Trajectories of Injectable Cancer Drug Costs After Launch in the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 319-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noa Gordon ◽  
Salomon M. Stemmer ◽  
Dan Greenberg ◽  
Daniel A. Goldstein
Keyword(s):  
Drug Administration ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Drug Costs ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Steady Increase ◽  
Drug Prices ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Over Time

Purpose Cancer drug prices at launch have increased in recent years. It is unclear how individual drug prices change over time after launch and what market determinants influence these changes. We measured the price trajectories of a cohort of cancer drugs after their launch into the US market and assessed the influence of market structure on price changes. Methods We studied the changes in mean monthly costs for a cohort of 24 patented, injectable anticancer drugs that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between 1996 and 2012. To account for discounts and rebates, we used the average sales prices published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Costs were adjusted to US general and health-related inflation rates. For each drug, we calculated the cumulative and annual drug cost changes. We then used a multivariable regression model to evaluate the association between market and cost changes over time. Results With a mean follow-up period of 8 years, the mean percent change in cost for all drugs was +25% (range, −14% to +96%). After adjusting for inflation, the mean cost change was +18% (range, −16% to +59%). Rituximab and trastuzumab followed a similar pattern in cost increases over time, and the inflation-adjusted monthly costs rose since approval by 49% and 44%, respectively. New supplemental US Food and Drug Administration approvals, new off-label indications, and new competitors did not influence the annual cost change rates. Conclusion Anticancer drug costs may change substantially after launch. Regardless of competition or supplemental indications, there is a steady increase in costs of patented anticancer agents over time. New regulations may be needed to prevent additional increases in drug costs after launch.

Clinical benefit and prices of cancer drugs in the United States and Europe.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6638-6638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin Noëlle Vokinger ◽  
Thomas J Hwang ◽  
Ariadna Tibau Martorell ◽  
Thomas J Rosemann ◽  
Aaron S Kesselheim
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
The United States ◽  
Drug Costs ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Drug Prices ◽  
The Us

6638 Background: Given rising cancer drug costs, Medicare recently proposed to tie some US drug prices to average prices paid by comparable countries. To understand the potential scope of this policy, we assessed differences in cancer drug prices in the US and selected European countries. We also evaluated the correlation between drug prices and their clinical benefit, as measured by two value frameworks: the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework v2 (ASCO VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale v1.1 (ESMO-MCBS). Methods: We identified all new drugs for adult solid and hematologic cancers, approved by the FDA from 2009-2017 and that have also been approved by the EMA by December 31, 2018. US average sales prices (and if not available, wholesale acquisition costs) were extracted as of February 1, 2019, and compared to comparable currency-adjusted ex-factory drug costs in England, France, Germany, and Switzerland. ASCO VF and ESMO-MCBS scores were assessed for pivotal trials supporting solid tumor drugs; in case of multiple trials, we focused on the highest score. Consistent with the developers of the rating scales, “high benefit” was defined as scores of A-B (neo/adjuvant setting) and 4-5 (palliative setting) on the ESMO-MCBS scale and scores≥45 on the ASCO VF. Linear regression models and non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test and were used to assess the association between drug prices and benefit scores. Results: The study cohort included 63 drugs approved by the FDA and the EMA during the study period. 46 (73%) were approved for solid tumors, and 17 (27%) were approved for hematologic malignancies. Overall, median cancer drug prices in included European countries were 52% (interquartile range: 37-72%) lower than US prices. There was no statistically significant association between monthly treatment cost and ASCO-VF or ESMO-MCBS scores in any country. There was also no association between price differential between US and median European drug prices and either ASCO-VF (P = 0.599) or ESMO-MBCS (P = 0.321) scores. Conclusions: Cancer drug prices in the US were significantly higher than in the compared European countries. Drug prices of cancer drugs were not associated with clinical benefit in the US or in European countries.

Launch prices and price developments of cancer drugs in the United States and Europe.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2006-2006
Author(s):  
Kerstin Noëlle Vokinger ◽  
Paola Daniore ◽  
ChangWon C Lee ◽  
Aaron S Kesselheim ◽  
Thomas J Hwang
Keyword(s):  
Solid Tumors ◽  
The United States ◽  
Treatment Costs ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Price Changes ◽  
Drug Prices ◽  
The Us ◽  
Over Time

2006 Background: Cancer drug costs are rising in the US and Europe. While drug manufacturers set prices without restriction in the US, European countries have regulations that allow national authorities to directly negotiate drug prices at launch and over time. We analyzed and compared the launch prices and price developments of cancer drugs in the US, Germany, Switzerland and England. Methods: We identified new drugs indicated to treat solid tumors in adults that were FDA-approved between 2009 and 2019 and had also been approved by the EMA and Swissmedic by 31 December 2019. Launch prices and post-launch price changes as of 1 January 2020 were extracted and adjusted to average sales prices for monthly treatment costs in the US and compared to comparable currency-adjusted ex-factory monthly treatment costs in Germany, Switzerland, and England. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted to infer yearly trends in launch prices and post-launch price changes across the countries. Results: The study cohort included 42 drugs for solid tumors, of which 40 (95%) drugs were first approved in the US compared to Germany and England, and 41 (98%) to Switzerland. Average launch prices for monthly treatment costs per patient were $15,178 in the US vs $7,049 in Germany, $7,421 in Switzerland and $8,176 in England, i.e., 215% (interquartile range [IQR] 263%-187%), 205% (IQR 202%-185%) and 186% (IQR 166%-189%) higher in the US compared to Germany, Switzerland and England respectively. Post-launch prices of 36 (86%), 40 (95%), and 38 (90%) drugs decreased over time with total savings of monthly treatment costs for all drugs in the study cohort of $86,744, $44,936, and $1744 in Germany, Switzerland, and England respectively. By contrast, prices of 8 (19%) drugs decreased, while 34 (81%) increased post-launch in the US with total additional expenses of $128,192 for monthly treatment costs. Conclusions: Launch prices for cancer drugs are far higher in the US than in Germany, Switzerland, or England. These price disparities continue to increase substantially after market entry since cancer drug prices, in general, decrease over time in Europe and increase in the US. Spending on cancer drugs could be reduced in the US if it adopted the principles used to more effectively negotiate drug prices in Europe.

scholarly journals Should Graphic Warning Labels Proposed for Cigarette Packages Sold in the United States Mention the Food and Drug Administration?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mia Jovanova ◽  
Chris Skurka ◽  
Sahara Byrne ◽  
Motasem Kalaji ◽  
Amelia Greiner Safi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Middle School ◽  
Tobacco Control ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Source Credibility ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Smoking Prevention ◽  
Warning Labels ◽  
The Us ◽  
Graphic Warning

Abstract Introduction Under the US Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to implement graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette packages. Neither the original labels proposed by the FDA nor the revised labels include a source to indicate sponsorship of the warnings. This study tests the potential impact of adding a sponsor to the content of GWLs. Methods We recruited adult smokers (N = 245) and middle-school youth (N = 242) from low-income areas in the Northeastern US. We randomly assigned participants to view one of three versions of the original FDA–proposed warning labels in a between-subjects experiment: no sponsor, “US Food and Drug Administration,” or “American Cancer Society” sponsor. We tested the effect of varying sponsorship on source attribution and source credibility. Results Compared to unsponsored labels, FDA sponsorship increased source attributions that the FDA sponsored the labels among both middle-school, largely nonsmoking youth and adult smokers. However, sponsorship had no effect on source credibility among either population. Conclusions We found no evidence that adding FDA as the source is likely to boost source credibility judgments, at least in the short term; though doing so would not appear to have adverse effects on credibility judgments. As such, our data are largely consistent with the Tobacco Control Act’s provisions that allow, but do not require, FDA sponsorship on the labels. Implications This study addresses the FDA’s regulatory efforts by informing the possible design and content of future cigarette warning labels. Our results do not offer compelling evidence that adding the FDA name on GWLs will directly increase source credibility. Future work may test more explicit FDA source labeling and continue to examine the credibility of tobacco message content among high–priority populations.

Enrollment of Elderly Patients in Clinical Trials for Cancer Drug Registration: A 7-Year Experience by the US Food and Drug Administration

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (22) ◽  
pp. 4626-4631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lilia Talarico ◽  
Gang Chen ◽  
Richard Pazdur
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Cancer Therapies ◽  
Age Related ◽  
The Us

Purpose To analyze the age-related enrollment of cancer patients onto registration trials of new drugs or new indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 1995 to 2002. Patients and Methods This study involved retrospective analyses of demographic data of cancer patients enrolled onto registration trials. The data on 28,766 cancer patients from 55 registration trials were analyzed according to age distributions of ≥ 65, ≥ 70, and ≥ 75 years. The rates of enrollment in each age group for each cancer were compared with the corresponding rates in the US cancer population. The age distributions of the US cancer population were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute for the period 1995 to 1999 based on the 2000 US Census. Results The proportions of the overall patient populations aged ≥ 65, ≥ 70, and ≥ 75 years were 36%, 20%, and 9% compared with 60%, 46%, and 31%, respectively, in the US cancer population. Statistically significant under-representation of the elderly (P < .001) was noted in registration trials for all cancer treatment except for breast cancer hormonal therapies. Patients aged ≥ 70 years accounted for most of the under-representation. Conclusion Elderly were under-represented in the registration trials of new cancer therapies. Various strategies may be needed to evaluate cancer therapies for the elderly in prospective clinical trials and to improve cancer care in the elderly population.

scholarly journals Food and Drug Administration guidances on biosimilars: an update for the gastroenterologist

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175628481879960 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Epstein
Keyword(s):  
Drug Administration ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Biologic Therapies ◽  
Tnf Α ◽  
The Us ◽  
Guidance Documents ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
Factor Α ◽  
Necrosis Factor

The management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a significant cause of morbidity in the United States (US), has been revolutionized over the last two decades by the introduction of biologic therapies. These include antitumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) agents. Since 2016, five biosimilar TNF-α inhibitors have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the treatment of IBD. The FDA has published a series of guidance documents related to the evaluation, licensing, and approval of biosimilars. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of these FDA guidances and the issues associated with biosimilars in the US.

scholarly journals US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Whole Slide Imaging for Primary Diagnosis: A Key Milestone Is Reached and New Questions Are Raised

2018 ◽  
Vol 142 (11) ◽  
pp. 1383-1387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Evans ◽  
Thomas W. Bauer ◽  
Marilyn M. Bui ◽  
Toby C. Cornish ◽  
Helena Duncan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Digital Pathology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Clinical Applications ◽  
Whole Slide Imaging ◽  
The Us ◽  
Available Information

April 12, 2017 marked a significant day in the evolution of digital pathology in the United States, when the US Food and Drug Administration announced its approval of the Philips IntelliSite Pathology Solution for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology. Although this event is expected to facilitate more widespread adoption of whole slide imaging for clinical applications in the United States, it also raises a number of questions as to the means by which pathologists might choose to incorporate this technology into their clinical practice. This article from the College of American Pathologists Digital Pathology Committee reviews frequently asked questions on this topic and provides answers based on currently available information.

scholarly journals Characteristics and conflicts of interest at Food and Drug Administration Gastrointestinal Drug Advisory Committee meetings

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. e0252155
Author(s):  
Rishad Khan ◽  
Karam Elsolh ◽  
Nikko Gimpaya ◽  
Michael A. Scaffidi ◽  
Rishi Bansal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Drug Application ◽  
The United States ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Drug Advisory Committee ◽  
Univariate Analyses ◽  
Over Time

Introduction The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Gastrointestinal Drug Advisory Committee (GIDAC) is involved in gastrointestinal drug application reviews. Characteristics and conflicts of interest (COI) in GIDAC meetings are not well described. This study analyzed FDA GIDAC meetings and characteristics that predict recommendations. Methods In this cross-sectional study, all publicly available GIDAC meetings where proposed medications were voted on were included. Data were collected regarding indications, medication sponsor, primary efficacy studies, and voting member characteristics (e.g. committee membership, COI). Univariate analyses were conducted at per-meeting and per-vote levels to assess for predictors of committee recommendation and individual votes respectively. Results Thirty-four meetings with 476 individual votes from 1998–2018 were included. Twenty-three (68%) proposals were recommended for approval and 25 (74%) received FDA approval. Most proposals involved >1 primary study (n = 27, 79%). At least one voting member had a COI in 24 (71%) of 34 meetings. Twelve (35%) meetings had at least one sponsor COI. Among 476 individual votes, 74 (15.5%) involved a COI, with 33 (6.9%) sponsor COI. COI decreased significantly over time, with fewer COI in 2006–2010, 2011–2015, and 2016–2020 compared to 1996–2000 and 2001–2005 (p<0.01). There were no significant associations between pre-defined predictors, including COI, and committee level recommendations or individual votes (p>0.05 for all univariate analyses). Conclusions The GIDAC reviewed 34 proposals from 1998–2018. The majority were recommended for approval and later approved by the FDA, highlighting the GIDAC’s prominence in the regulatory process. COI are present among GIDAC panelists but decreasing over time and not associated with recommendations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document