The impact of willingness-to-pay threshold on price reduction recommendations for oncology drugs: a review of assessments conducted by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.

Since late 2020, the Canadian Agency of Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) has been using a threshold of $50,000 (CAD) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for both oncology and non-oncology drugs. When used for oncology products, this threshold is hypothesized to have a higher impact on the time to access these drugs in Canada. We studied the impact of price reductions on time to engagement and negotiation with the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance for oncology drugs reviewed by CADTH between January 2020 and December 2022. Overall, 103 assessments reported data on price reductions recommended by CADTH to meet the cost-effectiveness threshold for reimbursement. Of these assessments, 57% (59/103) recommendations included a price reduction of greater than 70% off the list price. Eight percent (8/103) were not cost-effective even at a 100% price reduction. Of the 47 assessments that had a clear benefit, in 21 (45%) CADTH recommended a price reduction of at least 70%. The median time to price negotiation (not including time to engagement) for assessments that received at least 70% vs >70% price reduction was 2.6 vs 4.8 months. This study showed that there is a divergence between drug sponsor's incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and CADTH revised ICER leading to a price reduction to meet the $50,000/QALY threshold. For the submissions with clear clinical benefit the median length of engagement (2.5 vs 3.3 months) and median length of negotiation (3.1 vs 3.6 months) were slightly shorter compared with the submissions where uncertainties were noted in the clinical benefit according to CADTH. This study shows that using a $50,000 per QALY threshold for oncology products potentially impacts timely access to life saving medications.

Critical Examination of Modeling Approaches Used in Economic Evaluations of First-Line Treatments for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common type of lung cancer, with up to 32% of patients with NSCLC harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. NSCLC harboring an EGFR mutation has a dedicated treatment pathway, with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy often being the therapy of choice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systemically review and summarize economic models of first-line treatments used for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations, as well as to identify areas for improvement for future models. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted via Ovid in PubMed, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews: Health Technology Assessment, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews: National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and EconLit. An initial search was conducted on 19 December 2022 and updated on 11 April 2023. Studies were selected according to predefined criteria using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome and Study design (PICOS) framework. RESULTS: Sixty-seven articles were included in the review, representing 59 unique studies. The majority of included models were cost-utility analyses (n = 52), with the remaining studies being cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 4) and a cost-minimization analysis (n = 1). Two studies incorporated both a cost-utility and cost-minimization analysis. Although the model structure across studies was consistently reported, justification for this choice was often lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Although the reporting of economic models in NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations is generally good, many of these studies lacked sufficient reporting of justification for structural choices, performing extensive sensitivity analyses and validation in economic evaluations. In resolving such gaps, the validity of future models can be increased to guide healthcare decision making in rare indications.

Budget Impact of Introducing Fixed-Duration Mosunetuzumab for the Treatment of Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma After Two or More Lines of Systemic Therapy in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the budget impact of introducing fixed-duration mosunetuzumab as a treatment option for adult patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two prior systemic therapies and to estimate the total cumulative costs per patient in the USA. METHODS: A 3-year budget impact model was developed for a hypothetical 1-million-member cohort enrolled in a mixed commercial/Medicare health plan. Comparators were: axicabtagene ciloleucel, tisagenlecleucel, tazemetostat, rituximab plus lenalidomide, copanlisib, and older therapies (rituximab or obinutuzumab ± chemotherapy). Costs per patient comprised treatment-associated costs including the drug, its administration, adverse events, and routine care. Dosing and safety data were ascertained from respective package inserts and clinical trial data. Drug costs (March 2023) were estimated based on the average wholesale acquisition cost reported in AnalySource®, and all other costs were based on published sources and inflated to 2022 US dollars. Market shares were obtained from Genentech internal projections and expert opinion. Budget impact outcomes were presented on a per-member per-month basis. RESULTS: Compared with a scenario without mosunetuzumab, its introduction over 3 years resulted in a budget increase of $69,812 (1% increase) and an average per-member per-month budget impact of $0.0019. Among the newer therapies, mosunetuzumab had the second-lowest cumulative per patient cost (mosunetuzumab = $202,039; axicabtagene ciloleucel = $505,845; tisagenlecleucel = $476,293; rituximab plus lenalidomide = $263,520; tazemetostat = $250,665; copanlisib = $127,293) and drug costs, and its introduction only increased total drug costs by 0.1%. By year 3, the cumulative difference in the per patient cost with mosunetuzumab was -$303,805 versus axicabtagene ciloleucel, -$274,254 versus tisagenlecleucel, -$61,481 versus rituximab plus lenalidomide, -$48,625 versus tazemetostat, and $74,747 versus copanlisib. Older therapies were less costly with 3-year cumulative costs that ranged from $36,512 to $147,885. CONCLUSIONS: Over 3 years, the estimated cumulative per patient cost of mosunetuzumab is lower than most available newer therapies, resulting in a small increase in the budget after its formulary adoption for the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma.

Budget impact analysis of venetoclax for the management of acute myeloid leukemia from the perspective of the social security and the private sector in Argentina.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the budget impact of the incorporation of venetoclax for the treatment of patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) over 75 years of age or those with comorbidities and contraindications for the use of intensive chemotherapy, from the perspective of the social security and the private third-party payers in Argentina. METHODS: A budget impact model was adapted to estimate the cost difference between the current scenario (azacitidine, decitabine and low doses of cytarabine) and the new scenario (incorporation of venetoclax) for a third-party payer over a time horizon of three years. Input parameters were obtained from a literature review, validated or complemented by expert opinion using a modified Panel Delphi approach. All direct medical costs were estimated by the micro-costing approach and were expressed in US dollars (USD) as of September 2020 (1 USD = 76.18 Argentine pesos). RESULTS: For a third-party payer with a cohort of 1,000,000 individuals covered, incorporating venetoclax was associated with an average budget impact per-member per-month (PMPM) of $0.11 USD for the social security sector and $0.07 USD for the private sector. The duration of treatment with venetoclax was the most influential parameter in the budget impact results. CONCLUSION: The introduction of venetoclax was associated with a positive and slight budget impact. These findings are informative to support policy decisions aimed to expand the current treatment landscape of AML.

Lengthy and Variable Delays in Oncology Drug Coverage Determination.

This cohort study examines the variability in time to pharmacy and therapeutics committees' determinations of coverage of approved oncology drugs across multiple payers.

Utilization Management Trends in Medicare Part D Oncology Drugs, 2010-2020.

This study examines the exposure of Medicare Part D beneficiaries to utilization management, such as prior authorization, for oral oncology drugs.

[New, more expensive - Not necessarily better]. / Nouveau et (beaucoup) plus cher ­ Meilleur ? - Chroniques génomiques.

The prices of new oncology drugs are frequently above 100,000 US dollars, and this does not generally correlate with significantly improved clinical efficacy. In the absence of effective regulation and of real competition, companies tend to charge « what the market can bear ¼. Regulatory intervention is required, notably at the EU level.

Treatment patterns and economic burden among newly diagnosed cervical and endometrial cancer patients.

Aim: This study evaluated treatment patterns, healthcare resource use and healthcare costs among newly diagnosed US patients with cervical or endometrial cancer. Materials & methods: The authors identified patients diagnosed between 2015 and 2018, described them by line of therapy (LOT), then summarized all-cause per patient per month healthcare resource use and healthcare costs per LOT. Results: Among 1004 patients with cervical cancer and 2006 patients with endometrial cancer, 65.2 and 71.4%, respectively, received at least LOT1. Common treatment modalities in LOT1 were surgery (cervical, 58.0%; endometrial, 92.6%), radiation therapy (cervical, 49.8%; 24.7%) and systemic therapy (cervical, 53.3%; endometrial, 26.1%). Mean per patient per month costs per LOT were pre-treatment (cervical, US$17,210; endometrial, US$14,601), LOT1 (cervical, US$10,929; endometrial, US$6859), LOT2 (cervical, US$15,183; endometrial, US$10,649) and LOT3+ (cervical, US$19,681; endometrial, US$9206). Conclusion: Overall, newly diagnosed patients with cervical or endometrial cancer received guideline-recommended treatment. Outpatient visits mainly drove healthcare costs across LOTs.

[Administrative delays of temporary recommendation for use: Impact on access to innovation in melanoma]. / Délais administratifs des RTU, effet sur l'accès à l'innovation dans le mélanome.

INTRODUCTION: Melanoma has benefited in recent years from therapeutic innovations, which have improved overall survival of patients. France has developed a regulatory arsenal allowing faster access to innovative drugs before marketing authorization: temporary authorization for use (ATU) and temporary recommendation for use (RTU). METHOD: We describe here the decision-making processes that led to the non-publication of the decree on the funding of three RTU in adjuvant melanoma therapy: nivolumab, pembrolizumab and the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib, and we analyse the fate of these drugs in order to quantify the potential loss of chance. RESULTS: On 03AUG2018, the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Product Safety (ANSM) published 3 RTU in order to give rapid access to major innovations in adjuvant melanoma therapy: nivolumab, pembrolizumab and the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib. These drugs have respectively demonstrated reductions in the risk of recurrence by 35 %, 43% and 55% for target populations of 2200, 1900 and 650 patients per year. Despite a favourable opinion on reimbursement from the French National Authority for Health (HAS), the decrees on reimbursement will never be published, prohibiting the use of these products before the marketing authorisation, and depriving many patients of a potential cure. CONCLUSION: Despite a favourable opinion from scientists and health agencies for the rapid availability of a drug, the French public health code does not systematically imply access to a therapeutic innovation. The reform of access to innovation implemented on 01JUL2021 may help tackle this issue.

Improving the Affordability of Anticancer Medicines Demands Evidence-Based Policy Solutions.

The high cost of many new anticancer medicines significantly impedes breakthrough discoveries from reaching patients. A commonly heard refrain is that high prices are necessary to compensate for the high costs of research and development (R&D). Yet, there are promising policy proposals aimed at improving affordability without compromising innovation. In seeking new policy solutions, we argue for a shift away from entrenched opinion toward an evidence-based discourse that is grounded in experiments and real-world pilot studies. We offer a novel perspective and practical recommendations on how empirical evidence could and should be gathered to inform evidence-based policy interventions that lead to sustainable medicine prices in oncology.See related article by Franzen et al. (Cancer Res Commun 2022;2:39-47).

Treatment patterns and economic burden among cervical and endometrial cancer patients newly initiating systemic therapy.

Aim: To evaluate treatment patterns, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and all-cause healthcare costs among patients with cervical or endometrial cancer newly initiating systemic therapy. Methods: We identified patients with cervical or endometrial cancer newly initiating systemic therapy - a claims-based proxy for advanced disease - between 2014 and 2019, described them by line of therapy (LOT), and summarized the per patient per month (PPPM) HCRU and healthcare costs per LOT. Results: Among 1229 patients with cervical cancer and 2659 patients with endometrial cancer, LOT1 therapies included systemic only (cervical, 50.1%; endometrial, 83.2%) and systemic with radiation therapy (cervical, 49.9%; endometrial, 16.8%). Mean PPPM total costs were: LOT1 (cervical, US$15,892; endometrial, US$11,363), LOT2 (US$20,193; US$14,019) and LOT3+ (US$16,576; US$14,645). Conclusions: Overall, patients received guideline-concordant care and experienced significant economic burden, which increased with LOT.

The budget impact of adding pralsetinib to a US health plan formulary for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and thyroid cancer with RET alterations.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 80% to 85% of all lung cancers. Thyroid cancer, while generally not as lethal as lung cancer, has a large prevalent population and a rapidly increasing incidence in the United States. Pralsetinib is a highly potent, selective rearranged during transfection (RET) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of RET-positive NSCLC and thyroid cancer tumors. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of adding pralsetinib to a 1 million-member US health plan formulary for the treatment of patients with metastatic RET fusion-positive NSCLC, advanced or metastatic RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer (MTC), or advanced or metastatic RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer (non-MTC). METHODS: A budget impact model with a 3-year time horizon was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate the number of eligible RET-positive NSCLC and thyroid cancer patients in a plan and quantify associated treatment costs (2020 USD). Comparators in the analyses included pralsetinib, selpercatinib, and cabozantinib, as well as indication-specific use of pembrolizumab, pemetrexed/carboplatin combination, vandetanib, lenvatinib, and sorafenib. Drug acquisition, molecular testing, treatment monitoring, and adverse event management costs were included to estimate total annual costs and per-member per-month (PMPM) costs in current (without pralsetinib) and potential future market scenarios, where pralsetinib is assumed to split the projected RET inhibitor market share with selpercatinib. The number of treated patients was based on age- and sex-adjusted incidence of disease, the proportion of patients diagnosed with advanced or metastatic disease, and projected RET testing rates. Treatment duration was based on progression-free survival or duration of response data from clinical trials. Medical resources were monetized using standardized sources such as Medicare reimbursement and wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). RESULTS: The model estimated that there would be approximately 6 new treatment-eligible patients in a 1 million-member plan annually. Monthly WAC is $19,243 for pralsetinib and $20,600 for selpercatinib at the recommended starting dose. Adoption of pralsetinib, with corresponding increases in pralsetinib market share, would be slightly cost saving to a payer, decreasing the overall budget impact to the health plan by $49,985 in year 3 (-$0.0042 PMPM; -$0.0030, -$0.0006, and -$0.0005 for NSCLC, MTC, and thyroid cancer [non-MTC], respectively). In year 3, drug costs were the key driver of total costs (~80%-98%) and cost savings. All other medical resource categories were cost-neutral or nominally cost saving or additive in the budget impact analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Quantifying the budget impact associated with the adoption of new targeted precision therapies is an important consideration for payers. For eligible NSCLC and thyroid cancer patients, our analysis suggests that adoption of pralsetinib is expected to result in modest cost savings for US payers. DISCLOSURES: Support for this study was provided by Blueprint Medicines Corporation. This study was conducted by Veritas Health Economics Consulting, Inc., in collaboration with Blueprint Medicines, which was involved in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Duff is an employee of Veritas Health Economics Consulting, which received research funding from Blueprint Medicines to develop the budget impact model. Norregaard and Sullivan are employees of Blueprint Medicines. Bargiacchi and Brener were employees of Blueprint Medicines at the time of the research study. This study was presented as a poster at the AMCP Virtual Learning Event, April 2021.

Medication adherence among patients with advanced prostate cancer using oral therapies.

Aims: In light of the extended overall survival and improved quality of life provided by advanced prostate cancer (PC) oral therapies, this study aimed to describe treatment adherence to advanced PC oral therapies and evaluate associated patient characteristics and subsequent healthcare resource utilization (HRU). Patients & methods: Patients with advanced PC initiating apalutamide, enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate were identified from administrative data (October 1, 2014-September 30, 2019). Adherence and persistence at six months postinitiation were used to evaluate patient factors and HRU. Results: Aged ≥75 years, Black race, chemotherapy use and higher pharmacy paid amounts were associated with poor adherence/persistence, which translated to higher HRU. Conclusions: Strategies to increase adherence and persistence may improve patient outcomes and associated HRU.

Lay abstract This study included 27,262 patients with advanced prostate cancer who started taking one of three oral cancer medications (apalutamide, enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate) between October 2014 and September 2019. Patients who were black, aged 75 years or older, who had chemotherapy or who had higher prescription costs had the most difficulty following dosing guidelines or staying on treatment. Patients who did not follow dosing guidelines required more healthcare services. In light of the extended survival and improved quality of life that oral cancer medication for advanced prostate cancer provides, helping patients to take the correct medication dose, at the right time, and for the recommended length of time may improve their outcomes and reduce medical costs.

Examining the association between oncology drug clinical benefit and the time to public reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: We examined if oncology drug indications with high clinical benefit, as measured by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), received public reimbursement status faster than those with lower clinical benefit from the time of pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) recommendation. METHODS: Oncology drug indications submitted to pCODR between July 2011 and October 2018 were examined. Included indications had a regulatory approval date, completed the pCODR review process, received a positive pCODR recommendation, and been funded by at least one province. Trials cited for clinical efficacy were used to determine the clinical benefit (per ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS) of drug indications. RESULTS: Eighty-four indications were identified, yielding 65 ASCO-VF and 50 ESMO-MCBS scores. The mean ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS scores were 44.9 (SD = 21.1) and 3.3 (SD = 1.0), respectively. The mean time to provincial reimbursement from pCODR recommendation was 13.2 months (SD = 9.3 months). Higher ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS scores had low correlation with shorter time to reimbursement, (ρ = -0.21) and (ρ = 0.24), respectively. In the multivariable analyses, ASCO-VF (p = 0.40) and ESMO-MCBS (p = 0.31) scores were not significantly associated with time to reimbursement. Province and year of pCODR recommendation were associated with time to reimbursement in both ASCO and ESMO models. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology drug indications with higher clinical benefit do not appear to be reimbursed faster than those with low clinical benefit. This suggests the need to prioritize oncology drug indications based on clinical benefit to ensure quicker access to oncology drugs with the greatest benefits.

Comparison of Prices and Affordability of Cancer Medicines in 16 Countries in Europe and Latin America.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that high prices of cancer medicines may limit patient access. Since information on prices for cancer medicines and their impact on affordability is lacking for several countries, particularly for lower income countries, this study surveys prices of originator cancer medicines in Europe and Latin America and assesses their affordability. METHODS: For 19 cancer medicines, public procurement and ex-factory prices, as of 2017, were surveyed in five Latin American (LATAM) countries (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru) and 11 European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). Price data (public procurement prices in LATAM and ex-factory prices in Europe) in US dollar purchasing power parities (PPP) were analyzed per defined daily dose. Affordability was measured by setting medicines prices in relation to national minimum wages. RESULTS: The prices of cancer medicines varied considerably between countries. In European countries with higher levels of income, PPP-adjusted prices tended to be lower than in European countries of lower income and LATAM countries. Except for one medicine, all surveyed medicines were considered unaffordable in most countries. In European countries of lower income and LATAM countries, more than 15 days' worth of minimum wages would be required by a worker to purchase one defined daily dose of several of the studied medicines. CONCLUSIONS: The high prices and large unaffordability of cancer medicines call for strengthening pricing policies with the aim of ensuring affordable treatment in cancer care.

Evaluation of Tucatinib in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC) patients with brain metastases (BMs) and the subgroup of active BMs from the United States (US) payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 regimens in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs: (1) tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (TTC); (2) placebo, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (PTC). And subgroup analysis of active BMs was also performed. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB) were estimated. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $200,000/QALY. The robustness of the model was tested by sensitivity analyses. Additional scenario analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Compared with PTC, the ICER yielded by TTC was $418,007.01/QALY and the INHB was -1.08 QALYs in patients with BMs. In the subgroup of active BMs, the ICER and the INHB were $324,465.03/QALY and -0.71 QALY, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the cost of tucatinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost-effective probability of TTC was low at the current WTP threshold in the patients with BMs and the subgroup of active BMs. CONCLUSION: Tucatinib is unlikely to be cost-effective in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs from the US payer perspective but shows better economics in patients with active BMs. Selecting a favorable population, reducing the price of tucatinib or offering appropriate drug assistance policies might be considerable options to optimize the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib.