Institute of Law, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Laboratory for Technology, Markets, and Regulation, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Laboratory for Technology, Markets, and Regulation, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Lancet Oncol. 2020 May;21(5):664-670. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30139-X.
Increasing cancer drug prices are a challenge for patients and health systems in the USA and Europe. By contrast with the USA, national authorities in European countries often directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) developed frameworks to evaluate the clinical value of cancer therapies: the ASCO-Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We aimed to assess the association between the clinical benefit of approved cancer drugs based on these frameworks and their drug prices in the USA and four European countries (England, Switzerland, Germany, and France).
For this cost-benefit analysis, we identified all new drugs with initial indications for adult cancers that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2017, and by the European Medicines Agency up until Sept 1, 2019. For drugs indicated for solid tumours, we assessed clinical benefit using ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS. We compared monthly drug treatment costs between benefit levels using hierarchical linear regression models, and calculated Spearman's correlation coefficients between costs and benefit levels for individual countries.
Our cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) drugs were approved for solid tumours and 18 (28%) were approved for haematological malignancies. The monthly drug treatment costs in the USA were a median of 2·31 times (IQR 1·79-3·17) as high as in the assessed European countries. There were no significant associations between monthly treatment costs for solid tumours and clinical benefit in all assessed countries, using the ESMO-MCBS (p=0·16 for the USA, p=0·98 for England, p=0·54 for Switzerland, p=0·52 for Germany, and p=0·40 for France), and for all assessed countries except France using ASCO-VF (p=0·56 for the USA, p=0·47 for England, p=0·26 for Switzerland, p=0·23 for Germany, and p=0·037 for France).
Cancer drugs with low or uncertain clinical benefit might be prioritised for price negotiations. Value frameworks could help identify therapies providing high clinical benefit that should be made rapidly available across countries.
Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz).
癌症药物价格的上涨对美国和欧洲的患者和医疗系统构成了挑战。与美国不同,欧洲国家的国家当局通常会与制造商直接谈判药品价格。美国临床肿瘤学会(ASCO)和欧洲肿瘤内科学会(ESMO)制定了评估癌症治疗临床价值的框架:ASCO-Value 框架(ASCO-VF)和 ESMO-临床获益量表(ESMO-MCBS)。我们旨在评估根据这些框架评估的已批准癌症药物的临床获益与其在美国和四个欧洲国家(英国、瑞士、德国和法国)的药物价格之间的关联。
在这项成本效益分析中,我们确定了所有在 2009 年 1 月 1 日至 2017 年 12 月 31 日期间获得美国食品和药物管理局批准以及在 2019 年 9 月 1 日之前获得欧洲药品管理局批准的、用于治疗成人癌症的新型药物,用于治疗实体瘤的药物,我们使用 ASCO-VF 和 ESMO-MCBS 评估了临床获益。我们使用分层线性回归模型比较了不同获益水平的每月药物治疗费用,并计算了各国之间成本与获益水平之间的斯皮尔曼相关系数。
我们的队列包括 65 种药物:47 种(72%)药物被批准用于治疗实体瘤,18 种(28%)药物被批准用于治疗血液恶性肿瘤。美国的每月药物治疗费用中位数是评估的欧洲国家的 2.31 倍(IQR 1.79-3.17)。在所有评估的国家中,使用 ESMO-MCBS 时,实体瘤的每月治疗费用与临床获益之间均无显著关联(美国 p=0.16,英国 p=0.98,瑞士 p=0.54,德国 p=0.52,法国 p=0.40),除了法国之外,在所有评估的国家中使用 ASCO-VF 时也无显著关联(美国 p=0.56,英国 p=0.47,瑞士 p=0.26,德国 p=0.23,法国 p=0.037)。
具有低或不确定临床获益的癌症药物可能会被优先进行价格谈判。价值框架可以帮助确定提供高临床获益的疗法,这些疗法应该在各国迅速普及。
瑞士癌症研究基金会(Krebsforschung Schweiz)。