Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of combination therapy versus monotherapy in malignant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Until 2010, stage III or IV malignant melanoma (MM) had a poor prognosis. The discovery of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in 2011 changed the treatment landscape. Promising results in patient survival with a checkpoint inhibitor prompted research into combination therapies. In 2016, the first combination therapy has been approved as first-line therapy for advanced MM. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work is to investigate to what extent combination therapy is (cost-)effective compared to monotherapy in stage III or IV MM. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed (Web of Science, PubMed, PubPharm, EconLit, and Cochrane Library); searching for publications published over the past decade that examine the cost-effectiveness in terms of cost/QALY and the effectiveness in terms of survival and response of combination therapy in comparison to monotherapy in stage III or IV MM patients. RESULTS: A total of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five cost-utility analyses met our inclusion criteria. Nine clinical trials demonstrated superiority of combination therapy over monotherapy. The combination of B-rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (BRAF) protein and mitogen-activated kinase (MEK) protein inhibitors is not cost-effective in any country. Three analyses demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy with ICI compared to monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy is more effective compared to monotherapy. While combined ICIs are cost-effective compared to monotherapy, this is not the case for the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

Pipeline progress and portfolio management of the top 30 pharma companies over the past two decades.

For pharmaceutical companies, it is essential to define their long-term corporate strategy. This especially involves the pipeline progress of pharmaceuticals and portfolio management. The objective of this study was to give a broad overview of study durations of the clinical trials from the top 30 pharmaceutical companies worldwide and to investigate what could possibly impact these study durations (e.g., indication areas, companies themselves, etc.) We worked with the clinicaltrials.gov database to examine the pipeline (phase 1-3) and portfolio (after regulatory approval) of the top 30 pharma companies worldwide over 20 years (from 2000-2020). We further calculated the study duration of each clinical study as the difference between the start date and end date. To analyze changes in our measure we estimated multiple linear regression to evaluate the impact of indication areas and companies on the study duration. Most of the clinical studies were conducted in the areas of ONCIM (N = 2720), and META (N = 1993). The indication with the highest study duration was ONCIM (on average 3.9 years per clinical study, SD: 0.8). Values for the study duration vary widely across companies. Mostly they range between 1 and 4 years (e.g., Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) on average 2.2 years per clinical study, SD: 1.0). Correlation analysis showed that study phases were positively correlated with the study duration (+ 0.36, p < 0.000), i.e., the higher the study phase, the higher the study duration. Furthermore, we found that indication areas influenced the study duration significantly (+ 0.17, p < 0.000). However, there were wide variations in effect sizes across indications. The results suggest that different indication areas influence the study duration to different extents. Pipeline progress and portfolio management differ widely between indications, companies and over the years. Research findings could help corporate strategy managers to make more informed decisions regarding their business development strategy.

Does health technology assessment compromise access to pharmaceuticals?

In response to rapidly rising pharmaceutical costs, many countries have introduced health technology assessment (HTA) as a 'fourth hurdle'. We evaluated the causal effect of HTA based regulation on access to pharmaceuticals by using the introduction of Germany's HTA system (AMNOG) in 2011. We obtained launch data on pharmaceuticals for 30 European countries from the IQVIA (formerly IMS) database. Using difference-in-difference models, we estimated the effect of AMNOG on launch delay, the ranking order of launch delays and the availability of pharmaceuticals. We then compared the results for Germany to Austria, Czechia, Italy, Portugal and the UK. Across all six countries, launch delay decreased from the pre-AMNOG period (25.01 months) to the post-AMNOG period (14.34 months). However, the introduction of AMNOG consistently reduced the magnitude of the decrease in launch delay in Germany compared to the comparator countries (staggered DiD: + 4.31 months, p = 0.05). Our logit results indicate that the availability of pharmaceuticals in Germany increased as a result of AMNOG (staggered logit: + 5.78%, p = 0.009). We provide evidence on the trade-off between regulation and access. This can help policymakers make better informed decisions to strike the right balance between cost savings achieved through HTA based regulation and access to pharmaceuticals.

10 Years of AMNOG: What is the Willingness-to-Pay for Pharmaceuticals in Germany?

OBJECTIVES: The German Pharmaceutical Market Restructuring Act (AMNOG, 2011) is a two-stage process to regulate the price of new pharmaceuticals in which price negotiations are conducted based on evidence-based medical benefit assessments using data from prior clinical trials. Although the act does not explicitly set a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, the process itself implicitly establishes a WTP for health improvement. We evaluated the implicit WTP for prescription pharmaceuticals post-AMNOG in the German healthcare system from the decision-maker/payer perspective. METHODS: We extracted data on patient-group-specific annual treatment costs and endpoints from 2011 to 2021 from the dossiers assessed by the German Federal Joint Committee (FJC; Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss). Using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), we calculated a WTP for the indications (I) diabetes, (II) cardiovascular disease, and (III) psoriasis weighted according to patient group size, first from the perspective of the decision-maker (approach A), and second from the perspective of the industry (approach B). To put clinical outcome measures into relation to one another, minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) were derived from the literature and compared. RESULTS: The annual treatment costs of newly authorized drugs were substantially higher (both pre- and post-negotiation) than that of their comparators (e.g., psoriasis, pre-negotiation: €20,601.59, post-negotiation: €16,763.57; comparators: €5178.00). However, although newly launched drugs were more expensive than their comparators, they brought greater medical benefits and were more aligned with value (r = 0.59, P < 0.001) than older drugs. We estimated WTP to vary widely by indication group [€33,814.08 per 1 percentage point hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reduction for diabetes, €10,970.83 per life year gained for cardiovascular disease, and €663.46 per 1% PASI decrease for psoriasis; approach A]. WTP was converted to MCID thresholds: diabetes: €16,907.04; cardiovascular drugs: no MCID existent to convert; and psoriasis: €33,173.00. WTP remained constant over time for diabetes and cardiovascular drugs but increased for psoriasis drugs. CONCLUSION: This paper is one of the first to estimate the implicit WTP for prescription pharmaceuticals post-AMNOG and suggests that the WTP may vary between different therapeutic areas. Additionally, making different assumptions (approach A versus approach B) with regard to the assumed effectiveness in indication areas that had been declared as having no additional benefit by the FJC may explain the different perspectives of decision-makers and of the pharmaceutical industry on the value of a pharmaceutical.

Does health technology assessment compromise access to pharmaceuticals?

In response to rapidly rising pharmaceutical costs, many countries have introduced health technology assessment (HTA) as a 'fourth hurdle'. We evaluated the causal effect of HTA based regulation on access to pharmaceuticals by using the introduction of Germany's HTA system (AMNOG) in 2011. We obtained launch data on pharmaceuticals for 30 European countries from the IQVIA (formerly IMS) database. Using difference-in-difference models, we estimated the effect of AMNOG on launch delay, the ranking order of launch delays, and the availability of pharmaceuticals. We then compared the results for Germany to Austria, Czechia, Italy, Portugal, and the UK. Across all six countries, launch delays decreased from the pre-AMNOG period (25.01 months) to the post-AMNOG period (14.34 months). However, the introduction of AMNOG consistently reduced the magnitude of the decrease in launch delay in Germany compared to the comparator countries (staggered DiD: + 4.31 months, p = 0.05). Our logit results indicate that the availability of pharmaceuticals in Germany increased as a result of AMNOG (staggered logit: + 5.78%, p = 0.009). We provide evidence on the trade-off between regulation and access. This can help policymakers make better-informed decisions to strike the right balance between cost savings achieved through HTA based regulation and access to pharmaceuticals.

Changes in launch delay and availability of pharmaceuticals in 30 European markets over the past two decades.

BACKGROUND: The timing of the launch of a new drug is an important factor that determines access for patients. We evaluated patient access to pharmaceuticals in 30 European markets over the past two decades. METHODS: Launch dates were extracted from the IQVIA (formerly IMS) database for 30 European countries for all pharmaceuticals launched internationally between 2000 and 2017. We defined launch delay as the difference between the first international launch date and the corresponding national launch date, and calculated these for each country in our sample over time. Additionally, we ranked countries according to their launch delays and looked at changes in the ranking order over time. Lastly, we determined the availability of new pharmaceuticals in each country, calculating this as the percentage of these pharmaceuticals that were available in each country during a pre-specified interval. RESULTS: There was a clear trend towards a decrease in launch delays across all countries from 2000 (37.2 months) to 2017 (11.8 months). Over the entire observation period, the three fastest launching countries were the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany, whereas the three slowest were Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, and Turkey. Germany had the highest availability of new pharmaceuticals with 85.7%, followed by the United Kingdom (83.1%) and Norway (82.9%). Countries with the lowest availability of pharmaceuticals were Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, and Latvia. Gross domestic product per capita was negatively correlated with launch delay (-0.67, p < 0.000) and positively correlated with the availability of pharmaceuticals (+ 0.19, p < 0.000). CONCLUSION: Launch delay and the availability of pharmaceuticals varied substantially across all 30 European countries. Using countries with above-average availability and below-average launch delays as a benchmark, stakeholders may discuss or modify current pharmaceutical policy, if needed, to improve access to pharmaceutical care.

Indication-wide drug pricing: Insights from the pharma market.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical spending has been increasing rapidly for years and is higher than ever before. To control the rising costs, countries are implementing regulatory frameworks such as (internal) reference pricing, price cuts or generics substitution. Internal reference pricing establishes a reference price within a country which serves as the maximum level of reimbursement for a group of pharmaceuticals. Price setting in the German market is especially relevant for many European countries, which use Germany as a reference country for their own price setting. METHODS: We evaluate pharmaceutical price dynamics for not reference priced pharmaceuticals (NRPs) as well as for reference priced pharmaceuticals (RPs) in Germany-referring to the internal reference price system. 64,862 medication packs have been extracted from the German pharmaceutical pricing register Lauer-Taxe. For each pack, we extracted detailed data on the company, manufacturer rebates, pharmacy retail prices, reference prices, co-payments, import quotas, and discount agreements. We then investigated price setting and dynamics of NRPs vs. RPs for all 14 indication areas by ATC code level 1. RESULTS: The average manufacturer price per pack was 604.84€ for NRPs and 112.11€ for RPs. Similar differences were found for the wholesale price and the pharmacy retail price. The reference price was-as expected-0.00€ for NRPs, and 154.40€ for RPs. NRP packs were imported in 42.38%, while RP packs were imported only in 24.62%. Highest average pharmacy retail prices could be found in the therapeutic areas 'antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents' (1711.47€), 'systemic hormonal preparations' (1331.95€), and 'blood and blood forming organs' (1260.58€). We detected high fluctuations in pharmacy retail prices per indication, as well as for reference prices per indication. The indications with the highest number of reference price regulated medical packs are 'cardiovascular system', 'musculo-skeletal system', and 'nervous system'. Highest co-payments were found in the indications 'antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents', 'blood and blood forming organs', and 'antiinfectives for systemic use'. CONCLUSION: Price setting and price dynamics vary substantially between NRP and RP medication packs. Further, we saw major differences across all indication areas as well as when comparing medication packs launched by top 20 pharma companies vs. the rest.

The molecular hallmarks of primary and secondary vitreoretinal lymphoma.

Vitreoretinal lymphoma (VRL) is a rare subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) considered a variant of primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL). The diagnosis of VRL requires examination of vitreous fluid, but cytologic differentiation from uveitis remains difficult. Because of its rarity and the difficulty in obtaining diagnostic material, little is known about the genetic profile of VRL. The purpose of our study was to investigate the mutational profile of a large series of primary and secondary VRL. Targeted next-generation sequencing using a custom panel containing the most frequent mutations in PCNSL was performed on 34 vitrectomy samples from 31 patients with VRL and negative controls with uveitis. In a subset of cases, genome-wide copy number alterations (CNAs) were assessed using the OncoScan platform. Mutations in MYD88 (74%), PIM1 (71%), CD79B (55%), IGLL5 (52%), TBL1XR1 (48%), ETV6 (45%), and 9p21/CDKN2A deletions (75%) were the most common alterations, with similar frequencies in primary (n = 16), synchronous (n = 3), or secondary (n = 12) VRL. This mutational spectrum is similar to MYD88mut/CD79Bmut (MCD or cluster 5) DLBCL with activation of Toll-like and B-cell receptor pathways and CDKN2A loss, confirming their close relationship. OncoScan analysis demonstrated a high number of CNAs (mean 18.6 per case). Negative controls lacked mutations or CNAs. Using cell-free DNA of vitreous fluid supernatant, mutations present in cellular DNA were reliably detected in all cases examined. Mutational analysis is a highly sensitive and specific tool for the diagnosis of VRL and can also be applied successfully to cell-free DNA derived from the vitreous.