Correlation between clinical trial endpoints of marketed cancer drugs and reimbursement decisions in China

Price negotiation and pricing of anticancer drugs in China: An observational study

BACKGROUND

While China has implemented reimbursement-linked drug price negotiation annually since 2017, emphasizing value-based pricing to achieve a value-based strategic purchase of medical insurance, whether drug prices became better aligned with clinical value after price negotiation has not been sufficiently established. This study aimed to assess the changes in prices and their relationship with the clinical value of anticancer drugs after the implementation of price negotiations in China.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this observational study, anticancer drug indications that were negotiated successfully between 2017 and 2022 were identified through National Reimbursement Drug Lists (NRDL) of China. We excluded extensions of indications for drugs already listed in the NRDL, indications for pediatric use, and indications lacking corresponding clinical trials. We identified pivotal clinical trials for included indications by consulting review reports or drug labels issued by the Center for Drug Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration. We calculated treatment costs as outcome measures based on publicly available prices and collected data on clinical value including safety, survival, quality of life, and overall response rate (ORR) from publications of pivotal clinical trials. The associations between drug costs and clinical value, both before and after negotiation, were analyzed using regression analyses. We also examined whether price negotiation has led to a reduction in the variation of treatment costs for a given value. We included 103 anticancer drug indications, primarily for the treatment of blood cancer, lung cancer, and breast cancer, with 76 supported by randomized controlled trials and 27 supported by single-arm clinical trials. The median treatment costs over the entire sample have been reduced from US$34,460.72 (interquartile range (IQR): 19,990.49 to 55,441.66) to US$13,688.79 (IQR: 7,746.97 to 21,750.97) after price negotiation (P < 0.001). Before price negotiation, each additional month of survival gained was associated with an increase in treatment costs of 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) [2.1, 4.8], P < 0.001) for indications supported by randomized controlled trials, and a 10% increase in ORR was associated with a 6.0% (95% CI [1.6, 10.3], P = 0.009) increase in treatment costs for indications supported by single-arm clinical trials. After price negotiation, the associations between costs and clinical value may not have changed significantly, but the variation of drug costs for a given value was reduced. Study limitations include the lack of transparency in official data, missing data on clinical value, and a limited sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that the implementation of price negotiation in China has led to drug pricing better aligned with clinical value for anticancer drugs even after substantial price reductions. The achievements made in China could shed light on the price regulation in other countries, particularly those with limited resources and increasing drug expenditures.

The correlation between the costs and clinical benefits of national price-negotiated anticancer drugs for specific cancers in China

Background

The high costs of novel anticancer drugs have caused concern among healthcare stakeholders. To address the knowledge gap on the proportion of survival benefit with the related economic expenditure, we aimed to assess the correlation between the costs and value of innovative drugs targeted to specific tumours, before and after price negotiation policy implementation.

Methods

We identified new drugs for lung and breast cancer that entered the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) through price negotiation from 2016 to 2023. Therapeutic value consisted of traditional clinical endpoints, like the percentage improvement of overall survival (ΔOS%) and progression-free survival (ΔPFS%), and the quantified gains of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We calculated monthly drug costs and used Spearman's correlation coefficient and Cohen's kappa statistics for statistical analysis.

Results

Twenty-nine innovative price-negotiated drugs were collected between 2016 and 2023. The median monthly costs were US$3381.31 out of NRDL and US$1095.88 within NRDL, with an ΔOS% of 22.24% (IQR = 6.45-29.48) and a ΔPFS% of 83.82% (IQR = 50.41-104.05). The median ASCO-VF score was 40.98, and 17 drugs scored the meaningful benefit of ESMO-MCBS. We found no association between clinical benefits and their costs before and after NRDL, either overall or for specific cancers. The agreement between the two frameworks was stable.

Conclusions

The negotiation policy decreased medication costs, but did not generate the expected correlation between the value and costs of anticancer drugs. Comprehensive value assessments need to be performed in the future to explore more in-depth findings and promote the affordability and availability of effective anticancer drugs.

The reimbursement decision speed for oncology new drugs in China and its determinant factors

Introduction

China has initiated national price negotiations to improve access to innovative drugs. Learning the factors that contributed to the time gap from marketing authorization to reimbursement leads to more clarity to decision-making, which remains under-researched in China.

Methods

We collected new oncology drug approvals that were marketed before 30 Jun 2022, using the Listed Drug Database of the Chinese drug agency. Major information of each approval was obtained from the published review report, including the first approval region (China or the US) and the receipt of expedited review pathways (priority review and conditional approval). The reimbursement lists issued by China National Healthcare Security Administration from 2015 to 2023 were used to determine the reimbursement status of drugs. The duration from marketing authorization to reimbursement was defined as the reimbursement decision speed, and the Cox regression was performed to explore the underlying factors.

Results

A total of 186 oncology approvals were included. More than half of the approvals qualified for reimbursement (110[59.14%]), and the median reimbursement decision speed was accelerated from 540.5 days in the third-round negotiation to 448 days in the seventh-round. Domestic new drugs had a higher probability of being adopted by the Chinese payer than drugs developed by foreign companies (adjusted HR = 3.73, 95% CI 2.42 to 5.75; P < 0.001). Furthermore, new drug applications receiving the regular review pathway were more likely to be reimbursed (adjusted HR = 2.15, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.08; P = 0.020) compared to those approved under the conditional approval pathway.

Discussion

These findings indicate that the Chinese government is actively working toward improving access to new oncology drugs. The faster reimbursement decision speed for domestic drugs might be attributed to their pricing advantages and the regulator's efforts to stimulate innovation in the domestic pharmaceutical industry. However, concerns about the uncertainty in drug benefits can affect the reimbursement decision-making, which suggests the delicate tradeoff between drug accessibility and risk involved in the reimbursement process.