Comparative Analysis of Drug Shortages in the US and Germany (2016 - 2023).

This article analyzes trends in drug shortages in the US and Germany, the largest pharmaceutical market in Europe, between 2016 and 2023. It assesses the commonalities and differences between the countries in terms of active substances in shortage, time duration in shortage, and cyclic trends.

WHO shapes priorities for medicines? An analysis of the applicants and decision makers within the historical evolution of the WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines.

WHO recently announced a process to review and potentially update the procedures for selecting essential medicines. This announcement presents an opportunity to reflect on the evolution of the WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines (EML), including the composition of the stakeholders that shape priorities. We contextualised our findings within the broader history of the WHO EML to support future reforms to improve access to essential medicines. The current system allows individuals to propose a medicine for the WHO EML. This makes the EML reactive to applicant priorities. Almost all medicines (687/700; 98·1%) proposed to the WHO EML between 2003 and 2023 came from applicants in high-income countries. Most applications (210/700; 30·0%) were submitted by universities and research institutions, followed by non-governmental organisations (159/700; 22·7%), the UN system (158/700; 22·6%), professional associations (98/700; 14·0%), and the pharmaceutical industry (75/700; 10·7%). Between 1977 and 2023, over half of the Expert Committee members were from low-income and middle-income countries, with an increasing proportion in recent EML updates. Mainly, UN agencies acted as observers between 1977 and 2023. One central question emerges when evaluating whether applicants' geographical distribution translates to the WHO EML's intended purpose: for whom is the EML intended? Over the years, the geographical applicability has blurred. Defining a strategic vision for the WHO EML, including articulating a target audience and structured selection process, would strengthen decision-making processes by providing additional clarity, including to those implementing the guidance, mostly in low-income and middle-income countries.

Drug Prices After Patent Expirations in High-Income Countries and Implications for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.

Importance: Understanding how patent expirations affect drug prices is crucial because price changes directly inform accurate cost-effectiveness assessments. This study investigates the association between patent expirations and drug prices in 8 high-income countries and evaluates how the changes affect cost-effectiveness assessments. Objective: To analyze how the expiration of drug patents is associated with drug price changes and to assess the implications of these price changes for cost-effectiveness evaluations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study performed an event study design using data from 8 high-income countries to assess the association between patent expiration and drug prices, and created a simulation model to understand the implications for cost-effectiveness analyses. The simulation cost-effectiveness model analyzed the implications of including or ignoring postpatent price dynamics. Exposure: Drug patent expiration. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in drug prices and differences in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios when considering vs ignoring postpatent price dynamics. Results: The sample comprised 505 drugs undergoing patent expiration in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, UK, and US. Price decreases were statistically significant over the 8 years after patent expiration, with the fastest price declines observed in the US: 32% (95% CI, 24%-39%) in year 1 after patent expiration and 82% (95% CI, 71%-89%) in the 8 years after patent expiration. Estimates for other nations ranged from a decrease of 64% in Australia to 18% in Switzerland in the 8 years after expiration. The cost-effectiveness simulation model indicated that not accounting for generic entry into the market may produce biased incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 40% to -40%, depending on the scenario. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study demonstrate that drug prices were reduced substantially after patent expirations in high-income countries. Therefore, incorporating information on patent status and pricing dynamics in cost-effectiveness assessment analyses is necessary for producing accurate economic evaluations of new drugs.

Access to GLP-1 Weight Loss Drugs in the US, Canada, Switzerland, and Germany.

This Viewpoint compares use and costs of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for weight loss between the US and 3 other peer countries.

Defining 'therapeutic value' of medicines: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: In recent years, discussions on the importance and scope of therapeutic value of new medicines have intensified, stimulated by the increase of prices and number of medicines entering the market. This study aims to perform a scoping review identifying factors contributing to the definition of the therapeutic value of medicines. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: We searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Business Source Premier, EconLit, Regional Business News, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scope and Pool databases through December 2020 in English, German, French, Italian and Spanish. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies that included determinants for the definition of therapeutic value of medicines were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted using the mentioned data sources. Two reviewers independently screened and analysed the articles. Data were analysed from April 2021 to May 2022. RESULTS: Of the 1883 studies screened, 51 were selected and the identified factors contributing to the definition of therapeutic value of medicines were classified in three categories: patient perspective, public health perspective and socioeconomic perspective. More than three-quarters of the included studies were published after 2014, with the majority of the studies focusing on either cancer disorders (14 of 51, 27.5%) or rare diseases (11 of 51, 21.6%). Frequently mentioned determinants for value were quality of life, therapeutic alternatives and side effects (all patient perspective), prevalence/incidence and clinical endpoints (all public health perspective), and costs (socioeconomic perspective). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple determinants have been developed to define the therapeutic value of medicines, most of them focusing on cancer disorders and rare diseases. Considering the relevance of value of medicines to guide patients and physicians in decision-making as well as policymakers in resource allocation decisions, a development of evidence-based factors for the definition of therapeutic value of medicines is needed across all therapeutic areas.

Approval and therapeutic value of gene therapies in the US and Europe.

Gene therapies are a fast-growing area of innovation and hold promise for the treatment of many diseases currently with unmet medical need. To better understand the clinical importance of the current landscape of approved gene therapies, we conducted a systematic analysis of the approved gene therapies and their added therapeutic value. Through December 2022, 13 gene therapies have been approved in the US, 15 in the EU, and 9 in Switzerland. Nine gene therapies have been approved in all three jurisdictions, and 11 in both the US and EU. Among the 11 gene therapies approved in more than one jurisdiction, there were differences in the approved indications among the regulatory agencies, mostly the European drug agencies (EMA and Swissmedic) being more restrictive. Among the gene therapies with available therapeutic ratings, approximately two-thirds had high added therapeutic value, which is substantially higher than the average prevalence of high added therapeutic value ratings among new drugs and biologics (approximately one-third). However, therapies with high added therapeutic value will not be useful for patients if excessive prices limit access to them. Drug pricing reforms should address gene therapies to ensure access to new gene therapies that can offer important therapeutic value to patients.

Regulatory Review Duration and Differences in Submission Times of Drugs in the United States and Europe, 2011 to 2020.

The speed of drug regulatory agencies in the United States and Europe is often a source of discussion. The objective of this research was to assess regulatory review duration of first and supplementary indications approved between 2011 and 2020 in the United States and Europe (European Union [EU] and Switzerland) and differences in submission times between the United States and Europe. Descriptive statistics were applied to review times between the jurisdictions and across the therapeutic areas. A regression analysis was done to estimate the association between approval agency and review times. The primary analysis cohort included 241 drugs approved in the United States, the EU, and Switzerland. Of these, 128 drugs had supplemental indications (331 in total) in the United States and 87 had supplemental indications (206 in total) in the EU. Overall median review duration from submission to approval subtracting the clock stop period was 39 weeks in the United States, 44 weeks in the EU, and 44 weeks in Switzerland. When review times within each drug were compared, the European Medicines Agency took a median of 3.7 weeks (IQR, -6.7 to 14.9 weeks) longer than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Swissmedic a median of 0.3 weeks (IQR, -10.6 to 15.3 weeks) longer. Median total review duration for supplemental indications was 26 weeks in the United States and 40 weeks in the EU. Applications were submitted a median of 1.3 and 17.9 weeks later in the EU and Switzerland, respectively, than in the United States. The regression analysis showed small differences in submission times between the United States and the EU (-2.1 weeks [95% CI, -11.7 to 7.6 weeks]) and larger differences between the United States and Switzerland (33.0 weeks [CI, 23.1 to 42.8 weeks]). It would be beneficial for patients if differences in submission times between the United States and Europe continue to be minimized.

Investments in Research and Development for Supplemental Drug Indications-Implications for Drug Price Negotiations.

This Viewpoint compares the research and development costs for a drug's first indication with supplemental indications to demonstrate that the cost of approval for supplemental indications may be substantially lower.

FDA-cleared artificial intelligence and machine learning-based medical devices and their 510(k) predicate networks.

The US Food and Drug Administration is clearing an increasing number of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML)-based medical devices through the 510(k) pathway. This pathway allows clearance if the device is substantially equivalent to a former cleared device (ie, predicate). We analysed the predicate networks of cleared AI/ML-based medical devices (cleared between 2019 and 2021), their underlying tasks, and recalls. More than a third of cleared AI/ML-based medical devices originated from non-AI/ML-based medical devices in the first generation. Devices with the longest time since the last predicate device with an AI/ML component were haematology (2001), radiology (2001), and cardiovascular devices (2008). Especially for devices in radiology, the AI/ML tasks changed frequently along the device's predicate network, raising safety concerns. To date, only a few recalls might have affected the AI/ML components. To improve patient care, a stronger focus should be placed on the distinctive characteristics of AI/ML when defining substantial equivalence between a new AI/ML-based medical device and predicate devices.

Therapeutic value of first versus supplemental indications of drugs in US and Europe (2011-20): retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the therapeutic value of supplemental indications compared with first indications for drugs approved in the US and Europe. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: New and supplemental indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2011 and 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of first and supplemental indications rated as having high therapeutic value using ratings from the French and German national, independent health authorities. RESULTS: The cohort study included 124 first and 335 supplemental indications approved by the FDA and 88 first and 215 supplemental indications approved by the EMA between 2011 and 2020; the largest subset was for cancer disorders. Therapeutic ratings were available for 107 (86%) first and 179 (53%) supplemental indications in the US and for 87 (99%) first and 184 (86%) supplemental indications in Europe. Among FDA approved indications with available ratings, 41% (44/107) had high therapeutic value ratings for first indications compared with 34% (61/179) for supplemental indications. In Europe, 47% (41/87) of first and 36% (67/184) of supplemental indications had high therapeutic value ratings. Among FDA approvals, when the sample was restricted to the first three approved indications, second indication approvals were 36% less likely to have a high value rating (relative ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.96) and third indication approvals were 45% less likely (0.55, 0.29 to 1.01) compared with the first indication approval. Similar findings were observed for Europe and when weighting by the inverse number of indications for each drug. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of supplemental indications rated as having high therapeutic value was substantially lower than for first indications. When first or supplemental indications do not offer added therapeutic value over other available treatments, that information should be clearly communicated to patients and physicians and reflected in the price of the drugs.

The cancer premium - explaining differences in prices for cancer vs non-cancer drugs with efficacy and epidemiological endpoints in the US, Germany, and Switzerland: a cross sectional study.

Background: High treatment prices of new cancer drugs are a global public health challenge to patients and healthcare systems. Policymakers in the US and Europe are debating reforms to drug pricing. The objective of this study was to assess whether drug efficacy or epidemiological characteristics (prevalence, incidence, mortality) explain the gap in treatment prices between cancer and non-cancer drugs in the US, Germany, and Switzerland. Methods: This cross-sectional study identified all new drugs approved in the US, Germany, and Switzerland between 2011 and 2020. Drug efficacy was extracted from pivotal trials, drug prices from public and commercial databases, and epidemiological characteristics from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019 study. We used regression models to explain drug prices with drug efficacy and epidemiological characteristics (prevalence, incidence, mortality). Findings: The cohort included 181 drugs, including 68 (37.5%) drugs approved for treatment of cancer. A significant negative correlation was found between incidence/prevalence and treatment prices, and a significant positive correlation was observed between mortality and treatment prices for both, cancer and non-cancer drugs. A significant association between relative drug efficacy and treatment prices of drugs was observed, however, less pronounced for cancer drugs. Our regression estimates indicated that after adjusting for efficacy and epidemiological characteristics, cancer drugs were on average approximately three times more expensive compared to non-cancer drugs in all three countries, indicating a cancer premium; i.e., treatment prices of cancer drugs were on average USD 74,412 (95% CI [62,810; 86,015]) more expensive in the US compared to non-cancer drugs, USD 37,770 (95% CI [26,175; 49,367]) more expensive in Germany, and USD 32,801 (95% CI [27,048; 38,555]) more expensive in Switzerland. Our model explained 72% of the variance in observed prices (R2). Interpretation: Drug pricing reforms should target the cancer premium to improve access of patients to cancer drugs as well as to achieve equity across the different therapeutic areas and sustainability in the health care systems. Funding: This study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF, grant number PCEGP1_194607) and the Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz).

Determinants of cancer drug pricing and how to overcome the cancer premium.

The high and increasing prices of cancer drugs are a public health challenge. To disrupt the cancer premium and improve patient access to cancer drugs, different action steps are indicated: more transparency on the price determination process and actual prices, value-based pricing, and "price with evidence development."

Comparison of Uptake and Prices of Biosimilars in the US, Germany, and Switzerland.

Importance: Biologics account for a substantial proportion of health care expenditures. Their costs have been projected to reach US $452 billion in global spending by 2022. Given recent expiration of patent protection of biologics, a shift toward greater follow-on competition among biosimilars would be expected that would allow greater uptake and lower drug costs. Objective: To assess uptake and prices of biosimilars in the US compared with 2 European countries (Germany and Switzerland) with national mechanisms for drug price negotiation. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, biologics and biosimilars that were approved in the US, Germany, and Switzerland until August 2020 were identified. Prices and sales data were extracted from public and commercial databases for the years 2011 to 2020. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to show temporal trends in the uptake of biosimilars and relative prices compared with those of reference products (ie, biologic agents) for each country. Descriptive analysis was also performed to compare the uptake of biosimilars between the 3 countries limited to biologics that have biosimilars on the market in all countries. To test if biosimilar awareness in each country increased over the last decade, a linear least squares regression was applied. Results: The study cohort included 15 biosimilars and 6 biologics for the US, 52 biosimilars and 15 biologics for Germany, and 28 biosimilars and 13 biologics for Switzerland. Uptake of biosimilars increased over time in all countries. On average, the biosimilar market share at launch was highest in Germany; however, it increased at the fastest rate in the US. Monthly treatment costs of biosimilars in the US were a median of 1.94 (IQR, 1.78-2.44) and 2.74 (IQR, 1.91-3.46) higher than corresponding costs in Germany and Switzerland, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that more biosimilars have been marketed in Germany and Switzerland than in the US. Policies that counter anticompetitive practices in the US could allow biosimilars to enter the market sooner and could also lower health care costs with improved access. Awareness of biosimilars should be promoted to increase uptake of biosimilars globally.

Negotiating Drug Prices in the US-Lessons From Europe.

This Viewpoint describes European drug price negotiation practices and compares them with practices in the US.

Therapeutic Value of Drugs Granted Accelerated Approval or Conditional Marketing Authorization in the US and Europe From 2007 to 2021.

Importance: The number of drugs approved through the accelerated approval or conditional marketing authorization pathways has increased with unclear evidence of their therapeutic value. Objectives: To assess the therapeutic value of drug indications granted accelerated approval in the US or conditional marketing authorization in the European Union (EU) overall and for cancer indications. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the public databases of the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency to identify all drugs (initial and supplemental indications) granted accelerated approval in the US or conditional marketing authorization (initial indications only) in the EU between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2021. Therapeutic value ratings were obtained from national health authorities in Germany, France, and Canada. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to assess the proportion of accelerated approvals and conditional marketing authorizations overall and for cancer vs noncancer indications rated as having high added therapeutic value. Results: The cohort included 146 drug indications (94 first indications, 52 supplemental indications) in the US and 58 (all first indications) in the EU. Most drugs were approved for cancer (122 [83.6%] in the US; 40 [69.0%] in the EU). Therapeutic value ratings were available for 90 drug indications (61.6%) in the US and 56 (96.6%) in the EU. Overall, 35 drug indications granted accelerated approval (38.9%) and 21 granted conditional marketing authorization (37.5%) had high added therapeutic value in the US and EU, respectively, at the time of approval. The proportions of indications rated as having high added therapeutic value were 36.0% (27 of 75) for cancer vs 53.3% (8 of 15) for noncancer indications in the US and 30.8% (12 of 39) for cancer vs 52.9% (9 of 17) for noncancer indications in the EU. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, among new drug indications approved through the accelerated approval or conditional marketing authorization pathways in the US and Europe from 2007 to 2021, 38.9% and 37.5%, respectively, demonstrated high therapeutic value. A substantially lower proportion of cancer indications than noncancer indications were rated as having high therapeutic value. Policy makers and regulators should increase enforcement of timely postapproval study completion for drugs qualifying for these pathways.

Reforming the World Health Organization's Essential Medicines List: Essential but Unaffordable.

This Viewpoint proposes restructuring the WHO Essential Medicines List to remove consideration of cost and cost-effectiveness from the expert committee reviews of clinical effectiveness, safety, and public health value, and chartering a new framework for pooled global negotiation and procurement of costly medicines included in the list.