Use of Efficiency Frontiers to Align Prices and Clinical Benefits of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis.

Importance: The US lacks a systematic approach for aligning drug prices with clinical benefit, and traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) faces political obstacles. The efficiency frontier (EF) method offers policymakers an alternative approach. Objective: To assess how the EF approach could align prices and clinical benefits of biologic medications for plaque psoriasis and estimate price reductions in the US vs 4 peer countries: Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Design and Setting: This health economic evaluation used the EF approach to compare the prices and clinical benefits of 11 biologics and 2 biosimilars for plaque psoriasis in the US, Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Data were collected from February to March 2023 and analyzed from March to June 2023. Main Outcome Measures: EFs were constructed based on each biologic's efficacy, measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rate, and annual treatment cost as of January 2023; US costs were net of estimated manufacturer rebates. Prices based on the EF were compared with traditional CEA-based prices calculated by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review at a threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Among 13 biologics, PASI 90 response rates ranged from 17.9% (etanercept) to 71.6% (risankizumab); US net annual treatment costs ranged from $1664 (infliximab-dyyb) to $79 277 (risankizumab). The median (IQR) net annual treatment cost was higher in the US ($34 965 [$20 493-$48 942]) than prerebate costs in Australia ($9179 [$6691-$12 688]), Canada ($15 556 [$13 017-$16 112]), France ($9478 [$6637-$11 678]), and Germany ($13 829 [$13 231-$15 837]). The US EF included infliximab-dyyb (PASI 90: 57.4%; annual cost: $1664), ixekizumab (PASI 90: 70.8%; annual cost: $33 004), and risankizumab (PASI 90: 71.6%; annual cost: $79 277). US prices for psoriasis biologics would need to be reduced by a median (IQR) of 71% (31%-95%) to align with those estimated using the EF; the same approach would yield smaller price reductions in Canada (41% [6%-57%]), Australia (36% [0%-65%]), France (19% [0%-67%]), and Germany (11% [8%-26%]). Except for risankizumab, the EF-based prices were lower than the prices based on traditional CEA. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation showed that for plaque psoriasis biologics, using an EF approach to negotiate prices could lead to substantial price reductions and better align prices with clinical benefits. US policymakers might consider using EFs to achieve prices commensurate with comparative clinical benefits, particularly for drug classes with multiple therapeutic alternatives for which differences can be adequately summarized by a single outcome measurement.

Understanding cancer survivors' reasons to medicate with cannabis: A qualitative study based on the theory of planned behavior.

BACKGROUND: Prior to nonmedical cannabis legalization in Canada, individuals were only able to access cannabis legally through licensed producers with medical authorization. Now with an additional legal access system designed for nonmedical purposes, it is unclear what factors influence cancer survivors' decisions to medicate or not medicate cannabis as a complementary therapy to alleviate their cancer symptoms. METHODS: We recruited cancer survivors via social media. Interested individuals were purposively sampled to ensure maximization in terms of age, sex, and province of residence. Constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior were explored during the telephone interviews as participants described what influenced their decisions to medicate or not medicate cannabis to manage their symptoms. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 33 cancer survivors. All individuals believed that cannabis would manage their cancer symptoms. Those that chose to medicate with cannabis provided a variety of reasons, including that cannabis was a more natural alternative; that it reduced their overall number of prescription drugs; and that safer products had become available with the legalization of nonmedical cannabis. Some individuals also indicated that support from physicians and validation from family and friends were important in their decision to medicate with cannabis. Individuals who opted not to medicate with cannabis raised concerns about the lack of scientific evidence and/or possible dependency issues. Some also felt their physician's disapproval was a barrier to considering cannabis use. CONCLUSIONS: The findings revealed that recreational legalization made using cannabis appear safer and easier to access for some cancer survivors. However, physicians' censure of cannabis use for symptom management was a barrier for survivors considering its use.