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

Clinical trial design and treatment effects: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled and single-arm trials supporting 437 FDA approvals of cancer drugs and indications

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to analyse the association between clinical trial design and treatment effects for cancer drugs with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Data from Drugs@FDA, FDA labels, ClincialTrials.gov and the Global Burden of Disease study.

PARTICIPANTS

Pivotal trials for 170 drugs with FDA approval across 437 cancer indications between 2000 and 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment effects were measured in HRs for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and in relative risk for tumour response. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions explored the association between treatment effect estimates and clinical trial design for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and single-arm trials.

RESULTS

Across RCTs, greater effect estimates were observed in smaller trials for OS (ß=0.06, p<0.001), PFS (ß=0.15, p<0.001) and tumour response (ß=-3.61, p<0.001). Effect estimates were larger in shorter trials for OS (ß=0.08, p<0.001) and PFS (ß=0.09, p=0.002). OS (ß=0.04, p=0.006), PFS (ß=0.10, p<0.001) and tumour response (ß=-2.91, p=0.004) outcomes were greater in trials with fewer centres. HRs for PFS (0.54 vs 0.62, p=0.011) were lower in trials testing the new drug to an inactive (placebo/no treatment) rather than an active comparator. The analysed efficacy population (intention-to-treat, per-protocol, or as-treated) was not consistently associated with treatment effects. Results were consistent for single-arm trials and in multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Pivotal trial design is significantly associated with measured treatment effects. Particularly small, short, single-centre trials testing a new drug compared with an inactive rather than an active comparator could overstate treatment outcomes. Future studies should verify results in unsuccessful trials, adjust for further confounders and examine other therapeutic areas. The FDA, manufacturers and trialists must strive to conduct robust clinical trials with a low risk of bias.

Profits over care? An analysis of the relationship between corporate capitalism in the healthcare industry and cancer mortality in the United States

The characteristic features of 21st-century corporate capitalism - monopoly and financialization - are increasingly being recognized by public health scholars as undermining the foundations of human health. While the "vectors" through which this is occurring are well known - poverty, inequality, climate change among others - locating the root cause of this process in the nature and institutions of contemporary capitalism is relatively new. Researchers have been somewhat slow to study the relationship between contemporary capitalism and human health. In this paper, we focus on one of the leading causes of death in the United States; cancer, and empirically estimate the relationship between various measures of financialization and monopoly in the US healthcare system and cancer mortality. The measures we focus on are for the hospital industry, the health insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry. Using a fixed effects model with different specifications and control variables, our analysis is at the state level for the years 2012-2019. These variables include data on population demographic controls, social and economic factors, and health behavior and clinical care. We compare Medicaid expansion states with non-Medicaid expansion states to investigate variations in state-level funded health insurance coverage. The results show a statistically significant positive correlation between the HHI index in the individual healthcare market and cancer mortality and the opioid dispensing rate and cancer mortality.

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.

Clinical benefit, development, innovation, trials, epidemiology, and price for cancer drugs and indications with multiple special FDA designations

BACKGROUND

This study analyzes the development, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, benefits, innovation, trials, epidemiology, and price of cancer drugs with multiple special designations: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy.

METHODS

In total, 355 FDA-approved cancer drug indications with 841 special designations were identified (2012-2022). Trial, epidemiology, and price data were collected from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and Medicare and Medicaid. The association between efficacy outcomes and indications' number of special designations were compared in meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Median development times were 7.3, 7.8, and 5.4 months (P = .027) for drugs with 0 to 1, 2 to 3, and 4 to 5 special designations, respectively. Multiple special designations were associated with higher biotechnological and clinical innovation. Median patient enrollment in trials were 615, 471, 398, 168, 104, and 120 (P < .001) for indications with 0 to 5 special designations. Drugs for rare diseases supported by open-label phase 1/2 trials of single-arm design were granted more special designations. Hazard ratios for overall survival (0.80 vs 0.73 vs 0.73 vs 0.69 vs 0.56 vs 0.52; P = .003) and progression-free survival (0.70 vs 0.61 vs 0.59 vs 0.44 vs 0.37 vs 0.67; P < .001) substantially declined while tumor response increased with more special designations. Mean monthly prices increased for drugs with 0 to 4 but not 5 special designations ($21 596 vs $14 753 vs $32 410 vs $41 240 vs $38 703 vs $19 184).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple special designations are associated with faster clinical development and greater benefits for patients with unmet needs but also with nonrobust trial evidence and a tendency toward higher drug prices.

Are We Losing the Final Fight against Cancer?

Despite our increasing understanding of the biology and evolution of the cancer process, it is indisputable that the natural process of cancer creation has become increasingly difficult to cure, as more mutations are found with age. It is significantly more difficult to challenge the curative method when there is heterogeneity within the tumor, as it hampers clinical and genetic categorization. With advances in diagnostic technologies and screening leading to progressive tumor shrinkage, it becomes more difficult over time to evaluate the effects of treatment on overall survival. New treatments are often authorized based on early evidence, such as tumor response; disease-free, progression-free, meta-static-free, and event-free survival; and, less frequently, based on clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life, when standard guidelines are not available to approve pharmaceuticals. These clearances usually happen quite rapidly. Although approval takes longer, relative survival demonstrates the genuine worth of a novel medication. Pressure is being applied by pharmaceutical companies and patient groups to approve "new" treatments based on one of the above-listed measures, with results that are frequently insignificantly beneficial and frequently have no impact on quality of life.

Launch and Post-Launch Prices of Injectable Cancer Drugs in the US: Clinical Benefit, Innovation, Epidemiology, and Competition

BACKGROUND

Rising cancer drug prices adversely affect patients' adherence and survival.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify and quantify factors associated with launch prices and post-launch price changes of injectable cancer drugs in the US from 2005 to 2023.

DATA AND METHODS

All anticancer drugs with US FDA approval between 2000 and 2022 were identified in the Drugs@FDA database. The sample was then restricted to cancer drugs covered under Medicare Part B (injectable drugs). Data characterizing each drug's clinical benefits, disease epidemiology, approved indications, competition, and price were obtained from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The association between launch/post-launch prices and collected variables was assessed in random-effects regressions.

RESULTS

Of 170 cancer drugs with FDA approval between 2000 and 2022, we identified 66 (39%) injectable cancer drugs with quarterly price data from 2005 to 2023. In 2023, mean prices amounted to $27,688 per month, with an average price increase of 94% from 2005 to 2023. Launch and post-launch price changes were significantly associated with the treated disease epidemiology. A 1% decline in disease incidence was associated with a 0.2511% (p = 0.008) increase in launch prices and a 0.0086% (p = 0.032) annual increase in post-launch prices. Accordingly, launch prices were 120% (p = 0.051) higher for orphan than non-orphan drugs, with 3% (p = 0.008) greater annual post-launch price increases. Post-launch prices declined by up to -2% annually as new supplemental indications were approved for the same drug. We found no consistent association between launch/post-launch prices and the drugs' clinical benefit in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor response. The market entry of new competitors was not associated with price reductions. 28 of 33 drug pairs within the same class had positive correlation coefficients. Pearson correlation coefficients were high (>0.80) for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, CD38 antibodies, CD20 antibodies, HER2 antibodies, and mTOR inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer drug prices regularly increase faster than inflation; however, there is no evidence that launch prices and post-launch price changes are aligned with the clinical benefit a drug offers to patients. In particular, patients with rare diseases experience greater price increases for their orphan drugs. There is no evidence that brand-brand competition results in drug price reductions.

Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy

BACKGROUND

Over the past decades, US Congress enabled the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to facilitate and expedite drug development for serious conditions filling unmet medical needs with five special designations and review pathways: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy.

OBJECTIVES

This study reviews the FDA's five special designations for drug development regarding their safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, clinical trials, innovation, economic incentives, development timelines, and price.

METHODS

We conducted a keyword search to identify studies analyzing the impact of the FDA's special designations (orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy) on the safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, trials, innovativeness, economic incentives, development times, and pricing of new drugs. Results were summarized in a narrative overview.

RESULTS

Expedited approval reduces new drugs' time to market. However, faster drug development and regulatory review are associated with more unrecognized adverse events and post-marketing safety revisions. Clinical trials supporting special FDA approvals frequently use small, non-randomized, open-label designs. Required post-approval trials to monitor unknown adverse events are often delayed or not even initiated. Evidence suggests that drugs approved under special review pathways, marketed as "breakthroughs", are more innovative and deliver a higher clinical benefit than those receiving standard FDA approval. Special designations are an economically viable strategy for investors and pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for rare diseases with unmet medical needs, due to financial incentives, expedited development timelines, higher clinical trial success rates, alongside greater prices. Nonetheless, patients, physicians, and insurers are concerned about spending money on drugs without a proven benefit or even on drugs that turn out to be ineffective. While European countries established performance- and financial-based managed entry agreements to account for this uncertainty in clinical trial evidence and cost-effectiveness, the pricing and reimbursement of these drugs remain largely unregulated in the US.

CONCLUSION

Special FDA designations shorten clinical development and FDA approval times for new drugs treating rare and severe diseases with unmet medical needs. Special-designated drugs offer a greater clinical benefit to patients. However, physicians, patients, and insurers must be aware that special-designated drugs are often approved based on non-robust trials, associated with more unrecognized side effects, and sold for higher prices.