Assessing the pricing and benefits of oncology products: an update

Delivering the precision oncology paradigm: reduced R&D costs and greater return on investment through a companion diagnostic informed precision oncology medicines approach

BACKGROUND

Precision oncology medicines represent a paradigm shift compared to non-precision oncology medicines in cancer therapy, in some situations delivering more clinical benefit, and potentially lowering healthcare costs. We determined whether employing a companion diagnostic (CDx) approach during oncology medicines development delivers effective therapies that are within the cost constraints of current health systems. R&D costs of developing a medicine are subject to debate, with average estimates ranging from $765 million (m) to $4.6 billion (b). Our aim was to determine whether precision oncology medicines are cheaper to bring from R&D to market; a secondary goal was to determine whether precision oncology medicines have a greater return on investment (ROI).

METHOD

Data on oncology medicines approved between 1997 and 2020 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were analysed from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. Data were compiled from 10-K, 10-Q, and 20-F financial performance filings on medicines' development costs through their R&D lifetime. Clinical trial data were split into clinical trial phases 1-3 and probability of success (POS) of trials was calculated, along with preclinical costs. Cost-of-capital (CoC) approach was applied and, if appropriate, a tax rebate was subtracted from the total.

RESULTS

Data on 42 precision and 29 non-precision oncology medicines from 56 companies listed by the National Cancer Institute which had complete data available were analysed. Estimated mean cost to deliver a new oncology medicine was $4.4b (95% CI, $3.6-5.2b). Costs to bring a precision oncology medicine to market were $1.1b less ($3.5b; 95% CI, $2.7-4.5b) compared to non-precision oncology medicines ($4.6b; 95% CI, $3.5-6.1b). The key driver of costs was POS of clinical trials, accounting for a difference of $591.3 m. Additional data analysis illustrated that there was a 27% increase in return on investment (ROI) of precision oncology medicines over non-precision oncology medicines.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide an accurate estimate of the R&D spend required to bring an oncology medicine to market. Deployment of a CDx at the earliest stage substantially lowers the cost associated with oncology medicines development, potentially making them available to more patients, while staying within the cost constraints of cancer health systems.

Economic Evaluation of Monoclonal Antibodies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the major causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. The median overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has doubled over the last 20 years partly due to the introduction of advanced biologic therapies. However, these treatment modalities bear significant costs on healthcare systems globally, and may jeopardize their fiscal sustainability. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise the economic evaluations of monoclonal antibodies in mCRC.

METHODOLOGY

A literature search was performed in the electronic databases of: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, EMBASE, EMBASE Alert, PUBMED, NHS Economic Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment Database for full articles published from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020.

RESULTS

Twenty economic analyses were identified in the literature that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and evaluated the cost-effectiveness of (a) bevacizumab as first-line treatment for mCRC and as maintenance treatment, (b) cetuximab as first-line treatment, (c) panitumumab versus bevacizumab and cetuximab versus bevacizumab as first-line treatment, (d) aflibercept and ramucirumab as second-line treatment, (e) cetuximab and panitumumab as third-line treatment, (f) cetuximab versus panitumumab as later lines of treatment, and (g) RAS testing prior to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy is cost-effective as neither first-line treatment nor maintenance treatment. Sequential treatment with bevacizumab in first-line and second-line treatment was also not cost-effective. Testing for KRAS and extended RAS mutations is cost-effective and should be performed prior to anti-EGFR treatment. In the RAS wild-type subgroup of mCRCs the use of anti-EGFR (panitumumab or cetuximab) in first-line treatment leads to a more favorable cost-effectiveness profile than the corresponding anti-VEGF (bevacizumab). Cetuximab is not cost-effective as a first-line treatment. Anti-EGFR administration is not a cost-effective strategy in third-line treatment, even for RAS wild-type mCRCs, compared to best supportive care. Aflibercept was superior to ramucirumab and costed less, but neither were cost-effective compared to standard care.