Value and Price of Multi-indication Cancer Drugs in the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland
Tóm tắt
Oncology drugs are often approved for multiple indications, for which their clinical benefit varies. Aligning a single price to this differing value remains a challenge. This study examines the clinical and economic value, price, and reimbursement of multi-indication cancer drugs across seven countries, representing different approaches to value assessment, pricing, and coverage decisions: the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland. Twenty-five multi-indication cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval between 2009 and 2019. For each indication data on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) recommendations, disease prevalence, and drug prices were obtained. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, disease prevalence, list prices, and HTA outcomes were then compared across indications and regions. First approved indications provide a higher clinical benefit whilst targeting a smaller patient group than indication extensions. Quality-adjusted life year gains were higher for first (0.99, 95% CI 0.05–3.25) compared to second (0.51, 95% CI 0.02–1.63, p < 0.001) and third (0.58, 95% CI 0.05–2.07, p < 0.01) approved indications. Disease prevalence per 100,000 inhabitants was 20.7 (95% CI 0.2–63.3) for first compared to 27.1 (95% CI 1.5–109.6, p = 0.907) for second and 128.3 (95% CI 3.1–720.1, p < 0.001) for third approved indications. With each approved indication drug prices declined in Germany and France, remained constant in the UK, Canada, and Australia, whilst they increased in the USA. Negative HTA outcomes, clinical restrictions, and managed entry agreements (MEAs) were more frequently observed for indication extensions. Results suggest that indication development is prioritised according to clinical value and disease prevalence. Countries employ different mechanisms to account for each indication’s differential benefit, e.g., weighted-average prices (Germany, France, Australia), differential discounts (England, Scotland), clinical restrictions, and MEAs (England, Scotland, Australia, Canada). Value-based indication-specific pricing can help to align the benefit and price for multi-indication cancer drugs.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Finn OJ. Cancer immunology. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2704–15.
IQVIA. Global Oncology Trends 2018: Innovation, Expansion and Disruption; 2018.
Hui L, von Keudell G, Wang R, Zeidan AM, Gore SD, Ma X, Davidoff AJ, Huntington SF. Cost-effectiveness analysis of consolidation with brentuximab vedotin for high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous stem cell transplantation. Cancer. 2017;123:3763–71.
Michaeli DT, Yagmur HB, Achmadeev T, Michaeli T. Valuation and returns of drug development companies: lessons for bioentrepreneurs and investors. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2022;56:313–22.
Michaeli DT, Yagmur HB, Achmadeev T, Michaeli T. Value drivers of development stage biopharma companies. Eur J Health Econ. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01427-5.
Cole A, Towse A, Lorgelly P, Sullivan R. Economics of innovative payment models compared with single pricing of pharmaceuticals. London: Office of Health Economics; 2018.
Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Towse A, Dellamano R, Pistollato M. Multi-indication pricing: pros, cons and applicability to the UK. London: Office of Health Economics; 2015.
Bach PB. Indication-specific pricing for cancer drugs. JAMA. 2014;312:1629–30.
Pearson SD, Dreitlein WB, Henshall C, Towse A. Indication-specific pricing of pharmaceuticals in the US healthcare system. J Comp Eff Res. 2017;6:397–404.
Campillo-Artero C, Puig-Junoy J, Segú-Tolsa JL, Trapero-Bertran M. Price models for multi-indication drugs: a systematic review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2020;18:47–56.
Preckler V, Espín J. The role of indication-based pricing in future pricing and reimbursement policies: a systematic review. Value Health. 2022;25:666–75.
Chandra A, Garthwaite C. The economics of indication-based drug pricing. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:103–6.
Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Zozaya N, Alcalá B, Hidalgo-Vega Á. Multi-indication pricing: nice in theory but can it work in practice? Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:1407–20.
Flume M, Bardou M, Capri S, Sola-Morales O, Cunningham D, Levin L-A, Touchot N, Payers’ Insight. Feasibility and attractiveness of indication value-based pricing in key EU countries. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2016;4. https://doi.org/10.3402/jmahp.v4.30970.
Towse A, Cole A, Zamora B. The debate on indication-based pricing in the U.S. and five major European countries. London: Office of Health Economics; 2018.
Yeung K, Li M, Carlson JJ. Using performance-based risk-sharing arrangements to address uncertainty in indication-based pricing. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23:1010–5.
Cole A, Neri M, Cookson G. Expert consensus programme: payment models for multiindication therapies. London: Office of Health Economics; 2021.
Persson U, Norlin JM. Multi-indication and combination pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals: opportunities for improved health care through faster uptake of new innovations. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018;16:157–65.
Garrison LP, Veenstra DL. The economic value of innovative treatments over the product life cycle: the case of targeted trastuzumab therapy for breast cancer. Value Health. 2009;12:1118–23.
Meher BR, Padhy BM. Indication-specific pricing of drugs: a utopian idea, a pragmatic proposition or unrealistic in economically constrained settings? Trop Doct. 2020;50:157–9.
Neri M, Towse A, Garau M. Multi-indication pricing (MIP): practical solutions and steps to move forward. London: Office of Health Economics; 2018.
Mills M, Miracolo A, Michaeli D, Kanavos P. PNS73 payer perspectives on pricing of MULTI-indication products. Value Health. 2020;23:S655.
Abate KH, Abay SM, Abbafati C, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392:1789–858.
Kanavos P, Fontrier A-M, Gill J, Efthymiadou O, Boekstein N. The impact of external reference pricing within and across countries. London: London School of Economics and Political Sciences; 2017.
Kanavos P, Fontrier A-M, Gill J, Efthymiadou O. Does external reference pricing deliver what it promises? Evidence on its impact at national level. Eur J Health Econ HEPAC Health Econ Prev Care. 2020;21:129–51.
Kanavos P, Visintin E, Gentilini A. Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: a post hoc analysis of the factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across eight OECD countries. 2022.
Ferrario A, Kanavos P. Dealing with uncertainty and high prices of new medicines: a comparative analysis of the use of managed entry agreements in Belgium, England, the Netherlands and Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 2015;124:39–47.
Kanavos P, Ferrario A. Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals: the European experience. Brussels: EMiNet; 2013.
Kanavos P, Vandoros S, Irwin R, Nicod E, Casson M. Differences in costs of and access to pharmaceutical products in the EU. Brussels: European Parliament; 2011.
Vreman RA, Heikkinen I, Schuurman A, Sapede C, Garcia JL, Hedberg N, Athanasiou D, Grueger J, Leufkens HGM, Goettsch WG. Unmet medical need: an introduction to definitions and stakeholder perceptions. Value Health. 2019;22:1275–82.
Adams DR, Eng CM. Next-generation sequencing to diagnose suspected genetic disorders. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1353–62.
Vamathevan J, Clark D, Czodrowski P, et al. Applications of machine learning in drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019;18:463–77.
Woodcock J, LaVange LM. Master protocols to study multiple therapies, multiple diseases, or both. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:62–70.
Park JJH, Siden E, Zoratti MJ, Dron L, Harari O, Singer J, Lester RT, Thorlund K, Mills EJ. Systematic review of basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials: a landscape analysis of master protocols. Trials. 2019;20:572.
Ignatiadis M, Sledge GW, Jeffrey SS. Liquid biopsy enters the clinic—implementation issues and future challenges. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021;18:297–312.
Darrow JJ, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. The FDA breakthrough-drug designation—four years of experience. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1444–53.
Michaeli DT, Mills M, Michaeli T, Miracolo A, Kanavos P. Initial and supplementary indication approval of new targeted cancer drugs by the FDA, EMA, Health Canada, and TGA. Investig New Drugs. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-022-01227-5.
Walsh BS, Sarpatwari A, Rome BN, Kesselheim AS. Frequency of first generic drug approvals with “skinny labels” in the United States. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181:995–7.
Walsh BS, Bloomfield D, Kesselheim AS. A court decision on “skinny labeling”: another challenge for less expensive drugs. JAMA. 2021;326:1371–2.
US Dist Lexis 144792. Amarin Pharma, Inc v Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc; 2021.
US App Lexis 23173. GlaxoSmithKline LLC v Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc; 2021.
Ruof J, Schwartz FW, Schulenburg J-M, Dintsios C-M. Early benefit assessment (EBA) in Germany: analysing decisions 18 months after introducing the new AMNOG legislation. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:577–89.
Macaulay R, Dave K, Walsh SC. The impact of cancer drugs fund reforms on reimbursement of oncology drugs in the UK. Value Health. 2017;20:A461.
Angelis A, Lange A, Kanavos P. Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19:123–52.