncology value framework "clinical meaningful value." 49 of 52 randomized controlled trials were graded by European society for medical oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale, and 30 (61.2%) randomized controlled trials achieved European Society for Medical Oncology criteria of meaningful value. p-values of Spearman correlation analyses between monthly incremental drug costs and American society of clinical oncology value framework/European society for medical oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale scores were 0.9695 and 0.3013, respectively. In addition, agreement between two framework thresholds was fair (κ = 0.417, p = 0.00354). Conclusion: This study suggests that there might be no correlation between the cost and clinical benefit of programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 inhibitors in malignancy, and the same results were observed in subgroups stratified by drug or indication. The results should be a wake-up call for oncologists, pharmaceutical enterprises and policymakers, and meanwhile advocate the refining of American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology frameworks.

Versatile Application of Nanobodies for Food Allergen Detection and Allergy Immunotherapy

The unique characteristics of camelid heavy-chain only antibody (HCAb) derived nanobodies (Nbs) have facilitated their employment as tools for research and application in extensive fields including food safety inspection, diagnosis and therapy of diseases, etc., to develop immune detecting techniques or alternative candidates of conventional antibodies as diagnostic and therapeutic reagents. The wide application in the fields of food allergen inspection and immunotherapy has not been addressed as not much results published in the literature. The robust properties and straightforward selecting strategy of Nbs impel the advantageous employment compared with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to establish immunoassay and serve as blocking antibodies to compete immunoglobulin E (IgE) binding epitopes on food allergens. More and more efforts have been invested to develop specific Nbs against food allergen proteins, such as macadamia allergen of Mac i 1, peanut allergen of Ara h 3, and lupine allergen of Lup an 1, which demonstrated the potential of Nbs for research and application in food allergen surveillance. Meanwhile, the paratopes of Nbs preferably targeting the unique epitopes of food allergens can provide more possibilities to serve as blocking antibodies to shield IgE binding epitopes for food allergy immunotherapy. Regardless, the research and application of Nbs in the field of food allergen and allergic reactions are expected to attract dramatic focus and produce promising research outputs.

Trends in accessibility of negotiated targeted anti-cancer medicines in Nanjing, China: An interrupted time series analysis

Background

In order to establish a long-term strategy for bearing the costs of anti-cancer drugs, the state had organized five rounds of national-level pricing negotiations and introduced the National Health Insurance Coverage (NHIC) policy since 2016. In addition, the National Healthcare Security Administration (NHSA) introduced the volume-based purchasing (VBP) pilot program to Nanjing in September 2019. Taking non-small cell lung cancer as an example, the aim of the study was to verify whether national pricing negotiations, the NHIC policy and the VBP pilot program had a positive impact on the accessibility of three targeted anti-cancer drugs.

Methods

Based on the hospital procurement data, interrupted time series (ITS) design was used to analyze the effect of the health policy on the accessibility and affordability of gefitinib, bevacizumab and recombinant human endostatin from January 2013 to December 2020 in Nanjing, China.

Results

The DDDs of the three drugs increased significantly after the policy implementation (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.008). The trend of DDDc showed a significant decrease (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001). The mean availability of these drugs before the national pricing negotiation was <30% in the surveyed hospitals, and increased significantly to 60.33% after 2020 (P < 0.001, P = 0.001, P < 0.001). The affordability of these drugs has also increased every year after the implementation of the insurance coverage policy. The financial burden is higher for the rural patients compared with the urban patients, although the gap is narrowing.

Conclusion

The accessibility of targeted anti-cancer drugs has increased significantly after the implementation of centralized prices, the NHIC policy and the VBP pilot program, and has shown sustained long-term growth. Multi-pronged supplementary measures and policy approaches by multiple stakeholders will facilitate equitable access to effective and affordable anti-cancer drugs.

Cancer Medicines: What Is Essential and Affordable in India?

PURPOSE

The WHO essential medicines list (EML) guides selection of drugs for national formularies. Here, we evaluate which medicines are considered highest priority by Indian oncologists and the extent to which they are available in routine practice.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of an electronic survey developed by the WHO EML Cancer Medicine Working Group. The survey was distributed globally using a hierarchical snowball method to physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy. The survey captured the 10 medicines oncologists considered highest priority for population health and their availability in routine practice.

RESULTS

The global study cohort included 948 respondents from 82 countries; 98 were from India and 67 were from other low- and middle-income countries. Compared with other low- and middle-income countries, the Indian cohort was more likely to be medical oncologist (70% v 31%, P < .001) and work exclusively in the private health system (52% v 17%, P < .001). 14/20 most commonly selected medicines were conventional cytotoxic drugs. Universal access to these medicines was reported by a minority of oncologists; risks of significant out-of-pocket expenditures for each medicine were reported by 19%-58% of oncologists. Risk of catastrophic expenditure was reported by 58%-67% of oncologists for rituximab and trastuzumab. Risks of financial toxicity were substantially higher within the private health system compared with the public system.

CONCLUSION

Most high-priority cancer medicines identified by Indian oncologists are generic chemotherapy agents that provide substantial improvements in survival and are already included in WHO EML. Access to these treatments remains limited by major financial burdens experienced by patients. This is particularly acute within the private health system. Strategies are urgently needed to ensure that high-quality cancer care is affordable and accessible to all patients in India.

An appraisal of FDA approvals for adult solid tumours in 2017-2021: has the eagle landed?

In 2016, the then US President Barack Obama announced the Cancer Moonshot with a view to making 10 years' worth of progress in cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment in only 5 years. This Perspective evaluates the FDA approvals of therapeutic agents for use in solid tumour oncology for the period 2017-2021 against the aspirations of the Cancer Moonshot. In the past 5 years, the FDA issued an unprecedented 161 new approvals of therapeutic agents for various indications in adult patients with solid tumours. However, less than a third (27%) of the newly approved medicines are supported by unequivocal evidence of an overall survival benefit; most are supported by positive signals from surrogate end points. Herein, the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 was used to evaluate the clinical value of the therapies granted FDA approval during the period 2017-2021. The results of this appraisal indicate a low level of clinical benefit for a substantial proportion (~20%) of the new indications, with most (~44%) providing intermediate benefit. The data suggest that, beyond increases in the sheer quantity of approvals, considerable improvement in the quality of the approved treatments is required to more confidently ensure that the clinical benefits are real and substantial enough to clearly justify the risks to patients.

Cost and public reimbursement of cancer medicines in the UK and the Republic of Ireland

INTRODUCTION/AIMS

There are disparities in the availability of systemic anticancer therapies (SACTs) globally. We set out to investigate the cost and reimbursement of SACTs in the United Kingdom (UK) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI) in conjunction with efficacy and licensing authority decisions in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU).

METHODS

We sought data pertaining to licensing in the EU, reimbursement in ROI/UK and cost/efficacy of SACTs licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2015 and May 2021. Independent samples t tests, chi-square test and Pearson's correlation were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

We identified that the majority of FDA-approved regimens are licensed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (n = 91, 67.9%). However, only a minority of these are currently reimbursed in the UK (n = 60, 45%) or the ROI (n = 28, 21%) as of the 1^st of May 2021. In addition, only a minority of regimens have demonstrated a statistically significant OS benefit (n = 54, 40%). There was no association between cost of regimens and either the presence (t = 0.846, p = 0.40) or duration of OS benefit (t =  - 0.84, p = 0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights that many licensed systemic anticancer treatments are not currently reimbursed in ROI/UK. The high cost of these medicines is independent of the presence of an OS benefit. Collaboration between regulatory agencies, governments and industry partners is needed to ensure health expenditure is directed towards the most effective treatments.

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.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Pertuzumab With Trastuzumab in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer

IMPORTANCE

The initial assessment of pertuzumab use for treatment of metastatic breast cancer by health technology assessment agencies suggested that pertuzumab was not cost-effective. In Ontario, Canada, pertuzumab became funded in November 2013 based on the substantial clinical benefit. To date, there is a paucity of analysis of pertuzumab using real-world data for cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy vs trastuzumab and chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A population-based retrospective economic evaluation was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Patients who received first-line treatments for metastatic breast cancer from January 1, 2008, to March 31, 2018, were identified. Patients were followed up from the start of treatment up to 5 years, with maximum follow-up to March 31, 2019. Patients were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry and linked to the New Drug Funding Program database to identify receipt of first-line treatment (N = 1158).

INTERVENTIONS

Treatment with pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy after public funding (November 25, 2013) compared with treatment with trastuzumab and chemotherapy before funding.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cost-effectiveness, from a public payer perspective, was estimated from administrative data with a 5-year time horizon, adjusted for censoring, and discounted (1.5%). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for life-years gained and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) with bootstrapped 95% CIs were calculated. Sensitivity analysis with price reduction of pertuzumab alone or in combination with trastuzumab was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 579 pairs of matched patients receiving pertuzumab and controls were included. The mean (SD) age of the matched study cohort was 58 (12.97) years; 1151 were women (99.4%). Pertuzumab resulted in 0.61 life-years gained and 0.44 QALYs gained at an incremental cost of $192 139 (all costs measured in Canadian dollar values, CAD) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $316 203 per life-year gained and $436 679 per QALY. The main factors associated with cost included the cost of pertuzumab (60%), outpatient cancer treatment delivery (24%), and trastuzumab (15%). With 100% price reduction of pertuzumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $174 027 per QALY. When the price of pertuzumab and trastuzumab were both reduced by more than 71%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased below $100 000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this population-based study suggest that pertuzumab may increase survival for patients with metastatic breast cancer but would not be considered cost-effective, even after 100% price reduction, under conventional thresholds.

Parametric Survival Extrapolation of Early Survival Data in Economic Analyses: A Comparison of Projected Versus Observed Updated Survival

OBJECTIVES

To establish the value of cancer drugs by cost-effectiveness analysis, lifetime parametric survival extrapolations are often fitted to early data. Recent literature suggests that the benefit of cancer agents in primary publications is often different compared with updated data. This study aimed to examine the projected survival based on parametric extrapolations compared with observed survival based on updated data.

METHODS

US Food and Drug Administration oncology approvals from January 2006 to December 2015 were reviewed to identify randomized controlled trials, with updated overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) data within 5 years. Individual patient data were reconstructed using established methods on initial and updated publications. Projected survival was calculated as the best-fit parametric restricted mean survival time (RMST) based on extrapolated initial Kaplan-Meier curves whereas observed survival was calculated as observed RMST based on updated Kaplan-Meier curves. Mean deviations, mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error, and linear regressions were conducted to examine the relationship between projected and observed survival.

RESULTS

In total, 32 randomized controlled trials were included. The MAE between the projected RMST and observed RMST was 3.18 months (OS) and 2.84 months (PFS) and absolute percentage error of 100% (OS) and 23% (PFS), suggesting substantial imprecision of the projected RMST in predicting the updated RMST. The linear regression indicated MAE increased as time extrapolated and as the percentage of censored patients increased.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated substantial difference in projected survival between initial and updated publications. Health technology assessment committees need to be aware of the potential uncertainty of incremental effectiveness and resultant value-for-money assessment when making reimbursement decisions based on initial publications with immature survival data.

Economic Evaluation of a Geriatric Oncology Clinic

Geriatric assessment (GA) is supported by recent trials and guidelines yet rarely implemented due to a lack of resources. We performed an economic evaluation of a geriatric oncology clinic. Pre-GA proposed treatments and post-GA actual treatments were obtained from a detailed chart review of patients seen at a single academic centre. GA-based costs for investigations and referrals were calculated. Unit costs were obtained for surgical, radiation, systemic therapy, laboratory, imaging, physician, nursing, and allied health care (all in 2019 Canadian dollars). A six-month time horizon and government payer perspective were used. Consecutive patients aged 65 years or older (n = 152, mean age 82 y) and referred in the pre-treatment setting between July 2016 and June 2018 were included. Treatment plans were modified for 51% of patients. Costs associated with planned treatment were CAD 3,655,015. Costs associated with GA and related interventions were CAD 95,798. Final treatment costs were CAD 2,436,379. Net savings associated with the clinic were CAD 1,122,837, or CAD 7387 per patient seen. Findings were robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. Combined with mounting trial data demonstrating the clinical benefits of GA, our data can inform a strong business case for geriatric oncology clinics in health care environments similar to ours, but additional studies in diverse health care settings are warranted.

Rising drug cost impacts on cost-effectiveness of 2 chemotherapy regimens for intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma: A report from the Children's Oncology Group

BACKGROUND

The Children's Oncology Group clinical trial for intermediate risk rhabdomyosarcoma randomized participants to a combination of vincristine, dactinomycin, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) alone or VAC alternating with vincristine plus irinotecan (VAC/VI). Clinical outcomes were similar, but toxicity profiles differed. This study estimates the cost differences between arms from the health care system's perspective.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of VAC versus VAC/VI. Protocol-required or recommended medications and laboratory studies were included. Costs were obtained from national databases or supporting literature and inflated to 2019 US dollars. Demographic and outcome data were obtained from the clinical trial and directed chart reviews. Life-years (LY) were estimated from life-expectancy tables and discounted by 3% annually. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and alternative clinical scenarios identified factors driving costs.

RESULTS

Mean direct medical costs of VAC and VAC/VI were $164,757 and $102,303, respectively. VAC was associated with an additional 0.97 LY and an ICER of $64,386/LY compared with VAC/VI. The ICER was sensitive to survival estimations and to alternative clinical scenarios including outpatient cyclophosphamide delivery (ICER $49,037/LY) or substitution of alternative hematopoietic growth factor schedules (ICER $73,191-$91,579/LY). Applying drug prices from 2012 decreased the total costs of VAC by 20% and VAC/VI by 15% because of changes in dactinomycin and pegfilgrastim prices.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither arm was clearly more cost-effective. Pharmaceutical pricing and location of treatment drove costs and may inform future treatment decisions. Rising pharmaceutical costs added $30,000 per patient, a finding important for future drug-pricing policy decisions.

LAY SUMMARY

Two chemotherapy regimens recently tested side-by-side for rhabdomyosarcoma had similar tumor outcomes, but different side effects. The health care costs of each regimen were compared; neither was clearly more cost-effective. However, the costs of each treatment changed dramatically with choices of supportive medicines and location of treatment. Costs of treatment rose by 15% to 20% because of rising US drug costs not associated with the clinical trial.

Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies

In the era of rapid development of new, expensive cancer therapies, value frameworks have been developed to quantify clinical benefit (CB). We assessed the evolution of CB since the 2015 introduction of The American Society of Clinical Oncology and The European Society of Medical Oncology value frameworks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing systemic therapies for solid malignancies from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated and CB (Δ) in 2010–2014 (pre-value frameworks (PRE)) were compared to 2015–2020 (POST) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QoL). In the 485 studies analyzed (12% PRE and 88% POST), the most common primary endpoint was PFS (49%), followed by OS (20%), RR (12%), and QoL (6%), with a significant increase in OS and decrease in RR as primary endpoints in the POST era (p = 0.011). Multivariable analyses revealed significant improvement in ΔOS POST (OR 2.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.26, p = 0.02) while controlling for other variables. After the development of value frameworks, median ΔOS improved minimally. The impact of value frameworks has yet to be fully realized in RCTs. Efforts to include endpoints shown to impact value, such as QoL, into clinical trials are warranted.

Price trends of reimbursed oncological drugs in Switzerland in 2005-2019: A descriptive analysis

Increasing oncological treatment costs are a major global concern with the risk of entailing two-tiered health care. Among cost determining factors is the price of individual drugs. In recognition of the central role of this factor, we present a comprehensive overview of the development of monthly prices of oncological drugs introduced over the last 15 years in Switzerland. We identified all oncological drugs newly reimbursed by mandatory health insurance in 2005-2019, and searched public repositories for their package prices, indications with approval dates, and treatment regimens for the calculation of (indication-specific) monthly prices. We found 81 products covering 77 different substances (39.5% protein kinase inhibitors, 21.0% monoclonal antibodies). Most indications related to the topography "blood", followed by "lung and thorax" and "digestive tract". From 2005-2009 to 2015-2019, the median monthly product price over all distinct indications of all products decreased by 7.56% (CHF 5,699 [interquartile range 4,483-7,321] to CHF 5,268 [4,19-6,967]), whereas it increased by 73.7% for monoclonal antibodies. In December 2019, six products had monthly prices over CHF 10,000, all approved for hematological or dermatological cancers. Our analysis suggests that individual price developments of oncological drugs are presently not the major driver of rising cancer treatment costs. However, rising launch prices of some new, mostly hematological drugs are of concern and require continued monitoring.

Characteristics of Cost-effectiveness Studies for Oncology Drugs Approved in the United States From 2015-2020

IMPORTANCE

Increasingly, cost-effectiveness analyses are being done to determine the value of rapidly increasing oncology drugs; however, this assumes that these analyses are unbiased.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the characteristics of cost-effectiveness studies and to determine characteristics associated with whether an oncology drug is found to be cost-effective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cross-sectional study included 254 cost-effectiveness analyses for 116 oncology drugs that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2015 to 2020.

EXPOSURES

Each drug was analyzed for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year, the funding of the study, the authors' conflict of interest, the threshold of willingness-to-pay, from what country's perspective the analysis was done, and whether a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness analysis had been done.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was the odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective.

RESULTS

There were 116 drug approvals with 254 studies and country perspectives. Of the country perspectives, 132 (52%) were from the US. Forty-seven of 78 drugs with cost-effective studies had been shown to improve overall survival, whereas 15 of 38 of drugs without a cost-effectiveness study had been shown to improve overall survival. Having a study funded by a pharmaceutical company was associated with higher odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective than studies without funding (odds ratio, 41.36; 95% CI, 11.86-262.23).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, pharmaceutical funding was associated with greater odds that an oncology drug would be found to be cost-effective. These findings suggest that simply disclosing potential conflict of interest is inadequate. We encourage cost-effectiveness analyses by independent groups.

Trends in drug revenue among major pharmaceutical companies: A 2010-2019 cohort study

BACKGROUND

Over the past 2 decades there has been a substantial increase in the number of new cancer medicines; this has been accompanied by a dramatic rise in drug costs. It is unknown how these trends impact the revenue of the pharmaceutical sector.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study to characterize temporal trends of revenue generated from cancer medicines as a proportion of total drug revenue among 10 large pharmaceutical companies from 2010 to 2019. Itemized product-sales data publicly available through company websites or annual filings were used to identify annual drug revenue. Revenue data were adjusted for inflation and converted to 2019 US dollars.

RESULTS

During the study period, cumulative annual revenue generated from cancer drugs increased by 70%: from $55.8 billion to $95.1 billion, while cumulative revenue from nononcology drugs decreased 18%: from $342.2 billion to $281.5 billion. The proportion of total drug revenue generated from oncology drugs increased substantially over the study period: from 14% in 2010 to 25% in 2019 (τ = 1.0, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among 10 of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, revenues generated from the sale of cancer drugs have increased by 70% over the past decade, while revenues from other medicines have decreased by 18%. Revenues from cancer drugs now account for one-quarter of the net revenues from these companies. Further work is needed to understand if this increase in sales revenue reflects industry profit, and to what extent increased spending has translated into improvements in patient and population outcomes.

Recent Advances in Repurposing Disulfiram and Disulfiram Derivatives as Copper-Dependent Anticancer Agents

Copper (Cu) plays a pivotal role in cancer progression by acting as a co-factor that regulates the activity of many enzymes and structural proteins in cancer cells. Therefore, Cu-based complexes have been investigated as novel anticancer metallodrugs and are considered as a complementary strategy for currently used platinum agents with undesirable general toxicity. Due to the high failure rate and increased cost of new drugs, there is a global drive towards the repositioning of known drugs for cancer treatment in recent years. Disulfiram (DSF) is a first-line antialcoholism drug used in clinics for more than 65 yr. In combination with Cu, it has shown great potential as an anticancer drug by targeting a wide range of cancers. The reaction between DSF and Cu ions forms a copper diethyldithiocarbamate complex (Cu(DDC)₂ also known as CuET) which is the active, potent anticancer ingredient through inhibition of NF-κB and ubiquitin-proteasome system as well as alteration of the intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS). Importantly, DSF/Cu inhibits several molecular targets related to drug resistance, stemness, angiogenesis and metastasis and is thus considered as a novel strategy for overcoming tumour recurrence and relapse in patients. Despite its excellent anticancer efficacy, DSF has proven unsuccessful in several cancer clinical trials. This is likely due to the poor stability, rapid metabolism and/or short plasma half-life of the currently used oral version of DSF and the inability to form Cu(DDC)₂ at relevant concentrations in tumour tissues. Here, we summarize the scientific rationale, molecular targets, and mechanisms of action of DSF/Cu in cancer cells and the outcomes of oral DSF ± Cu in cancer clinical trials. We will focus on the novel insights on harnessing the immune system and hypoxic microenvironment using DSF/Cu complex and discuss the emerging delivery strategies that can overcome the shortcomings of DSF-based anticancer therapies and provide opportunities for translation of DSF/Cu or its Cu(DDC)₂ complex into cancer therapeutics.

Impact of the National Health Insurance Coverage Policy on the Utilisation and Accessibility of Innovative Anti-cancer Medicines in China: An Interrupted Time-Series Study

Objective: The study aimed to evaluate the impact of the National Health Insurance Coverage (NHIC) policy on the utilisation and accessibility of innovative anti-cancer medicines in Nanjing, China. Methods: We used the adjusted World Health Organisation and Health Action International methodology to calculate the price and availability of 15 innovative anti-cancer medicines included in the National Health Insurance drug list in 20 tertiary hospitals and six secondary hospitals in Nanjing before and after NHIC policy implementation. Interrupted time-series regression was used to analyse the changes in the utilisation of the study medicines. Results: The price reduction rates of innovative anti-cancer medicines ranged between 34 and 65%. The mean availability rate was 27.44% before policy implementation and increased to 47.33% after policy implementation. The utilisation of anti-cancer medicines suddenly increased with a slope of 33.19-2,628.39 when the policy was implemented. Moreover, the usage rate of bevacizumab, bortezomib, and apatinib significantly increased (p < 0.001, p = 0.009, and p < 0.001, respectively) after policy implementation. With regard to price reduction and medical insurance reimbursement, the medicines became more affordable after policy implementation (0.06-1.90 times the per capita annual disposable income for urban patients and 0.13-4.46 times the per capita annual disposable income for rural patients). Conclusion: The NHIC policy, which was released by the central government, effectively improved the utilisation and affordability of innovative anti-cancer medicines. However, the availability of innovative anti-cancer medicines in hospitals remained low and the utilisation of innovative anti-cancer medicines was affected by some factors, including the incidence of cancer, limitation of indications within the insurance program, and the rational use of innovative anti-cancer medicines. It is necessary to improve relevant supporting policies to promote the affordability of patients. The government should speed up the process of price negotiation to include more innovative anti-cancer medicines in the medical insurance coverage, consider including both medical examinations and adjuvant chemotherapy in the medical insurance, and increase investment in health care.

The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science

There is growing concern that the innovation system's ability to create wealth and attain social benefit is declining in effectiveness. This article explores the reasons for this decline and suggests a structure, the open science partnership, as one mechanism through which to slow down or reverse this decline. The article examines the empirical literature of the last century to document the decline. This literature suggests that the cost of research and innovation is increasing exponentially, that researcher productivity is declining, and, third, that these two phenomena have led to an overall flat or declining level of innovation productivity. The article then turns to three explanations for the decline - the growing complexity of science, a mismatch of incentives, and a balkanization of knowledge. Finally, the article explores the role that open science partnerships - public-private partnerships based on open access publications, open data and materials, and the avoidance of restrictive forms of intellectual property - can play in increasing the efficiency of the innovation system.

Patient Participation in Clinical Trials of Oncology Drugs and Biologics Preceding Approval by the US Food and Drug Administration

IMPORTANCE

Several studies have estimated the financial inputs for successful drug development. Such analyses do not capture the large investment that patient study participants commit to drug development.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the volume of patients required to achieve a first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for a new anticancer drug or biologic therapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included a random sample of prelicense oncology drugs and biologics with a trial site in the United States that were launched into clinical efficacy testing between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010. Drugs and biologics were identified using ClinicalTrials.gov registration records. Total patient enrollment was captured over an 8-year span, and each intervention was classified based on whether it received FDA approval and was deemed as having intermediate or substantial value according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) score. Secondarily, the association between patient numbers and intervention characteristics was tested. Data were analyzed in February 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURE

The prespecified primary outcome was the number of patients enrolled in prelicense trials per FDA approval.

RESULTS

A total of 120 drugs and biologics were included in our study, with 84 (70.0%) targeted agents, 20 (16.7%) immunotherapies, and 71 (59.2%) novel agents. A total of 13 drugs and biologics (10.8%; 95% CI, 5.3%-16.8%) in our sample gained FDA approval within 8 years, of which 1 (7.7%) was deemed of intermediate value and 3 (23.1%) were deemed of substantial value using ASCO-VF scoring. Overall, 158 810 patients were enrolled in 1335 trials testing these drugs and biologics, 47 913 (30.2%) in trials that led to FDA approval and 110 897 (69.8%) in trials that did not. An estimated 12 217 (95% CI, 7970-22 215) patient study participants contributed to prelicense trials per FDA approval. The estimated number of patients needed to produce a single FDA-approved drug or biologic of intermediate or substantial ASCO-VF clinical value was 39 703 (95% CI, 19 391-177 991).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results of this cohort study make visible the substantial patient investment required for prelicense oncology drug development. Such analyses can be used to devise policies that maximize the clinical impact of research on a per-patient basis.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dacomitinib versus gefitinib for the first-line therapy of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the United States and China

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib and gefitinib for the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive patients from the perspective of healthcare systems in the United States and China.

METHODS

A Markov model, which included 3 health states over 10 years, was established in this study. The state transition probabilities and clinical data were extracted from the ARCHER 1050 trial (dacomitinib versus gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC). Health utilities were derived from published literature. Based on the healthcare system payer's perspective in the United States and China, the cost data were estimated from local pricing or the relevant literature. The health outcomes are expressed by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). All costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are presented in US dollars. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

In the United States, compared with gefitinib, dacomitinib yielded an additional 0.55 QALYs, while the ICERs were $600.69 per QALY. The cost of dacomitinib was the most influential parameter. The willingness payment curve showed that dacomitinib was cost-effective at the $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Meanwhile, when the WTP threshold was higher than $200,000/QALY, the probability of dacomitinib being the best treatment plan was more than 80%. In China, compared with gefitinib, dacomitinib was associated with a mean healthcare savings of $160,173.27 and 0.41 additional QALYs per patient, which was a dominant intervention over a 10-year time horizon. The cost of progressive disease was shown to have the strongest impact on the results. Dacomitinib had more than a 90% probability of being chosen as the preferred therapy when the Chinese WTP threshold was $27,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

As the first-line treatment for EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, dacomitinib is likely to be more cost-effective than gefitinib from the healthcare system's perspective in the United States and China.

Evaluation of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Submitted for Reimbursement Recommendation Decisions in Canada

IMPORTANCE

Cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration have come under scrutiny for marginal clinical benefits; however, the clinical benefits of cancer drugs recommended for reimbursement in Canada have not been adequately studied.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the differences in the clinical evidence and benefit of cancer drugs that received a positive vs a negative recommendation for provincial reimbursement in Canada.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study obtained publicly available regulatory documents from the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) and corresponding clinical trial documentation. All cancer drugs with a solid tumor indication that were submitted from the inception of the pCODR (July 2011) to February 2020 were evaluated. To be included, submissions had to have a final reimbursement recommendation; submissions that were incomplete, were withdrawn, or had a pending decision were excluded.

EXPOSURES

A completed reimbursement recommendation decision from the pCODR.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Final reimbursement recommendation (positive vs negative); trial characteristics; and relevant clinical outcomes (ie, overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS]), including the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores available at the time of pCODR assessment.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2020, the pCODR issued 104 reimbursement recommendation decisions for cancer drugs with a solid tumor indication. Among these drug submissions, 78 (75.0%) received a positive recommendation, of which 72 (92.3%) were conditional. Drugs that received a positive recommendation compared with those with a negative recommendation were more likely to have phase 3 randomized clinical trial design (92.3% [72 of 78] vs 53.8% [14 of 26]; P < .001) and have substantial benefit according to the ESMO-MCBS scores (61.5% [48 of 78] vs 19.2% [5 of 26]; P < .001). The most common primary end points associated with the successful submissions were PFS (53.9%) and OS (32.1%). Overall, 39 of 78 submissions (50.0%) that received a positive recommendation had shown OS benefit, with median (interquartile range) OS gains of 3.7 (2.7-6.5) months.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study found that, although the pCODR takes into account the magnitude of clinical benefit, only half of the cancer drugs that received a positive recommendation had evidence of improved OS and the survival gains were usually modest. These results suggest that, although the pCODR helps filter out some cancer drugs with low quality of evidence and low magnitude of benefit, cancer drugs without meaningful patient benefit continue to enter the Canadian market; these findings are important for making reimbursement policy decisions globally.

Reassessing the Net Benefit of Cancer Drugs With Evolution of Evidence Using the ASCO Value Framework

BACKGROUND

Regulatory approval of oncology drugs is often based on interim data or surrogate endpoints. However, clinically relevant data, such as long-term overall survival and quality of life (QoL), are often reported in subsequent publications. This study evaluated the ASCO-Value Framework (ASCO-VF) net health benefit (NHB) at the time of approval and over time as further evidence arose.

METHODS

FDA-approved oncology drug indications from January 2006 to December 2016 were reviewed to identify clinical trials scorable using the ASCO-VF. Subsequent publications of clinical trials relevant for scoring were identified (until December 2019). Using ASCO-defined thresholds (≤40 for low and ≥45 for substantial benefit), we assessed changes in classification of benefit at 3 years postapproval.

RESULTS

Fifty-five eligible indications were included. At FDA approval, 40.0% were substantial, 10.9% were intermediate, and 49.1% were low benefit. We then identified 90 subsequent publications relevant to scoring, including primary (28.9%) and secondary endpoint updates (47.8%), safety updates (31.1%), and QoL reporting (47.8%). There was a change from initial classification of benefit in 27.3% of trials (10.9% became substantial, 9.1% became low, and 7.3% became intermediate). These changes were mainly due to updated hazard ratios (36.4%), toxicities (56.4%), new tail-of-the-curve bonus (9.1%), palliation bonus (14.5%), or QoL bonus (18.2%). Overall, at 3 years postapproval, 40.0% were substantial, 9.1% were intermediate, and 50.9% were low benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Because there were changes in classification for more than one-quarter of indications, in either direction, reassessing the ASCO-VF NHB as more evidence becomes available may be beneficial to inform clinical shared decision-making. On average, there was no overall improvement in the ASCO-VF NHB with longer follow-up and evolution of evidence.

Assessment of Food and Drug Administration- and European Medicines Agency-Approved Systemic Oncology Therapies and Clinically Meaningful Improvements in Quality of Life: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

For patients with cancer treated with palliative intent, quality of life (QOL) is a critical aspect of treatment decision-making, alongside survival. However, regulatory approval can be based solely on survival measures or antitumor activities, without QOL evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether recently approved oncology therapies demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in QOL.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review study identified oncology drug indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) from January 2006 to December 2017 and supporting clinical trials (QOL publications identified to October 2019). Indications were evaluated for the presence of published QOL evidence; QOL benefits according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2.0 (ASCO-VF) and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS) QOL bonus criteria; and clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences. Hematology trials were not evaluated by ESMO-MCBS. Associations between QOL evidence and approval year were examined using logistic regression models.

FINDINGS

In total, 214 FDA-approved (77 [36%] hematological) and 170 EMA-approved (52 [31%] hematological) indications were included. QOL evidence was published for 40% and 58% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. QOL bonus criterion for ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS was met in 13% and 17% of FDA-approved and 21% and 24% of EMA-approved indications, respectively. Clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences were noted in 6% and 11% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. Availability of published QOL evidence at the time of approval increased over time for EMA (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; P = .03), however not for FDA (OR, 1.10; P = .12). Over time, no increase in awarded QOL bonuses or clinically meaningful improvements in QOL were found.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this systematic review suggest that approved systemic oncology therapies often do not have published evidence to suggest QOL improvement, despite its recognized importance. Of indications with evidence of statistical improvement, few have demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements.

Comparing Manufacturer Submitted and Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Reanalysed Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios for Novel Oncology Drugs

BACKGROUND

To determine the magnitude of difference between manufacturer-submitted and pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental cost (ΔC), and incremental effectiveness (ΔE); to examine whether there is a significant difference in the proportion of ICERs deemed cost-effective; to evaluate trends in the ICERs over time; and to identify methodological issues in manufacturer-submitted economic models.

METHODS

Economic guidance reports for all drug indications submitted from July 2011-November 2018 were extracted from the pCODR database. Cumulative distribution plots were constructed to compare the manufacturer-submitted economic values with both the pCODR lower- and upper-reanalyzed estimates. The proportion of drug reviews considered cost-effective at varying willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds by the manufacturer and pCODR were calculated. Manufacturer changes in ICERs over time from 2012 to 2018 were determined. Recurring methodological issues with manufacturer submissions were tallied.

RESULTS

There were 73 unique indications that were included. Manufacturer-submitted ICERs were consistently lower than pCODR estimates for most indications. Manufacturer-submitted ICERs were generally more cost-effective over a range of WTP thresholds. From 2012 to 2018, manufacturer and economic guidance panel (EGP) lower limit reanalyzed ICERs did not change significantly over time. However, EGP upper limit re-analyses did show decreasing cost-effectiveness (increasing ICERs). The two most common issues identified in the manufacturer-submitted models were related to survival time horizon and utility estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Manufacturers tend to overestimate the cost-effectiveness of their therapies when submitting economic models to pCODR. Although certain methodological issues are still common in manufacturer-submitted models, revision rates are high for most issues raised by pCODR.

Association Between Clinical Value and Financial Cost of Cancer Treatments: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND

The cost of cancer treatment has increased significantly in recent decades, but it is unclear whether these costs have been associated with commensurate improvement in clinical value. This study aimed to assess the association between the cost of cancer treatment and 4 of the 5 NCCN Evidence Blocks (EB) measures of clinical value: efficacy of regimen/agent, safety of regimen/agent, quality of evidence, and consistency of evidence.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional, observational study. We obtained NCCN EB ratings for all recommended, first-line, and/or maintenance treatments for the 30 most prevalent cancers in the United States and calculated direct pharmacologic treatment costs (drug acquisition, administration fees, guideline-concordant supportive care medications) using Medicare reimbursement rates in January 2019. We used generalized estimating equations to estimate the association between NCCN EB measures and treatment cost with clustering at the level of the treatment indication.

RESULTS

A total of 1,386 treatments were included. Among time-unlimited treatments (those administered on an ongoing basis without a predetermined stopping point), monthly cost was positively associated with efficacy ($3,036; 95% CI, $1,782 to $4,289) and quality of evidence ($1,509; 95% CI, $171 to $2,847) but negatively associated with safety (-$1,470; 95% CI, -$2,790 to -$151) and consistency of evidence (-$2,003; 95% CI, -$3,420 to -$586). Among time-limited treatments (those administered for a predetermined interval or number of cycles), no NCCN EB measure was significantly associated with treatment cost.

CONCLUSIONS

An association between NCCN EB measures and treatment cost was inconsistent, and the magnitude of the association was small compared with the degree of cost variation among treatments with the same EB scores. The clinical value of cancer treatments does not seem to be a primary determinant of treatment cost.

Nanobodies-Useful Tools for Allergy Treatment?

In the last decade single domain antibodies (nanobodies, VHH) qualified through their unique characteristics have emerged as accepted and even advantageous alternative to conventional antibodies and have shown great potential as diagnostic and therapeutic tools. Currently nanobodies find their main medical application area in the fields of oncology and neurodegenerative diseases. According to late-breaking information, nanobodies specific for coronavirus spikes have been generated these days to test their suitability as useful therapeutics for future outbreaks. Their superior properties such as chemical stability, high affinity to a broad spectrum of epitopes, low immunogenicity, ease of their generation, selection and production proved nanobodies also to be remarkable to investigate their efficacy for passive treatment of type I allergy, an exaggerated immune reaction to foreign antigens with increasing global prevalence.

Are Surrogate Endpoints Unbiased Metrics in Clinical Benefit Scores of the ASCO Value Framework?

BACKGROUND

Clinical benefit scores (CBS) are key elements of the ASCO Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and are weighted based on a hierarchy of efficacy endpoints: hazard ratio for death (HR OS), median overall survival (mOS), HR for disease progression (HR PFS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and response rate (RR). When HR OS is unavailable, the other endpoints serve as "surrogates" to calculate CBS. CBS are computed from PFS or RR in 39.6% of randomized controlled trials. This study examined whether surrogate-derived CBS offer unbiased scoring compared with HR OS-derived CBS.

METHODS

Using the ASCO-VF, CBS for advanced disease settings were computed for randomized controlled trials of oncology drug approvals by the FDA, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada in January 2006 through December 2017. Mean differences of surrogate-derived CBS minus HR OS-derived CBS assessed the tendency of surrogate-derived CBS to overestimate or underestimate clinical benefit. Spearman's correlation evaluated the association between surrogate- and HR OS-derived CBS. Mean absolute error assessed the average difference between surrogate-derived CBS relative to HR OS-derived CBS.

RESULTS

CBS derived from mOS, HR PFS, mPFS, and RR overestimated HR OS-derived CBS in 58%, 68%, 77%, and 55% of pairs and overall by an average of 5.62 (n=90), 6.86 (n=110), 29.81 (n=101), and 3.58 (n=108), respectively. Correlation coefficients were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70-0.86), 0.38 (0.20-0.53), 0.20 (0.00-0.38), and 0.01 (-0.18 to 0.19) for mOS-, HR PFS-, mPFS-, and RR-derived CBS, respectively, and mean absolute errors were 11.32, 12.34, 40.40, and 18.63, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the ASCO-VF algorithm, HR PFS-, mPFS-, and RR-derived CBS are suboptimal surrogates, because they were shown to be biased and poorly correlated to HR OS-derived CBS. Despite lower weighting than OS in the ASCO-VF algorithm, PFS still overestimated CBS. Simple rescaling of surrogate endpoints may not improve their validity within the ASCO-VF given their poor correlations with HR OS-derived CBS.

CAR-T therapy and historical trends in effectiveness and cost–effectiveness of oncology treatments

Aim: This study examines how chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy’s incremental effectiveness and cost–effectiveness profile fits into the recent history of anticancer treatments. Materials & methods: We conducted graphical and multivariable analyses using data from the Cost–Effectiveness Analysis Registry of the Tufts Medical Center and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s analysis of CAR-T therapies. We collected additional information including the US FDA approval years for pharmacologic innovations. Results: CAR-T provided 5.03 (95% CI: 3.88–6.18) more incremental quality-adjusted life-years than the average pharmaceutical intervention and 4.61 (95% CI: 1.67–7.56) more than the average nonpharmaceutical intervention, while retaining similar cost–effectiveness. There was evidence of worsening cost–effectiveness by approval year for pharmaceutical interventions. Limitations: Analysis is limited to anticancer treatments studied in cost–utility analyses, estimated to cover approximately 60% of FDA-approved antineoplastic agents. Conclusion: CAR-T therapy breaks a pattern of stagnant efficacy growth in pharmaceutical innovation and demonstrates significantly greater incremental effectiveness and similar cost–effectiveness to prior innovations.

Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices before approval

Fewer than half of new drugs have data on their comparative benefits and harms against existing treatment options at the time of regulatory approval in Europe and the USA. Even when active-comparator trials exist, they might not produce meaningful data to inform decisions in clinical practice and health policy. The uncertainty associated with the paucity of well designed active-comparator trials has been compounded by legal and regulatory changes in Europe and the USA that have created a complex mix of expedited programmes aimed at facilitating faster access to new drugs. Comparative evidence generation is even sparser for medical devices. Some have argued that the current process for regulatory approval needs to generate more evidence that is useful for patients, clinicians, and payers in health-care systems. We propose a set of five key principles relevant to the European Medicines Agency, European medical device regulatory agencies, US Food and Drug Administration, as well as payers, that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device companies to generate comparative data on drugs and devices and assure timely availability of evidence that is useful for decision making. First, labelling should routinely inform patients and clinicians whether comparative data exist on new products. Second, regulators should be more selective in their use of programmes that facilitate drug and device approvals on the basis of incomplete benefit and harm data. Third, regulators should encourage the conduct of randomised trials with active comparators. Fourth, regulators should use prospectively designed network meta-analyses based on existing and future randomised trials. Last, payers should use their policy levers and negotiating power to incentivise the generation of comparative evidence on new and existing drugs and devices, for example, by explicitly considering proven added benefit in pricing and payment decisions.

Quantifying the Survival Benefits of Oncology Drugs With a Focus on Immunotherapy Using Restricted Mean Survival Time

Background: Restricted mean survival time (RMST) overcomes limitations of current measures of survival benefits because it directly captures information of the entire area under Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Using RMST difference (absolute survival benefit) and RMST ratio (relative survival benefit), we quantified the magnitude of survival benefits of recent oncology drugs and compared immunotherapies with nonimmunotherapies. Methods: Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted from phase II/III randomized controlled trials used by the FDA for oncology drug approvals from January 2011 through November 2017 with overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) as primary endpoints. RMST differences, ratios, and their 95% confidence intervals were meta-analyzed to estimate absolute and relative survival benefits of contemporary oncology drugs and to compare immunotherapies with nonimmunotherapies. Meta-regression was conducted to adjust for potential confounders. Results: Ninety-four trials with a total of 51,639 patients were included. Overall absolute survival benefits (RMST differences) were 1.55 months for OS (95% CI, 1.32–1.77) and 2.99 months for PFS (95% CI, 2.65–3.33). Overall relative survival benefits (RMST ratios) were 1.11 for OS (95% CI, 1.09–1.13) and 1.42 for PFS (95% CI, 1.36–1.48). Immunotherapy absolute PFS benefit was less than that of nonimmunotherapy (1.56 vs 3.23 months), whereas immunotherapy absolute OS benefit was larger than that of nonimmunotherapy by 0.59 months (2.02 vs 1.43 months). Adjusted OS RMST difference was 0.91 months greater for immunotherapy than for nonimmunotherapy after adjusting for confounders. Conclusions: Absolute survival benefits of recent oncology drugs are modest. Survival benefits of immunotherapies are not dramatically superior to those of nonimmunotherapies. Routine reporting and use of RMST may help patients, physicians, and payers make more informed and responsible decisions regarding the care of patients with cancer.

Arctigenin, a novel TMEM16A inhibitor for lung adenocarcinoma therapy

TMEM16A plays critical roles in physiological process and may serve as drug targets for diverse diseases. Recently, TMEM16A has started to be regarded as potential primary lung adenocarcinoma targets. Here, we identified that arctigenin, a natural compound, is a novel TMEM16A inhibitor, and it can suppress lung adenocarcinoma growth through inhibiting TMEM16A both in vitro and in vivo. Our data also showed that the IC₅₀ of actigenin to TMEM16A whole-cell current was 19.29 ± 4.69 μM, and the putative binding sites of arctigenin in TMEM16A were R515 and R535. Arctigenin concentration-dependently inhibited the proliferation and migration of LA795, however, the inhibition effect can be abolished by knockdown of the endogenous TMEM16A with shRNA. Further, we injected arctigenin on xenograft mouse model which exhibited significant antitumor activity with no adverse effect. At last, western blotting results showed the mechanism of arctigenin inhibiting lung adenocarcinoma was through inhibiting MAPK pathway. In summary, TMEM16A is a novel drug target for lung adenocarcinoma treatment. Arctigenin can be used as a lead compound for the development of lung adenocarcinoma therapy drugs.