Barrenho Eliana, Halmai Réka, Miraldo Marisa, Tzintzun Iván, Raïs Ali Setti, Toulemon Léa, Dupont Jean-Claude K, Rochaix Lise
Department of Economics and Public Policy, Business School, Imperial College London, UK; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), France.
Hospinnomics (PSE-Ecole d'Economie de Paris, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris-AP-HP), France.
Soc Sci Med. 2022 Jun;302:114953. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114953. Epub 2022 Apr 14.
This study measures inequality and inequity in the distribution of clinical trials on cancer drug development between 1996 and 2016, comparing the number of clinical trials with cancer need, proxied by prevalence, incidence, or survival rates for both rare and non-rare cancers. We leverage a unique global database of clinical trials activity and costs between 1996 and 2016, constructed for 227 different cancer types to measure for rare and non-rare cancers: i) inequalities and inequity of clinical trial activity, considering all trials as well as split by R&D stage; ii) inequalities and inequity in R&D investment proxied by trial enrollment and duration; iii) evolution of inequity over time. Inequalities are measured with concentration curves and indices and inequities measured with the health inequity index. We find four important results. First, we show pro-low need inequity across cancer types for both rare and non-rare cancers, for all need proxies. Second, we show inequity differs across R&D stages and between rare and non-rare cancers. The distribution of clinical trials for non-rare cancers disproportionately favors low-need non-rare cancers from earlier to later stages of R&D, whilst for rare cancers this only occurs in Phase 2 trials. Third, inequity analyses in R&D investment show that only trial enrollment for rare cancers and trial duration for non-rare cancers are disproportionately concentrated among low-need cancers. Finally, while pro-low need inequity has persisted between 1996 and 2016 for non-rare cancers, it has faded for rare cancers post-EU orphan drugs' legislation.
本研究衡量了1996年至2016年期间癌症药物研发临床试验分布中的不平等和不公平现象,将临床试验数量与癌症需求进行比较,癌症需求由罕见和非罕见癌症的患病率、发病率或生存率来代表。我们利用了一个独特的1996年至2016年期间临床试验活动和成本的全球数据库,该数据库针对227种不同癌症类型构建,以衡量罕见和非罕见癌症:i)临床试验活动的不平等和不公平现象,包括所有试验以及按研发阶段划分的情况;ii)以试验入组人数和持续时间为代表的研发投资中的不平等和不公平现象;iii)不公平现象随时间的演变。不平等现象用集中曲线和指数来衡量,不公平现象用健康不公平指数来衡量。我们发现了四个重要结果。第一,对于所有需求代表指标,我们在罕见和非罕见癌症的各类癌症中都发现了有利于低需求的不公平现象。第二,我们发现不公平现象在研发阶段以及罕见和非罕见癌症之间存在差异。非罕见癌症的临床试验分布在研发的早期到后期阶段都不成比例地偏向低需求的非罕见癌症,而对于罕见癌症,这种情况仅发生在2期试验中。第三,研发投资的不公平分析表明,只有罕见癌症的试验入组人数和非罕见癌症的试验持续时间不成比例地集中在低需求癌症中。最后,虽然1996年至2016年期间非罕见癌症中有利于低需求的不公平现象持续存在,但在欧盟孤儿药立法后,罕见癌症的这种不公平现象已经消退。