3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Launch and Post-Launch Prices of Injectable Cancer Drugs in the US: Clinical Benefit, Innovation, Epidemiology, and Competition

      research-article
      1 , 2 , , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5
      Pharmacoeconomics
      Springer International Publishing

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Rising cancer drug prices adversely affect patients’ adherence and survival.

          Objective

          We aimed to identify and quantify factors associated with launch prices and post-launch price changes of injectable cancer drugs in the US from 2005 to 2023.

          Data and Methods

          All anticancer drugs with US FDA approval between 2000 and 2022 were identified in the Drugs@FDA database. The sample was then restricted to cancer drugs covered under Medicare Part B (injectable drugs). Data characterizing each drug’s clinical benefits, disease epidemiology, approved indications, competition, and price were obtained from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The association between launch/post-launch prices and collected variables was assessed in random-effects regressions.

          Results

          Of 170 cancer drugs with FDA approval between 2000 and 2022, we identified 66 (39%) injectable cancer drugs with quarterly price data from 2005 to 2023. In 2023, mean prices amounted to $27,688 per month, with an average price increase of 94% from 2005 to 2023. Launch and post-launch price changes were significantly associated with the treated disease epidemiology. A 1% decline in disease incidence was associated with a 0.2511% ( p = 0.008) increase in launch prices and a 0.0086% ( p = 0.032) annual increase in post-launch prices. Accordingly, launch prices were 120% ( p = 0.051) higher for orphan than non-orphan drugs, with 3% ( p = 0.008) greater annual post-launch price increases. Post-launch prices declined by up to −2% annually as new supplemental indications were approved for the same drug. We found no consistent association between launch/post-launch prices and the drugs’ clinical benefit in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor response. The market entry of new competitors was not associated with price reductions. 28 of 33 drug pairs within the same class had positive correlation coefficients. Pearson correlation coefficients were high (>0.80) for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, CD38 antibodies, CD20 antibodies, HER2 antibodies, and mTOR inhibitors.

          Conclusions

          Cancer drug prices regularly increase faster than inflation; however, there is no evidence that launch prices and post-launch price changes are aligned with the clinical benefit a drug offers to patients. In particular, patients with rare diseases experience greater price increases for their orphan drugs. There is no evidence that brand-brand competition results in drug price reductions.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-023-01320-4.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Washington State cancer patients found to be at greater risk for bankruptcy than people without a cancer diagnosis.

              Much has been written about the relationship between high medical expenses and the likelihood of filing for bankruptcy, but the relationship between receiving a cancer diagnosis and filing for bankruptcy is less well understood. We estimated the incidence and relative risk of bankruptcy for people age twenty-one or older diagnosed with cancer compared to people the same age without cancer by conducting a retrospective cohort analysis that used a variety of medical, personal, legal, and bankruptcy sources covering the Western District of Washington State in US Bankruptcy Court for the period 1995-2009. We found that cancer patients were 2.65 times more likely to go bankrupt than people without cancer. Younger cancer patients had 2-5 times higher rates of bankruptcy than cancer patients age sixty-five or older, which indicates that Medicare and Social Security may mitigate bankruptcy risk for the older group. The findings suggest that employers and governments may have a policy role to play in creating programs and incentives that could help people cover expenses in the first year following a cancer diagnosis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                danielmichaeli@yahoo.com
                Journal
                Pharmacoeconomics
                Pharmacoeconomics
                Pharmacoeconomics
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1170-7690
                1179-2027
                19 October 2023
                19 October 2023
                2024
                : 42
                : 1
                : 117-131
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.5253.1, ISNI 0000 0001 0328 4908, Department of Medical Oncology, , National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, ; Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
                [2 ]Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, ( https://ror.org/00613ak93) Wuppertal, Germany
                [3 ]GRID grid.411778.c, ISNI 0000 0001 2162 1728, Department of Personalized Oncology, , University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, ; Mannheim, Germany
                [4 ]DKFZ-Hector Cancer Institute at the University Medical Center Mannheim, ( https://ror.org/05sxbyd35) Mannheim, Germany
                [5 ]Division of Personalized Medical Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), ( https://ror.org/04cdgtt98) Heidelberg, Germany
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2913-1867
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0293-9401
                Article
                1320
                10.1007/s40273-023-01320-4
                10791980
                37855850
                3810428a-9381-40ae-83bd-b5977993a9e9
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 25 September 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg (8914)
                Categories
                Original Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024

                Economics of health & social care
                Economics of health & social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article