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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Analysis of Launch and Postapproval Cancer Drug Pricing, Clinical Benefit, and Policy Implications in the US and Europe.

IMPORTANCE: The high cost of cancer medicines is a public health challenge. Policy makers in the US and Europe are debating reforms to drug pricing that would cover both the prices of new medicines when entering the market and price increases after they are launched. OBJECTIVE: To assess launch prices, postlaunch price changes, and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the US compared with 3 European countries (England, Germany, and Switzerland). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic evaluation identified all new drugs that were approved for use in the US, England, Germany, and Switzerland with initial indications for treatment of adult solid tumor and hematologic cancers. Analysis included drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019, and by the European Medicines Agency and Swissmedic until December 31, 2019. Prices were adjusted for currency and inflation. Clinical benefit of drugs indicated for solid tumors was assessed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. Using Spearman rank correlation coefficients, correlations between clinical benefit and launch prices and postlaunch price changes for each country were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Launch prices, postlaunch price changes, and clinical benefit of cancer drugs. RESULTS: The cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) approved for solid tumors and 18 (28%) for hematologic cancers. In all countries, the lowest median monthly treatment costs at launch were greater in 2018-2019 vs 2009-2010: $14 580 vs $5790 in the US, $5888 vs $4289 in Germany, $6593 vs $5784 in Switzerland, and $6867 vs $3939 in England. Between 2009 and 2019, 48 of 65 (74%) cancer drugs had price increases in the US that were greater than inflation. Only 1 of 62 (2%) drugs in England, 0 of 60 drugs in Germany, and 7 of 56 drugs (13%) in Switzerland had a median price increase greater than inflation. There were no associations between launch prices or postlaunch price changes and clinical benefit in any assessed country. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: During this economic evaluation study period, launch prices of cancer drugs were substantially higher in the US than in the assessed similar high-income European countries, a gap that increased in the years after approval. Cancer drug prices frequently increased faster than inflation in the US but decreased on inflation-adjusted terms in Europe. Price changes were not associated with clinical benefit in any country.

Patients' access to drugs with rebates in Switzerland - Empirical analysis and policy implications for drug pricing in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Many European countries introduced (confidential) rebates in the past years. Authorities and manufacturers argue that this strategy allows reduction of spending on high-cost drugs, and quick access of innovative drugs. We evaluated these arguments using Switzerland as an example, one of the last countries with transparent rebates. METHODS: We identified all drugs granted rebates in Switzerland and all new drugs without rebates between January 2012 and October 2020. We assessed the amount of introduced drugs with and without rebates over time, clinical benefit of drugs with rebates, and duration between approval and price determination. FINDINGS: Our study cohort included 51 drugs with rebates, the majority were cancer drugs (32; 63%). 15/51 (29%) had high clinical benefit, 25/51 (49%) low benefit and for 11/51 (22%) benefit could not be assessed. The number of drugs with rebates increased in recent years. Time duration between approval and price determination was 302 days in median for drugs with and 106 days for drugs without rebates. INTERPRETATION: Drugs with rebates may hamper access to drugs and lead to overpayment. Improving transparency on actual drug prices and stronger cooperation between countries could help national authorities to make better informed pricing decisions, and improve access of innovative drugs to patients. FUNDING: This study was partially funded by the Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz) and the Swiss National Foundation (SNF).

Prices and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the USA and Europe: a cost-benefit analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasing cancer drug prices are a challenge for patients and health systems in the USA and Europe. By contrast with the USA, national authorities in European countries often directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) developed frameworks to evaluate the clinical value of cancer therapies: the ASCO-Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We aimed to assess the association between the clinical benefit of approved cancer drugs based on these frameworks and their drug prices in the USA and four European countries (England, Switzerland, Germany, and France). METHODS: For this cost-benefit analysis, we identified all new drugs with initial indications for adult cancers that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2017, and by the European Medicines Agency up until Sept 1, 2019. For drugs indicated for solid tumours, we assessed clinical benefit using ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS. We compared monthly drug treatment costs between benefit levels using hierarchical linear regression models, and calculated Spearman's correlation coefficients between costs and benefit levels for individual countries. FINDINGS: Our cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) drugs were approved for solid tumours and 18 (28%) were approved for haematological malignancies. The monthly drug treatment costs in the USA were a median of 2·31 times (IQR 1·79-3·17) as high as in the assessed European countries. There were no significant associations between monthly treatment costs for solid tumours and clinical benefit in all assessed countries, using the ESMO-MCBS (p=0·16 for the USA, p=0·98 for England, p=0·54 for Switzerland, p=0·52 for Germany, and p=0·40 for France), and for all assessed countries except France using ASCO-VF (p=0·56 for the USA, p=0·47 for England, p=0·26 for Switzerland, p=0·23 for Germany, and p=0·037 for France). INTERPRETATION: Cancer drugs with low or uncertain clinical benefit might be prioritised for price negotiations. Value frameworks could help identify therapies providing high clinical benefit that should be made rapidly available across countries. FUNDING: Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz).

Accessibility of cancer drugs in Switzerland: Time from approval to pricing decision between 2009 and 2018.

BACKGROUND: Approved drugs must be included on the so-called "special list" (SL) by the Federal Office for Public Health (FOPH) to be reimbursed by the social health insurance in Switzerland. The FOPH decides whether a drug may be included on SL and if so, negotiates the maximum price with the manufacturer. Time period between approval and inclusion on SL is important to evaluate accessibility of patients to drugs. METHODS: We identified all approved cancer drugs for first indication between 2009-2018 in Switzerland and determined whether they have been included on SL, and if so, how many days passed between approval and reimbursement, i.e., inclusion on SL. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed by using R. RESULTS: 70 cancer drugs have been approved between 2009 and 2018. Among this sample, 56 (80 %) are on SL. Average time from drug approval to inclusion date on SL increased from 234 days in 2009 to 463 days in 2018, with an average time of 352 days over the full analysis period. CONCLUSION: Time period between approval and inclusion on SL has prolonged over the past years. This impedes patients' access to cancer drugs. Prioritizing HTA and price negotiation of cancer drugs with high clinical benefit or implement a regulation that sets a maximum time period for HTA and price negotiation are possible policy implications.

Analysis of Proposed Medicare Part B to Part D Shift With Associated Changes in Total Spending and Patient Cost-Sharing for Prescription Drugs.

Importance: The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed to reform drug pricing in Medicare Part B, which primarily covers physician-administered drugs and biologic agents. One HHS proposal would shift coverage of certain drugs from Medicare Part B to Part D, which is administered by private prescription drug plans. Objective: To estimate the association of changes of a shift in Medicare Part B to Part D with total drug spending and patient cost-sharing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective drug cohort study of the 75 brand-name drugs associated with the highest Part B expenditures among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated total Medicare spending in Part B and Part D; annual out-of-pocket costs in Part B and under the standard 2018 Part D benefit; and proportion of drugs in Part D's protected drug classes (immunosuppressants for prophylaxis of organ transplant rejection, antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, antiretrovirals, and antineoplastics). Results: At 2018 prices, total Medicare Part B spending for the 75 brand-name drugs with the highest Part B expenditures was estimated to be $21.6 billion annually. Under the proposed policy, total Part D drug spending for these drugs was estimated to range between $17.6 billion and $20.1 billion after rebates, corresponding to a 6.9% to 18.3% decrease in drug spending in Part D compared with Part B. Of the 75 drugs studied, 33 (44.0%) drugs, accounting for $9.5 billion (43.9%) in Part B spending, were in protected Part D classes where plans must cover essentially all drugs. For 67 drugs with available information, the prices for 65 (97.0%) were a median of 45.8% to 59.7% lower in comparator high-income countries than Part B drug prices. Median patient cost-sharing in Part B for all 75 brand-name drugs was $4683 (interquartile range [IQR], $1069-$9282) per year. Shifting Part B drugs to the 2018 standard Part D benefit was projected to decrease out-of-pocket costs by a median of $860 (IQR, -$3884 to $496) among Medicare beneficiaries without Medicaid or Part B supplemental insurance (Medigap). For beneficiaries who would qualify for the low-income subsidy program in Part D, cost-sharing would be lower in Part D than in Part B for all drugs. For beneficiaries with Medigap insurance, estimated Part D out-of-pocket costs exceeded average Medigap premium costs by a median of $1460 for those with Part D coverage and by a median of $1952 for those without Part D coverage. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the HHS proposal to shift certain drugs from Medicare Part B to Part D may reduce total drug spending, it may increase out-of-pocket costs for some Medicare beneficiaries, including those with Medicare supplement insurance. The Department of Health and Human Services should ensure that the proposed reforms benefit both patients and payers.