Launch sequencing of pharmaceuticals with multiple therapeutic indications: evidence from seven countries.

BACKGROUND: New medicines are increasingly being identified as efficacious across multiple indications. The impact of current pricing and reimbursement policies on launch decisions across these indications remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This paper, first, maps marketing authorisation and HTA coverage recommendation sequences of multi-indication medicines across Germany, France, England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and the USA, and, second, evaluates the clinical characteristics, clinical development time and coverage recommendation time of multi-indication medicines, drawing comparisons between the first and subsequent indications of an approved molecule. METHODS: Medicine approvals by the Food and Drug Administration between 2009-2019 were screened to identify multi-indication products with approved oncology indications. Data on clinical trial characteristics, clinical performance and HTA outcomes were extracted from publicly available regulatory approval and HTA reports. RESULTS: Relative to subsequent indications, first indications were more likely to receive conditional marketing authorisation, have an orphan designation, have a single arm phase II pivotal trial and lower MCBS score. Subsequent indications had faster HTA coverage recommendation times in England and Canada. While the majority of first indications received HTA coverage recommendations across all settings, the proportion of subsequent indications with HTA coverage recommendations was lower and uptake varied considerably across settings. CONCLUSIONS: Discordance in the value of first versus subsequent indications can pose major challenges in systems that define price based on the initial indication. Current pricing and reimbursement systems generate significant fragmentation in the approval and availability of multi-indication products across settings.

Initial and supplementary indication approval of new targeted cancer drugs by the FDA, EMA, Health Canada, and TGA.

BACKGROUND: Previous research focused on the clinical evidence supporting new cancer drugs' initial US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. However, targeted drugs are increasingly approved for supplementary indications of unknown evidence and benefit. OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical trial evidence supporting new targeted cancer drugs' initial and supplementary indication approval in the US, EU, Canada, and Australia. DATA AND METHODS: 25 cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with FDA approval between 2009-2019. Data on regulatory approval and clinical trials were extracted from the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA), Health Canada (HC), Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and clinicaltrials.gov. Regional variations were compared with χ2-tests. Multivariate logistic regressions compared characteristics of initial and supplementary indication approvals, reporting adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Out of 100 considered cancer indications, the FDA approved 96, the EMA 92, HC 86, and the TGA 83 (83%, p < 0.05). The FDA more frequently granted priority review, conditional approval, and orphan designations than other agencies. Initial approvals were more likely to receive conditional / accelerated approval (AOR: 2.69, 95%CI [1.07-6.77], p < 0.05), an orphan designation (AOR: 3.32, 95%CI [1.38-8.00], p < 0.01), be under priority review (AOR: 2.60, 95%CI [1.17-5.78], p < 0.05), and be monotherapies (AOR: 5.91, 95%CI [1.14-30.65], p < 0.05) than supplementary indications. Initial indications' pivotal trials tended to be shorter (AOR per month: 0.96, 95%CI [0.93-0.99], p < 0.05), of lower phase design (AOR per clinical phase: 0.28, 95%CI [0.09-0.85], p < 0.05), and enroll more patients (AOR per 100 patients: 1.19, 95%CI [1.01-1.39], p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted cancer drugs are increasingly approved for multiple indications of varying clinical benefit. Drugs are first approved as monotherapies in rare diseases with a high unmet need. Whilst expedited regulatory review incentivizes this prioritization, indication-specific safety, efficacy, and pricing policies are necessary to reflect each indication's differential clinical and economic value.

Sin taxes and their effect on consumption, revenue generation and health improvement: a systematic literature review in Latin America.

Sin or public health taxes are excise taxes imposed on the consumption of potentially harmful goods for health [sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), tobacco, alcohol, among others], aiming to reduce consumption, raise additional revenue and/or improve population health. This paper assesses the extent to which sin taxes (a) can reduce consumption of potentially harmful goods, (b) raise revenue for national health systems and (c) contribute to population health in Latin America. A systematic literature review was conducted on peer-reviewed and grey literature; endpoints included: impact of raising sin taxes on consumption, ability to raise revenue for health and the possibility of population health improvements. Risk of bias for each study was assessed. The synthesis of the literature on sin tax implementation showed improvements in all three endpoints across the study countries. Following the introduction of sin taxes or by simulating their potential impact, nearly all studies explicitly reported that consumption of potentially harmful goods (mainly SSBs and tobacco) declined; revenue was found to have increased in almost all countries, suggesting that there may be additional scope for further tax increase. Simulated improvements in population health have also been shown, by demonstrating a relationship between sin tax increases and reduction in prevalence of diabetes, stroke, heart attacks and associated deaths. However, sin tax effects on health would be better quantified over the long-term. Data quality and availability challenges did place some limitations on sin tax impact assessment. Sin taxes can be effective in reducing consumption of potentially harmful goods, improve population health and generate additional revenue. Promoting further research on this topic should be a priority.