Industry Perspectives on Market Access of Innovative Drugs: The Relevance for Oncology Drugs

Targeted combination therapies in oncology: challenging regulatory frameworks designed for monotherapies in Europe

The pharmaceutical value chain, including clinical trials, pricing, access, and reimbursement, is designed for classical monotherapies. Although there has been a paradigm shift that increases the relevance of targeted combination therapies (TCTs), regulation and common practice have been slow to adapt. We explored access to 23 TCTs for advanced melanoma and lung cancer as reported by 19 specialists from 17 leading cancer institutions in nine European countries. We find heterogeneous patient access to TCTs between countries, differences in country-specific regulations, and differences in the clinical practice of melanoma and lung cancer. Regulation that is better tailored to the context of combinational therapies can increase equity in access across Europe and promote an evidence-based and authorized use of combinations.

Reimbursement Lag of New Drugs Under Taiwan's National Health Insurance System Compared With United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea

Drug lag—delayed approval or reimbursement—is a major barrier to accessing cutting‐edge drugs. Unlike approval lag, reimbursement lag is under‐researched. We investigated the key determinants of reimbursement lag under Taiwan National Health Insurance (NHI), and compared this lag with those in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea. Using retrospective data on 190 new NHI‐reimbursed drugs from 2007 to 2014, we studied reimbursement lag in Taiwan vs. other countries, and investigated associated factors using generalized linear models (GLMs). The median reimbursement lags during before (“first‐generation”) and after (“second‐generation”) NHI drug reimbursement scheme in Taiwan were 378 and 458 days, respectively. The “first‐generation” lag was shorter only than that in South Korea, whereas the “second‐generation” lag only exceeded those of the United Kingdom and Japan. In GLM models, higher drug expenditure and the introduction of the “second‐generation” NHI were two statistically significant parameters associated with reimbursement lag among antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents. For other drug classes, the reimbursement price proposed by pharmaceutical companies and use of price‐volume agreements were two statistically significant parameters associated with longer reimbursement lags. The current reimbursement lag in Taiwan is longer than 1 year, but only longer than those of the United Kingdom and Japan. The determinants differ between drug categories. A specific review process for antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs may expedite reimbursement. There is a clear need for systematic data collection and analysis to ascertain factors associated with reimbursement lag and thereby inform future policy making.

Comparison of Sales Income and Research and Development Costs for FDA-Approved Cancer Drugs Sold by Originator Drug Companies

IMPORTANCE

High costs and risks of research and development (R&D) have been used to justify the high prices of cancer drugs. However, what the return on R&D investment is, and by extension what a justifiable price might be, is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To compare incomes from the sales of cancer drugs with the estimated R&D costs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This observational study used global pharmaceutical industry sales data to quantify the cumulative incomes generated from the sales of cancer drugs for companies that have held patents or marketing rights (originator companies). All cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 1989 to 2017 were identified from the United States Food and Drug Administration's website and literature. Itemized product sales data were extracted from the originator companies' consolidated financial reports. For drugs with data missing in specific years, additional data was sought from other public sources, or where necessary, estimated values from known reported values. Drugs were excluded if there were missing data for half or more of the years since approval. Data analysis was conducted from May 2018 to October 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Sales data were expressed in 2017 US dollars with adjustments for inflation. Cumulative incomes from the sales of these drugs were compared against the R&D costs estimated in the literature, which had been adjusted for the costs of capital and trial failure (risk adjusted).

RESULTS

Of the 156 US Food and Drug Administration-approved cancer drugs identified, 99 drugs (63.5%) had data for more than half of the years since approval and were included in the analysis. There was a median of 10 years (range, 1-28 years) of sales data with 1040 data points, 79 (7.6%) of which were estimated. Compared with the total risk-adjusted R&D cost of $794 million (range, $2827-$219 million) per medicine estimated in the literature, by the end of 2017, the median cumulative sales income was $14.50 (range, $3.30-$55.10) per dollar invested for R&D. Median time to fully recover the maximum possible risk-adjusted cost of R&D ($2827 million) was 5 years (range, 2-10 years; n = 56). Cancer drugs continued to generate billion-dollar returns for the originator companies after the end-of-market exclusivity, particularly for biologics.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Cancer drugs, through high prices, have generated returns for the originator companies far in excess of possible R&D costs. Lowering prices of cancer drugs and facilitating greater competition are essential for improving patient access, health system's financial sustainability, and future innovation.

Managed Entry Agreements for Oncology Drugs: Lessons from the European Experience to Inform the Future

Objectives: The aim of this study is to conduct an analysis on the regulation and application of managed entry agreements (MEA) for oncology drugs across different European countries. Methods: Literature search and document analysis were performed between September 2015 and June 2016 to collect information on the regulatory framework and practice of MEA in Belgium, The Netherlands, Scotland, England and Wales, Sweden, Italy, Czech Republic and France. An overview of the content and typology of MEA applied for oncology drugs between 2008 and 2015 was generated based on publically available sources and contributions by national health authorities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of national health authorities involved in the management or negotiation of MEA. Results: The application of MEA differs across countries and across different indications for the same drug. Financial based agreements are prevailing due to their simplicity compared to performance-based agreements. Performance-based agreements are less commonly applied in the European countries except for Italy. In the Netherlands, application of performance-based agreements was stopped due to their inability to deal with dynamics in the market, which is highly relevant for oncology drugs. Conclusions: MEA constitute a common policy tool that public payers in European countries use to ensure early access to highly priced oncology drugs. In light of strengths and weaknesses observed for MEA and the expected developments in the oncology area, the importance of MEA is likely to grow in the future.

Managed Entry Agreements for Oncology Drugs: Lessons from the European Experience to Inform the Future

Objectives: The aim of this study is to conduct an analysis on the regulation and application of managed entry agreements (MEA) for oncology drugs across different European countries. Methods: Literature search and document analysis were performed between September 2015 and June 2016 to collect information on the regulatory framework and practice of MEA in Belgium, The Netherlands, Scotland, England and Wales, Sweden, Italy, Czech Republic and France. An overview of the content and typology of MEA applied for oncology drugs between 2008 and 2015 was generated based on publically available sources and contributions by national health authorities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of national health authorities involved in the management or negotiation of MEA. Results: The application of MEA differs across countries and across different indications for the same drug. Financial based agreements are prevailing due to their simplicity compared to performance-based agreements. Performance-based agreements are less commonly applied in the European countries except for Italy. In the Netherlands, application of performance-based agreements was stopped due to their inability to deal with dynamics in the market, which is highly relevant for oncology drugs. Conclusions: MEA constitute a common policy tool that public payers in European countries use to ensure early access to highly priced oncology drugs. In light of strengths and weaknesses observed for MEA and the expected developments in the oncology area, the importance of MEA is likely to grow in the future.