Treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of different treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data available in the literature and expert opinion. SETTING: England. POPULATION: Women treated for CIN. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to simulate the clinical course of 1000 women who received local treatment for CIN and were followed up for 10 years after treatment. In the model we considered surgical complications as well as oncological and reproductive outcomes over the 10-year period. The costs calculated were those incurred by the National Health Service (NHS) of England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per one CIN2+ recurrence averted (oncological outcome); cost per one preterm birth averted (reproductive outcome); overall cost per one adverse oncological or reproductive outcome averted. RESULTS: For young women of reproductive age, large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) was the most cost-effective treatment overall at all willingness-to-pay thresholds. For postmenopausal women, LLETZ remained the most cost-effective treatment up to a threshold of £31,500, but laser conisation became the most cost-effective treatment above that threshold. CONCLUSIONS: LLETZ is the most cost-effective treatment for both younger and older women. However, for older women, more radical excision with laser conisation could also be considered if the NHS is willing to spend more than £31,500 to avert one CIN2+ recurrence.

Availability and Coverage of New Drugs in 6 High-Income Countries With Health Technology Assessment Bodies.

This cohort study analyzes review times and approval outcomes of health technology assessments conducted in 6 high-income countries for novel therapeutic agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Prevalence, diagnostic delay and economic burden of endometriosis and its impact on quality of life: results from an Eastern Mediterranean population.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on endometriosis from the Eastern Mediterranean region. This study for the first time estimates the prevalence and impact of endometriosis on women in Northern Cyprus, an under-represented region in Europe. METHODS: Cyprus Women's Health Research Initiative, a cross-sectional study recruited 7646 women aged 18-55 in Northern Cyprus between January 2018 and February 2020. Cases were identified using self-reported and ultrasound data and two control groups were defined, with (n = 2922) and without (n = 4314) pain. Standardized tools, including the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale and the Short Form 36 Health Survey version 2, were used to assess pain and quality of life, respectively. RESULTS: Prevalence and median diagnostic delay of endometriosis were 5.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.9-5.9%, n = 410] and 7 (interquartile range 15.5) years. Endometriosis cases experienced a higher prevalence of bladder pain compared with asymptomatic pain controls (6.3% vs. 1.0%, P < 0.001) and irritable bowel syndrome relating to pelvic pain compared with symptomatic (4.6% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.027) and asymptomatic (0.3%, P < 0.001) controls. The odds of endometriosis cases reporting an anxiety diagnosis was 1.56 (95% CI: 1.03-2.38) higher than the symptomatic and 1.95 (95% CI: 1.30-2.92) times higher than the asymptomatic controls. The physical component score of the health-related quality-of-life instrument suggested a significant difference between the endometriosis cases and the symptomatic controls (46.8 vs. 48.5, P = 0.034). Average annual economic cost of endometriosis cases was Int$9864 (95% CI: $8811-$10 917) including healthcare, costs relating to absence and loss of productivity at work. CONCLUSION: Prevalence was lower than the global 10% estimate, and substantial proportion of women without endometriosis reported moderate/severe pelvic pain hinting at many undiagnosed cases within this population. Coupled with lower quality of life, significant economic burden and underutilized pain management options, the study highlights multiple opportunities to improve care for endometriosis patients and women with pelvic pain.

Marketing authorisation and pricing of FDA-approved cancer drugs in Brazil: a retrospective analysis.

Background: Most cancer drugs enter the US market first. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of new cancer drugs may influence regulatory decisions in other settings. The study examined whether characteristics of available evidence at FDA approval influenced time-to-marketing authorisation (MA) in Brazil, and price differences between the two countries. Methods: All new FDA-approved cancer drugs from 2010 to 2019 were matched to drugs with MA and prices approved in Brazil by December 2020. Characteristics of main studies, availability of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), overall survival (OS) benefit, added therapeutic benefit, and prices were compared. Findings: Fifty-six FDA-approved cancer drugs with matching indications received a MA at the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa) after a median of 522 days following US approval (IQR: 351-932). Earlier authorisation in Brazil was associated with availability of RCT (median: 506 vs 760 days, p = 0.031) and evidence of OS benefit (390 vs 543 days, p = 0.019) at FDA approval. At Brazilian marketing authorisation, a greater proportion of cancer drugs had main RCTs (75% vs 60.7%) and OS benefit (42.9% vs 21.4%) than that in the US. Twenty-eight (50%) drugs did not demonstrate added therapeutic benefit over drugs for the same indication in Brazil. Median approved prices of new cancer drugs were 12.9% lower in Brazil compared to the US (adjusted by Purchasing Power Parity). However, for drugs with added therapeutic benefit median prices were 5.9% higher in Brazil compared to the US, while 17.9% lower for those without added benefit. Interpretation: High-quality clinical evidence accelerated the availability of cancer medicines in Brazil. The combination of marketing and pricing authorisation in Brazil may favour the approval of cancer drugs with better supporting evidence, and more meaningful clinical benefit albeit with variable degree of success in achieving lower prices compared to the US. Funding: None.

Characteristics of Prior Authorization Policies for New Drugs in Medicare Part D.

This cross-sectional study examines the characteristics of prior authorization policies for new drugs in Medicare Part D to understand whether they are consistent with US Food and Drug Administration indications.

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.

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.

Coverage of New Drugs in Medicare Part D.

Policy Points Only a small minority of new drugs in "nonprotected" classes are widely covered by Part D plans nationwide in the year after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Part D plans frequently apply utilization management restrictions such as prior authorizations to newly approved drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. Drug price influences both formulary inclusion (in nonprotected classes) and coverage restrictions (in both protected and nonprotected classes), while other drug characteristics such as therapeutic benefits are not consistently associated with formulary design. Plans do not seem to favor the minority of drugs that are determined to offer added therapeutic benefit over existing alternatives. CONTEXT: Medicare Part D is an outpatient prescription drug benefit for older Americans covering more than 46 million beneficiaries. Except for mandatory coverage for essentially all drugs in six protected classes, plans have substantial flexibility in how they design their formularies: which drugs are covered, which drugs are subject to restrictions, and what factors determine formulary placement. Our objective in this paper was to document the extent to which Part D plans limit coverage of newly approved drugs. METHODS: We examined the formulary design of 4,582 Part D plans from 2014 through 2018 and measured (1) the decision to cover newly approved drugs in nonprotected classes, (2) use of utilization management tools in protected and nonprotected classes, and (3) the association between plan design and drug-level characteristics such as 30-day cost, therapeutic benefit, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expedited regulatory pathway. FINDINGS: The FDA approved 109 new drugs predominantly used in outpatient settings between 2013 and 2017. Of these, 75 fell outside of the six protected drug classes. One-fifth of drugs in nonprotected classes (15 out of 75) were covered by more than half of plans during the first year after approval. Coverage was often conditional on utilization management strategies in both protected and nonprotected classes: only seven drugs (6%) were covered without prior authorization requirements in more than half of plans. Higher 30-day drug costs were associated with more widespread coverage in nonprotected classes: drugs that cost less than $150 for a 30-day course were covered by fewer than 20% of plans while those that cost more than $30,000 per 30 days were covered by more than 50% of plans. Plans were also more likely to implement utilization management tools on high-cost drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. A higher proportion of plans implemented utilization management strategies on covered drugs with first-in-class status than drugs that were not first in class. Other drug characteristics, including availability of added therapeutic benefit and inclusion in FDA expedited regulatory approval, were not consistently associated with plan coverage or formulary restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: Newly approved drugs are frequently subject to formulary exclusions and restrictions in Medicare Part D. Ensuring that formulary design in Part D is linked closely to the therapeutic value of newly approved drugs would improve patients' welfare.

Price changes and within-class competition of cancer drugs in the USA and Europe: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer drugs are a major component of pharmaceutical spending in the USA and Europe. The number of approved cancer drugs continues to increase. More new drugs with overlapping mechanisms of action and similar approved indications might be expected to decrease prices within drug classes. We compared patterns of price changes for cancer drugs within the same class in the USA and in two European countries (Germany and Switzerland) with national mechanisms for drug price negotiation. METHODS: For this comparative analysis, we identified cancer drugs approved for the treatment of solid cancers in the USA and Europe (Germany and Switzerland) between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2020, using the US Food and Drug Administration's Drugs@FDA database and the European Medicines Agency's publicly available database. We considered cancer drugs as within-class competitors if they were approved for the same indication and had the same biological mechanism. We calculated monthly treatment prices for each drug, median price changes at launch and over time, and differences within and across drug classes. European price data were converted to US dollars by applying the exchange rates on Dec 1, 2020, and prices were adjusted for inflation. Median changes in the drugs' monthly treatment prices at 2 and 4 years after market entry across and within drug classes were also assessed. For the USA, correlations in relative price changes between all pairs of drugs within and across drug classes were calculated with Spearman's rank correlation. FINDINGS: Our study cohort comprised 12 drug classes covering nine indications. With the exception of one drug, increasing prices were observed within and across all drug classes in the USA (median 6·07% [range -3·60 to 33·83] 2 years after market entry, and 15·31% [-4·15 to 54·64] 4 years after market entry). By contrast, in Europe, prices generally decreased over time or did not increase more than inflation (2 years after market entry: -21·01% [range -50·72 to 12·71] in Germany and -1·48% [-26·81 to 1·69] in Switzerland; 4 years after market entry: -25·54% [-51·81 to 11·63] in Germany and -13·02% [-43·83 to 18·31] in Switzerland). In the USA, most prices changes within and across drug classes occurred at the end and beginning of the year (ie, from Dec 1 to Jan 31). In the USA, correlation for price changes was r=0·29 (SD 0·36) for within-class drugs and r=0·28 (0·36) for drugs across drug classes. INTERPRETATION: Competition within classes of cancer drugs generally did not constrain rising prices in the USA. Price negotiations, as practised in Germany or Switzerland, could help address the high prices of cancer drugs in the USA. FUNDING: Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz), Swiss National Science Foundation, and Arnold Ventures.

Real-world Use of and Spending on New Oral Targeted Cancer Drugs in the US, 2011-2018.

Importance: Launch prices of new cancer drugs in the US have substantially increased in recent years despite growing concerns about the quantity and quality of evidence supporting their approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Objective: To assess the use of and spending on new oral targeted cancer drugs among US residents with employer-sponsored insurance between 2011 and 2018, stratified by the strength of available evidence of benefit. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, dispensing claims for oral targeted cancer drugs first approved by the FDA between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were analyzed. The number of patients with drugs dispensed and the total payment for all claims were aggregated by calendar year, and these outcomes were arrayed according to evidence underlying FDA approvals, including pivotal study design (availability of randomized clinical trials) and overall survival (OS) benefit, as documented in drug labels. This study was conducted from July 17, 2019, to July 23, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual and cumulative numbers of patients who had dispensing events, and annual and cumulative sums of payment for eligible drugs. Results: Of 37 348 patients who had at least 1 of the 44 new oral targeted drugs dispensed between 2011 and 2018, 21 324 were men (57.1%); mean (SD) age was 64.1 (13.1) years. Most individuals (36 246 [97.0%]) received drugs for which evidence from randomized clinical trials existed; however, a growing share of patients received drugs without documented OS benefit during the study period: from 12.7% in 2011 to 58.8% in 2018. Cumulative spending on all sample drugs totaled $3.5 billion by the end of 2018, of which 96.8% was spent on drugs that were approved based on a pivotal randomized clinical trial. Cumulative spending on drugs without documented OS benefit ($1.8 billion [51.6%]) surpassed that on drugs with documented OS benefit ($1.7 billion [48.4%]) by the end of 2018. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that drugs used for treatment of cancer without documented OS benefits are adopted in the health system and account for substantial spending.

NITRATE-CIN Study: Protocol of a Randomized (1:1) Single-Center, UK, Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial Testing the Effect of Inorganic Nitrate on Contrast-Induced Nephropathy in Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiography for Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), an acute kidney injury resulting from the administration of intravascular iodinated contrast media, is a significant cause of morbidity/mortality following coronary angiographic procedures in high-risk patients. Despite preventative measures intended to mitigate the risk of CIN, there remains a need for novel effective treatments. Evidence suggests that delivery of nitric oxide (NO) through chemical reduction of inorganic nitrate to NO may offer a novel therapeutic strategy to reduce CIN and thus preserve long term renal function. DESIGN: The NITRATE-CIN trial is a single-center, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial, which plans to recruit 640 patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who are at risk of CIN. Patients will be randomized to either inorganic nitrate therapy (capsules containing 12 mmol KNO3) or placebo capsules containing potassium chloride (KCl) daily for 5 days. The primary endpoint is development of CIN using the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. A key secondary endpoint is renal function over a 3-month follow-up period. Additional secondary endpoints include serum renal biomarkers (e.g. neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin) at 6 h, 48 h and 3 months following administration of contrast. Cost-effectiveness of inorganic nitrate therapy will also be evaluated. SUMMARY: This study is designed to investigate the hypothesis that inorganic nitrate treatment decreases the rate of CIN as part of semi-emergent coronary angiography for ACS. Inorganic nitrate is a simple and easy to administer intervention that may prove useful in prevention of CIN in at-risk patients undergoing coronary angiographic procedures.

Assessment of Coverage in England of Cancer Drugs Qualifying for US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval.

Importance: Numerous cancer drugs have received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on clinical trial outcomes that are otherwise not acceptable for traditional FDA approval; the accelerated approval process allows outcomes based on surrogate measures that are only reasonably likely to estimate clinical benefits. In England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evaluates the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of drugs after they have received regulatory approval and issues recommendations regarding their coverage in the National Health Service (NHS). However, the level of concordance between European and FDA decision-making in the context of drugs qualifying for FDA accelerated approval is unknown. Objective: To compare FDA accelerated approval decisions for cancer drugs with NICE coverage decisions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study compared cancer drug indications that received FDA accelerated approval from December 11, 1992, to May 31, 2017, with the same set of drug indication pairs in England until August 31, 2019. Data from European Public Assessment Reports developed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and public appraisal documents from NICE were used to determine NHS coverage recommendations. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public appraisal documents were analyzed for drug indications, characteristics of clinical evidence, cost-effectiveness, and coverage decisions. Data were analyzed from September 1 to December 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cancer drug indication coverage decision by NICE. Results: From 1992 to 2017, 93 cancer drug indications received FDA accelerated approval, 6 of which were subsequently withdrawn, leaving 87 cancer drug indications on the market. As of August 2019, 5 of these indications had been withdrawn or denied market authorization for the European Union by the EMA. From the cohort of EMA-approved drugs, an additional 7 drug indications were not recommended by NICE and were not deemed to have sufficient clinical benefits or cost-effectiveness to warrant mandatory public coverage in England; 5 drugs were not recommended based on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness criteria, and 2 drugs were not recommended based on cost-effectiveness criteria alone. In total, 12 drug indications were not recommended for public coverage in the NHS, and an additional 30 drug indications were not reviewed by either the EMA (14 drug indications) or NICE (16 drug indications) by the study end date. Most drug indications recommended by NICE were conditional on the negotiation of additional confidential discounts, the imposition of restricted indications that limited prescribing to specific patient subgroups, or the collection of additional data. Among the 9 drug indications with evidence of overall survival benefit at the time of NICE review, 2 were not recommended for public funding based on cost-effectiveness criteria. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, 30 cancer drug indications that were granted accelerated approval by the FDA were not subsequently reviewed by either European regulators or NICE, and 12 drugs were denied authorization or coverage owing to insufficient safety, clinical efficacy, or cost-effectiveness. National Health Service coverage of cancer drugs given FDA accelerated approval commonly required additional price concessions, restrictions to approved indications, or review of additional data.

Recalibrating Health Technology Assessment Methods for Cell and Gene Therapies.

Recently licensed cell and gene therapies have promising but highly uncertain clinical benefits. They are entering the market at very high prices, with the latest entrants costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. The significant long-term uncertainty posed by these therapies has already complicated the use of conventional economic evaluation approaches such as cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, which are widely used for assessing the value of new health interventions. Cell and gene therapies also risk jeopardising healthcare systems' financial sustainability. As a result, there is a need to recalibrate the current health technology assessment methods used to measure and compensate their value. In this paper, we outline a set of technical adaptations and methodological refinements to address key challenges in the appraisal of cell and gene therapies' value, including the assessment of efficiency and affordability. We also discuss the potential role of alternative financing mechanisms. Ultimately, uncertainties associated with cell and gene therapies can only be meaningfully addressed by improving the evidence base supporting their approval and adoption in healthcare systems.