An Arm and a Leg: The Rising Cost of Cancer Drugs and Impact on Access

Pharmacokinetic boosting of olaparib: Study protocol of a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial (PROACTIVE-B)

Background

Pharmacokinetic (PK) boosting is the intentional use of a drug-drug interaction to enhance systemic drug exposure. PK boosting of the anticancer drug olaparib, a CYP3A-substrate, has the potential to reduce PK variability, side effects and financial burden associated with this drug. After establishing adequate pharmacokinetic exposure with boosting in the PROACTIVE-A study, the PROACTIVE-B study is designed to evaluate non-inferiority for both efficacy and toxicity of the boosted therapy compared to the standard monotherapy of olaparib.

Methods

The PROACTIVE-B study is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial. A total of 142 patients (128 patients with BRCA+, high-grade, FIGO III/IV ovarian cancer who receive olaparib as maintenance therapy; 14 patients with other approved indications for olaparib) who start olaparib treatment in line with the drug label will be randomized between the standard monotherapy of olaparib 300 mg twice daily (BID) and the boosted therapy of olaparib 100 mg BID with cobicistat 150 mg BID. The co-primary objectives are tolerability (dose reductions due to toxicity), and efficacy (progression-free survival at 12 months) in the ovarian cancer population. Secondary objectives include health status (EQ-5D-5L), patient satisfaction (Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ)), and cost effectiveness using the institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA) Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ) and iMTA Medical Consumption Questionnaire (iMCQ).

Discussion

PK boosting of olaparib is a potentially valuable strategy to reduce the olaparib dose and the variability in olaparib exposure with fewer side effects. Moreover, the lower costs related to the boosted therapy contribute to a durable and accessible anticancer treatment for all patients.

Trial registration

The PROACTIVE study has been published at ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT05078671 on October 14, 2021 and at EudraCT under 2021-004032-28 on August 24, 2021.

Polyphenols from the husk of T. acornis suppresses MDA-MB-231 cells growth via Fanconi Anemia pathway

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype with poor prognosis. Recently, polyphenols derived from the husk of T. acornis (HTA) have shown promise as potential cancer treatment agents. This study aimed to explore the anti-TNBC effects and mechanisms of HTA polyphenols in vitro using MDA-MB-231 TNBC cells, a representative cell line of this type. Initially, we assessed the impact of HTA polyphenols on cell proliferation, invasion, migration, cell cycle, and apoptosis. Key active compounds, 1,2,3,6-tetra-O-galloyl-beta-d-glucose (TGG) and gallic acid (GA), were identified for their anti-TNBC properties. Transcriptome data analysis, GO annotation, KEGG enrichment, and protein-protein interaction (PPI) analysis revealed significant pathways in HTA polyphenol-treated MDA-MB-231 cells. A total of 3312 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified, including 19 related to the Fanconi anemia (FA) pathway. Many of these DEGs are primarily involved in processes such as DNA replication, cell cycle regulation, and extracellular matrix (ECM)-receptor interactions. Consistent with these changes, FANCD2 and FANCG, among the 19 DEGs, were found to be downregulated in cells treated with HTA polyphenols, TGG, and GA. This was confirmed by western blotting and immunofluorescence assays. In conclusion, HTA has a significant anti-TNBC effect by inhibiting cancer occurrence and development. The underlying molecular mechanism may be associated with its modulation of the FA pathway. Overall, these findings underscore the potential of HTA polyphenols as a therapeutic agent or functional food for TNBC patients.

Treatment Trends in Metastatic Renal Clear Cell Carcinoma in Argentina

PURPOSE

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 2%-3% of adult cancers globally. In Argentina, RCC is the fifth most common cancer, with over 2,000 new patients annually. This study aims to evaluate treatment trends for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in Argentina.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted involving 689 patients with mRCC treated in Argentina between 2015 and 2022. The study analyzed treatment patterns and outcomes over time.

RESULTS

Access to combination treatments for mRCC in Argentina has increased significantly, with 87% of patients receiving such therapies during the 2021-2022 period. The real-world data demonstrated that combination treatments in this Latin American population resulted in prolonged progression-free survival and improved overall response rate.

CONCLUSION

The results underscore the importance of ensuring access to combination therapies for patients with mRCC in Latin America. These findings should inform public health policies aimed at guaranteeing access to effective combination therapies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab With Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer

Importance

The KEYNOTE-A18 trial demonstrated that adding concurrent and adjuvant pembrolizumab to chemoradiotherapy and brachytherapy significantly improved survival in patients with newly diagnosed, locally advanced cervical cancer. However, considering the annual global incidence of 660 000 cases of cervical cancer, including 13 820 in the US in 2024, incorporating this regimen into the standard of care could have substantial health care economic implications for both patients and the health care system.

Objective

To determine the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to the first-line treatment of newly diagnosed, locally advanced cervical cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation created a Markov model simulating 50-year outcomes to evaluate cost-effectiveness from the payer perspective for patients receiving either pembrolizumab or placebo in addition to chemoradiotherapy plus brachytherapy. Probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and treatment-related toxic effects, were derived from KEYNOTE-A18 clinical trial data in patients with newly diagnosed, locally advanced cervical cancer. Costs and health utilities were obtained from published literature; 1-way, 3-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess model uncertainty. Data analyses were conducted from April to November 2024.

Exposure

Pembrolizumab.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Costs, measured in 2024 US dollars, and effectiveness, measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY was chosen, below which pembrolizumab would be considered cost-effective.

Results

KEYNOTE-A18 enrolled 1060 patients (529 in pembrolizumab group, 531 in placebo group). The median age was 50 years. Pembrolizumab increased costs by $257 000 and effectiveness by 1.40 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $183 400 per QALY. The addition of pembrolizumab became cost-effective if its monthly cost was decreased from $16 990 to $9190 (a 45.6% reduction) or its maximum duration of 24 months was decreased to 10 months. The model was insensitive to assumptions about treatment-related toxic effects, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the addition of pembrolizumab was cost-effective 37.3% of the time.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation of adding concurrent and adjuvant pembrolizumab to first-line treatment of newly diagnosed, locally advanced cervical cancer, this regimen was not cost-effective at current prices despite data demonstrating improved survival with this regimen.

Metabolic syndrome is associated with breast cancer mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the association between metabolic syndrome and breast cancer (BC) outcomes in BC survivors.

METHODS

Systematic searches were carried out in PubMed and Embase using variations of the search terms: breast neoplasms (population), metabolic syndrome (exposure), and survival (outcome). Metabolic syndrome was characterized according to the American Heart Association, which includes the presence of three out of five abnormal findings among the risk factors: high blood pressure, high triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein, high fasting glucose, and central obesity. Data were obtained from observational studies and randomized controlled trials that utilized survival statistics and reported survival ratios to investigate how the presence of metabolic syndrome at the time of BC diagnosis is associated with BC outcomes. Study data were independently extracted by two authors, and effect sizes were pooled using random-effects models.

RESULTS

From the 1019 studies identified in the literature search, 17 were deemed eligible. These encompassed 42,135 BC survivors. The pooled estimates revealed that BC survivors who had metabolic syndrome at the time of their BC diagnosis experienced increased risk of recurrence (HR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.39-2.06), BC mortality (HR 1.83, 95% CI: 1.35-2.49), and shorter disease-free survival (HR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.36-1.81) compared to BC survivors without metabolic syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Among BC survivors, metabolic syndrome was associated with inferior BC outcomes. This necessitates the creation of clinical guidelines that include metabolic screening for BC survivors. Further research should identify effective interventions to reduce the prevalence of metabolic syndrome among BC survivors to improve metabolic health and BC outcomes.

Gerotherapeutics: aging mechanism-based pharmaceutical and behavioral interventions to reduce cancer racial and ethnic disparities

The central premise of this article is that a portion of the established relationships between social determinants of health and racial and ethnic disparities in cancer morbidity and mortality is mediated through differences in rates of biological aging processes. We further posit that using knowledge about aging could enable discovery and testing of new mechanism-based pharmaceutical and behavioral interventions ("gerotherapeutics") to differentially improve the health of cancer survivors from minority populations and reduce cancer disparities. These hypotheses are based on evidence that lifelong differences in adverse social determinants of health contribute to disparities in rates of biological aging ("social determinants of aging"), with individuals from minoritized groups experiencing accelerated aging (ie, a steeper slope or trajectory of biological aging over time relative to chronological age) more often than individuals from nonminoritized groups. Acceleration of biological aging can increase the risk, age of onset, aggressiveness, and stage of many adult cancers. There are also documented negative feedback loops whereby the cellular damage caused by cancer and its therapies act as drivers of additional biological aging. Together, these dynamic intersectional forces can contribute to differences in cancer outcomes between survivors from minoritized vs nonminoritized populations. We highlight key targetable biological aging mechanisms with potential applications to reducing cancer disparities and discuss methodological considerations for preclinical and clinical testing of the impact of gerotherapeutics on cancer outcomes in minoritized populations. Ultimately, the promise of reducing cancer disparities will require broad societal policy changes that address the structural causes of accelerated biological aging and ensure equitable access to all new cancer control paradigms.

National Expenditures on Anticancer and Immunomodulating Agents During 2013-2022 in Korea

BACKGROUND

This study investigated trends in national expenditures on anticancer and immunomodulating agents from 2013 to 2022.

METHODS

Information was obtained from the National Health Insurance claims data spanning a period of 10 years, from 2013 to 2022. The subjects of this study are patients diagnosed with cancer who used anticancer agents between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2022. Trends were examined across various categories, including sex, age groups, routes of healthcare use, and types of healthcare institutions. We calculated the compound annual growth rate in both the number of patients and expenditures by year.

RESULTS

In 2013, pharmaceutical expenditures amounted to USD 11,984 million, representing 25.5% of the total healthcare expenditures, which were USD 46,984 million. Within this pharmaceutical expenditure, anticancer medications constituted USD 584 million, or 4.9%. By 2022, pharmaceutical expenditures had risen to USD 22,093 million, accounting for 22.8% of the total healthcare expenditures of USD 96,904 million. Of this amount, USD 1,566 million was allocated to anticancer drugs, which represented 7.1% of the total pharmaceutical expenditures. Between 2013 and 2022, total healthcare expenditures experienced a significant increase of 106.2%, reaching USD 49,920 million. Concurrently, pharmaceutical expenditures rose by 91.1% to USD 10,919 million, while expenditures on anticancer drugs surged by 168.2% to USD 982 million. In 2022, the category with the highest expenditures was ATC L01FF, which includes programmed cell death protein 1/death ligand 1 inhibitors such as nivolumab, totaling USD 266.2 million. This was followed by L01FD at USD 198.8 million and L01EA at USD 140.4 million. Since 2018, however, spending on immune checkpoint blockers targeting cell death proteins or ligands has continued to rise and currently ranks first.

CONCLUSION

The number of patients using anticancer drugs and the associated drug expenditures have risen between 2013 and 2022. As the share of anticancer drugs in total drug expenditures grows, so too do the overall expenditures. This escalating financial burden highlights the necessity for policymakers to thoroughly understand the appropriate and cost-effective usage of anticancer drugs, as it directly influences the affordability and accessibility of healthcare services.

An update on access to novel treatment for metastatic melanoma in Europe - A 2024 survey of the European melanoma registry and the European association of dermato-oncology

Advances in cancer treatments have significantly improved their effectiveness, yet access to first-line therapies remains limited. A 2017 survey revealed that over 25 % of metastatic melanoma patients in Europe lacked access to recommended therapies. To address this, the European Association of Dermato-Oncology and the European Melanoma Registry conducted a follow-up study on the registration and reimbursement of first-line treatments.A web-based survey using LimeSurvey was distributed to melanoma experts across 27 European countries from February to April 2022 and updated from February to April 2024. The questionnaire covered the percentage of patients receiving recommended treatments, as well as treatment authorization and reimbursement dates for systemic and adjuvant therapies.There has been significant improvement in the registration and reimbursement of BRAFi/MEKi, anti-PD1, and anti-PD1/anti-CTLA4 therapies, increasing from 48 %, 63 %, and 37 % in 2017 to 96 %, 96 %, and 78 % in 2024, respectively. Despite these gains, restrictions persist. Anti-PD1/anti-CTLA4 combination immunotherapy is still not available without restrictions in 48 % of the surveyed countries. The nivolumab/relatlimab combination is licensed only for PDL-1-negative melanoma and reimbursed in seven countries of Europe. Tebentafusp is reimbursed in 15 countries and talimogene laherpervec in 5. In 2024, adjuvant treatments for stage III melanoma are reimbursed in 22 countries for dabrafenib/trametinib and 24 of 27 for anti-PD1 antibodies. Pembrolizumab and nivolumab are reimbursed in 15 and 8 countries, respectively, for stage IIB/IIC disease.While there have been improvements in the reimbursement of metastatic melanoma treatments in Europe, challenges and discrepancies remain. Further efforts at European and global levels are needed to harmonize and enhance access to cancer medicines.

Leptomeningeal metastatic disease: new frontiers and future directions

Leptomeningeal metastatic disease (LMD), encompassing entities of 'meningeal carcinomatosis', neoplastic meningitis' and 'leukaemic/lymphomatous meningitis', arises secondary to the metastatic dissemination of cancer cells from extracranial and certain intracranial malignancies into the leptomeninges and cerebrospinal fluid. The clinical burden of LMD has been increasing secondary to more sensitive diagnostics, aggressive local therapies for discrete brain metastases, and improved management of extracranial disease with targeted and immunotherapeutic agents, resulting in improved survival. However, owing to drug delivery challenges and the unique microenvironment of LMD, novel therapies against systemic disease have not yet translated into improved outcomes for these patients. Underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis are common, response assessment remains challenging, and the prognosis associated with this disease of whole neuroaxis remains extremely poor. The dearth of effective therapies is further challenged by the difficulties in studying this dynamic disease state. In this Review, a multidisciplinary group of experts describe the emerging evidence and areas of active investigation in LMD and provide directed recommendations for future research. Drawing upon paradigm-changing advances in mechanistic science, computational approaches, and trial design, the authors discuss domain-specific and cross-disciplinary strategies for optimizing the clinical and translational research landscape for LMD. Advances in diagnostics, multi-agent intrathecal therapies, cell-based therapies, immunotherapies, proton craniospinal irradiation and ongoing clinical trials offer hope for improving outcomes for patients with LMD.

High-Cost Cancer Drug Use in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare

Importance

Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are designed to incentivize the use of less expensive drugs through capitated payments, formulary control, and preauthorizations for certain drugs. These conditions may reduce spending on high-cost therapies for conditions such as cancer, a condition that is among the most expensive to treat.

Objective

To determine whether patients insured by MA plans receive less high-cost drugs than those insured by traditional Medicare (TM).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used data from the linked Colorado All Payer Claims Database and Colorado Central Cancer Registry. This population-based cohort included adults 65 years and older insured by Medicare with prescription coverage who reside in Colorado and were diagnosed with colorectal (CRC) or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between January 2012 and December 2021. The data were analyzed between December 2023 and August 2024.

Exposure

Enrollment in TM or MA insurance plans.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Claims for chemotherapy and oral targeted agents were identified. Thresholds for high-cost drugs were based on the distribution of drug costs. Inverse probability weighted logistic regression for receiving any cancer drug and for receiving a high-cost cancer drug was estimated, controlling for patient and ecological characteristics. The sample was stratified by cancer site and local/regional and distant stage.

Results

Of 4240 patients included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 75 [7] years; 2327 [54.9%] female), 1991 were diagnosed with CRC and 2249 with NSCLC. A total of 1647 patients had local or regional CRC, and 344 had distant CRC; 1351 patients had local or regional NSCLC, and 898 had distant NSCLC. In the covariate-adjusted analysis, patients diagnosed with local or regional CRC who were insured by MA were 6.0 percentage points less likely to receive a cancer drug than similar patients insured by TM. Patients diagnosed with distant NSCLC were 10.0 percentage points less likely to receive a cancer drug if insured by MA. Among patients who received a cancer drug, patients insured by MA were less likely to receive a high-cost drug for local or regional CRC (by 10.0 percentage points) and distant CRC (by 9.0 percentage points).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, high-cost drugs were more commonly prescribed among patients enrolled in TM and diagnosed with CRC. A similar pattern was not observed for patients with NSCLC, perhaps because clinical evidence suggests survival benefits to be associated only with certain drugs, all of which are expensive. Nonetheless, MA was modestly associated with reduced high-cost drug utilization and may reduce overall treatment costs.

Cancer Drug Wastage and Mitigation Methods: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review published evidence on cancer drug wastage and the effectiveness of mitigation methods.

METHODS

Search keywords for Scopus, PubMed, and EMBASE were developed using the Pearl Growing technique. Relevant articles were identified in a 2-step process: first, based on titles/abstracts, then on full article reviews. Among the identified English peer-reviewed articles, those considering adults ≥18 years and relevant cancer drug wastage outcomes were included. Key concepts and measures for drug wastage and its mitigation were tabulated. Trends in publication numbers were analyzed using Mann-Kendall tests. Costs were converted first to 2024 local currencies using country-wise consumer price indexes and then to 2024 USD using exchange rates.

RESULTS

Among 6298 unique articles, 94 met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-four (79%) of these were published since 2015, highlighting increasing attention to cancer drug wastage. Twenty-three articles (24%) explicitly reported drug wastage amounts, whereas 52 articles (55%) considered the mitigation methods. Most articles focused on high-income countries (n = 67), single-hospital settings (n = 45), and retrospective study designs (n = 55). Wastage mitigation techniques included vial sharing (n = 21), dose rounding (n = 17), closed-system transfer device (n = 9), centralized drug preparation (n = 7), and vial size optimization (n = 7). A trend toward higher median wastage cost was evident in US settings ($135.35/patient-month) compared with other countries ($37.71/patient-month), whereas mitigation methods across countries were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

High cancer drug costs highlight the importance of minimizing drug wastage to reduce healthcare expenditure. Our review demonstrates that wastage varies by healthcare setting and mitigation technique. Future studies would benefit from reporting standards for cancer drug wastage that include reporting wastage (both in mg and cost, preferably in terms of purchase power parity), as well as cohort size, considered vial sizes, considered dosages, and used mitigation methods separately for each drug. This approach would account for variability in cancer drug wastage and help identify optimal mitigation practices tailored to the health system context.

Cost Conversations to Mitigate the Effects of Financial Toxicity in Oncology: Current State, Opportunities, and Barriers

The direct and indirect financial burden of cancer care, from medication costs to lost wages, results in financial toxicity for patients. Despite the growing recognition of financial toxicity as a problem for patients, there are few solutions available at the point of care. Structured cost conversations between oncologists and patients to help identify financial toxicity and intervene early when it is recognized have been posited as a patient facing intervention. Cost conversations fit into a framework of shared decision making within cancer care. Although more than 90% of patients with cancer express a desire to discuss the costs of their care, <15% report that such conversations occurred. This contrasts with oncologists who self-report that they discuss costs with patients up to 60% of the time. Poor utilization of cost conversations may be due to both patient and oncologist reluctance of discussing money; this can be driven by fear that lower cost care is less effective and lack of training/guidance for oncologists on how to effectively conduct cost conversations. Currently, there is an abundance of small, pilot studies showing benefits of cost conversation or other decision aids in meaningfully reducing financial toxicity. However, no large randomized prospective study has assessed the role of structured conversations designed exclusively to address costs in cancer care. This review suggests a framework for cost conversations in oncology and outlines the steps necessary to develop a full cost conversation guide.

Increasing Life Expectancy in Patients with Genitourinary Malignancies: Impact of Treatment Burden on Disease Management and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Treatment burden refers to the overall impact of medical treatments on a patient's well-being and daily life. Our objective is to evaluate the impact of treatment burden on quality of life (QoL) in patients with genitourinary (GU) malignancies, highlighting the importance of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials to inform treatment decisions and improve patient care.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review of clinical trials focused on GU malignancy (prostate, bladder, and kidney) between January 2000 and June 2024, analyzing related PROs and findings regarding treatment burden.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Recent landmark clinical trials demonstrate significant improvements in overall survival across GU malignancies with novel therapies. However, the reporting of QoL outcomes in these trials is often inadequate, with many lacking comprehensive data or long-term impact. Current publications are increasingly evaluating treatment burden and its impact on patient well-being as a critical outcome, but most clinical trials to date have failed to assess treatment burden across key domains including financial, time and travel, and medication management.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

While advancements in treatment have extended longevity in patients with GU malignancies, the treatment burden associated with the receipt of novel agents and its implications for QoL remain inadequately uncharacterized.

Clinical research framework proposal for ketogenic metabolic therapy in glioblastoma

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive primary brain tumor in adults, with a universally lethal prognosis despite maximal standard therapies. Here, we present a consensus treatment protocol based on the metabolic requirements of GBM cells for the two major fermentable fuels: glucose and glutamine. Glucose is a source of carbon and ATP synthesis for tumor growth through glycolysis, while glutamine provides nitrogen, carbon, and ATP synthesis through glutaminolysis. As no tumor can grow without anabolic substrates or energy, the simultaneous targeting of glycolysis and glutaminolysis is expected to reduce the proliferation of most if not all GBM cells. Ketogenic metabolic therapy (KMT) leverages diet-drug combinations that inhibit glycolysis, glutaminolysis, and growth signaling while shifting energy metabolism to therapeutic ketosis. The glucose-ketone index (GKI) is a standardized biomarker for assessing biological compliance, ideally via real-time monitoring. KMT aims to increase substrate competition and normalize the tumor microenvironment through GKI-adjusted ketogenic diets, calorie restriction, and fasting, while also targeting glycolytic and glutaminolytic flux using specific metabolic inhibitors. Non-fermentable fuels, such as ketone bodies, fatty acids, or lactate, are comparatively less efficient in supporting the long-term bioenergetic and biosynthetic demands of cancer cell proliferation. The proposed strategy may be implemented as a synergistic metabolic priming baseline in GBM as well as other tumors driven by glycolysis and glutaminolysis, regardless of their residual mitochondrial function. Suggested best practices are provided to guide future KMT research in metabolic oncology, offering a shared, evidence-driven framework for observational and interventional studies.

Publicly Funded Cancer Care: Are Adjuvant Therapies Prioritized Over Treatment of Metastatic Cancer? The Israeli Experience

PURPOSE

In Israel, a public committee advises which new medications should be reimbursed subject to an annual budget allocation. The committee considers clinical trial outcomes, professional societies' preferences, projected budget impacts, and other social and ethical aspects. The Israeli oncologists' society places a strong emphasis on prioritizing adjuvant therapies because of their potential to advance cure. In 2023, several novel adjuvant therapies were suggested for national funding. Our objective was to ascertain whether Israeli decision makers have embraced the practice of prioritizing budgets for therapies with curative intent over late-disease therapy.

METHODS

We collected data on all proposed cancer therapies for the 2023 update: indications, treatment settings, European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) score, and whether accepted for reimbursement. The rates of acceptance were compared between drugs in curative and noncurative settings. Data were extracted from the official Israeli Ministry of Health publications and ESMO-MCBS website.

RESULTS

Seven of the eight proposed therapies with curative intent received reimbursement approval (88%), in contrast to 11 of the 55 therapies for advanced/metastatic stages (20%). Among all advanced disease therapies with a high ESMO-MCBS score of 4, only four of 16 (25%) secured reimbursement approval.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis revealed that during the 2023 reimbursement deliberations, Israeli policymakers embraced the prioritization of potentially curative therapies over treatments for incurable cancers, including several interventions that have demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival and/or quality of life. Introducing objective cost-effectiveness measures as a guiding framework for comparing competing medications may offer some resolution to this complex challenge.

What constitutes meaningful benefit of cancer drugs in the context of LMICs? A mixed-methods study of oncologists' perceptions on endpoints, benefit, price, and value of cancer drugs

BACKGROUND

The importance of surrogate endpoints, magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer drugs, and their prices have often been debated in the oncology world. No study, however, has systemically explored oncologists' perception regarding these issues.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study including in-depth qualitative interviews of medical oncologists prescribing cancer drug therapy in India. Quantitative data were collected using a predetermined proforma. Qualitative in-depth interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, anonymized, subsequently coded, and analyzed by generating basic and global themes.

RESULTS

We interviewed 25 medical oncologists. Twenty-eight percent of oncologists rarely used cancer drugs that improved response rate (RR) but not overall survival (OS), and an equal percentage mostly/often used such drugs. For cancer drugs that improved progression-free survival (PFS) but not OS, 20% never/rarely used them while 48% mostly/often used them. Oncologists in India considered a 4.5-month (range, 1.5-12 months) advantage in median PFS as meaningful, and considered price of ∼120 United States Dollars (USD) per month (range, 48-720 USD per month) for those PFS gains as justified. For OS, median gains of 4.5 months (range, 2-24 months) and at a monthly price of ∼360 USD (range, 48-900 USD) was considered justified. Oncologists in India were aware and concerned that RR only meant tumour shrinkage not survival benefit, but many assumed that tumour shrinkage meant better quality of life. Many oncologists acknowledged the limitations of PFS but would use a drug with PFS benefit if it was cheaper than the drug with OS benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologists in India showed awareness of the limited surrogacy between RR/PFS and OS but assumed that RR/PFS correlated with improved quality of life and acknowledged price as a factor in deciding treatment choices. This is the first study providing a benchmark for minimum clinical benefit (4.5 months in PFS or OS) and maximum monthly price (120 USD for PFS, 360 USD for OS) deemed justifiable by oncologists practicing in low-and-middle-income countries.

Assessing the Impact of a Designated Pharmacist Intervention on Drug Treatment Costs and Technical Efficiency in the Hemato-Oncology Outpatient Clinic

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the impact of a designated pharmacist (DPha) intervention in a hemato-oncology unit, focusing on reducing drug treatment costs and improving technical efficiency (TE).

METHODS

Data from an 8-month intervention in the Israeli Clalit Health Services hemato-oncology outpatient unit were analyzed. During the study, the DPha reviewed the drug therapies being administered. After the review, a recommendation letter was sent, if relevant, to the treating physician. Data on drug treatment costs and interventions were meticulously collected and analyzed from the perspective of the insurer. A simple design was used to assess the DPha intervention's contribution to TE and cost reduction, which was used to generate credible and transparent estimates. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of 2 major variables: drug prices and pharmacist salaries.

RESULTS

Over 8 months, DPha interventions led to a $279 191 cost reduction for 91 patients, resulting in net savings of $269 420 ($2960 per patient). Noteworthy is the $411 savings for each hour worked by the pharmacist, with a major impact on medications not insurer approved for the patient's condition ($101 151) and discontinuing inappropriate medications ($52 681). Biological drug optimization accounted for 81% of total savings. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated significant cost savings across various drug prices and pharmacist salary scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

The study proposes a practical framework for optimizing pharmacist services and reducing the inappropriate use of costly oncology medications. Incorporating a DPha enhances TE and yields significant cost reductions, offering valuable insights for insurers, policy makers, and healthcare professionals.

Copay accumulators: Shifting costs of oncology drugs from plans to patients

Copay accumulator programs, which exclude the benefit of manufacturer patient assistance from annual maximum out‐of‐pocket costs, shift costs for expensive oncology drugs from plans to patients. Legislation is ongoing to protect patients from these potentially harmful re‐definitions of cost‐sharing.

Investigating the availability, affordability, and market dynamics of innovative oncology drugs in Morocco: an original report

BACKGROUND

The cost of cancer drugs presents a significant challenge to accessibility of treatment worldwide. Projections indicate that by 2040, two-thirds of cancer cases will occur in low- and middle- income countries. Paradoxically, despite this impending burden, LMICs command less than 5% share of global resources for treating cancer. Morocco, like many LMICs, faces significant obstacles in providing innovative cancer treatments to its population.

AIM

Firstly, we aimed to conduct an original research investigating the availability and affordability of innovative cancer drugs in Morocco. Secondly, we sought to review the broader market dynamics, pricing, and reimbursement policies in the country.

METHODS

For the first objective, we identified a preliminary list of medicines approved for oncological indications in the Moroccan market based on resources from ANAM (National Agency for Health Insurance), pharmacy regulators, and online resources that compile information on approved medicines. For the second objective, we exhaustively reviewed the regulatory documents, legal texts and grey literature reports. All the informations were examined by pharma delegates and local experts.

RESULTS

As of January 2024, Morocco has 39 innovative anticancer medicines with market authorization. 30% of these drugs were approved after 2020. The majority of approved drugs were for breast, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer. The period between FDA approval and entry into the Moroccan market ranges from 2 to 7 years, with a median of 3 years for breast cancer drugs and 7 years for more expensive drugs like Olaparib and Osimertinib. 22 out of the 39 drugs are not reimbursed, with an average reimbursement time of 4 years. Compared to prices in France, the most notable pricing disparities concern immunotherapy agents, priced 600 to 900 euros lower in France, while drugs like Pazopanib and Erlotinib cost 50% less in Morocco.

CONCLUSION

Our study reveals significant disparities in the availability and affordability of innovative cancer drugs in Morocco. Regulatory hurdles, importation challenges, and pricing strategies contribute to this inequitable landscape. Addressing systemic barriers, fostering collaborations between stakeholders, and adopting a value-based pricing approach are imperative steps toward ensuring equitable access to high-quality interventions for patients, regardless of their geographical location.

High cost of chemotherapy for gynecologic malignancies

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of gynecological malignancies has improved with the recent advent of molecularly targeted drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, these drugs are expensive and contribute to the increasing costs of medical care.

METHODS

The Japanese Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) Health Economics Committee conducted a questionnaire survey of JCOG-affiliated facilities from July 2021 to June 2022 to assess the prevalence of high-cost regimens.

RESULTS

A total of 57 affiliated facilities were surveyed regarding standard regimens for advanced ovarian and cervical cancers for gynecological malignancies. Responses were obtained from 39 facilities (68.4%) regarding ovarian cancer and 37 (64.9%) concerning cervical cancer, with respective case counts of 854 and 163. For ovarian cancer, 505 of 854 patients (59.1%) were treated with regimens that included PARP inhibitors, costing >500 000 Japanese yen monthly, while 111 patients (13.0%) received treatments that included bevacizumab, with costs exceeding 200 000 Japanese yen monthly. These costs are ~20 and ~10 times higher than those of the conventional regimens, respectively. For cervical cancer, 79 patients (48.4%) were treated with bevacizumab regimens costing >200 000 Japanese yen per month, ~10 times the cost of conventional treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

In this survey, >70% of patients with ovarian cancer were treated with regimens that included poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors or bevacizumab; ~50% of patients with cervical cancer were treated with regimens containing bevacizumab. These treatments were ~10 and ~20 times more expensive than conventional regimens, respectively. These findings can inform future health economics studies, particularly in assessing cost-effectiveness and related matters.

A real-world survey on expensive drugs used as first-line chemotherapy in patients with HER2-negative unresectable advanced/recurrent gastric cancer in the stomach cancer study group of the Japan clinical oncology group

BACKGROUND

Molecular-targeted drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors have been developed for various malignant diseases, thereby improving clinical outcomes. However, these drugs are expensive, and few studies have assessed their actual use and costs in Japan. This study aimed to survey the use and costs of first-line chemotherapy for advanced/recurrent gastric cancer (AGC) in real-world settings.

METHODS

The survey included patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor type2 (HER2)-negative AGC who initiated first-line chemotherapy from January 2022 to December 2022 at the participating 92 institutions in the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. Data on the regimens were collected using Google Forms. A regimen that costs >500 000 Japanese yen (JPY) per month was defined as expensive.

RESULTS

Data on chemotherapy regimens were collected from 2173 patients at all 92 institutions between March 2023 and May 2023. We analyzed 2113 patients who underwent the chemotherapy with recommended regimens and conditionally recommended regimens according to the Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines sixth edition. The expensive regimens were triplet chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine (S-1 or capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil/levofolinate), oxaliplatin, and nivolumab. Their monthly costs ranged from 767 648 to 771 046 JPY. Nivolumab-containing regimens cost more than 20 times the price of conventional chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin. These regimens were used in 1416 (67%) of 2113 patients: in 71% of patients aged ≤74 years and in 59% of patients aged ≥75 years.

CONCLUSION

The regimens with >20-fold cost of conventional chemotherapy were used as first-line chemotherapy in two-thirds of patients and more than half even in the elderly population with HER2-negative AGC. This finding is important for future health economic studies on drug cost-efficacy.

Current status of the cost burden of first-line systemic treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Japan, 2021-22

BACKGROUND

Although recent advances in systemic therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have led to prolonged patient survival, the high costs of the drugs place a heavy burden on both patients and society. The objectives of this study were to examine the treatment regimens used as first-line systemic treatment for patients with advanced HCC in Japan and to estimate the treatment costs per regimen.

METHODS

For this study, we aggregated the data of patients who had received first-line systemic treatment for advanced HCC between July 2021 and June 2022. The treatment cost per month of each regimen was estimated based on standard usage, assuming an average weight of 60 kg for male patients. The data were categorized by the treatment regimen, and the treatments were categorized based on the cost into very high-cost (≥1 000 000 Japanese yen [JPY]/month), high-cost (≥500 000 JPY/month) and other (<500 000 JPY/month) treatments.

RESULTS

Of the total of 552 patients from 24 institutions whose data were analyzed in this study, 439 (79.5%) received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, 98 (17.8%) received lenvatinib and 15 (2.7%) received sorafenib as the first-line treatment. The treatment cost per month for each of the above regimens was as follows: atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, 1 176 284 JPY; lenvatinib, 362 295 JPY and sorafenib, 571 644 JPY. In total, 82.2% of patients received high-cost regimens, and the majority of these patients received a very high-cost regimen of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Advances in systemic therapies for HCC have led to prolonged patient survival. However, the treatment costs are also increasing, imposing a burden on both the patients and society.

Real-world treatment trends for patients with advanced prostate cancer and renal cell carcinoma and their cost-a survey in Japan

BACKGROUND

Advanced (Stage IV) prostate and renal cancer have poor prognosis, and several therapies have been developed, but many are very costly. This study investigated drug regimens used in patients with untreated Stage IV prostate cancer and renal cell carcinoma and calculated the monthly cost of each.

METHODS

We surveyed first-line drugs administered to patients with untreated Stage IV prostate cancer and renal cancer at Japan Clinical Oncology Group affiliated centers from April 2022 to March 2023. Drug costs were calculated according to drug prices in September 2023. Individual drug costs were calculated or converted to 28-day costs.

RESULTS

A total of 700 patients with untreated Stage IV prostate cancer were surveyed. Androgen deprivation therapy + androgen receptor signaling inhibitor was the most common regimen (56%). The cost of androgen deprivation therapy + androgen receptor signaling inhibitor was 10.6-30.8-fold compared with conventional treatments. A total of 137 patients with Stage IV renal cancer were surveyed. Among them, 91% of patients received immune-oncology drug-based regimen. All patients received treatments with a monthly cost of ≥500 000 Japanese yen, and 80.4% of patients received treatments with a monthly cost of ≥1 million Japanese yen, of combination treatments. The cost of immune-oncology drug-based regimen was 1.2-3.1-fold that of TKI alone.

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a survey of first-line drug therapy in untreated Stage IV prostate cancer and renal cell carcinoma stratified by age and treatment costs. Our results show that most Japanese patients received state-of-the-art, effective treatments with high financial burden.

High-cost treatments for advanced lung cancer in Japan (Lung Cancer Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group)

BACKGROUND

The treatment of lung cancer has made dramatic progress in the past decade, but due to the high cost of drugs, the total pharmaceutical cost has been rising explosively. There are currently no data available in Japan on which regimens are used, to what extent they are used, and what their total cost is.

METHODS

Sixty Japanese centers belonging to the Lung Cancer Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group were surveyed for information about the first-line treatment for advanced lung cancer in practice from July 2021 to June 2022. Three types of cancer were included: driver gene mutation-negative NSCLC, EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, and extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).

RESULTS

Recent treatment costs for ICIs or ICI plus chemotherapy were about 20-55 times higher than those for conventional chemotherapy. Of the 3738 patients with driver gene aberration-negative NSCLC, 2573 (68.8%) received treatments with monthly cost of 500 000 Japanese yen (JPY) or more; 2555 (68.4%) received ICI therapy. Of the 1486 patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, 1290 (86.8%) received treatments with a monthly cost of 500 000 JPY or more; 1207 (81.2%) received osimertinib. ICI treatments with a monthly cost of 500 000 JPY or more were administered to 607 (56.3%) of 1079 patients with ES-SCLC. Elderly NSCLC patients received slightly more high-cost treatment than younger patients.

CONCLUSION

Recent treatments cost many times more than conventional chemotherapy. This study revealed that high-cost treatments were widely used in advanced lung cancer and some of high-cost treatments were used despite the lack of clear evidence. Physicians should pay attention to the cost of treatments they use.

Healthcare spending versus mortality in central nervous system cancer: Has anything changed?

Background

The financial implications of central nervous system (CNS) cancers are substantial, not only for the healthcare service and payers, but also for the patients who bear the brunt of direct, indirect, and intangible costs. This study sought to investigate the impact of healthcare spending on CNS cancer survival using recent US data.

Methods

This study used public data from the Disease Expenditure Project 2016 and the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The primary outcome was the annual healthcare spending trend from 1996 and 2016 on CNS tumors adjusted for disease prevalence, alongside morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included drivers of change in healthcare expenditures for CNS cancers. Subgroup analysis was performed stratified by age group, expenditure type, and care type provided.

Results

There was a significant increase in total healthcare spending on CNS cancers from $2.72 billion (95% CI: $2.47B to $2.97B) in 1996 to $6.85 billion (95% CI: $5.98B to $7.57B) in 2016. Despite the spending increase, the mortality rate per 100 000 people increased, with 5.30 ± 0.47 in 1996 and 7.02 ± 0.47 in 2016, with an average of 5.78 ± 0.47 deaths per 100 000 over the period. The subgroups with the highest expenditure included patients aged 45 to 64, those with private insurance, and those receiving inpatient care.

Conclusions

This study highlights a significant rise in healthcare costs for CNS cancers without corresponding improvements in mortality rate, indicating a mismatch of healthcare spending, contemporary advances, and patient outcomes as it relates to mortality.

Clinical Benefit, Price, and Regulatory Approval of Cancer Drugs Granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation in China, 2020-2024

Importance

The China National Drug Administration (NMPA) established the breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) in 2020 to encourage the accelerated development of drugs for the prevention and treatment of diseases that are life-threatening. However, the differences between BTD and non-BTD cancer drugs regarding clinical benefit, regulatory approval, and price are unclear.

Objectives

To compare BTD and non-BTD cancer drugs in clinical benefit (defined as efficacy and safety), novelty, time to approval, and average monthly treatment price.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study analyzes the original indication of BTD and non-BTD novel cancer drugs approved by the NMPA between July 8, 2020, and July 8, 2024. Data on efficacy, safety, regulatory approval, and price of cancer drugs were extracted from pivotal clinical trials based on review reports published by the NMPA, peer-reviewed articles or meeting reports, and winning bid prices for cancer drugs in the Chinese provincial-level centralized procurement process.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was the efficacy and safety associated with BTD vs non-BTD cancer drugs, including progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), duration of response, serious adverse events, grade 3 or higher adverse events, and treatment-related deaths. In addition, the time to approval, novelty, and initial and latest average monthly treatment prices were evaluated, as well as the average annual reduction rate (AARR; the sum of the reduction rates divided by the number of years for the monthly treatment price) for these cancer drugs.

Results

Between July 2020 and July 2024, 18 BTD (36%) and 32 non-BTD (64%) cancer drugs were approved by the NMPA. The median (IQR) clinical development time for BTD drugs was significantly shorter than for non-BTD drugs (5.6 [95% CI, 4.3-7.3] vs 6.6 [95% CI, 6.0-8.5] years; P = .02). No significant differences were observed in PFS (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.38-0.52] vs HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.40-0.65]; P = .20), PFS gained (median [IQR], 5.4 [3.9-7.0] vs 2.7 [2.6-5.9] months; P = .77), RR (58% [95% CI, 45%-74%] vs 59% [95% CI, 51%-69%]; P = .85), and duration of response (median [IQR], 18.0 [15.0-21.6] vs 11.1 [7.4-17.4] months; P = .09) between BTD and non-BTD drugs. The rates of serious adverse events (37% [95% CI, 26%-52%] vs 32% [95% CI, 27%-36%]; P = .45), adverse events grade 3 or higher (64% [95% CI, 53%-77%] vs 55% [95% CI, 45%-68%]; P = .31), and treatment-related deaths (2% [95% CI, 1%-4%] vs 1% [95% CI, 1%-2%]; P = .10) were similar between BTD and non-BTD drugs. BTD drugs are more likely to be first-in-class drugs (5 of 18 [28%] vs 1 of 32 [3%]; P = .02). Differences in the median (IQR) initial ($5665 [$3542-$9321] vs $3361 [$2604-$5474]; P = .06) and latest ($5665 [$1553-$9321] vs $2145 [$1318-$4276]; P = .18) average monthly treatment prices for BTD drugs and non-BTD drugs were not significant. The median (IQR) AARRs for BTD drugs and non-BTD drugs were 15.2% (0%-46.9%) and 19.8% (1.0%-42.9%), respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that BTD has facilitated faster time to market for cancer drugs and improved novelty, but the price of treatment is relatively higher. There was no significant difference on comparative efficacy and safety.

Cost-of-care discussions for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma: Findings from a large, population-based pilot study

BACKGROUND

Costs of cancer care can result in patient financial hardship; many professional organizations recommend provider discussions about treatment costs as part of high-quality care. In this pilot study, the authors examined patient-provider cost discussions documented in the medical records of individuals who were diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma-cancers with recently approved, high-cost treatment options.

METHODS

Individuals who were newly diagnosed in 2017-2018 with stage III/IV NSCLC (n = 1767) and in 2018 with stage III/IV melanoma (n = 689) from 12 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results regions were randomly selected for the National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care Study. Documentation of cost discussions was abstracted from the medical record. The authors examined patient, treatment, and hospital factors associated with cost discussions in multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Cost discussions were documented in the medical records of 20.3% of patients with NSCLC and in 24.0% of those with melanoma. In adjusted analyses, privately insured (vs. publicly insured) patients were less likely to have documented cost discussions (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.80). Patients who did not receive systemic therapy or did not receive any cancer-directed treatment were less likely to have documented cost discussions than those who did receive systemic therapy (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.19-0.81] and 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.70], respectively), as were patients who were treated at hospitals without residency programs (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Cost discussions were infrequently documented in the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with advanced NSCLC and melanoma, which may hinder identifying patient needs and tracking outcomes of associated referrals. Efforts to increase cost-of-care discussions and relevant referrals, as well as their documentation, are warranted.

Modeling First-Line Daratumumab Use for Newly Diagnosed, Transplant-Ineligible, Multiple Myeloma: A Cost-Effectiveness and Risk Analysis for Healthcare Payers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of two regimens regarded as the standard of care for the treatment of newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma in Singapore: (1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone and (2) bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Additionally, it aimed to explore potential strategies to manage decision uncertainty and mitigate financial risk.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis from the healthcare system perspective was conducted using a partitioned survival model to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with daratumumab-based treatment and the bortezomib-based regimen. The analysis used data from the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials and incorporated local real-world data where available. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings, and a risk analysis was conducted to analyze various payer strategies in terms of their payer strategy and uncertainty burden (P-SUB), which account for the decision uncertainty and the additional cost of choosing a suboptimal intervention.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd) compared with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) was US $90,364 per QALY gained. The results were sensitive to variations in survival for DRd, postprogression treatment costs, cost of hospice care, and hazard ratio for progression-free survival. The scenarios explored indicated that structural assumptions, such as the time horizon of the analysis, significantly influenced the results due to uncertainties arising from immature trial data and treatment efficacy over time. Among the various payer strategies compared, an upfront price discount for daratumumab emerged as the best approach with the lowest P-SUB at US $14,708.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study finds that daratumumab as a first-line treatment for myeloma exceeds the cost-effectiveness threshold considered in this evaluation. An upfront price reduction is the recommended strategy to manage uncertainties and mitigate financial risks. These findings highlight the importance of targeted payer strategies to address specific types and sources of uncertainty.

An Evidence-Based Rationale for Dose De-escalation of Subcutaneous Atezolizumab

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab is a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitor for the treatment of different forms of cancer. The subcutaneous formulation of atezolizumab has recently received approval. However, treatment with atezolizumab continues to be expensive, and the number of patients needing treatment with this drug continues to increase.

OBJECTIVE

We propose two alternative dosing regimens for subcutaneous atezolizumab to reduce drug expenses while ensuring effective exposure; one may be directly implemented in the clinic.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We developed two alternative dose interval prolongation strategies based on pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation. The first dosing regimen was based on patients' weight while maintaining equivalent systemic drug exposure by adhering to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for in silico dose adjustments. The second dosing regimen aimed to have a minimum atezolizumab concentration above the 6 µg/mL threshold, associated with 95% intratumoral PD-L1 receptor saturation for at least 95% of all patients.

RESULTS

We found that, for the weight-based dosing regimen, the approved 3-week dosing interval could be extended to 5 weeks for patients < 50 kg and 4 weeks for patients weighing 50-65 kg. Besides improving patient convenience, these alternative dosing intervals led to a predicted 7% and 12% cost reduction for either the USA or European population. For the second dosing regimen, we predicted that a 6-week dosing interval would result in 95% of the patients above the 6 µg/mL threshold while reducing costs by 50%.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed and evaluated two alternative dosing regimens that resulted in a cost reduction. Our weight-based dosing regimen can be directly implemented and complies with FDA guidelines for alternative dosing regimens of PD-L1 inhibitors. For the more progressive alternative dosing regimen aimed at the intratumoral PD-L1 receptor threshold, further evidence on efficacy and safety is needed before implementation.

Cancer immunotherapy and its facilitation by nanomedicine

Cancer immunotherapy has sparked a wave of cancer research, driven by recent successful proof-of-concept clinical trials. However, barriers are emerging during its rapid development, including broad adverse effects, a lack of reliable biomarkers, tumor relapses, and drug resistance. Integration of nanomedicine may ameliorate current cancer immunotherapy. Ultra-large surface-to-volume ratio, extremely small size, and easy modification surface of nanoparticles enable them to selectively detect cells and kill cancer cells in vivo. Exciting synergistic applications of the two approaches have emerged in treating various cancers at the intersection of cancer immunotherapy and cancer nanomedicine, indicating the potential that the combination of these two therapeutic modalities can lead to new paradigms in the treatment of cancer. This review discusses the status of current immunotherapy and explores the possible opportunities that the nanomedicine platform can make cancer immunotherapy more powerful and precise by synergizing the two approaches.

Overview of Radiation Therapy in the Management of Localized and Metastatic Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal is to describe the evolution of radiation therapy (RT) utilization in the management of localized and metastatic prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Long term data for a variety of hypofractionated definitive RT dose-fractionation schemes has matured, allowing patients and providers many standard-of-care options to choose from. Post-prostatectomy, adjuvant RT has largely been replaced by an early salvage approach. Multiparametric MRI and PSMA PET have enabled increasingly targeted RT delivery to the prostate and oligometastatic tumors. Areas of active investigation include determining the value of proton beam therapy and perirectal spacers, and optimally incorporate genomic tumor profiling and next generation hormonal therapies with RT in the curative setting. The use of radiation therapy to treat prostate cancer is rapidly evolving. In the coming years, there will be continued improvements in a variety of areas to enhance the value of RT in multidisciplinary prostate cancer management.

Regulatory landscape and challenges in CAR-T cell therapy development in the US, EU, Japan, and India

Chimeric Antigen Receptor-T cell (CAR-T) therapy has evolved as a revolutionary cancer treatment modality, offering remarkable clinical responses by harnessing the power of a patient's immune system to target and eliminate cancer cells. However, the development and commercialization of CAR-T cell therapies are accompanied by complex regulatory requirements and challenges. This therapy falls under the regulatory category of advanced therapy medicinal products. The regulatory framework and approval tools of regenerative medicine, especially CAR-T cell therapies, vary globally. The present work comprehensively analyses the regulatory landscape and challenges in CAR-T cell therapy development in four key regions: the United States, the European Union, Japan, and India. This work explores the unique requirements and considerations for preclinical studies, clinical trial design, manufacturing standards, safety evaluation, and post-marketing surveillance in each jurisdiction. Due to their complex nature, developers and manufacturers face several challenges. In India, despite advancements in treatment protocols and government-sponsorships, there are still several difficulties regarding access to treatment for the increasing number of cancer patients. However, India's first indigenously developed CAR-T cell therapy, NexCAR19, for B-cell lymphoma or leukemia, approved and available at a low cost compared to other available CAR-T therapies, raises great hope in the battle against cancer. Several strategies are proposed to address the identified hurdles from global and Indian perspectives. It discusses the benefits of aligning regulatory requirements across regions, eventually facilitating international development and enabling access to this transformative therapy.

Oncology stewardship practice in the United States: A Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association national survey

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of cancer is associated with high risk for toxicity and high cost. Strategies to enhance the value, quality, and safety of cancer care are often managed independently of one another. Oncology stewardship is a potential framework to unify these efforts and enhance outcomes. This landscape survey establishes baseline information on oncology stewardship in the United States.

METHODS

The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) distributed a 38-item survey composed of demographic, institutional, clinical decision-making, support staff, metrics, and technology sections to 675 HOPA members between 9 September 2022 and 9 October 2022.

RESULTS

Most organizations (78%) have adopted general pharmacy stewardship practices; however, only 31% reported having established a formalized oncology stewardship team. More than 70% of respondents reported implementation of biosimilars, formulary management, and dose rounding as oncology stewardship initiatives in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Frequently cited barriers to oncology stewardship included lack of clinical pharmacist availability (74%), lack of oncology stewardship training (62%), lack of physician/provider buy-in (32%), and lack of cost-saving metrics (33%). Only 6.6% of survey respondents reported their organization had defined "value in oncology." Lack of a formalized stewardship program was most often cited (77%) as the rationale for not defining value.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than one-third of respondents have established oncology stewardship programs; however, most are providing oncology stewardship practices. This manuscript serves as a call to action for stakeholders to work together to formalize oncology stewardship programs that optimize value, quality, and safety for patients with cancer.

A systematic review of the economic burden of colorectal cancer

Background

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the Western Hemisphere. It is the third most common cancer in men after prostate and lung cancers and the second most common cancer in women after breast cancer. According to some studies, the incidence and prevalence of colorectal cancer is increasing rapidly.

Main Body

In the present study, a systematic review of the articles related to the economic burden of colorectal cancer was carried out. The articles were taken from the following databases: SID, Medline/Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED), Econlit, and Google Scholar. Furthermore, the PICOTS model was used to select the inclusion criteria. The quality of the articles' methodologies was evaluated using Drummond's checklist. Then, some data were extracted from relevant articles, in terms of year, place of research, sample size, costing approach, type of measured costs, average direct medical costs, average direct nonmedical costs, and average indirect costs. The data from 37 studies dealing with the costs of patients with colorectal cancer were extracted. Most of the studies were conducted in the United States, and the social perspective was the most common perspective to measure the costs. According to the majority of the studies, direct medical costs were considered the greatest driver in causing the economic burden of colorectal cancer. The costs of hospitalization, medicine, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy accounted for the largest share of direct medical costs, and the costs of transportation, accommodation, and home care were the greatest share of direct nonmedical costs. Furthermore, the costs associated with disability, absenteeism, and premature death were identified as the main drivers of indirect costs.

Conclusion

The findings of this study showed that colorectal cancer imposes great direct and indirect costs on families, the health system, and society. The best way to deal with this disease and, hence, to reduce its economic burden is to take comprehensive preventive measures and modify the lifestyle. In addition, health policymakers can limit the costs of this disease by expanding the screening program.

Advances in Addressing Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation: A Review of the Methods Literature

Cost-effectiveness analyses commonly use population or sample averages, which can mask key differences across subgroups and may lead to suboptimal resource allocation. Despite there being several new methods developed over the last decade, there is no recent summary of what methods are available to researchers. This review sought to identify advances in methods for addressing patient heterogeneity in economic evaluations and to provide an overview of these methods. A literature search was conducted using the Econlit, Embase and MEDLINE databases to identify studies published after 2011 (date of a previous review on this topic). Eligible studies needed to have an explicit methodological focus, related to how patient heterogeneity can be accounted for within a full economic evaluation. Sixteen studies were included in the review. Methodologies were varied and included regression techniques, model design and value of information analysis. Recent publications have applied methodologies more commonly used in other fields, such as machine learning and causal forests. Commonly noted challenges associated with considering patient heterogeneity included data availability (e.g., sample size), statistical issues (e.g., risk of false positives) and practical factors (e.g., computation time). A range of methods are available to address patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation, with relevant methods differing according to research question, scope of the economic evaluation and data availability. Researchers need to be aware of the challenges associated with addressing patient heterogeneity (e.g., data availability) to ensure findings are meaningful and robust. Future research is needed to assess whether and how methods are being applied in practice.

Biosimilars of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for ophthalmic diseases: A review

The development of intravitreally injected biologic medicines (biologics) acting against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) substantially improved the clinical outcomes of patients with common VEGF-driven retinal diseases. The relatively high cost of branded agents, however, represents a financial burden for most healthcare systems and patients, likely resulting in impaired access to treatment and poorer clinical outcomes for some patients. Biosimilar medicines (biosimilars) are clinically equivalent, potentially economic alternatives to reference products. Biosimilars approved by leading health authorities have been demonstrated to be similar to the reference product in a comprehensive comparability exercise, generating the totality of evidence necessary to support analytical, pre-clinical, and clinical biosimilarity. Anti-VEGF biosimilars have been entering the field of ophthalmology in the US since 2022. We review regulatory and scientific concepts of biosimilars, the biosimilar development landscape in ophthalmology, with a specific focus on anti-VEGF biosimilars, and discuss opportunities and challenges facing the uptake of biosimilars.

Monoclonal antibody biosimilars for cancer treatment

Monoclonal antibodies are important cancer medicines. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved 48 and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 56 anticancer monoclonal antibody-based therapies. Their high prices burden healthcare systems and hamper global drug access. Biosimilars could retain costs and expand the availability of monoclonal antibodies. In Europe, five rituximab biosimilars, six trastuzumab biosimilars, and eight bevacizumab biosimilars are available as anti-cancer drugs. To gain insight into the biosimilar landscape for cancer treatment, we performed a literature search and analysis. In this review, we summarize cancer monoclonal antibodies' properties crucial for the desired pharmacology and point out sources of variability. The analytical assessment of all EMA-approved bevacizumab biosimilars is highlighted to illustrate this variability. The global landscape of investigational and approved biosimilars is mapped, and the challenges for access to cancer biosimilars are identified.

Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Medical Oncologists in the Netherlands: Trends and Patterns Provided by an Open-Access Transparency Data Set

PURPOSE

Health care expenditure related to oncologic treatments is skyrocketing although many treatments offer marginal, if any, clinical benefit. Financial conflicts of interest (fCOI) resulting from pharmaceutical industry (pharma) payments to physicians is increasingly recognized as a predictive factor for regulatory board approval and guideline incorporation of low-value treatments. We sought to study the extent to which pharma payments to medical oncologists occur in the Netherlands, the amount of money involved, and whether these occur more frequently and are higher for key opinion leaders (KOLs).

METHODS

In our cross-sectional retrospective database study, we used several Dutch open-access databases and extracted data registered between 2019 and 2021.

RESULTS

A cumulative amount of €899,863 was paid to 48.8% of the 408 registered medical oncologists. Over time, there was a marked decline in both the proportion of medical oncologists receiving payments (from 40.4% in 2019 to 19.1% in 2021) and the mean annual value of payments (from €2,962 in 2019 to €2,188 in 2021) with the latter mainly resulting from a decline in hospitality-related transactions. KOLs were more likely to receive industry payments and received a higher median payment value.

DISCUSSION

Our findings should contribute to the increasing awareness in the Netherlands of the potential effects of fCOI.

Updates on the Management of Colorectal Cancer in Older Adults

Colorectal cancer (CRC) poses a significant global health challenge. Notably, the risk of CRC escalates with age, with the majority of cases occurring in those over the age of 65. Despite recent progress in tailoring treatments for early and advanced CRC, there is a lack of prospective data to guide the management of older patients, who are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials. This article reviews the contemporary landscape of managing older individuals with CRC, highlighting recent advancements and persisting challenges. The role of comprehensive geriatric assessment is explored. Opportunities for treatment escalation/de-escalation, with consideration of the older adult's fitness level. are reviewed in the neoadjuvant, surgical, adjuvant, and metastatic settings of colon and rectal cancers. Immunotherapy is shown to be an effective treatment option in older adults who have CRC with microsatellite instability. Promising new technologies such as circulating tumor DNA and recent phase III trials adding later-line systemic therapy options are discussed. Clinical recommendations based on the data available are summarized. We conclude that deliberate efforts to include older individuals in future colorectal cancer trials are essential to better guide the management of these patients in this rapidly evolving field.

The Affordable Care Act and income-based disparities in health care coverage and spending among nonelderly adults with cancer

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) significantly reduced uninsured individuals and improved financial protection; however, escalating costs of cancer treatment has led to substantial out-of-pocket expenses, causing severe financial and mental health distress for individuals with cancer. Mixed evidence on the ACA's ongoing impact highlights the necessity of assessing health-spending changes across income groups for informed policy interventions. In our nationally representative survey evaluating the early- and long-term effects of the ACA on nonelderly adult patients with cancer, we categorized individuals-based income subgroups defined by the ACA for eligibility. We found that ACA implementation increased insurance coverage, which was particularly evident after 2 years of implementation. Early post-ACA (within two years of implementation), there were declines in out-of-pocket spending for the lowest and low-income groups by 26.52% and 38.31%, respectively, persisting long-term only for the lowest-income group. High-income groups experienced continuously increased out-of-pocket and premium spending by 25.39% and 34.28%, respectively, with a notable 122% increase in the risk of high-burden spending. This study provides robust evidence of income-based disparities in financial burden for cancer care, emphasizing the need for health care policies promoting equitable care and addressing spending disparities across income brackets.

Unification of Efforts to Improve Global Access to Cancer Therapeutics: Report From the 2022/2023 Access to Essential Cancer Medicines Stakeholder Summit

PURPOSE

There is an urgent need to improve access to cancer therapy globally. Several independent initiatives have been undertaken to improve access to cancer medicines, and additional new initiatives are in development. Improved sharing of experiences and increased collaboration are needed to achieve substantial improvements in global access to essential oncology medicines.

METHODS

The inaugural Access to Essential Cancer Medicines Stakeholder Meeting was organized by ASCO and convened at the June 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL, with two subsequent meetings, Union for International Cancer Control World Cancer Congress held in Geneva, Switzerland, in October 2022 and at the ASCO Annual Meeting in June of 2023. Invited stakeholders included representatives from cancer institutes, physicians, researchers, professional societies, the pharmaceutical industry, patient advocacy organizations, funders, cancer organizations and foundations, policy makers, and regulatory bodies. The session was moderated by ASCO. Past efforts and current and upcoming initiatives were initially discussed (2022), updates on progress were provided (2023), and broad agreement on resulting action steps was achieved with participants.

RESULTS

Summit participants recognized that while much work was ongoing to enhance access to cancer therapeutics globally, communication and synergy across projects and organizations could be enhanced by providing a platform for collaboration and shared expertise.

CONCLUSION

The summit resulted in new cross-stakeholder insights and planned collaboration addressing barriers to accessing cancer medications. Specific actions and timelines for implementation and reporting were established.

Exploring the prognostic impact of absolute lymphocyte count in patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) expands but affordable and reproducible prognostic biomarkers are needed. We investigated the association between baseline and 3-month absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) and survival for patients on ICI.

METHODS

A retrospective study investigated patients who received ICI July 2014-August 2019. Survival probabilities were calculated for lymphocyte subsets. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate risk factors for lymphopenia.

RESULTS

Among 179 patients, median age was 62 and 41% were female. The most common diagnoses were melanoma (41%) and lung cancer (40%). Median PFS was 6.5 months. 27% had baseline lymphopenia (ALC < 1 × 109cells/L) and no significant difference in PFS or OS to those with normal ALC. However, 31% had lymphopenia at 3 months and significantly shorter OS than those without (9.8 vs 18.3 months, p < 0.001). Those with baseline lymphopenia who recovered counts at 3 months had no difference in PFS (median NR vs 13.0 months, p = 0.48) or OS (22 vs 18.3 months, p = 0.548) to those never lymphopenic. The strongest risk factor for lymphopenia on multivariable analysis was previous radiation therapy (RT).

CONCLUSIONS

3-month lymphopenia is a negative prognostic marker in cancer patients on ICI. Previous RT is significantly associated with lymphopenia.

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.

Quantifying chemotherapy wastage in an ambulatory cancer centre in Singapore

INTRODUCTION

To ensure the efficient use of chemotherapy drugs, chemotherapy wastage is an area that can be investigated. This study aims to quantify current parenteral chemotherapy wastage and estimate parenteral chemotherapy wastage when dose banding is executed, using a chemotherapy wastage calculator in an ambulatory cancer centre. The study also examines the variables that significantly predict the total cost of chemotherapy wastage, investigates the reasons for wastage, and explores opportunities to reduce wastage.

METHODS

Data were collected from the pharmacy in National Cancer Centre Singapore over 9 months retrospectively. Chemotherapy wastage is the sum of wastage in the preparation phase and potential wastage in the administration phase. The calculator was created using Microsoft Excel and generated chemotherapy wastage in terms of cost and amount (mg) and analysed the reasons for potential wastage.

RESULTS

The calculator reported a total of 2.22 million mg of chemotherapy wastage generated over 9 months, amounting to $2.05 million (Singapore Dollars, SGD). Regression analysis found that the cost of drug was the only independent variable that significantly predicted the total cost of chemotherapy wastage (P = 0.004). The study also identified low blood count (625 [29.06%]) as the top reason for potential wastage and no-show ($128,715.94 [15.97%]) as the reason that incurred the highest cost of potential wastage.

CONCLUSION

The pharmacy has generated a considerable amount of chemotherapy wastage over 9 months. Interventions in both the preparation and administration phases are required to reduce chemotherapy wastage. The use of the chemotherapy wastage calculator in pharmacy operations could guide efforts to reduce chemotherapy wastage.

Multimorbidity healthcare expenditure in Belgium: a 4-year analysis (COMORB study)

BACKGROUND

The complex management of health needs in multimorbid patients, alongside limited cost data, presents challenges in developing cost-effective patient-care pathways. We estimated the costs of managing 171 dyads and 969 triads in Belgium, taking into account the influence of morbidity interactions on costs.

METHODS

We followed a retrospective longitudinal study design, using the linked Belgian Health Interview Survey 2018 and the administrative claim database 2017-2020 hosted by the Intermutualistic Agency. We included people aged 15 and older, who had complete profiles (N = 9753). Applying a system costing perspective, the average annual direct cost per person per dyad/triad was presented in 2022 Euro and comprised mainly direct medical costs. We developed mixed models to analyse the impact of single chronic conditions, dyads and triads on healthcare costs, considering two-/three-way interactions within dyads/triads, key cost determinants and clustering at the household level.

RESULTS

People with multimorbidity constituted nearly half of the study population and their total healthcare cost constituted around three quarters of the healthcare cost of the study population. The most common dyad, arthropathies + dorsopathies, with a 14% prevalence rate, accounted for 11% of the total national health expenditure. The most frequent triad, arthropathies + dorsopathies + hypertension, with a 5% prevalence rate, contributed 5%. The average annual direct costs per person with dyad and triad were €3515 (95% CI 3093-3937) and €4592 (95% CI 3920-5264), respectively. Dyads and triads associated with cancer, diabetes, chronic fatigue, and genitourinary problems incurred the highest costs. In most cases, the cost associated with multimorbidity was lower or not substantially different from the combined cost of the same conditions observed in separate patients.

CONCLUSION

Prevalent morbidity combinations, rather than high-cost ones, made a greater contribution to total national health expenditure. Our study contributes to the sparse evidence on this topic globally and in Europe, with the aim of improving cost-effective care for patients with diverse needs.

New systemic treatment paradigms in resectable non-small cell lung cancer and variations in patient access across Europe

The treatment landscape of resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is set to change significantly due to encouraging results from randomized trials evaluating neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy, as well as adjuvant targeted therapy. As of January 2024, marketing authorization has been granted for four new indications in Europe, and regulatory approvals for other study regimens are expected. Because cost-effectiveness and reimbursement criteria for novel treatments often differ between European countries, access to emerging developments may lead to inequalities due to variations in recommended and available lung cancer care throughout Europe. This Series paper (i) highlights the clinical studies reshaping the treatment landscape in resectable early-stage NSCLC, (ii) compares and contrasts approaches taken by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for drug approval to that taken by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and (iii) evaluates the differences in access to emerging treatments from an availability perspective across European countries.

Added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 1995 and 2020: retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs, explore their association, and investigate potential discrepancies between added benefit and revenues across different approval pathways of the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Oncology drugs and their indications approved by the EMA between 1995 and 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Added benefit was evaluated using ratings published by seven organisations: health technology assessment agencies from the United States, France, Germany, and Italy, two medical oncology societies, and a drug bulletin. All retrieved ratings were recategorised using a four point ranking scale to indicate negative or non-quantifiable, minor, substantial, or major added benefit. Revenue data were extracted from publicly available financial reports and compared with published estimates of research and development (R&D) costs. Finally, the association between added benefit and revenue was evaluated. All analyses were performed within the overall study cohort, and within subgroups based on the EMA approval pathway: standard marketing authorisation, conditional marketing authorisation, and authorisation under exceptional circumstances.

RESULTS

131 oncology drugs with 166 indications were evaluated for their added benefit by at least one organisation within the required timeframe, yielding a total of 458 added benefit ratings; 189 (41%) were negative or non-quantifiable. The median time to offset the median R&D costs ($684m, £535m, €602m, adjusted to 2020 values) was three years; 50 of 55 (91%) drugs recovered these costs within eight years. Drugs with higher added benefit ratings generally had greater revenues. Negative or non-quantifiable added benefit ratings were more frequent for conditional marketing authorisations and authorisations under exceptional circumstances than for standard marketing authorisations (relative risk 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.89). Conditional marketing authorisations generated lower revenues and took longer to offset R&D costs than standard marketing authorisations (four years compared with three years).

CONCLUSIONS

While revenues seem to align with added benefit, most oncology drugs recover R&D costs within a few years despite providing little added benefit. This is particularly true for drugs approved through conditional marketing authorisations, which inherently appear to lack comprehensive evidence. Policy makers should evaluate whether current regulatory and reimbursement incentives effectively promote development of the most effective drugs for patients with the greatest needs.

Cost-utility analysis of Pembrolizumab compared to other alternative immunotherapy and chemotherapy treatments for patients with advanced melanoma in Iran

OBJECTIVES

Immunotherapy drugs like Pembrolizumab have shown significant improvements in treatment outcomes of advanced melanoma. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of Pembrolizumab compared to other immunotherapy and chemotherapy drugs in the first-line treatment of advanced melanoma in Iran.

METHODS

A partitioned-survival model, based on data from a recent randomized phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006) and recent meta-analysis, was used to divide Overall survival (OS) time into Progression-free survival (PFS) and post-progression survival for Pembrolizumab, Nivolumab, Ipilimumab, Dacarbazine, Temozolomide, Carboplatin, and Paclitaxel combination. Quality Life Years (QALY) and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) were considered as the final outcome.

RESULTS

The ICER of Ipilimumab, Nivolumab, Nivolumab & Ipilimumab, and Pembrolizumab compared to Temozolomide was calculated as $40,365.53, $19,591.13, $24,578, and $47,324.2 per QALY, respectively. Scenario analysis demonstrated if the price of one vial of Nivolumab 100 is $90.51, each vial of Pembrolizumab is $119.20, and each vial of Ipilimumab is $101.54, they will be cost-effective in Iran.

CONCLUSION

None of the immunotherapy drugs studied were found to be cost-effective when considering the cost-effectiveness threshold of $3,532. Therefore, a cost reduction of more than 90% in the prices of immunotherapy drugs would be necessary for them to be considered cost-effective in Iran.