Financial Toxicity From Generic Specialty Drug Use

Pharmacy Assistance Programs for Oral Anticancer Drugs: A Narrative Review

Oral anticancer medications (OAMs) are high priced with a significant cost-sharing burden to patients, which can lead to catastrophic financial, psychosocial, and clinical repercussions. Cost-conscious prescribing and inclusion of low-cost alternatives can help mitigate this burden, but cost transparency at the point of prescribing remains a major barrier to doing so. Pharmacy assistance programs, including co-payment cards and patient assistance programs administered by manufacturers and foundation-based grants, remain an essential resource for patients facing prohibitive co-payments for OAMs. However, access to these programs is fraught with complexities, including lack of trained financial navigators, limited transparency on eligibility criteria, onerous documentation burdens, and limits in available funding. Despite these drawbacks and the potential for such programs to incentivize manufacturers to keep list prices high, assistance programs have been demonstrated to improve financial well-being for patients with cancer. The increasing development of integrated specialty pharmacies with dedicated, trained pharmacy staff can help improve and standardize access to such programs, but these services are disproportionately available to patients seen at tertiary care centers. Multistakeholder interventions are needed to mitigate the burden of cost sharing for OAMs, including increased clinician knowledge of financial resources and novel assistance mechanisms, investment of institutions in trained financial navigation services and centralized platforms to identify assistance programs, and policies to cap out-of-pocket spending and improve transparency of rates charged by pharmacy benefit managers to a health plan.

Access to Financial Assistance Programs and Their Impact on Overall Spending on Oral Anticancer Medications at an Integrated Specialty Pharmacy

PURPOSE

Financial assistance (FA) programs are increasingly used to help patients afford oral anticancer medications (OAMs), but access to such programs and their impact on out-of-pocket (OOP) spending has not been well explored. This study aimed to (1) characterize the impact of receipt of FA on both OOP spending and likelihood of catastrophic spending on OAMs and (2) evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in access to FA programs.

METHODS

Patients with a cancer diagnosis prescribed an OAM anytime between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021 were included in this retrospective, single-center study at an integrated specialty pharmacy affiliated with a tertiary academic cancer center. Fixed-effect regression models were used to characterize the impact of receipt of FA on overall spending and likelihood of catastrophic spending on OAMs, as well as explore the association of race/ethnicity with receipt of FA.

RESULTS

Across 1,186 patients prescribed an OAM, 37% received FA. Receipt of FA was associated with lower annual spending on OAMs (β = -$1,236 US dollars [USD; 95% CI, -$1,841 to -$658], P < .001) but not reduced risk of catastrophic spending (odds ratio [OR], 0.442 [95% CI, 0.755 to 3.199], P = .23). Non-White patients (OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.85], P = .004) and patients who spoke English as a second language (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.90], P = .02) were less likely to receive FA compared with White and English-speaking patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

FA programs can mitigate high OOP spending but not for patients who spend at catastrophic levels. There are racial/ethnic and language disparities in access to such programs. Future studies should evaluate access to FA programs across diverse delivery settings.

Durable cell and gene therapy potential patient and financial impact: US projections of product approvals, patients treated, and product revenues

Durable cell and gene therapies potentially transform patient lives, but payers fear unsustainable costs arising from the more than 1000 therapies in the development pipeline. A novel multi-module Markov chain Monte Carlo-based model projects product-indication approvals, treated patients, and product revenues. We estimate a mean 63.5 (54-74 5th to 95th percentile range) cumulative US product-indication approvals through 2030, with a mean 93000 patients treated in 2030 generating a mean US$24.4 billion (US$17.0B-35.0B, US$73.0B extreme) list price product revenues not including ancillary medical costs or cost offsets. Thus, the likely dozens of durable cell and gene therapies developed through 2030 are unlikely to threaten US health system financial sustainability.

Clinical Trial Design for Disease-Modifying Therapies for Genetic Epilepsies

Although trials with anti-seizure medications (ASMs) have not shown clear anti-epileptogenic or disease-modifying activity in humans to date, rapid advancements in genomic technology and emerging gene-mediated and gene replacement options offer hope for the successful development of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for genetic epilepsies. In fact, more than 26 potential DMTs are in various stages of preclinical and/or clinical development for genetic syndromes associated with epilepsy. The scope of disease-modification includes but is not limited to effects on the underlying pathophysiology, the condition's natural history, epilepsy severity, developmental achievement, function, behavior, sleep, and quality of life. While conventional regulatory clinical trials for epilepsy therapeutics have historically focused on seizure reduction, similarly designed trials may prove ill-equipped to identify these broader disease-modifying benefits. As we look forward to this pipeline of DMTs, focused consideration should be given to the challenges they pose to conventional clinical trial designs for epilepsy therapeutics. Just as DMTs promise to fundamentally alter how we approach the care of patients with genetic epilepsy syndromes, DMTs likewise challenge how we traditionally construct and measure the success of clinical trials. In the following, we briefly review the historical and preclinical frameworks for DMT development for genetic epilepsies and explore the many novel challenges posed for such trials, including the choice of suitable outcome measures, trial structure, timing and duration of treatment, feasible follow-up period, varying safety profile, and ethical concerns.