1
|
Luo X, Du X, Huang L, Guo Q, Tan R, Zhou Y, Li Z, Xue X, Li T, Le K, Qian F, Chow SC, Yang Y. The price, efficacy, and safety of within-class targeted anticancer medicines between domestic and imported drugs in China: a comparative analysis. THE LANCET REGIONAL HEALTH. WESTERN PACIFIC 2022; 32:100670. [PMID: 36785854 PMCID: PMC9918802 DOI: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2022.100670] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2022] [Revised: 11/30/2022] [Accepted: 12/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Background Affordability to novel anticancer drugs has become a major health issue in China. It is encouraging to note that China initiated its drug regulatory reform and national price negotiation policies since 2015. As a growing number of domestic within-class targeted anticancer drugs are approved in China, it is expected that this may reduce the price of novel anticancer drugs and improve the affordability of anticancer drugs. This study aimed to evaluate the price, efficacy, and safety of the within-class anticancer drugs between domestic and imported drugs approved in China from 2010 to 2022. Methods The domestic and imported within-class targeted drugs for solid cancers approved in China between 2010 and 2022 were extracted. We classified it as a class of anticancer drugs based on the same indication and similar biological mechanism. The published literature derived from pivotal clinical trials of these domestic and imported drugs was identified based on the review report and the latest labels issued by the China National Medical Products Administration. We evaluated the monthly treatment price at launch and the latest (2022), primary efficacy endpoint and safety between domestic and imported anticancer drugs. Meta-analyses were further employed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the domestic and imported anticancer drugs, including pooled hazard ratios (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rates (ORR) for solid cancers, and relative risk for serious adverse events (SAE) and Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs). Findings In our cohort study, 12 within-class anticancer drugs with 7 cancer diseases were analyzed, including 18 domestic (21 indications; 21 pivotal trials) and 18 imported (21 indications; 27 pivotal trials) novel anticancer drugs, respectively. The median monthly treatment price of domestic and imported drugs from the years of launch to 2022 had significantly decreased by 71% and 62%, respectively. Moreover, the median monthly treatment price of domestic targeted anticancer drugs on the market at launch ($3786 vs. $5393, P = 0.007) and the latest ($1222 vs. $2077, P = 0.011) was significantly lower than that of imported drugs. No significant differences in median PFS gains (9.0 vs. 11.0 months; P = 0.24), OS gains (9.3 vs 10.6 months; P = 0.66), and ORR (57% vs 62%, P = 0.77) of targeted anticancer drugs in their pivotal trials were observed between the domestic and imported drugs. Additionally, there was no significant difference between domestic and imported drugs in the incidence of SAE (23% vs. 24%; P = 0.41) and Grade ≥3 AEs (59% vs. 57%; P = 0.45). These findings were also further confirmed in the meta-analyses for primary efficacy endpoints and safety outcomes. Interpretation The prices of both domestic and imported anticancer drugs significantly decreased after market entry mainly due to the role of national price negotiations. The median monthly treatment price of domestic within-class targeted anticancer drugs was significantly lower than that of imported drugs. Furthermore, the efficacy and safety of domestic anticancer drugs were comparable to that of imported drugs. This evidence implicated that the development of within-class anticancer drugs with national price negotiations in China significantly improved the affordability for patients. Funding This study was supported by postdoctoral fellowship from Tsinghua-Peking Joint Centers for Life Sciences (CLS).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xingxian Luo
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
- Key Laboratory of Innovative Drug Research and Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China
- Tsinghua-Peking Center for Life Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Xin Du
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
- Key Laboratory of Innovative Drug Research and Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China
| | - Lin Huang
- Department of Pharmacy, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Qixiang Guo
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
- Key Laboratory of Innovative Drug Research and Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China
| | - Ruijie Tan
- School of Pharmacy, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Yue Zhou
- Department of Pharmacy, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Zhuangqi Li
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
- Key Laboratory of Innovative Drug Research and Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China
| | - Xuecai Xue
- Department of Pharmacy, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Taifeng Li
- Department of Pharmacy, Cancer Institute & Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Kaidi Le
- Department of Pharmacy, Cancer Institute & Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Feng Qian
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
| | - Shein-Chung Chow
- Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
- Corresponding author.
| | - Yue Yang
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
- Key Laboratory of Innovative Drug Research and Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China
- Corresponding author. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Intensity of care in cancer patients in the last year of life: a retrospective data linkage study. Br J Cancer 2022; 127:712-719. [PMID: 35545681 PMCID: PMC9092325 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-01828-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2021] [Revised: 04/06/2022] [Accepted: 04/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Delivering high-quality palliative and end-of-life care for cancer patients poses major challenges for health services. We examine the intensity of cancer care in England in the last year of life. Methods We included cancer decedents aged 65+ who died between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2017. We analysed healthcare utilisation and costs in the last 12 months of life including hospital-based activities and primary care. Results Healthcare utilisation and costs increased sharply in the last month of life. Hospital costs were the largest cost elements and decreased with age (0.78, 95% CI: 0.73–0.72, p < 0.005 for age group 90+ compared to age 65–69 and increased substantially with comorbidity burden (2.2, 95% CI: 2.09–2.26, p < 0.005 for those with 7+ comorbidities compared to those with 1–3 comorbidities). The costs were highest for haematological cancers (1.45, 95% CI: 1.38–1.52, p < 0.005) and those living in the London region (1.10, 95% CI: 1.02–1.19, p < 0.005). Conclusions Healthcare in the last year of life for advanced cancer patients is costly and offers unclear value to patients and the healthcare system. Further research is needed to understand distinct cancer populations’ pathways and experiences before recommendations can be made about the most appropriate models of care.
Collapse
|
3
|
DeMartino PC, Miljković MD, Prasad V. Potential Cost Implications for All US Food and Drug Administration Oncology Drug Approvals in 2018. JAMA Intern Med 2021; 181:162-167. [PMID: 33165499 PMCID: PMC7653539 DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5921] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2020] [Accepted: 08/31/2020] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
Importance The growth of cancer drug spending in the US has outpaced spending in nearly all other sectors, and an increasing proportion of the drug development pipeline is devoted to oncology. In 2018, there was a record number of drugs entering the US market. Objective To estimate the number of patients with cancer who are eligible for the newly approved drug-indication pairs, and project potential spending and use of the approvals in the US. Design, Setting, Participants This is a retrospective review of 2018 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology drug approvals with estimation of the eligible population. The cost of new therapy was estimated, and savings from displaced therapies were subtracted. Two-way sensitivity analysis explored uncertainty in pricing and market diffusion. Data were collected between March 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019. Exposures Data related to the cancer drug approval (ie, indications, approval pathway, basis for approval), cancer incidence, and drug price were extracted from publicly available sources, including the FDA, National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer Society websites, as well as the RED BOOK database. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the projected net expenditure in the US associated with the new therapies. The secondary outcome described how variable market diffusion and pricing permit expected levels of spending. Results A total of 46 oncology approvals were included in the analysis, with 17 novel drugs and 29 new indications. The average price per patient per treatment course was $150 384. From a national perspective and with 100% market diffusion, the projected net expenditure for newly approved drugs was $39.5 billion per year. To maintain the recent trend of cancer drug spending, the 2018 cancer drug approvals need to be used in fewer than 20% of eligible patients. Conclusions and Relevance New cancer drugs approved by the FDA in 2018 would drastically increase cancer drug spending in the US if used widely. Alternatively, only low-level use of the new drugs is consistent with market forecasting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick C. DeMartino
- Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
| | | | - Vinay Prasad
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
| |
Collapse
|