Cancer drug indication approvals in China and the United States: a comparison of approval times and clinical benefit, 2001-2020.

Background: Perceived delays in cancer drug approvals have been a major concern for policymakers in China. Policies have been implemented to accelerate the launch of new cancer drugs and indications. This study aimed to assess similarities and differences between China and the United States in the approvals, timing, and clinical benefit evidence of cancer drug indications between 2001 and 2020. Methods: This study retrospectively identified all cancer drugs and indications approved in both China and the United States from January 1st, 2001 to December 31, 2020, and described differences in approval times as well as in submission and review times. Information on the availability of overall survival benefit evidence by December 31, 2020, was collected. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether evidence of benefit and other factors affected the propensity and timing of approvals of cancer drug indications in China. Findings: Between 2001 and 2020, 229 indications corresponding to 145 cancer drugs approved in the United States were identified. Of those, 80 indications (34.9%) were also approved in China by the end of 2020. Cancer drug indications were approved in China at a median of 1273.5 days after approval in the United States. The median submission and review time differences for cancer drug indications in China were 1198.0 days and 180.0 days respectively. Submission time differences accounted for most of the approval time differences (p < 0.001). Indications supported by overall survival benefit evidence had shorter median review time differences (145.0 days) than those without such evidence (235.0 days, p = 0.008). Indications with overall survival benefit evidence were 3.94 times more likely to be approved in China compared to those without such evidence (p = 0.001), controlling for approval year, cancer type, and the prevalence of cancer by site. Interpretation: FDA-approved cancer drug indications demonstrating a survival benefit were more likely to receive approvals in China with shorter regulatory review times compared to indications without such evidence. Given that manufacturer submission times were the main driver of cancer drug approval times in China, factors influencing submission timing should be explored. Funding: No funding.

The impact of government reimbursement negotiation on targeted anticancer medicines use and cost in China: A cohort study based on national health insurance data.

Background: High prices of targeted anticancer medicines (TAMs) result in financial toxicity for patients and the health insurance system. How national price negotiation and reimbursement policy affect the accessibility of TAMs for cancer patients remains unknown. Methods: In this population-based cohort study, we used national health insurance claims data in 2017 and identified adult patients with cancer diagnoses for which price-negotiated TAMs were indicated. We estimated the half-month prevalence of price-negotiated TAMs use before and after the policy implementation in September 2017. We calculated direct medical costs, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, and the proportion of OOP cost for each cancer patient to measure their financial burden attributable to TAMs use. We performed segmented linear and multivariable logistic regression to analyse the policy impact. Results: We included 39 391 of a total 118 655 cancer beneficiaries. After September 2017, the prevalence of price-negotiated TAMs use increased from 1.4%-2.1% to 2.9%-3.1% (P = 0.005); TAMs users' daily medical costs increased from US$261.3 to US$292.5 (P < 0.001), while median daily OOP costs (US$68.2 vs US$65.7; P = 0.134) and OOP costs as a proportion of daily medical costs persisted (28.5% vs 28.5%; P = 0.995). Compared with resident beneficiaries, the relative probability of urban employee beneficiaries on TAMs uses decreased after the policy (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.4 vs aOR = 2.2). Conclusions: The government price negotiation and reimbursement policy improved patient access to TAMs and narrowed disparities among insurance schemes. China's approach to promoting the affordability of expensive medicines provides valuable experience for health policy decision-makers.

Effect of a national antibiotic stewardship intervention in China targeting carbapenem overuse: An interrupted time-series analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess trends and patterns of carbapenem use and to evaluate the effects of a nationwide antibiotic stewardship policy to reduce carbapenem overuse. METHODS: In this quasi-experimental study, using longitudinal data from the national drug procurement database and interrupted time-series analyses with carbapenems as the intervention group and possible carbapenem substitutes as the comparison group, we evaluated the effects of a national stewardship policy on carbapenem consumption and expenditures, by region and types of healthcare institutions. RESULTS: The carbapenem procurement volume declined by -28.8% (95% CI -35.0 to -22.6) (-334.4 thousand defined daily doses [DDDs] per month), and carbapenem expenditures showed a relative reduction of -38.1% (-43.9 to -32.2). The gap between the use of carbapenems and each drug in the comparison group narrowed after the policy intervention, with an increase in tigecycline use (14.9 thousand DDDs [10.8-18.9]) and a slower decrease in use of certain third-generation cephalosporin combinations (-85.7 [-143.0 to -28.4]), penicillin combinations (-200.9 [-421.4-19.6]), and fourth-generation cephalosporins (-116.9 [-219.8 to -14.0]). Consumption was highest during the pre-policy period, and declines were largest following the intervention in the eastern region (-32.1%, -39.8 to -24.4) and among tertiary hospitals (-266.2 [-339.5 to -192.9] thousand DDDs per month). CONCLUSION: This population-level drug utilization research represents the first comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of China's nationwide carbapenem stewardship. The national policy targeting carbapenem prescribing has led to a sustained reduction in carbapenem use with limited substitution. Effects varied geographically and were concentrated in tertiary and secondary hospitals.

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.

Communication of anticancer drug benefits and related uncertainties to patients and clinicians: document analysis of regulated information on prescription drugs in Europe.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency with which relevant and accurate information about the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs are communicated to patients and clinicians in regulated information sources in Europe. DESIGN: Document content analysis. SETTING: European Medicines Agency. PARTICIPANTS: Anticancer drugs granted a first marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency, 2017-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether written information on a product addressed patients' commonly asked questions about: who and what the drug is used for; how the drug was studied; types of drug benefit expected; and the extent of weak, uncertain, or missing evidence for drug benefits. Information on drug benefits in written sources for clinicians (summaries of product characteristics), patients (patient information leaflets), and the public (public summaries) was compared with information reported in regulatory assessment documents (European public assessment reports). RESULTS: 29 anticancer drugs that received a first marketing authorisation for 32 separate cancer indications in 2017-19 were included. General information about the drug (including information on approved indications and how the drug works) was frequently reported across regulated information sources aimed at both clinicians and patients. Nearly all summaries of product characteristics communicated full information to clinicians about the number and design of the main studies, the control arm (if any), study sample size, and primary measures of drug benefit. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information to patients about how drugs were studied. 31 (97%) summaries of product characteristics and 25 (78%) public summaries contained information about drug benefits that was accurate and consistent with information in regulatory assessment documents. The presence or absence of evidence that a drug extended survival was reported in 23 (72%) summaries of product characteristics and four (13%) public summaries. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information about the drug benefits that patients might expect based on study findings. Scientific concerns about the reliability of evidence on drug benefits, which were raised by European regulatory assessors for almost all drugs in the study sample, were rarely communicated to clinicians, patients, or the public. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study highlight the need to improve the communication of the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs in regulated information sources in Europe to support evidence informed decision making by patients and their clinicians.

Association Between Preapproval Confirmatory Trial Initiation and Conversion to Traditional Approval or Withdrawal in the FDA Accelerated Approval Pathway.

This study examines the Food and Drug Administration's accelerated approval pathway and whether preapproval initiation was associated with faster conversion to traditional approval or withdrawal for drugs with nononcology indications.

Overall Survival Benefits of Cancer Drugs Approved in China From 2005 to 2020.

Importance: Of approximately 9 million patients with cancer in China in 2020, more than half were diagnosed with late-stage cancers. Recent regulatory reforms in China have focused on improving the availability of new cancer drugs. However, evidence on the clinical benefits of new cancer therapies authorized in China is not available. Objective: To characterize the clinical benefits of cancer drugs approved in China, as defined by the availability and magnitude of statistically significant overall survival (OS) results. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods study comprising a systematic review and cross-sectional analysis identified antineoplastic agents approved in China between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2020, using publicly available data and regulatory review documents issued by the National Medical Products Administration. The literature published up to June 30, 2021, was reviewed to collect results on end points used in pivotal trials supporting cancer drug approvals. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was a documented statistically significant positive OS difference between a new cancer therapy and a comparator treatment. Secondary outcome measures were the magnitude of OS benefit and other primary efficacy measures in pivotal trials. Results: Between 2005 and 2020, 78 cancer drugs corresponding to 141 indications were authorized in China, including 20 drugs (25.6%) (for 30 indications) approved in China only. Of all indications, 26 (18.4%) were evaluated in single-arm or dose-optimization trials, most of which were authorized after 2017. By June 30, 2021, 34 drug indications (24.1%) had a documented lack of OS gain. For 68 indications (48.2%) that had documented evidence of OS benefit, the median magnitude of OS improvement was 4.1 (range, 1.0-35.0) months. After a median follow-up of 1.9 (range, 1.0-11.1) years from approval, OS data for 13 indications (9.2%) were either not reported or were still not mature. Fewer than one-third of cancer drug indications approved in China only had documented evidence of OS benefits (9 of 30 [30.0%]), whereas more than one-half of the cancer drug indications also available in the US or Europe had OS benefits (59 of 111 [53.1%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, almost half of cancer drug indications approved in China had demonstrated OS gain. With the increase of cancer drug approvals based on single-arm trials or immature survival data in recent years, these findings highlight the need to routinely monitor the clinical benefits of new cancer therapies in China.

New-Onset Cancer Cases in FDA's Sentinel System: A Large Distributed System of US Electronic Healthcare Data.

BACKGROUND: Evaluations of cancer etiology and safety and effectiveness of cancer treatments are predicated on large numbers of patients with sufficient baseline and follow-up data. To assess feasibility of FDA's Sentinel System's electronic healthcare data for surveillance of malignancy onset and examination of product safety, this study examined patterns of enrollment surrounding new-onset cancers. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort of patients based on administrative claims, we identified incident events of 19 cancers among 292.5 million health plan members from January 2000 to February 2020 using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis codes. Annual incident cases were stratified by sex, age, medical and drug coverage, and insurer type. Descriptive statistics were calculated for observable time prior to and following diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 10,697,573 incident cancer events among members with medical coverage. When drug coverage was additionally required, number of incident cancers was reduced by 41%. Medicare data contributed 61% of cases, with similar duration trends as other insurers. Mean duration of follow-up prior to diagnosis ranged from 4.0 to 4.6 years, whereas follow-up post diagnosis ranged from 1.1 to 3.3 years. Approximately a third (36.1%) had at least 2 years both prior to and following diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The FDA Sentinel System's electronic healthcare data may be useful for characterizing relatively short latency cancer risk, examining cancer drug utilization and safety after diagnosis, and conducting surveillance for acute adverse events among patients with cancers. IMPACT: A national distributed system with electronic health data, the Sentinel system provides opportunity for rapid pharmacoepidemiologic assessments relevant in oncology.

Use of Palliative Care Among Commercially Insured Patients With Metastatic Cancer Between 2001 and 2016.

PURPOSE: Early palliative care, concomitant with disease-directed treatments, is recommended for all patients with advanced cancer. This study assesses population-level trends in palliative care use among a large cohort of commercially insured patients with metastatic cancer, applying an expanded definition of palliative care services based on claims data. METHODS: Using nationally representative commercial insurance claims data, we identified patients with metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, bronchus, trachea, ovarian, esophageal, pancreatic, and liver cancers and melanoma between 2001 and 2016. We assessed the annual proportions of these patients who received services specified as, or indicative of, palliative care. Using Cox proportional hazard models, we assessed whether the time from diagnosis of metastatic cancer to first encounter of palliative care differed by demographic characteristics, socioeconomic factors, or region. RESULTS: In 2016, 36% of patients with very poor prognosis cancers received a service specified as, or indicative of, palliative care versus 18% of those with poor prognosis cancers. Being diagnosed in more recent years (2009-2016 v 2001-2008: hazard ratio [HR], 1.8; P < .001); a diagnosis of metastatic esophagus, liver, lung, or pancreatic cancer, or melanoma (v breast cancer, eg, esophagus HR, 1.89; P < .001); a greater number of comorbidities (American Hospital Formulary Service classes > 10 v 0: HR, 1.71; P < .001); and living in the Northeast (HR, 1.43; P < .001) or Midwest (v South: HR, 1.39; P < .001) were the strongest predictors of shorter time from diagnosis to palliative care. CONCLUSION: Use of palliative care among commercially insured patients with advanced cancers has increased since 2001. However, even with an expanded definition of services specified as, or indicative of, palliative care, < 40% of patients with advanced cancers received palliative care in 2016.

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.

Forecasting essential childhood cancer drug need: An innovative model-based approach.

BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries have not kept pace with advances in care and survival in high-income countries. A contributing factor to this survival gap is unreliable access to essential drugs. METHODS: The authors created a tool (FORx ECAST) capable of predicting drug quantity and cost for 18 pediatric cancers. FORx ECAST enables users to estimate the quantity and cost of each drug based on local incidence, stage breakdown, treatment regimen, and price. Two country-specific examples are used to illustrate the capabilities of FORx ECAST to predict drug quantities. RESULTS: On the basis of domestic public-sector price data, the projected annual cost of drugs to treat childhood cancer cases is 0.8 million US dollars in Kenya and 3.0 million US dollars in China, with average median price ratios of 0.9 and 0.1, respectively, compared with costs sourced from the Management Sciences for Health (MSH) International Medical Products Price Guide. According to the cumulative chemotherapy cost, the most expensive disease to treat is acute lymphoblastic lymphoma in Kenya, but a higher relative unit cost of methotrexate makes osteosarcoma the most expensive diagnosis to treat in China. CONCLUSIONS: FORx ECAST enables needs-based estimates of childhood cancer drug volumes to inform health system planning in a wide range of contexts. It is broadly adaptable, allowing decision makers to generate results specific to their needs. The resultant estimates of drug need can help equip policymakers and health governance institutions with evidence-informed data to advance innovative procurement strategies that drive global improvements in childhood cancer drug access.

Intensity of End-of-Life Care in a Cohort of Commercially Insured Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: There is limited evidence on the intensity of end-of-life (EOL) care for women < 65 years old, who account for about 40% of breast cancer deaths in the United States. Using established indicators, we estimated the intensity of EOL care among these women. METHODS: We used 2000-2014 claims data from a large US insurer to identify women with metastatic breast cancer who, in the last month of their lives, had more than one hospital admission, emergency department visit, or an intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or used antineoplastic therapy in the last 14 days of life. Using multivariate logistic regression, we assessed whether intensity of EOL care differed by demographic characteristics, socioeconomic factors, or regions. RESULTS: Adjusted estimates show an increase in EOL ICU admissions between 2000-2003 and 2010-2014 from 14% (95% CI, 10% to 17%) to 23% (95% CI, 20% to 26%) and a small increase in emergency department visits from 10% (95% CI, 7% to 13%) to 12% (95% CI, 9% to 15%), both statistically significant. There was no statistically significant change in the proportions of women experiencing more than one EOL hospitalization (14% in 2010-2014; 95% CI, 11% to 17%) and of those receiving EOL antineoplastic treatment (24% in 2010-2014; 95% CI, 21% to 27%). Living in predominantly mixed, Hispanic, Black, or Asian neighborhoods correlated with more intense care (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.77 for ICU). CONCLUSION: Consistent with findings in the Medicare population, our results suggest an overall increase in the number of ICU admissions at the EOL over time. They also suggest that patients from non-White neighborhoods receive more intense acute care.

Efficacy and costs of spinal muscular atrophy drugs.

Evaluating the benefits, risks, and costs of two drugs to treat spinal muscular atrophy raises questions about the future of rare disease medicines.

The Complex Cancer Care Coverage Environment - What is the Role of Legislation? A Case Study from Massachusetts.

Over the past decades, anti-cancer treatments have evolved rapidly from cytotoxic chemotherapies to targeted therapies including oral targeted medications and injectable immuno-oncology and cell therapies. New anti-cancer medications come to markets at increasingly high prices, and health insurance coverage is crucial for patient access to these therapies. State laws are intended to facilitate insurance coverage of anti-cancer therapies.Using Massachusetts as a case study, we identified five current cancer coverage state laws and interviewed experts on their perceptions of the relevance of the laws and how well they meet the current needs of cancer care given rapid changes in therapies. Interviewees emphasized that cancer therapies, as compared to many other therapeutic areas, are unique because insurance legislation targets their coverage. They identified the oral chemotherapy parity law as contributing to increasing treatment costs in commercial insurance. For commercial insurers, coverage mandates combined with the realities of new cancer medications - including high prices and often limited evidence of efficacy at approval - compound a difficult situation. Respondents recommended policy approaches to address this challenging coverage environment, including the implementation of closed formularies, the use of cost-effectiveness studies to guide coverage decisions, and the application of value-based pricing concepts. Given the evolution of cancer therapeutics, it may be time to evaluate the benefits and challenges of cancer coverage mandates.

Article 3: 1-year impact of supervision, performance assessment, and recognition strategy (SPARS) on prescribing and dispensing quality in Ugandan health facilities.

BACKGROUND: To strengthen appropriate medicine use (AMU) including the prescribing and dispensing quality at public sector health facilities in Uganda, the Ministry of Health introduced a multipronged approach known as the Supervision, Performance Assessment, and Recognition Strategy (SPARS). This paper assesses the impact of the first year of SPARS implementation on key AMU indicators. METHODS: District-based health workers trained as supervisors provide in-service training in medicines management complemented by indicator-based performance assessment and targeted supervision during each SPARS facility visit. From 2010 to 2013, health facilities that started the SPARS intervention were assessed during the first and last visit during a period of 12 months of implementing SPARS. This study examines 12 AMU indicators with 57 individual outcomes covering prescribing and dispensing quality. We also explored factors influencing 1-year improvement. RESULTS: We found an overall increase in AMU indicators of 17 percentage points (p < 0.000) between the first and last visit during a period of 12 months of supervisions, which was significant in all levels of health care facilities and in both government and private not-for-profit faith-based sectors. Appropriate dispensing (25 percentage points, p < 0.005) improved more than appropriate prescribing (12 percentage points, p = 0.13). Specific facilities that reached an average score of over 75% across all AMU measures within the first year of supervision improved from 3 to 41% from the first visit (baseline). The greatest overall impact on AMU occurred in lower-level facilities; the level of improvement varied widely across indicators, with the greatest improvements seen for the lowest baseline measures. Supervision frequency had a significant impact on level of improvement in the first year, and private not-for-profit faith-based health facilities had notably higher increases in several dispensing and prescribing indicator scores than public sector facilities. CONCLUSIONS: The multipronged SPARS approach was effective in building appropriate medicine use capacity, with statistically significant improvements in AMU overall and almost all prescribing and dispensing quality measures after 12 months of supervision. We recommend broad dissemination of the SPARS approach as an effective strategy to strengthen appropriate medicine use in low-income countries.