Price Models for Multi-indication Drugs: A Systematic Review

Pricing for Multi-Indication Drugs in the Italian Regulatory Context

BACKGROUND

The authorization of new therapeutic indications for drugs already reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service (NHS) represents a matter of importance. This study aims to estimate the additional discount attributed to the extension of indications (EoIs) to explore the potential correlation between spending and negotiated discounts and to find specific factors (determinants) that impact on discount.

METHODS

The study focused on drugs approved in Italy between 2003 and 2017 with at least four therapeutic indications, including the first approved and EoIs, with follow-up extended until 2021 to acquire all the information on the negotiation process that has been completed. Data were obtained from reimbursement and pricing dossiers, and negotiation assessments. Trends in the number of EoIs submitted and the additional discounts negotiated were analyzed, along with the relationship between the negotiated discount and subsequent drug expenditure. Determinants influencing the extent of the negotiated discount were assessed, including drug type, orphan drug designation, innovativeness status, number of EoIs, disease incidence and prevalence, estimated number of patients, revenue projections, availability of therapeutic alternatives, and efficacy outcomes. A Wilcoxon nonparametric test was used to evaluate the associations between determinants and the negotiated additional discount, with a significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

The study identified nine medicines: five of these were used in onco-hematologic therapeutic areas, while the remaining four were immunosuppressants for dermatologic and/or rheumatologic conditions. These nine active substances accounted for 65 approved therapeutic indications, of which 50 were reimbursed by the Italian NHS, including the first indication; the analysis focused only on 40 reimbursed EoIs. The additional discount obtained for EoIs averages approximately 12.5% (95% CI 9.4-16.6%), with a median value of approximately 11%. This latter value was used as the threshold in the analysis of the determinants potentially impacting the negotiated discount amount. Discounts greater than 11% were significantly associated with EoI beyond the fifth and oncology drugs. The additional discount seemed small when compared with the increased spending.

CONCLUSION

The study provides valuable insights into the negotiation outcomes for medicines with multiple therapeutic indications, particularly in onco-hematologic and immunosuppressive areas. The analysis revealed that additional discounts for EoIs averaged 12.5%, with a median of 11%, a value used to assess the impact of specific determinants. A discount higher than 11% was statistically correlated with drugs having more than five indications and oncology treatments, showing their influence in negotiations. However, the savings from discounts were modest relative to the increased drug spending as more indications were approved. This suggests an imbalance between the cost control achieved through discounts and the rising expenditure due to expanded drug use.

Value-Based Indication-Specific Pricing and Weighted-Average Pricing: Estimated Price and Cost Savings for Cancer Drugs

OBJECTIVES

For US Medicare and Medicaid, single drug prices do not reflect the value of supplemental indications. Value-based indication-specific and weighted-average pricing has been suggested for drugs with multiple indications. Under indication-specific pricing, a distinct price is assigned to the differential value a drug offers in each indication. Under weighted-average pricing, a single drug price is calculated that reflects the value and/or volume of each indication. This study estimates price reductions and cost savings for cancer drugs under value-based indication-specific pricing and weighted-average pricing.

METHODS

We collected data on US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cancer drugs and indications (2003-2020) from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, clinicaltrials.gov, and Medicare and Medicaid. A multivariable regression analysis, informed by characteristics of original indications, was used to predict value-based indication-specific prices for supplemental indications. These indication-specific prices were combined with each indication's prevalence data to estimate value-based weighted-average prices and potential cost savings under each policy.

RESULTS

We identified 123 cancer drugs with 308 indications. Medicare and Medicaid spent a total of $28.2 billion on these drugs in 2020. Adopting value-based indication-specific pricing would increase drug prices by an average of 3.9%, with cost savings of $3.0 billion (10.6%). However, 43.7% higher prices for ultra-rare diseases would increase spending by 16.8% ($44 million). Adopting value-based weighted-average pricing would reduce prices by an average of 4.6% and spending by $3.0 billion (10.6%). Under weighted-average pricing, prices for and spending on ultra-rare diseases would be reduced by 22.6% and $55 million, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Value-based indication-specific and weighted-average pricing could help to align the value and price of new indications, thereby reducing expenditure on drugs with multiple indications.

Indication-based pricing of the pharmaceuticals in Croatia: case-study

BACKGROUND

Rising pharmaceutical expenditure worldwide, including in Croatia, is putting considerable pressure on healthcare budgets. Oncology drugs, often used in several indications with varying efficacy, contribute to this challenge, and a single price is paid regardless of the indication. This study investigates whether indication-based pricing (IBP), a method of pricing the same drug for different indications based on its relative value in different treatment applications, could be a potential solution to contain drug expenditure.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We operationalized IBP in two ways: by anchoring all drug prices according to the indication that provides the most or least benefit, and second, by anchoring drug prices to a cost-effectiveness threshold estimated for Croatia. We also interviewed policymakers in Croatia to determine whether they are familiar with the problem of differential effectiveness of medicines with multiple indications.

RESULTS

Applying IBP to the oncology drug abiraterone in three indications, as measured by life-years gained (LYGs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), shows the effectiveness of abiraterone varies considerably by indication. Depending on the IBP approach chosen, drug prices can be reduced by 74% or increased by up to 280%.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug prices can vary dramatically depending on the IBP approach chosen.

Design and Features of Pricing and Payment Schemes for Health Technologies: A Scoping Review and a Proposal for a Flexible Need-Driven Classification

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In a context of growing clinical and financial uncertainty, pricing and payment schemes can act as possible solutions to the problems of affordability and access to health technologies. However, a comprehensive categorization of the available schemes to help decision makers tackle these challenges is lacking. This work aims at mapping existing types of pricing and payment schemes, and proposes a new approach for their classification, in order to help decision makers and other stakeholders select the best type of scheme to meet their needs.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)-compliant scoping literature review was performed between 2010 and 2023 in three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus). The search strategy was developed around two groups of keywords, "pricing/payment schemes" and "scheme innovativeness". Eligible studies were those illustrating the unique design and features of each scheme type, which were extracted by two independent reviewers, and synthesized using a narrative format, including a detailed tabular description of each type of scheme.

RESULTS

A total of 70 unique types of pricing and payment schemes were identified. Around one third (33%) was only specified in principle, while two thirds (67%) had been implemented in practice. About half of the scheme types were proposed for drugs (34/70, 49%), and the vast majority were not designed for a specific therapeutic area (55/70, 79%). Each scheme type was categorized based on distinctive characteristics: the objectives, the outcome component, the timing/modalities of payments, and the evidence collection requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

Instead of trying to fit the retrieved schemes into a rigid taxonomy, we propose a new approach that suggests a flexible need-driven use of the available scheme types, driven primarily by the specific objective that one might have, and allows leveraging of the other key characteristics of each type of scheme.

Key Issues of Economic Evaluations for Health Technology Assessment in China: A Nationwide Expert Survey

OBJECTIVES

Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly crucial in medicine price negotiations in China, yet previous appraisals revealed national discrepancies on key economic evaluation issues: willingness-to-pay threshold, pricing models for multi-indication medicines, and comparator selection principles. This study aimed to collect expert opinions on these issues for future HTA evaluations.

METHODS

A nationwide anonymous web-based survey encompassing experts across academia, HTA, consultancy/contract research organization/industry, service provider, and payer. In 2023, a generic invitation containing a web link to the questionnaire was disseminated via WeChat using convenience and snowball sampling. Agreement rates for questionnaire views were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The relationship between participants' responses and demographics was examined using appropriate logistic models.

RESULTS

A total of 303 responses were received from experts in 34 cities. Key expert views include a suggested base willingness-to-pay threshold ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 times gross domestic product (52.1% agreement); elevated thresholds for childhood diseases, rare diseases, end-of-life diseases, and first-in-class medicines (>78.0% agreement); a single pricing model for multi-indication medicines (60.4% agreement); consideration of multiple medicines as comparators (79.9% agreement); and avoiding the use of centrally procured medicines as comparators for medicines with a time to market of less than 3 years (71.0% agreement). Participants who are service provider had lower odds of selecting higher thresholds (odds ratio 0.26; P < .01) than responders from consultancy/contract research organization/industry.

CONCLUSIONS

Expert views indicate the need for substantial changes in China's current HTA methods, highlighting the need for increased investment in HTA processes and expertise cultivation.

Partial Orphan Cancer Drugs: US Food and Drug Administration Approval, Clinical Benefit, Trials, Epidemiology, Price, Beneficiaries, and Spending

OBJECTIVES

The Orphan Drug Act (ODA) incentivizes drug development for rare diseases with limited sales potential. Partial orphans-drugs used to treat rare and common diseases-frequently turn into multi-billion dollar blockbusters. This study analyzes partial orphan cancer drugs' development, approval, and economics.

METHODS

170 drugs with US Food and Drug Administration approval for 455 cancer indications were identified (2000-2021). 110 full, 22 partial, and 38 non-orphan drugs were compared regarding their approval, benefits, trials, epidemiology, price, beneficiaries, and spending with data from regulatory documents, Global Burden of Disease study, and Medicare and Medicaid.

RESULTS

Full orphans, relative to partial and non-orphans, were more frequently monotherapies for hematologic cancers supported by smaller single-arm trials treating diseases with a lower incidence and higher severity. The time from first to second indication approval was 1 year shorter for partial than full orphans. Full orphans offered a greater overall survival (median: 4.0 vs 2.8 vs 2.8 months, P < .001) and progression-free survival benefit (median: 5.1 vs 2.5 vs 3.6 months, P < .001). Monthly prices were higher for full and partial than non-orphan drugs (median: $17 177 vs $13 284 vs $12 457, P < .001). Beneficiaries (8790 vs 4390 vs 1730) and spending ($570 vs $305 vs $156 million) per drug were greater for partial than non-and full orphans.

CONCLUSIONS

Although partial orphans' benefits, trials, and economics are more similar to non-than full orphans, they receive all of the ODA's benefits and are swiftly extended to new indications; resulting in greater spending. A maximum ODA revenue/patient threshold could limit expenditure on partial orphans.

Timely, Cheap, or Risk-Free? The Effect of Regulation on the Price and Availability of New Drugs

The high level of regulation of innovative drugs on the market, which is necessary to protect consumers, produces important effects on drug availability and innovation. In public healthcare systems, the need to curb prices comes from expenditure considerations. The aim of price regulation is to obtain a more equitable allocation of the value of an innovative drug between industries and patients (by reducing prices to make drugs more affordable), but it may also reduce access. (In the listing process, the industry may find it more convenient to limit commercialisation to profitable subgroups of patients.) Furthermore, with the advent of personalised medicine, there is another important dimension that has to be considered, namely, incentives to invest in drug personalisation. In this paper, we review and discuss the impact of different pricing rules on the expenditure and availability of new drugs.

From Indication-Based Pricing to Blended Approach: Evidence on the Price and Reimbursement Negotiation in Italy

BACKGROUND

New indications for existing medicines are increasing over time. In most countries, drug pricing and reimbursement conditions are renegotiated every time a new indication is approved. There is a growing interest in the price negotiation model for new indications, specifically comparing an indication-based versus blended approach. However, little evidence currently exists regarding the complexity of these negotiations and their impact on actual prices. Italy has recently transitioned from an indication-based approach to a blended price model. This study aims to measure the impact of price and reimbursement negotiation of new indications on discounts (i.e. actual prices) and on the negotiation duration, used as a proxy of its complexity.

METHODS

We considered new indications approved through a European centralized procedure from January 2013 to March 2022 for which the price and reimbursement status was approved in Italy between January 2015 and March 2022, amounting to 52 new indications. Data on the timeframe of the Italian price and reimbursement process and its phases were obtained from publicly available sources. Discounts for the first indication and their subsequent increases for new indications were estimated by comparing ex-factory prices and tendered prices. To calculate p-values, we employed the Mann-Whitney test, and multiple regression models were utilized to examine correlations between negotiation time and the characteristics of the medicines.

RESULTS

The mean time to reimbursement was 603 days, in contrast to 583 days for the first launch. Price negotiation took longer for rare diseases, cancer drugs, and in case of therapies with minor added therapeutic value. On average, the additional discount (on top of discounts for prior indications) was 13%, significantly lower than the mean discount for the first indications approved (24.9%). The discounts increment was lower, but negotiation took longer if a Managed Entry Agreement accompanied the final agreement. Additionally, discounts have increased over the years.

CONCLUSION

The negotiation for new indications takes longer than the first one, and provides, on average, an additional discount of 13%. While our findings bear the potential for significant policy implications, they necessitate prudent interpretation due to a limited number of observations. The increasing trend in additional discounts over time applied to all indications in recent negotiations, may suggest a descending trend of value for new indications and a shift from an indication-based pricing approach to a blended model. Otherwise, budget impact considerations might have outweighed a value-based approach in the recent negotiations. If so, two potential options for restoring a value-based approach are returning to an indication-based pricing or giving explicit and higher weight to value within a blended model.

Valutazione dell’innovatività e negoziazione di prezzi e rimborso dei farmaci: raccomandazioni da un panel di esperti

This paper illustrates the recommendations of a Working Group (WG) on the assessment of drugs innovativeness and the negotiation of price and reimbursement. The WG included researchers, institutions, clinicians, patient representatives and pharmaceutical companies.

The first part of the contribution summarizes the literature on drug pricing models, which was considered in the WG, and, in particular, the pricing criteria, the evaluation and negotiation processes, the management of the uncertainty of the evidence, the use of cross-reference pricing and price negotiation for new indications of existing drugs.

The second part illustrates the results of the WG with a focus on innovativeness assessment, value framework and price negotiation. The main recommendations of the WG are: to define more specific criteria for the identification of comparators and endpoints for macro therapeutic areas/settings; to produce guidelines on the use of indirect comparisons and studies supporting this evidence; to consider the drug value as the main driver of price and reimbursement negotiation; to maintain flexibility in the negotiation process, but, at the same time, to give greater structure and predictability in the assessment of value for money, with a more qualified role of cost-effectiveness and a range of threshold values for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; to selectively reintroduce Managed Entry Agreements and the Indication-based pricing model; to implement an early dialogue between the Italian Medicine Agency and the pharmaceutical companies in order to optimize the negotiation process, and a structured involvement of scientific societies and patient representatives.

Cancer Drug Prices in the United States: Efficacy, Innovation, Clinical Trial Evidence, and Epidemiology

OBJECTIVES

Rising cancer drug prices challenge patients and healthcare systems. Although prices are routinely assigned to original drug indications receiving US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, the pricing of supplemental indication approvals remains uncertain. This study identifies and quantifies factors associated with cancer drug prices, distinctly analyzing original and supplemental indications.

METHODS

Clinical trial evidence and epidemiologic data supporting new indications' FDA approval (2003-2022) were collected from the Drugs@FDA database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Global Burden of Disease study. Indication-specific monthly treatment costs were calculated for Medicare patients. The association between log-prices and collected variables were assessed in regression analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 145 drugs approved across 373 cancer indications. Drugs were priced at $24 444 per month on average (median = $16 013). For original indications, prices weakly correlated to improvements in overall survival (β = 0.28, P = .037) and progression-free survival (β = 0.16, P = .001). Original indications' prices were as follows: (1) negatively associated with disease incidence (β = -0.21, P < .001) and prevalence; (2) positively correlated with first-in-class drugs (26%, P = .057), gene and cell therapies (176%, P < .001), hematologic cancers (62%, P < .001), and severe diseases with substantial unmet needs (6% per disability-adjusted life-year, P < .001); and (3) negatively correlated to indications with randomized-controlled phase 3 trials. Prices were poorly associated with supplemental indications' efficacy, clinical evidence, and epidemiology.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer drug prices are set based on the original indication's characteristics, thereby omitting the value of supplemental indications. Indication-specific pricing, coverage, and reimbursement policies considering each indication's safety, efficacy, innovativeness, and unmet needs are necessary to align a drug's value and price.

Do more targets allow more cancer treatments, or not?

The three current oncology models (histological, agnostic and mutational) mainly differ in clinical, technological and organisational aspects, leading to different regulatory procedures and implications in antineoplastic therapy access by patients. Within the histological and agnostic models, Regulatory Agencies authorise target therapies and define their price, reimbursement, prescription and access based on results from clinical trials including patients affected by the same tumour (histological) or subjects with specific genetic mutations regardless of the tumour site or the histology (agnostic). The mutational model has been developed to identify specific actionable molecular alterations found by next-generation sequencing test-based large platforms on solid and liquid biopsies. Nevertheless, due to the highly uncertain efficacy and possible toxicity of drugs tested within this model, regulatory procedures based on histological or agnostic oncology cannot be followed. Multidisciplinary skills are required (e.g. the molecular tumour board's (MTB) representatives) to identify the best association between the genomic profile and the drug planned to be used, but quality requirements, practices and procedures of these discussions still need to be standardised. Real-world evidence from clinical practice (i.e. genomic findings, clinical data and MTBs' choices) lacks, therefore, it is urgently needed as opposed to limited findings from clinical trials. A potential solution for an appropriate access to the therapy chosen by the mutational model can be the indication-value-based sub iudice procedure of authorisation. The access to therapies suggested by extensive molecular profiling could be easily implementable within the Italian national health system, thanks to the existing regulatory procedures, i.e. the managed-entry agreements and the antineoplastic drug monitoring registries, alongside those granted by conventional studies (phase I, II, III, IV) conducted according to the histological and agnostic models.

Launch sequencing of pharmaceuticals with multiple therapeutic indications: evidence from seven countries

BACKGROUND

New medicines are increasingly being identified as efficacious across multiple indications. The impact of current pricing and reimbursement policies on launch decisions across these indications remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This paper, first, maps marketing authorisation and HTA coverage recommendation sequences of multi-indication medicines across Germany, France, England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and the USA, and, second, evaluates the clinical characteristics, clinical development time and coverage recommendation time of multi-indication medicines, drawing comparisons between the first and subsequent indications of an approved molecule.

METHODS

Medicine approvals by the Food and Drug Administration between 2009-2019 were screened to identify multi-indication products with approved oncology indications. Data on clinical trial characteristics, clinical performance and HTA outcomes were extracted from publicly available regulatory approval and HTA reports.

RESULTS

Relative to subsequent indications, first indications were more likely to receive conditional marketing authorisation, have an orphan designation, have a single arm phase II pivotal trial and lower MCBS score. Subsequent indications had faster HTA coverage recommendation times in England and Canada. While the majority of first indications received HTA coverage recommendations across all settings, the proportion of subsequent indications with HTA coverage recommendations was lower and uptake varied considerably across settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Discordance in the value of first versus subsequent indications can pose major challenges in systems that define price based on the initial indication. Current pricing and reimbursement systems generate significant fragmentation in the approval and availability of multi-indication products across settings.

Prezzo e rimborso dei farmaci in caso di estensione delle indicazioni: i risultati di una survey sui soci di ISPOR Italy Rome Chapter

Multi-indication pricing models for medicines and some international impact evidence are available in the literature. Data on the Italian context are more limited. This paper illustrates the results of a study aimed at gathering the opinion on this topic of experts, members of the ISPOR Italy Rome Chapter.

The opinion was collected through a structured questionnaire, validated by two potential responders, and administered online in the period October/July 2022.

There were 45 responders (20% of the members); 67% of responders work in pharmaceutical companies and 13% in consultancy firms. The remainder belongs to regulators/payers and universities.

The survey highlighted a preference for (i) non-automatic models, as automatic approaches are mainly based on price cuts/discount increases in relation to an increase in volumes, (ii) an “indication-based-pricing” model (where prices are differentiated by indication through discounts/risk sharing agreements), since it is more consistent with a value-based approach, even if more complex to manage, (iii) a mix of discounts/agreements according to existing evidence.

The opinion collected is consistent with the opinions available in the literature, but not consistent with the Italian trend, where, compared to the past, a blended approach is prevailing. A blended pricing envisages a renegotiation of the single price for all indications, essentially based on a change in the discount. Our hope is that in the future the experts’ opinion will be taken into consideration and that a targeted indication-based-pricing will be adopted again.

Overall Survival, Progression-Free Survival, and Tumor Response Benefit Supporting Initial US Food and Drug Administration Approval and Indication Extension of New Cancer Drugs, 2003-2021

PURPOSE

Clinical trial evidence is routinely evaluated for initial drug approvals, yet the benefit of indication extensions remains uncertain. This study evaluates the clinical benefit supporting new cancer drugs' initial and supplemental US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indication approval.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical trial evidence supporting each indication's FDA approval was collected from the Drugs@FDA database between 2003 and 2021. Drug, indication, and clinical trial characteristics are described. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and relative risk for tumor response were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of 124 FDA-approved drugs, 78 were approved across multiple indications. Out of 374 indications, 141 were approved as combination therapies, 255 for solid cancers, 121 with biomarkers, and 182 as first-line therapy. Approval was mostly supported by open-label (267 [71%]) phase III (238 [64%]) concurrent randomized controlled trials (248 [66%]) with a median of 331 enrolled patients (interquartile range [IQR], 123-665 patients). Across 234 randomized controlled trials with available data, drugs' HRs were 0.73 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.75; I² = 29.6%) for OS and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.60; I² = 90.6%) for PFS, whereas tumor response was 1.38 (95% CI, 1.33 to 1.42; I² = 80.7%). Novel pharmaceuticals increased patient survival by a median of 2.80 months (IQR, 1.97-4.60 months) for OS and 3.30 months (IQR, 1.50-5.58 months) for PFS. Initial indications more frequently received accelerated approval, supported by single-arm trials for advanced-line monotherapies, than indication extensions. Initial approvals provided a higher PFS (HR, 0.48 v 0.58; P = .002) and tumor response (relative risk, 1.76 v 1.36; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

New cancer drugs substantially reduce the risk of death and tumor progression, yet only marginally extend patient survival. The FDA, physicians, patients, and insurers must evaluate and decide on a drug's safety and efficacy approval, pricing, coverage, and reimbursement on an indication-specific level.

Value and Price of Multi-indication Cancer Drugs in the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland

PURPOSE

Oncology drugs are often approved for multiple indications, for which their clinical benefit varies. Aligning a single price to this differing value remains a challenge. This study examines the clinical and economic value, price, and reimbursement of multi-indication cancer drugs across seven countries, representing different approaches to value assessment, pricing, and coverage decisions: the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland.

METHODS

Twenty-five multi-indication cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval between 2009 and 2019. For each indication data on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) recommendations, disease prevalence, and drug prices were obtained. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, disease prevalence, list prices, and HTA outcomes were then compared across indications and regions.

RESULTS

First approved indications provide a higher clinical benefit whilst targeting a smaller patient group than indication extensions. Quality-adjusted life year gains were higher for first (0.99, 95% CI 0.05-3.25) compared to second (0.51, 95% CI 0.02-1.63, p < 0.001) and third (0.58, 95% CI 0.05-2.07, p < 0.01) approved indications. Disease prevalence per 100,000 inhabitants was 20.7 (95% CI 0.2-63.3) for first compared to 27.1 (95% CI 1.5-109.6, p = 0.907) for second and 128.3 (95% CI 3.1-720.1, p < 0.001) for third approved indications. With each approved indication drug prices declined in Germany and France, remained constant in the UK, Canada, and Australia, whilst they increased in the USA. Negative HTA outcomes, clinical restrictions, and managed entry agreements (MEAs) were more frequently observed for indication extensions.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that indication development is prioritised according to clinical value and disease prevalence. Countries employ different mechanisms to account for each indication's differential benefit, e.g., weighted-average prices (Germany, France, Australia), differential discounts (England, Scotland), clinical restrictions, and MEAs (England, Scotland, Australia, Canada). Value-based indication-specific pricing can help to align the benefit and price for multi-indication cancer drugs.

The future of oncology policy

To ensure the previous progress seen in cancer survival rates continues as we move through the 21st Century it is important to determine future effective policy related to oncology healthcare delivery and funding. Recent successes with, for example, the COVID vaccine response, the decision-making agility exhibited by governments and healthcare systems and the effective use of telehealth and real-world evidence highlight the progress that can be made with pooled efforts and innovative thinking. This shared approach is the basis for the European Beating Cancer Plan which outlines action points for governments and health systems for the period 2021-2025. It focuses on a whole government approach, centred on patients, maximising the potential of new technologies and insights across policy areas including employment, education, transport and taxation, enabling the tackling of cancer drivers in schools, workplaces, research labs, towns and cities and rural communities. Despite the plan there are still concerns that oncology policy has not adequately responded to the pace of innovation and the unique challenges generated by innovative oncological technologies. There needs to be focus on: gaining consensus on the most appropriate methods to assess and price combination therapies and cell and gene therapies, developing effective outcome-based payment models for personalised medicine and developing consensus on the ideal approach for multiple indication pricing. Finally, future policy needs to ensure pharmaceutical companies and other research organisations are adequately rewarded for innovation to ensure continued R&D and the development of innovative oncological products.

Initial and supplementary indication approval of new targeted cancer drugs by the FDA, EMA, Health Canada, and TGA

Background. Previous research focused on the clinical evidence supporting new cancer drugs’ initial US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. However, targeted drugs are increasingly approved for supplementary indications of unknown evidence and benefit. Objectives. To examine the clinical trial evidence supporting new targeted cancer drugs’ initial and supplementary indication approval in the US, EU, Canada, and Australia. Data and Methods. 25 cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with FDA approval between 2009–2019. Data on regulatory approval and clinical trials were extracted from the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA), Health Canada (HC), Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and clinicaltrials.gov. Regional variations were compared with χ²-tests. Multivariate logistic regressions compared characteristics of initial and supplementary indication approvals, reporting adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results. Out of 100 considered cancer indications, the FDA approved 96, the EMA 92, HC 86, and the TGA 83 (83%, p < 0.05). The FDA more frequently granted priority review, conditional approval, and orphan designations than other agencies. Initial approvals were more likely to receive conditional / accelerated approval (AOR: 2.69, 95%CI [1.07–6.77], p < 0.05), an orphan designation (AOR: 3.32, 95%CI [1.38–8.00], p < 0.01), be under priority review (AOR: 2.60, 95%CI [1.17–5.78], p < 0.05), and be monotherapies (AOR: 5.91, 95%CI [1.14–30.65], p < 0.05) than supplementary indications. Initial indications’ pivotal trials tended to be shorter (AOR per month: 0.96, 95%CI [0.93–0.99], p < 0.05), of lower phase design (AOR per clinical phase: 0.28, 95%CI [0.09–0.85], p < 0.05), and enroll more patients (AOR per 100 patients: 1.19, 95%CI [1.01–1.39], p < 0.05). Conclusions. Targeted cancer drugs are increasingly approved for multiple indications of varying clinical benefit. Drugs are first approved as monotherapies in rare diseases with a high unmet need. Whilst expedited regulatory review incentivizes this prioritization, indication-specific safety, efficacy, and pricing policies are necessary to reflect each indication’s differential clinical and economic value.

The Role of Indication-Based Pricing in Future Pricing and Reimbursement Policies: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Indication-based pricing (IBP) has received growing attention because of the expected increase in the number of new medicines with multiple indications. In our systematic review, we assess the potential benefits, barriers, current experiences, and future perspectives of different IBP mechanisms.

METHODS

We searched publications in English, Spanish, or French assessing the impact, international experience, and future context of IBP systems on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, EconLit, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment from 2000 to 2020. This was complemented by a gray literature search in Google Scholar.

RESULTS

A total of 29 publications that specifically addressed the topic of IBP were retained. The most commonly reported benefits of IBP were a better alignment of medicines' value and price, optimization of research and development incentives and increase of competition, and improvement of patients' access to treatments. Data collection and proper infrastructures, and the risk of high administrative burden and associated costs, were seen as the main barriers for proper IBP implementation. International experience lacks concrete examples of IBP. A single weighted average price according to volume, value, or a combination of both, appears to be the most used methodology, followed by different confidential net prices per indication. Different brands with distinct price per indication are less common, although it is considered a pure IBP system.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of IBP impact is still scarce, and there is a need for pilot projects and experiences to monitor its real consequences. An appropriate price and reimbursement model for multi-indication medicines should be a priority, but political will and proper data collection systems remain crucial.

Relationships between developmental strategies for additional indications and price revisions for anticancer drugs in Japan

Background

The relationships between developmental strategies for additional indications and drug price revisions have not been thoroughly studied. Here, we investigated the price revisions for anticancer drugs approved in Japan.

Methods

The study was based on published information on anticancer drugs approved between January 2009 and March 2020 in Japan. We investigated the relationships between the pharmacological and regulatory characteristics of anticancer drugs and occurrence/non-occurrence of the Japanese National Health Insurance (NHI) price revisions.

Results

Eighty-one new anticancer drugs were given NHI price listings during the survey. On April 1, 2020, the prices of 23 anticancer drugs had been revised from the initial pricing, the prices were reduced for 21 drugs (91.3%). Several parameters showed the relationships between drug characteristics and NHI price revisions. The achievement of additional indications and compound type were identified as explanatory factors for these relationships. Additional indication profiles were defined to assess the relationships between the methods for additional indication achievement and price revisions. When the type of additional indication was “Expansion”, the percentage of drugs received NHI price revisions was the highest (P<0.001).

Conclusions

NHI price revision was significantly related to the achievement of additional indications and compound type. The strategy for additional indications was found to affect the occurrence/non-occurrence of NHI price revisions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07360-w.

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems.Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines.Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

Accelerating patient access to oncology medicines with multiple indications in Europe

Background: In recent years, innovation in oncology has created new challenges for pricing and reimbursement systems. Oncology medicines with multiple indications face a number of access challenges: (1) the number of assessments and administrative burden; (2) aligning price to different values of the same product; (3) managing clinical uncertainty at time of launch; and (4) managing budget uncertainty. These challenges impact a range of stakeholders and can result in delayed patient access to life-saving treatments. Consequently, countries have taken steps to facilitate patient access. Methods: Drawing on the experience across Europe we have reviewed different mechanisms countries have adopted that address these challenges. These include approaches aimed directly at the issue, multi-year-multi-indication (MYMI) agreements (BE, NL), and other approaches to manage access: flexible access agreements for new indications with clinical uncertainty (UK); development of a new agreement for each new indication (IT); and immediate access for new indications and bundled assessments (DE). Results: MYMI agreements are valuable where existing rules mean that every indication faces the same upfront evaluation process that delays patient access. They are also useful in managing budget impact and uncertainty. Other approaches that adopt an indication-specific approach helps manage clinical uncertainty at the time of launch and realise different values for the same product. They can help align price to value, even though indication-based pricing does not exist. Bundled assessments reduce the administrative burden for stakeholders, and the benefits of immediate reimbursement is that patient access is not delayed. Conclusion: The challenges for medicines with multiple indications impact a range of stakeholders and can result in delayed patient access to life-saving treatments. MYMI agreements have created a more pragmatic approach to HTA for medicines with multiple indications to ensure both fast and broad patient access. Continued innovation in oncology will require further innovative approaches in pricing and reimbursement. It is important that policymakers, payers and manufacturers engage in early discussions and are willing to find new solutions to help accelerate patient access to innovative therapies.

L’impatto della cross-copertura di dupilumab sulla spesa a carico del Servizio Sanitario Nazionale

Background and research question:

Label extension for treatments and the relevant disease cross-coverage may produce an economic benefit. This paper assesses this benefit for dupilumab in the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. Dupilumab was approved for reimbursement for severe atopic dermatitis (AD), severe and refractory asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). The analysis focused on the crowding-out effect of dupilumab on alternative treatments.

Methods:

The research relied on a simplified budget impact model. The model was populated by data from published evidence and relied on three alternative scenarios for market penetration (15%-30%-100%).

Results:

Avoidable direct health annual costs due to cross-coverage for (i) asthma in patients treated for AD ranged from 0.46 to 3.43 million euros, (ii) asthma in patients treated for CRSwNP ranged from 0.08 to 0.88 million euros, (iii) CRSwNP in patients treated for asthma ranged from 0.41 to 4.05 million euros respectively. The total economic benefit ranges from 0.95 to 8.36 million euros.

Discussion:

The research estimated the crowding-out effect of dupilumab on alternative treatments. It did not incorporate avoided/incremental events due to a possible better/worse risk-benefit profile of dupilumab vs alternative treatments and the economic benefit of cross-coverage on lower diseases severity (for example mild asthma). Nonetheless, the analysis relies on the best available evidence for Italy to shed light on a topic which has not been sufficiently investigated, and provides data that will be potentially very important for policy-makers, payers and those who manage new treatments.