Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 414
Filtrar
2.
Lancet Oncol ; 21(5): 664-670, 2020 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32359489

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Increasing cancer drug prices are a challenge for patients and health systems in the USA and Europe. By contrast with the USA, national authorities in European countries often directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) developed frameworks to evaluate the clinical value of cancer therapies: the ASCO-Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We aimed to assess the association between the clinical benefit of approved cancer drugs based on these frameworks and their drug prices in the USA and four European countries (England, Switzerland, Germany, and France). METHODS: For this cost-benefit analysis, we identified all new drugs with initial indications for adult cancers that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2017, and by the European Medicines Agency up until Sept 1, 2019. For drugs indicated for solid tumours, we assessed clinical benefit using ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS. We compared monthly drug treatment costs between benefit levels using hierarchical linear regression models, and calculated Spearman's correlation coefficients between costs and benefit levels for individual countries. FINDINGS: Our cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) drugs were approved for solid tumours and 18 (28%) were approved for haematological malignancies. The monthly drug treatment costs in the USA were a median of 2·31 times (IQR 1·79-3·17) as high as in the assessed European countries. There were no significant associations between monthly treatment costs for solid tumours and clinical benefit in all assessed countries, using the ESMO-MCBS (p=0·16 for the USA, p=0·98 for England, p=0·54 for Switzerland, p=0·52 for Germany, and p=0·40 for France), and for all assessed countries except France using ASCO-VF (p=0·56 for the USA, p=0·47 for England, p=0·26 for Switzerland, p=0·23 for Germany, and p=0·037 for France). INTERPRETATION: Cancer drugs with low or uncertain clinical benefit might be prioritised for price negotiations. Value frameworks could help identify therapies providing high clinical benefit that should be made rapidly available across countries. FUNDING: Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz).

4.
Sci Transl Med ; 12(540)2020 Apr 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32321867

RESUMO

Precision medicine is beginning to make an impact on the treatment of different diseases, but there are still challenges that must be overcome, such as the complexity of interventions, the need for marker validation, and the level of evidence necessary to demonstrate effectiveness. In this Perspective, we describe how evidence landscapes can help to address these challenges.

6.
Value Health ; 23(4): 434-440, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32327160

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Outcomes-based contracts tie rebates and discounts for expensive drugs to outcomes. The objective was to estimate the utility of outcomes-based contracts for diabetes medications using real-world data and to identify methodologic limitations of this approach. METHODS: A population-based cohort study of adults newly prescribed a medication for diabetes with a publicly announced outcomes-based contract (ie, exenatide microspheres ["exenatide"], dulaglutide, or sitagliptin) was conducted. The comparison group included patients receiving canagliflozin or glipizide. The primary outcome was announced in the outcomes-based contract: the percentage of adults with a follow-up hemoglobin A1C <8% up to 1 year later. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of patients diagnosed with hypoglycemia and the cost of a 1-month supply. RESULTS: Thousands of adults newly filled prescriptions for exenatide (n = 5079), dulaglutide (n = 6966), sitagliptin (n = 40 752), canagliflozin (n = 16 404), or glipizide (n = 59 985). The percentage of adults subsequently achieving a hemoglobin A1C below 8% ranged from 83% (dulaglutide, sitagliptin) to 71% (canagliflozin). The rate of hypoglycemia was 25 per 1000 person-years for exenatide, 37 per 1000 person-years for dulaglutide, 28 per 1000 person-years for sitagliptin, 18 per 1000 person-years for canagliflozin, and 34 per 1000 person-years for glipizide. The cash price for a 1-month supply was $847 for exenatide, $859 for dulaglutide, $550 for sitagliptin, $608 for canagliflozin, and $14 for glipizide. CONCLUSION: Outcomes-based pricing of diabetes medications has the potential to lower the cost of medications, but using outcomes such as hemoglobin A1C may not be clinically meaningful because similar changes in A1C can be achieved with generic medications at a far lower cost.

8.
Clin Pharmacol Ther ; 2020 Apr 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32236959

RESUMO

Assessments of clinical evidence vary between regulators and health technology assessment bodies, but precise differences remain unclear. To compare uncertainties raised on the clinical evidence of approved drugs, we analyzed assessments of regulators and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies in the United States and Europe. We found that US and European regulators report uncertainties related to safety for almost all drugs (85-94%), whereas HTA bodies reported these less (53-59%). By contrast, HTA bodies raised uncertainties related to effects against relevant comparators for almost all drugs (88-100%), whereas this was infrequently addressed by regulators (12-32%). Regulators as well as HTA bodies reported uncertainties related to the patient population for 60-95% of drugs. The patterns of regulator-HTA misalignment were comparable between the United States and Europe. Our results indicate that increased coordination between these complementary organizations is necessary to facilitate the collection of necessary evidence in an efficient and timely manner.

9.
PLoS Med ; 17(3): e1003058, 2020 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32231363

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Evidence and guidelines do not support use of systemic steroids for acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs), but such practice appears common. We aim to quantify such use and determine its predictors. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cohort study based on a large United States national commercial claims database, the IBM MarketScan, to identify patients aged 18-64 years with an ARTI diagnosis (acute bronchitis, sinusitis, pharyngitis, otitis media, allergic rhinitis, influenza, pneumonia, and unspecified upper respiratory infections) recorded in ambulatory visits from 2007 to 2016. We excluded those with systemic steroid use in the prior year and an extensive list of steroid-indicated conditions, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and various autoimmune diseases. We calculated the proportion receiving systemic steroids within 7 days of the ARTI diagnosis and determined its significant predictors. We identified 9,763,710 patients with an eligible ARTI encounter (mean age 39.6, female 56.0%) and found 11.8% were prescribed systemic steroids (46.1% parenteral, 47.3% oral, 6.6% both). All ARTI diagnoses but influenza predicted receiving systemic steroids. There was high geographical variability: the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of receiving parenteral steroids was 14.48 (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.23-14.72, p < 0.001) comparing southern versus northeastern US. The corresponding aOR was 1.68 (95% CI 1.66-1.69, p < 0.001) for oral steroids. Other positive predictors for prescribing included emergency department (ED) or urgent care settings (versus regular office), otolaryngologist/ED doctors (versus primary care), fewer comorbidities, and older patient age. There was an increasing trend from 2007 to 2016 (aOR 1.93 [95% CI 1.91-1.95] comparing 2016 to 2007, p < 0.001). Our findings are based on patients between 18 and 64 years old with commercial medical insurance and may not be generalizable to older or uninsured populations. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that systemic steroid use in ARTI is common with a great geographical variability. These findings call for an effective education program about this practice, which does not have a clear clinical net benefit.

12.
Drug Saf ; 2020 Mar 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32180134

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines recommend co-prescribing naloxone to patients at high risk of opioid overdose, but few such patients receive naloxone. High costs of naloxone may contribute to limited dispensing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate rates and costs of dispensing naloxone to patients receiving opioid prescriptions and at high risk for opioid overdose. METHODS: Using claims data from a large US commercial insurance company, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of new opioid initiators between January 2014 and December 2018. We identified patients at high risk for overdose defined as a diagnosis of opioid use disorder, prior overdose, an opioid prescription of ≥ 50 mg morphine equivalents/day for ≥ 90 days, and/or concurrent benzodiazepine prescriptions. RESULTS: Among 5,292,098 new opioid initiators, 616,444 (12%) met criteria for high risk of overdose during follow-up, and, of those, 3096 (0.5%) were dispensed naloxone. The average copayment was US$24.83 for naloxone (standard deviation [SD] 67.66) versus US$9.74 for the index opioid (SD 19.75). The average deductible was US$6.18 for naloxone (SD 27.32) versus US$3.74 for the index opioid (SD 25.56), with 94% and 88% having deductibles of US$0 for their naloxone and opioid prescriptions, respectively. The average out-of-pocket cost was US$31.01 for naloxone (SD 73.64) versus US$13.48 for the index opioid (SD 34.95). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of dispensing naloxone to high risk patients were extremely low, and prescription costs varied greatly. Since improving naloxone's affordability may increase access, whether naloxone's high cost is associated with low dispensing rates should be evaluated.

14.
Lancet ; 395(10228): 986-997, 2020 03 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32199486

RESUMO

Fewer than half of new drugs have data on their comparative benefits and harms against existing treatment options at the time of regulatory approval in Europe and the USA. Even when active-comparator trials exist, they might not produce meaningful data to inform decisions in clinical practice and health policy. The uncertainty associated with the paucity of well designed active-comparator trials has been compounded by legal and regulatory changes in Europe and the USA that have created a complex mix of expedited programmes aimed at facilitating faster access to new drugs. Comparative evidence generation is even sparser for medical devices. Some have argued that the current process for regulatory approval needs to generate more evidence that is useful for patients, clinicians, and payers in health-care systems. We propose a set of five key principles relevant to the European Medicines Agency, European medical device regulatory agencies, US Food and Drug Administration, as well as payers, that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device companies to generate comparative data on drugs and devices and assure timely availability of evidence that is useful for decision making. First, labelling should routinely inform patients and clinicians whether comparative data exist on new products. Second, regulators should be more selective in their use of programmes that facilitate drug and device approvals on the basis of incomplete benefit and harm data. Third, regulators should encourage the conduct of randomised trials with active comparators. Fourth, regulators should use prospectively designed network meta-analyses based on existing and future randomised trials. Last, payers should use their policy levers and negotiating power to incentivise the generation of comparative evidence on new and existing drugs and devices, for example, by explicitly considering proven added benefit in pricing and payment decisions.


Assuntos
Aprovação de Equipamentos/normas , Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Segurança de Equipamentos , Segurança , Biomarcadores Farmacológicos/análise , Tolerância a Medicamentos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug Administration
16.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2020 Jan 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32022228
17.
Nat Rev Clin Oncol ; 17(3): 140-146, 2020 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32020042

RESUMO

The traditional regulatory drug approval paradigm comprising discrete phases of clinical testing that culminate in a large randomized superiority trial has historically been predominant in oncology. However, this approach has evolved in the current era of drug development, with multiple other development pathways now being utilized. Indeed, treatment approaches designed on the basis of an improved understanding of cancer biology have led to unprecedented responses in early phase trials, sometimes resulting in drug approvals in the absence of large-scale trials. At the same time, improved molecular diagnostic technologies have led to the identification of ever-smaller patient subgroups for molecularly targeted therapy. Moreover, new FDA regulatory paradigms have enabled the rapid review and accelerated approval of certain drugs in the absence of survival data. Regulatory approvals based on large-cohort trials with surrogate or intermediate clinical end points or on non-inferiority trials, as well as new tumour-agnostic indications, also set important precedents in the field. In this Viewpoint, we asked two leading oncologists involved in clinical drug development, an expert in regulatory science and prescription drug policy and a prominent patient advocate, to provide their opinions on the implications of these changes in regulatory practices for patient care.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Aprovação de Drogas , Terapia de Alvo Molecular , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Desenvolvimento de Medicamentos , Humanos , Oncologia/tendências , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , United States Food and Drug Administration
19.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw ; 18(1): 36-43, 2020 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31910385

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Many new targeted cancer drugs have received FDA approval based on durable responses in nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs). The goal of this study was to evaluate whether the response rates (RRs) and durations of response (DoRs) of targeted cancer drugs observed in non-RCTs are consistent when these drugs are tested in RCTs. METHODS: We used the FDA's Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling to identify cancer drugs that were approved based on changes in biomarker endpoints through December 2017. We then identified the non-RCTs and RCTs for these drugs for the given indications and extracted the RRs and DoRs. We compared the RRs and median DoR in non-RCTs versus RCTs using the ratio of RRs and the ratio of DoRs, defined as the RRs (or DoRs) in non-RCTs divided by the RRs (or DoRs) in RCTs. The ratio of RRs or DoRs was pooled across the trial pairs using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the 21 drug-indication pairs selected, both non-RCTs and RCTs were available for 19. The RRs and DoRs in non-RCTs were greater than those in RCTs in 63% and 87% of cases, respectively. The pooled ratio of RRs was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.20), and the pooled ratio of DoRs was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.03-1.33). RRs and DoRs derived from non-RCTs were also poor surrogates for overall survival derived from RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: The RRs were not different between non-RCTs and RCTs of cancer drugs approved based on changes to a biomarker, but the DoRs in non-RCTs were significantly higher than in RCTs. Caution must be exercised when approving or prescribing targeted drugs based on data on durable responses derived from non-RCTs, because the responses could be overestimates and poor predictors of survival benefit.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA