Background: High treatment prices of new cancer drugs are a global public health challenge to patients and healthcare systems. Policymakers in the US and Europe are debating reforms to drug pricing. The objective of this study was to assess whether drug efficacy or epidemiological characteristics (prevalence, incidence, mortality) explain the gap in treatment prices between cancer and non-cancer drugs in the US, Germany, and Switzerland.
Methods: This cross-sectional study identified all new drugs approved in the US, Germany, and Switzerland between 2011 and 2020. Drug efficacy was extracted from pivotal trials, drug prices from public and commercial databases, and epidemiological characteristics from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019 study. We used regression models to explain drug prices with drug efficacy and epidemiological characteristics (prevalence, incidence, mortality).
Findings: The cohort included 181 drugs, including 68 (37.5%) drugs approved for treatment of cancer. A significant negative correlation was found between incidence/prevalence and treatment prices, and a significant positive correlation was observed between mortality and treatment prices for both, cancer and non-cancer drugs. A significant association between relative drug efficacy and treatment prices of drugs was observed, however, less pronounced for cancer drugs. Our regression estimates indicated that after adjusting for efficacy and epidemiological characteristics, cancer drugs were on average approximately three times more expensive compared to non-cancer drugs in all three countries, indicating a cancer premium; i.e., treatment prices of cancer drugs were on average USD 74,412 (95% CI [62,810; 86,015]) more expensive in the US compared to non-cancer drugs, USD 37,770 (95% CI [26,175; 49,367]) more expensive in Germany, and USD 32,801 (95% CI [27,048; 38,555]) more expensive in Switzerland. Our model explained 72% of the variance in observed prices (R).
Interpretation: Drug pricing reforms should target the cancer premium to improve access of patients to cancer drugs as well as to achieve equity across the different therapeutic areas and sustainability in the health care systems.
Funding: This study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF, grant number PCEGP1_194607) and the Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz).
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10371812 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102087 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Thalamic stereo-electroencephalography exploration in pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy: implantation technique and complications.
J Neurosurg Pediatr
January 2025
2Neurology, UT Southwestern, Dallas, Texas.
Objective: Patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) are often referred for phase II evaluation with stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) to identify a seizure onset zone for guiding definitive treatment. For patients without a focal seizure onset zone, neuromodulation targeting the thalamic nuclei-specifically the centromedian nucleus, anterior nucleus of the thalamus, and pulvinar nucleus-may be considered. Currently, thalamic nuclei selection is based mainly on the location of seizure onset, without a detailed evaluation of their network involvement.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFCost-effectiveness analysis of deep brain stimulation versus treatment as usual for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder.
J Neurosurg
January 2025
1Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Objective: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective neurosurgical option for patients with treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Despite being more costly than neuroablative procedures of comparable efficacy, DBS has gained popularity over the years for its reversibility and adjustability. Although the cost-effectiveness of DBS has been investigated extensively in movement disorders, few economic analyses of DBS for psychiatric disorders exist.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFCost-effectiveness of budesonide-formoterol in maintenance therapy of asthma patients.
Rev Alerg Mex
December 2024
Master's in economics, HS Pharmacoeconomic Research, Mexico City, Mexico.
Objective: to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of asthma treatment with budesonide/formoterol against other treatment options used at Mexico's National Institute for Respiratory Diseases.
Methods: A complete economic evaluation of cost-effectiveness from a public health perspective, comparing the use of budesonide/formoterol as maintenance therapy with fluticasone/vilanterol in 103 female asthma patients managed at INER between 2015 and 2021.
Results: Average cost per patient was $743.
Cost Effectiveness of Exclusionary EGFR Testing for Taiwanese Patients Newly Diagnosed with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma.
Pharmacoeconomics
January 2025
Division of Pulmonology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, 138 Shengli Road, Tainan, 704, Taiwan.
Background And Objective: Approximately half of lung adenocarcinomas in East Asia harbor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. EGFR testing followed by tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS), upfront tissue-based NGS, and complementary NGS approaches have emerged on the front line to guide personalized therapy. We study the cost effectiveness of exclusionary EGFR testing for Taiwanese patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAdding automated breast ultrasound to mammography in women with increased breast density or at an elevated risk of breast cancer is a cost-effective screening strategy.
Cancer Causes Control
January 2025
North Valley Breast Clinic, 1335 Buenaventura Blvd, Suite 204, Redding, CA, 96001, USA.
Objectives: Automated breast ultrasound imaging (ABUS) results in a reduction in breast cancer stage at diagnosis beyond that seen with mammographic screening in women with increased breast density or who are at a high risk of breast cancer. It is unknown if the addition of ABUS to mammography or ABUS imaging alone, in this population, is a cost-effective screening strategy.
Methods: A discrete event simulation (Monte Carlo) model was developed to assess the costs of screening, diagnostic evaluation, biopsy, and breast cancer treatment.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!