Spending on Antineoplastic Agents in the United States, 2011 to 2016

Unlocking hidden potential: advancements, approaches, and obstacles in repurposing drugs for cancer therapy

High rates of failure, exorbitant costs, and the sluggish pace of new drug discovery and development have led to a growing interest in repurposing "old" drugs to treat both common and rare diseases, particularly cancer. Cancer, a complex and heterogeneous disease, often necessitates a combination of different treatment modalities to achieve optimal outcomes. The intrinsic polygenicity of cancer, intricate biological signalling networks, and feedback loops make the inhibition of a single target frequently insufficient for achieving the desired therapeutic impact. As a result, addressing these complex or "smart" malignancies demands equally sophisticated treatment strategies. Combinatory treatments that target the multifaceted oncogenic signalling network hold immense promise. Repurposed drugs offer a potential solution to this challenge, harnessing known compounds for new indications. By avoiding the prohibitive costs and long development timelines associated with novel cancer drugs, this approach holds the potential to usher in more effective, efficient, and cost-effective cancer treatments. The pursuit of combinatory therapies through drug repurposing may hold the key to achieving superior outcomes for cancer patients. However, drug repurposing faces significant commercial, technological and regulatory challenges that need to be addressed. This review explores the diverse approaches employed in drug repurposing, delves into the challenges faced by the drug repurposing community, and presents innovative solutions to overcome these obstacles. By emphasising the significance of combinatory treatments within the context of drug repurposing, we aim to unlock the full potential of this approach for enhancing cancer therapy. The positive aspects of drug repurposing in oncology are underscored here; encompassing personalized treatment, accelerated development, market opportunities for shelved drugs, cancer prevention, expanded patient reach, improved patient access, multi-partner collaborations, increased likelihood of approval, reduced costs, and enhanced combination therapy.

Evaluating drug stability and sterility in single-dose vials when accessed with a closed system transfer device

Background

Impact of drug wastage is a legitimate and persistent concern. Financial impact of drug waste is borne by the hospital network, patients, and healthcare systems. Measures to reduce drug wastage may have a positive impact throughout healthcare systems.

Objective

This study investigated the stability and sterility of single-dose vials when repeatedly accessed with a closed system transfer device. By evaluating the sterility and stability, these results may be used to validate the extension of vial usage and lead to potential drug wastage reduction.

Methods

Sterility testing was performed in accordance with US Pharmacopeia 71. A closed system transfer device was incorporated into simulated compounding tasks, utilizing growth media. Simulated compounding tasks were performed in the clinical environment, followed by incubation to stimulate growth. Stability testing was performed in accordance with US Pharmacopeia monographs at multiple timepoints post access. Test samples were comparatively tested via high-performance liquid chromatography to freshly opened vials at each timepoint.

Results

No growth was observed in test samples. Control vials displayed growth, where appropriate. The drugs retained stability, when compared to freshly opened vials at 0, 24, 48, and 72 h, post access.

Conclusions

This study confirms that closed system transfer devices do not contribute to microbial contamination of drug vials, following the repeated access, for up to 7 days and the tested drugs retained equivalent chemical stability for up to 72 h post access. This study may offer a manner by which a facility may assess single-dose vials' sterility and stability, following repeated access by a closed system transfer device.

Transitioning ifosfamide chemotherapy regimens to the ambulatory setting: reviewing cost savings and safety profile

PURPOSE

To characterize and compare both the outcome and cost of treatment of outpatient (OP) and inpatient (IP) ifosfamide therapy.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective chart review of patients 18 years and older receiving ifosfamide therapy. The primary endpoint compares and evaluates the side effect profiles of ifosfamide-treated patients in the OP/IP settings. The adverse event grading system was characterized using the CTCAE Version 5.0. The highest grade was documented per cycle. The secondary endpoint of this study compares the costs of OP/IP therapy. It was assumed that the cost of medication was equivalent for IP/OP treatments. The cost saved with OP administration was determined by the average cost of hospital stay for IP admission.

RESULTS

Ifosfamide therapy of 86 patients (57 OP, 29 IP) was reviewed. The predominant OP regimens were doxorobucin-ifosfamide-mesna (AIM) with 43.9% and ifosfamide-etoposide (IE) with 29.8%. Grade 4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were most frequent in IP vs OP therapies (22.9% IP vs 4.3% OP, 21.6% IP vs 9.2% OP, and 22.8% IP vs 19.6% OP respectively). Neutropenic fever (NF) occurred in 20 OP patients which were predominantly treated with AIM or IE and led to average hospital stay of 6 days. Neurotoxicity, treated with methylene blue (MB) occurred in 4 OP patients. OP therapy saved a total of 783 hospital days, leading to a cost savings of $2,103,921.

CONCLUSIONS

Transitioning ifosfamide to the OP setting is feasible for academic and community infusion centers with the OP administration being safe, well-tolerated, and associated with decreased total cost of care. The current processes allow for safe transition of chemotherapy of chemotherapy under times of COVID.

Assessment of Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Outpatients Taking Oral Anticancer Drugs Included in the Real-Life Oncoral Program

Simple Summary

Patients receiving oral anticancer agents (OAAs) have a substantial symptom burden. Given the trend toward patient-centered care, the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) seems appropriate to secure medication management, and to improve clinical decision-making. The aim of this study was to assess symptoms potentially related to adverse events experienced by cancer outpatients treated by OAAs using PROs. In total, 407 questionnaires were completed by 63 patients, in which 2333 symptoms were reported. Almost three-quarters (74.6%) reported at least one high-level symptom. The symptoms most commonly experienced were fatigue, various psychological disorders and general pain. This initiative is the first step in the implementation of symptom assessment by PROs in patients treated by OAAs. The results highlight the need for close coordination between community and hospital health professionals, and the integration of patient self-reporting systems in oncologic clinical practice.

Abstract

Background In previous studies, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been shown to improve survival in cancer patients. The aim of the present study was to assess symptoms potentially related to adverse events experienced by cancer outpatients treated by oral anticancer agents (OAAs) using PROs. Methods Between September 2018 and May 2019, outpatients starting OAAs were included in a 12-week follow-up to assess 15 symptoms listed in the National Cancer Institute PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, using a 5-point scale of severity or frequency. Patients were requested to alert a referral nurse or pharmacist when they self-assessed high-level (level 3 or 4) symptoms. Results 407 questionnaires were completed by 63 patients in which 2333 symptoms were reported. Almost three-quarters (74.6%) reported at least one high-level symptom. The symptoms that were most commonly experienced were fatigue (>9 in 10 patients; 13.2% of symptoms declared), various psychological disorders (>9 in 10 patients; 28.6% of symptoms declared) and general pain (>8 in 10 patients; 9.4% of symptoms declared). Conclusion PROs are appropriate to detect potential adverse events in cancer outpatients treated by OAAs. This study is the first step for integrating the patient’s perspective in a digital e-health device in routine oncology care.

Real-world Use of and Spending on New Oral Targeted Cancer Drugs in the US, 2011-2018

Importance

Launch prices of new cancer drugs in the US have substantially increased in recent years despite growing concerns about the quantity and quality of evidence supporting their approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Objective

To assess the use of and spending on new oral targeted cancer drugs among US residents with employer-sponsored insurance between 2011 and 2018, stratified by the strength of available evidence of benefit.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, dispensing claims for oral targeted cancer drugs first approved by the FDA between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were analyzed. The number of patients with drugs dispensed and the total payment for all claims were aggregated by calendar year, and these outcomes were arrayed according to evidence underlying FDA approvals, including pivotal study design (availability of randomized clinical trials) and overall survival (OS) benefit, as documented in drug labels. This study was conducted from July 17, 2019, to July 23, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Annual and cumulative numbers of patients who had dispensing events, and annual and cumulative sums of payment for eligible drugs.

Results

Of 37 348 patients who had at least 1 of the 44 new oral targeted drugs dispensed between 2011 and 2018, 21 324 were men (57.1%); mean (SD) age was 64.1 (13.1) years. Most individuals (36 246 [97.0%]) received drugs for which evidence from randomized clinical trials existed; however, a growing share of patients received drugs without documented OS benefit during the study period: from 12.7% in 2011 to 58.8% in 2018. Cumulative spending on all sample drugs totaled $3.5 billion by the end of 2018, of which 96.8% was spent on drugs that were approved based on a pivotal randomized clinical trial. Cumulative spending on drugs without documented OS benefit ($1.8 billion [51.6%]) surpassed that on drugs with documented OS benefit ($1.7 billion [48.4%]) by the end of 2018.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that drugs used for treatment of cancer without documented OS benefits are adopted in the health system and account for substantial spending.

Estimating the Theoretical Cost Implications of Funding New Drugs Considered Not to Be Cost-Effective

This study aims to estimate the theoretical excess expenditure that would be incurred by the Irish state-payer, should drugs be reimbursed at their original asking ("list") price rather than at a price at which the drug is considered cost-effective. In Ireland, all new drugs are evaluated by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics. For this study, drugs that were submitted by pharmaceutical companies from 2012 to 2017 and considered not cost-effective at list price were reviewed. A total of 43 such drugs met our inclusion criteria, and their pharmacoeconomic evaluations were further assessed. The price at which the drug could be considered cost-effective (cost-effective price) at the upper cost-effectiveness threshold used in Ireland (€ 45 000/quality adjusted life-year) was estimated for 18 drugs with an available cost-effectiveness model. Then, for each drug, the list price and cost-effective price (both per unit) were both individually applied to 1 year of national real-world drug utilization data. This allowed the estimation of the expected expenditures under the assumptions of list price paid and cost-effective price paid. The resulting theoretical excess expenditure, the expenditure at list price minus the expenditure at the cost-effective price, was estimated to be €108.2 million. This estimate is theoretical because of the confidentiality of actual drug prices. The estimation is calculated using the list price and likely overestimates the actual excess expenditure, which would reduce to zero if cost-effective prices are agreed. Nevertheless, this estimate illustrates the importance of a process to assess the value of new drugs so that potential excess drug expenditure is identified.

Return to work following laparoscopic-assisted resection or open resection for rectal cancer: Findings from AlaCaRT-Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial

BACKGROUND

Maintaining employment for adults with cancer is important, however, little is known about the impact of surgery for rectal cancer on an individual's capacity to return to work (RTW). This study aimed to determine the impact of laparoscopic vs. open resection on RTW at 12 months.

METHODS

Analyses were undertaken among participants randomized in the Australian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT), with work status available at baseline (presurgery), and 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics estimated the effect of surgery on RTW in any capacity, or return to preoperative work status at 12 months.

RESULTS

About 228 of 449 (51%) surviving trial participants at 12 months completed work status questionnaires; mean age was 62 years, 66% males, 117 of these received laparoscopic resection (51%). Of 228, 120 were employed at baseline (90 full-time, 30 part-time). Overall RTW in 120 participants in paid work at baseline was 78% (84% laparoscopic, 70% open surgery). Those employed full-time were more likely to RTW at 12 months (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.02-12.31). Those with distant metastases at baseline were less likely to RTW (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, <0.01-0.83). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a higher rate of RTW but did not reach statistical significance (OR 2.88; 95% CI, 0.95-8.76).

CONCLUSIONS

Full-time work presurgery and the presence of metastatic disease predicts RTW status at 12 months. A laparoscopic-assisted surgical approach to rectal cancer may facilitate more patients to RTW, however, larger sample sizes are likely needed to confirm this result.