Responsible pricing in value-based assessment of cancer drugs: real-world data are an inevitable addition to select meaningful new cancer treatments

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.

Innovation at the Intersection of Clinical Trials and Real-World Data Science to Advance Patient Care

While efficacy and safety data collected from randomized clinical trials are the evidentiary standard for determining market authorization, this alone may no longer be sufficient to address the needs of key stakeholders (regulators, providers, and payers) and guarantee long-term success of pharmaceutical products. There is a heightened interest from stakeholders on understanding the use of real-world evidence (RWE) to substantiate benefit-risk assessment and support the value of a new drug. This review provides an overview of real-world data (RWD) and related advances in the regulatory framework, and discusses their impact on clinical research and development. A framework for linking drug development decisions with the value proposition of the drug, utilizing pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic-pharmacoeconomic models, is introduced. The summary presented here is based on the presentations and discussion at the symposium entitled Innovation at the Intersection of Clinical Trials and Real-World Data to Advance Patient Care at the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (ASCPT) 2017 Annual Meeting.

Health economic impact of liquid biopsies in cancer management

INTRODUCTION

Liquid biopsies (LBs) are referred to as the sampling and analysis of non-solid tissue, primarily blood, as a diagnostic and monitoring tool for cancer. Because LBs are largely non-invasive, they are a less-costly alternative for serial analysis of tumor progression and heterogeneity to facilitate clinical management. Although a variety of tumor markers are proposed (e.g., free-circulating DNA), the clinical evidence for Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs) is currently the most developed. Areas covered: This paper presents a health economic perspective of LBs in cancer management. We first briefly introduce the requirements in biomarker development and validation, illustrated for CTCs. Second, we discuss the state-of-art on the clinical utility of LBs in breast cancer in more detail. We conclude with a future perspective on the clinical use and reimbursement of LBs Expert commentary: A significant increase in clinical research on LBs can be observed and the results suggest a rapid change of cancer management. In addition to studies evaluating clinical utility of LBs, a smooth translation into clinical practice requires systematic assessment of the health economic benefits. This paper argues that (early stage) health economic research is required to facilitate its clinical use and to prioritize further evidence development.

Evidence on the cost of breast cancer drugs is required for rational decision making

Background

For rational decision making, assessing the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of new drugs and comparing the costs of drugs already on the market is required. In addition to value frameworks, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and the European Society of Medical Oncology–Magnitude of Clinical benefit Scale, this also requires a transparent overview of actual drug prices. While list prices are available, evidence on treatment cost is not. This paper aims to synthesise evidence on the reimbursement and costs of high-cost breast cancer drugs in The Netherlands (NL).

Methods

A literature review was performed to identify currently reimbursed breast cancer drugs in the NL. Treatment costs were determined by multiplying list prices with the average length of treatment and dosing schedule.

Results

Comparing list prices to the estimated treatment cost resulted in substantial differences in the ranking of costliness of the drugs. The average mean treatment length was unknown for 11/31 breast cancer drugs (26.2%). The differences in the 15 highest-cost drugs were largest for Bevacizumab, Lapatinib and everolimus, with list prices of €541, €158, €1,168 and estimated treatment cost of €174,400, €18,682 and €31,207, respectively. The lowest-cost (patented) targeted drug is €1,818 more expensive than the highest-cost (off-patent) generic drug according to the estimated drug treatment cost.

Conclusions

A lack of evidence on the reimbursement and cost of high-cost breast cancer drugs complicates rapid and transparent evidence synthesis, necessary to focus strategies aiming to limit the increasing healthcare costs. Interestingly, the findings show that off-patent generics (such as paclitaxel or doxorubicin), although substantially cheaper than patented drugs, are still relatively costly. Extending standardisation and increasing European and national regulations on presenting information on costs per cancer drug is highly recommended.