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.

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.

Continental Divide? The Attitudes of US and Canadian Oncologists on the Costs, Cost-Effectiveness, and Health Policies Associated With New Cancer Drugs

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (27) ◽  
pp. 4149-4153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott R. Berry ◽  
Chaim M. Bell ◽  
Peter A. Ubel ◽  
William K. Evans ◽  
Eric Nadler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
The United States ◽  
Drug Costs ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Care Systems ◽  
Effective Treatments

Purpose Oncologists in the United States and Canada work in different health care systems, but physicians in both countries face challenges posed by the rising costs of cancer drugs. We compared their attitudes regarding the costs and cost-effectiveness of medications and related health policy. Methods Survey responses of a random sample of 1,355 United States and 238 Canadian medical oncologists (all outside of Québec) were compared. Results Response rate was 59%. More US oncologists (67% v 52%; P < .001) favor access to effective treatments regardless of cost, while more Canadians favor access to effective treatments only if they are cost-effective (75% v 58%; P < .001). Most (84% US, 80% Canadian) oncologists state that patient out-of-pocket costs influence their treatment recommendations, but less than half the respondents always or frequently discuss the costs of treatments with their patients. The majority of oncologists favor more use of cost-effectiveness data in coverage decisions (80% US, 69% Canadian; P = .004), but fewer than half the oncologists in both countries feel well equipped to use cost-effectiveness information. Majorities of oncologists favor government price controls (57% US, 68% Canadian; P = .01), but less than half favor more cost-sharing by patients (29% US, 41% Canadian; P = .004). Oncologists in both countries prefer to have physicians and nonprofit agencies determine whether drugs provide good value. Conclusion Oncologists in the United States and Canada generally have similar attitudes regarding cancer drug costs, cost-effectiveness, and associated policies, despite practicing in different health care systems. The results support providing education to help oncologists in both countries use cost-effectiveness information and discuss drug costs with their patients.

scholarly journals Cancer Drugs: An International Comparison of Postlicensing Price Inflation

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. e538-e542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Savage ◽  
Sarah Mahmoud ◽  
Yogin Patel ◽  
Hagop Kantarjian
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Price Inflation ◽  
Drug Prices ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Price Increases

Purpose: The cost of cancer drugs forms a rising proportion of health care budgets worldwide. A number of studies have examined international comparisons of initial cost, but there is little work on postlicensing price increases. To examine this, we compared cancer drug prices at initial sale and subsequent price inflation in the United States and United Kingdom and also reviewed relevant price control mechanisms. Methods: The 10 top-selling cancer drugs were selected, and their prices at initial launch and in 2015 were compared. Standard nondiscounted prices were obtained from the relevant annual copies of the RED BOOK and the British National Formulary. Results: At initial marketing, prices were on average 42% higher in the United States than in the United Kingdom. After licensing in the United States, all 10 drugs had price rises averaging an overall annual 8.8% (range, 1.4% to 24.1%) increase. In comparison, in the United Kingdom, six drugs had unchanged prices, two had decreased prices, and two had modest price increases. The overall annual increase in the United Kingdom was 0.24%. Conclusion: Cancer drug prices are rising substantially, both at their initial marketing price and, in the United States, at postlicensing prices. In the United Kingdom, the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme, an agreement between the government and the pharmaceutical industry, controls health care costs while allowing a return on investment and funds for research. The increasing costs of cancer drugs are approaching the limits of sustainability, and a similar government-industry agreement may allow stability for both health care provision and the pharmaceutical industry in the United States.

OP440 Comparison Of Evidence Supporting Cancer Drug Approvals And Prices In The US And Brazil

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (S1) ◽  
pp. 16-17
Author(s):  
Adriana Ivama Brummell ◽  
Huseyin Naci
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Therapeutic Benefit ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Drug Benefits ◽  
Drug Prices ◽  
The Us ◽  
Drug Approvals ◽  
Overall Survival Benefit

IntroductionCancer drug prices are high on the policy agenda worldwide. Previous research found no association between cancer drug benefits and prices at the time of regulatory approval. Drugs approved in the US with uncertain benefits may have spill-over effects in other settings. Our objective was to compare the evidence supporting cancer drug approvals in the US and Brazil, and to examine the association between cancer drug prices and availability of added therapeutic benefit.MethodsWe matched all novel cancer drugs approved in the US from 2010–2019 to approvals in Brazil. We extracted data on pivotal study design characteristics and outcomes in the US and Brazil, and evidence supporting price approval in Brazil, including availability of added therapeutic benefit.ResultsFrom 2010–2019, fifty-six cancer drugs with matching indications were approved in US and Brazil and had their prices authorized in Brazil by December 2020. Drug were available in Brazil following a median 522 days after US approval (IQR: 351–932). In the US, thirty-four (60.7 percent) of the drugs had pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Twelve (21.4 percent) had overall survival benefit. By the time of Brazilian approval, forty-one (73.2 percent) drugs had pivotal RCTs and twenty-two (39.3 percent) had overall survival benefit. A total of twenty-eight (50 percent) drugs did not demonstrate added therapeutic benefit over other authorized drugs for the same indication and had a median reduction from requested to approved price of 6.1 percent (IQR: 0–27.8 percent) in Brazil. The twenty-seven (48.2 percent) drugs with added therapeutic benefit had a median price reduction of 2.0 percent (IQR: 0–9.2 percent).ConclusionsHalf of new cancer drugs approved in Brazil failed to demonstrate added therapeutic benefit. The Brazilian pricing system secured considerable price reductions, ensuring that prices for medicines with no added therapeutic benefit were not higher than existing treatments for the same approved indication. Although evidence was more mature by the time of Brazilian review, pivotal studies often lacked randomization and overall survival endpoints.

scholarly journals Strategies that delay or prevent the timely availability of affordable generic drugs in the United States

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 127 (11) ◽  
pp. 1398-1402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory H. Jones ◽  
Michael A. Carrier ◽  
Richard T. Silver ◽  
Hagop Kantarjian
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Generic Drugs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Timely Manner ◽  
Drug Prices ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
World Markets

Abstract High cancer drug prices are influenced by the availability of generic cancer drugs in a timely manner. Several strategies have been used to delay the availability of affordable generic drugs into the United States and world markets. These include reverse payment or pay-for-delay patent settlements, authorized generics, product hopping, lobbying against cross-border drug importation, buying out the competition, and others. In this forum, we detail these strategies and how they can be prevented.

Clinical benefit of breakthrough cancer drugs approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6513-6513
Author(s):  
Consolacion Molto ◽  
Thomas J. Hwang ◽  
Marta Andres ◽  
Maria Borrell ◽  
Ignasi J. Gich Saladich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Research ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Similar Proportion ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Research Committee ◽  
Curative Intent ◽  
Therapy Program

6513 Background: The Breakthrough Therapy program was established in July 2012 to expedite drug development and approval by the FDA. We compared the characteristics of clinical trials leading to FDA approval as well as the magnitude of clinical benefit and value framework scores of breakthrough-designated and non-breakthrough-designated cancer drugs. Methods: We searched the Drugs@FDA website for cancer drug approvals from July 2012 and December 2017. For each indication, we applied the value frameworks and used thresholds of high clinical benefit developed by American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2 (ASCO VF v2; scores ≥45), the ASCO Cancer Research Committee (OS gains ≥2.5 months PFS gains ≥3 months), the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1; grade of A or B for trials of curative intent and 4 or 5 for those of non-curative intent), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks (scores of 4 and 5). Trial characteristics and value framework scores were compared using Chi squared or Mann Whitney U tests. Results: We identified 106 pivotal trials supporting the approval of 52 individual drugs for 96 indications. Of these indications, 38 (40%) received breakthrough designation. Compared with trials for non-breakthrough drugs (n = 62), trials for breakthrough drugs (n = 44) had smaller sample size (median 373 vs 612, P= .03), were less often randomized (57% vs 86%; P= .001) and more likely to be open-label (84% vs 53%, P= .001). Trials for breakthrough drugs were more likely to demonstrate high clinical benefit using ASCO VF (68% vs 31%, P= .002) and NCCN Evidence Blocks (86% vs 56%, P= .002). A similar proportion of trials supporting breakthrough and non-breakthrough drugs demonstrated high clinical benefit using the ASCO Cancer Research Committee (82% vs 68%, P= .25) and ESMO-MCBS (35% vs 33%; P= .87) frameworks. Conclusions: In patients with advanced solid tumors, cancer drugs approved under breakthrough therapy designation were more likely to demonstrate high clinical benefit as defined by the ASCO VF and NCCN value frameworks. A similar proportion of approved breakthrough and non-breakthrough therapy drugs met the high benefit thresholds using the ASCO Cancer Research Committee and ESMO-MCBS frameworks.

scholarly journals Drug prices in Latin American countries: the case of rheumatoid arthritis Biosimilars

2021 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Bittencourt Gonzalez Mosegui ◽  
Fernando Antõnanzas ◽  
Cid Manso de Mello Vianna ◽  
Paula Rojas
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Purchasing Power Parity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Power Parity ◽  
Drug Prices ◽  
The Us ◽  
Latin American Countries

Abstract Background The objective of this paper is to analyze the prices of biological drugs in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) in three Latin American countries (Brazil, Colombia and Mexico), as well as in Spain and the United States of America (US), from the point of market entry of biosimilars. Methods We analyzed products authorized for commercialization in the last 20 years, in Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, comparing them to the United States of America (USA) and Spain. For this analysis, we sought the prices and registries of drugs marketed between 1999 and October 1, 2019, in the regulatory agencies’ databases. The pricing between countries was based on purchasing power parity (PPP). Results The US authorized the commercialization of 13 distinct biologicals and four biosimilars in the period. Spain and Brazil marketed 14 biopharmaceuticals for RA, ten original, four biosimilars. Colombia and Mexico have authorized three biosimilars in addition to the ten biological ones. For biological drug prices, the US is the most expensive country. Spain’s price behavior seems intermediate when compared to the three LA countries. Brazil has the highest LA prices, followed by Mexico and Colombia, which has the lowest prices. Spain has the lowest values in PPP, compared to LA countries, while the US has the highest prices. Conclusion The economic effort that LA countries make to access these medicines is much higher than the US and Spain. The use of the PPP ensured a better understanding of the actual access to these inputs in the countries analyzed.

Balanced Budget Rules and Expenditure Limits: Lessons from the US and Australia and Implications for the EU

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 607-636
Author(s):  
Mark Humphery-Jenner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Political Will ◽  
Constitutional Amendments ◽  
The Us ◽  
Balanced Budget ◽  
Tax And Expenditure Limits ◽  
Balanced Budget Requirements ◽  
The Eu

Governments periodically receive accusations of over-spending. These accusations are sometimes warranted. Some commentators propose that strict tax and expenditure limits (TELs) and/or balanced budget requirements (BBRs) may resolve excessive expenditure. Governments can implement TELs and BBRs through constitutional amendments, statutory schemes, or non-binding aspirational goals. They have been proposed as a remedy to allegations of over-spending in some European countries. However, it is not entirely clear if TELs or BBRs are effective or will resolve excess expenditure. I analyze TELs and BBRs as implemented in the United States and Australia. I argue that the Australian model of aspirational TELs and BBRs is beneficial if there is a political will to enforce them. However, if there is no such political will, then statutory (as opposed to constitutional) TELs and BBRs best strike a balance of flexibility and constraint.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document