Drug wastage and costs to the healthcare system in the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers in the US. This study was designed to evaluate the actual drug wastage and cost to the healthcare system using patient-level retrospective observational electronic medical record (EMR) data from a cohort of lung cancer patients in the US. METHODS: Data from the Flatiron Health advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort was used for this study. Drug administered amount (in mg) was used to determine an optimal set of available vial sizes to minimize waste. Drug wastage was defined as the difference between the drug amount in the optimal set of vials and the administered amount. Wholesale acquisition costs were used to value the cost of drugs, with and without vial sharing assumptions. The amount and cost of waste were quantified over the 2-year study period (January 2015-December 2016). RESULTS: There were 8,467 eligible patients included in this study, providing data from 103,826 unique drug administrations across multiple lines of therapy. Overall wastage was 4.37% of the total medication used to care for patients. While costs per administration were low, the total cost of wastage for the study population represented $16,630,112 across the 2-year study period. Assuming that vial sharing occurred at the site level slightly reduced waste to 3.74% (reducing costs to $15,953,212 over 2 years). CONCLUSIONS: Drug wastage is an important concern and has implications on healthcare costs in NSCLC. Evaluation of these real-world data suggest that pharmacists and physicians are able to reduce drug wastage by optimizing vial combinations and sharing vials among patients. Even small amounts of reduction in wastage could be useful in reducing healthcare costs in the US; however, caution is needed with drug rounding efforts to ensure patients do not receive a sub-optimal dose of medication.

Approving cancer treatments based on endpoints other than overall survival: an analysis of historical data using the PACE Continuous Innovation Indicators™ (CII).

BACKGROUND: There is an active debate about the role that endpoints other than overall survival (OS) should play in the drug approval process. Yet the term 'surrogate endpoint' implies that OS is the only critical metric for regulatory approval of cancer treatments. We systematically analyzed the relationship between U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and publication of OS evidence to understand better the risks and benefits of delaying approval until OS evidence is available. SCOPE: Using the PACE Continuous Innovation Indicators (CII) platform, we analyzed the effects of cancer type, treatment goal, and year of approval on the lag time between FDA approval and publication of first significant OS finding for 53 treatments approved between 1952 and 2016 for 10 cancer types (n = 71 approved indications). FINDINGS: Greater than 59% of treatments were approved before significant OS data for the approved indication were published. Of the drugs in the sample, 31% had lags between approval and first published OS evidence of 4 years or longer. The average number of years between approval and first OS evidence varied by cancer type and did not reliably predict the eventual amount of OS evidence accumulated. CONCLUSIONS: Striking the right balance between early access and minimizing risk is a central challenge for regulators worldwide. We illustrate that endpoints other than OS have long helped to provide timely access to new medicines, including many current standards of care. We found that many critical drugs are approved many years before OS data are published, and that OS may not be the most appropriate endpoint in some treatment contexts. Our examination of approved treatments without significant OS data suggests contexts where OS may not be the most relevant endpoint and highlights the importance of using a wide variety of fit-for-purpose evidence types in the approval process.

Dynamic value assessments in oncology supported by the PACE Continuous Innovation Indicators.

AIM: Several recently developed frameworks aim to assess the value of cancer treatments, but the most appropriate metrics remain uncertain. METHODS: We use data from the Patient Access to Cancer care Excellence Continuous Innovation Indicators to examine the relationship between hazard ratios (HRs) from clinical trials and dynamic therapeutic value accumulating over time. RESULTS: Our analysis shows that HRs from initial clinical trials poorly predict the eventual therapeutic value of cancer treatments. CONCLUSION: Relying strongly on HRs from registration trials to predict the long-term success of treatments leaves a lot of the variance unexplained. The Continuous Innovation Indicators offer a complementing, dynamic method to track the therapeutic value of cancer treatments and continuously update value assessments as additional evidence accumulates.

Measuring the patient health, societal and economic benefits of US pediatric therapeutics legislation.

Through at least the mid-1990s, children were often referred to as 'therapeutic orphans' for whom many treatments were administered without the benefit of appropriate studies to guide drug labeling for dosing and other critical therapeutic decisions. At that time, there were no incentives for manufacturers to pursue such work, nor regulatory requirements to compel these studies. Congress addressed this by including an important provision titled the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) in the 1997 Food and Drug Administration Modernization and Accountability Act. This was complemented by another key piece of legislation, the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) in 2003. The former Act and its successors created an incentive for firms to study on-patent drugs in pediatric populations by extending the market exclusivity of a medicine by 6 months. The latter was a requirement that provided the US FDA with the authority to require studies of drugs in children if an adult indication also occurs in children. In the current paper, we consider the effects of both pieces of legislation in terms of the health, societal, and economic benefits they have likely imparted and will continue to provide in the future. We conclude that the gains have been substantial - both in terms of safer and more effective use of medicines in children and in terms of new research that has been incentivized by the BPCA exclusivity provision. We estimate the gross economic benefits from the latter alone to be approximately $US360 billion.