Sign up to our newsletter Subscribe
Sign up to our newsletter Subscribe
A new OHE Consulting Report examines the importance and history of HTA evaluations for additional uses for cancer drugs after their initial approval. The potential value of a new medicine is not likely to be fully known at the time…
A new OHE Consulting Report examines the importance and history of HTA evaluations for additional uses for cancer drugs after their initial approval. The potential value of a new medicine is not likely to be fully known at the time of marketing approval. New uses can expand both the therapeutic and financial value of a particular medicine. In a new study, OHE Consulting seeks to describe and quantify such ‘value expansion’ for a cohort of cancer drugs.
A new OHE Consulting Report examines the importance and history of HTA evaluations for additional uses for cancer drugs after their initial approval.
The potential value of a new medicine is not likely to be fully known at the time of marketing approval. New uses can expand both the therapeutic and financial value of a particular medicine. In a new study, OHE Consulting seeks to describe and quantify such ‘value expansion’ for a cohort of cancer drugs.
The cohort of cancer drugs included are the ten approved by the EMA during 2003–2005[1]. This time period was chosen based on the assumption that cancer drugs on the market for eight years or more are likely to have been approved for additional indications. New indications, for example, may be for use in a different cancer, disease stage, treatment stage, treatment regimen, or patient population or subpopulation.
The decisions of three entities were included in the study: the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) in France, NICE in England and Wales, and Aetna, a private health insurance company in the US. These three were selected to suggest how assessment approaches might differ in interpreting value.
Seven of the ten drugs experienced value expansion after initial approval. For both NICE and HAS, a positive decision was more likely the greater the estimated gain in overall survival. HAS assessments of these ten cancer drugs resulted in reimbursement for 93% of the drugs, although this was at fairly low levels for more than 60%. In comparison, 63% of NICE appraisals resulted in a recommendation against use in the NHS. The statistics for Aetna are more difficult to interpret because the company may elect to reimburse for uses that have not been officially approved by the FDA and decisions affect only about 7% of the US population.
The study also tracks changes over time in price, volume and sales for the five medicines associated with the largest number of value expansions: Alimta, Avastin, Erbitux, Tarceva and Velcade. IMS data for 2004 through the end of Q3 2013 were used. Overall, prices, volume and sales were lower in the UK than in France and the US. Not surprisingly, additional licensed indications produced higher sales. However, for France and the UK, special access mechanisms muddy the water somewhat. France’s Temporary Authorisations for Use system in some cases has produced increases in use before an HAS decision; in the UK, sales for some cancer medicines increased after the 2010 introduction of the Cancer Drugs Fund even in the face of unfavourable NICE recommendations. The value of a particular medicine, as this study illustrates well, may not be evident at the time of first approval and value can vary both over time and by indication. This may result in pricing and reimbursement decisions that fail to adequately reward important innovation and so discourage future innovation, to the detriment of society. Public policy options for addressing this challenge include, for example, pricing that varies by indication, and consideration of potential expanded use as part of the initial deliberations and decisions about pricing and reimbursement.
[1] Alimta, Avastin, Busilvex, Erbitux, Faslodex, Litak, Lysodren, Tarceva, Velcade, Zevalin
The full report is available for download from the OHE Consulting website.
Download: Rejón-Parrilla, J.C., Hernández-Villafuerte, K., Shah, K., Mestre-Ferrandiz, J., Garrison, L. and Towse, A., 2014. The expanding value footprint of oncology treatments. Consulting report. London: Office of Health Economics.
For additional information about this study and OHE Consulting, please contact Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz.
An error has occurred, please try again later.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.
Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.
Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!