Search

Background: Most cancer drugs enter the US market first. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of new cancer drugs may influence regulatory decisions in other settings. The study examined whether characteristics of available evidence at FDA approval influenced time-to-marketing authorisation (MA) in Brazil, and price differences between the two countries. Methods: All new FDA-approved cancer drugs from 2010 to 2019 were matched to drugs with MA and prices approved in Brazil by December 2020. Characteristics of main studies, availability of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), overall survival (OS) benefit, added therapeutic benefit, and prices were compared. Findings: Fifty-six FDA-approved cancer drugs with matching indications received a MA at the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa) after a median of 522 days following US approval (IQR: 351–932). Earlier authorisation in Brazil was associated with availability of RCT (median: 506 vs 760 days, p = 0.031) and evidence of OS benefit (390 vs 543 days, p = 0.019) at FDA approval. At Brazilian marketing authorisation, a greater proportion of cancer drugs had main RCTs (75% vs 60.7%) and OS benefit (42.9% vs 21.4%) than that in the US. Twenty-eight (50%) drugs did not demonstrate added therapeutic benefit over drugs for the same indication in Brazil. Median approved prices of new cancer drugs were 12.9% lower in Brazil compared to the US (adjusted by Purchasing Power Parity). However, for drugs with added therapeutic benefit median prices were 5.9% higher in Brazil compared to the US, while 17.9% lower for those without added benefit. Interpretation: High-quality clinical evidence accelerated the availability of cancer medicines in Brazil. The combination of marketing and pricing authorisation in Brazil may favour the approval of cancer drugs with better supporting evidence, and more meaningful clinical benefit albeit with variable degree of success in achieving lower prices compared to the US. Funding: None.

To address unresolved questions about drug safety and efficacy at the time of approval, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) may require that manufacturers conduct additional studies during the postmarketing period. As a growing proportion of new cancer drugs are approved on the basis of limited evidence of clinical benefit, timely completion of postmarketing requirements is important. We used publicly available regulatory documents to evaluate key characteristics of pivotal studies supporting EMA-approved cancer drugs from 2004-2014 and assessed completion rates of postmarketing data collection requirements after a minimum of 5 years. From 2004-2014, 79% (45/57) of EMA-approved cancer drugs had to fulfill postmarketing requirements. Pivotal trials supporting the approval of cancer drugs with postmarketing requirements were less likely to have randomized designs (41/61, 67% vs. 11/11, 100%), include an active comparator (20/61, 33% vs. 10/11, 91%), or measure overall survival as the primary study end point (18/61, 30% vs. 6/11, 55%) compared with pivotal trials for drugs without postmarketing requirements. Among 200 postmarketing requirements, almost half were designed to assess drug safety. After a minimum of 5 years, 60% (121/200) of requirements were completed, 10% (19/200) were ongoing, and 30% (60/200) were delayed. About half (40/75, 53%) of postmarketing requirements for new clinical studies were completed on time. Delays in the completion of postmarketing requirements often did not impact the likelihood of drugs receiving permanent marketing authorization (87%, 39/45) after 5 years. Our findings highlight the need for EMA to better enforce its authority to require timely completion of postmarketing requirements and studies.

Cancer drugs are a major component of pharmaceutical spending in the USA and Europe. The number of approved cancer drugs continues to increase. More new drugs with overlapping mechanisms of action and similar approved indications might be expected to decrease prices within drug classes. We compared patterns of price changes for cancer drugs within the same class in the USA and in two European countries (Germany and Switzerland) with national mechanisms for drug price negotiation.For this comparative analysis, we identified cancer drugs approved for the treatment of solid cancers in the USA and Europe (Germany and Switzerland) between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2020, using the US Food and Drug Administration's Drugs@FDA database and the European Medicines Agency's publicly available database. We considered cancer drugs as within-class competitors if they were approved for the same indication and had the same biological mechanism. We calculated monthly treatment prices for each drug, median price changes at launch and over time, and differences within and across drug classes. European price data were converted to US dollars by applying the exchange rates on Dec 1, 2020, and prices were adjusted for inflation. Median changes in the drugs' monthly treatment prices at 2 and 4 years after market entry across and within drug classes were also assessed. For the USA, correlations in relative price changes between all pairs of drugs within and across drug classes were calculated with Spearman's rank correlation.Our study cohort comprised 12 drug classes covering nine indications. With the exception of one drug, increasing prices were observed within and across all drug classes in the USA (median 6·07% [range -3·60 to 33·83] 2 years after market entry, and 15·31% [-4·15 to 54·64] 4 years after market entry). By contrast, in Europe, prices generally decreased over time or did not increase more than inflation (2 years after market entry: -21·01% [range -50·72 to 12·71] in Germany and -1·48% [-26·81 to 1·69] in Switzerland; 4 years after market entry: -25·54% [-51·81 to 11·63] in Germany and -13·02% [-43·83 to 18·31] in Switzerland). In the USA, most prices changes within and across drug classes occurred at the end and beginning of the year (ie, from Dec 1 to Jan 31). In the USA, correlation for price changes was r=0·29 (SD 0·36) for within-class drugs and r=0·28 (0·36) for drugs across drug classes.Competition within classes of cancer drugs generally did not constrain rising prices in the USA. Price negotiations, as practised in Germany or Switzerland, could help address the high prices of cancer drugs in the USA.Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz), Swiss National Science Foundation, and Arnold Ventures.

In the US, spending on prescription drugs increased from $30 billion in 1980 to $335 billion in 2018, which is mainly associated with the high prices of brand-name drugs.1 Prices are substantially higher compared with European countries.2 One explanation for this price differential is that, unlike in the US, national health authorities in Europe negotiate new drug prices with manufacturers. The US Inflation Reduction Act, which was signed into law in August 2022, empowers the US Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate the prices for a limited number of brand-name drugs, with the greatest spending within Medicare’s Part B (which covers clinician-administered drugs) and Part D (which covers retail drugs) programs.3 The bill stipulates that drug pricing negotiations must consider policies, such as whether a drug represents a therapeutic advance or fulfills an unmet medical need.3,4 Therefore, policy makers in the US will need to address 2 questions as a matter of priority: How should therapeutic advance (which can also be referred to as therapeutic value) be assessed? How should evidence on therapeutic advance be used to negotiate drug prices? Lessons can be learned from European countries (such as England, France, Germany, and Switzerland) that have a long track record in evaluating drug value and using this information to secure lower prices.

ImportanceBiologics account for a substantial proportion of health care expenditures. Their costs have been projected to reach US $452 billion in global spending by 2022. Given recent expiration of patent protection of biologics, a shift toward greater follow-on competition among biosimilars would be expected that would allow greater uptake and lower drug costs.ObjectiveTo assess uptake and prices of biosimilars in the US compared with 2 European countries (Germany and Switzerland) with national mechanisms for drug price negotiation.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this cohort study, biologics and biosimilars that were approved in the US, Germany, and Switzerland until August 2020 were identified. Prices and sales data were extracted from public and commercial databases for the years 2011 to 2020. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresDescriptive statistics were used to show temporal trends in the uptake of biosimilars and relative prices compared with those of reference products (ie, biologic agents) for each country. Descriptive analysis was also performed to compare the uptake of biosimilars between the 3 countries limited to biologics that have biosimilars on the market in all countries. To test if biosimilar awareness in each country increased over the last decade, a linear least squares regression was applied.ResultsThe study cohort included 15 biosimilars and 6 biologics for the US, 52 biosimilars and 15 biologics for Germany, and 28 biosimilars and 13 biologics for Switzerland. Uptake of biosimilars increased over time in all countries. On average, the biosimilar market share at launch was highest in Germany; however, it increased at the fastest rate in the US. Monthly treatment costs of biosimilars in the US were a median of 1.94 (IQR, 1.78-2.44) and 2.74 (IQR, 1.91-3.46) higher than corresponding costs in Germany and Switzerland, respectively.Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this cohort study suggest that more biosimilars have been marketed in Germany and Switzerland than in the US. Policies that counter anticompetitive practices in the US could allow biosimilars to enter the market sooner and could also lower health care costs with improved access. Awareness of biosimilars should be promoted to increase uptake of biosimilars globally.

Background: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), an acute kidney injury resulting from the administration of intravascular iodinated contrast media, is a significant cause of morbidity/mortality following coronary angiographic procedures in high-risk patients. Despite preventative measures intended to mitigate the risk of CIN, there remains a need for novel effective treatments. Evidence suggests that delivery of nitric oxide (NO) through chemical reduction of inorganic nitrate to NO may offer a novel therapeutic strategy to reduce CIN and thus preserve long term renal function. Design: The NITRATE-CIN trial is a single-center, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial, which plans to recruit 640 patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who are at risk of CIN. Patients will be randomized to either inorganic nitrate therapy (capsules containing 12 mmol KNO3) or placebo capsules containing potassium chloride (KCl) daily for 5 days. The primary endpoint is development of CIN using the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. A key secondary endpoint is renal function over a 3-month follow-up period. Additional secondary endpoints include serum renal biomarkers (e.g. neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin) at 6 h, 48 h and 3 months following administration of contrast. Cost-effectiveness of inorganic nitrate therapy will also be evaluated. Summary: This study is designed to investigate the hypothesis that inorganic nitrate treatment decreases the rate of CIN as part of semi-emergent coronary angiography for ACS. Inorganic nitrate is a simple and easy to administer intervention that may prove useful in prevention of CIN in at-risk patients undergoing coronary angiographic procedures.

Importance: Of approximately 9 million patients with cancer in China in 2020, more than half were diagnosed with late-stage cancers. Recent regulatory reforms in China have focused on improving the availability of new cancer drugs. However, evidence on the clinical benefits of new cancer therapies authorized in China is not available. Objective: To characterize the clinical benefits of cancer drugs approved in China, as defined by the availability and magnitude of statistically significant overall survival (OS) results. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods study comprising a systematic review and cross-sectional analysis identified antineoplastic agents approved in China between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2020, using publicly available data and regulatory review documents issued by the National Medical Products Administration. The literature published up to June 30, 2021, was reviewed to collect results on end points used in pivotal trials supporting cancer drug approvals. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was a documented statistically significant positive OS difference between a new cancer therapy and a comparator treatment. Secondary outcome measures were the magnitude of OS benefit and other primary efficacy measures in pivotal trials. Results: Between 2005 and 2020, 78 cancer drugs corresponding to 141 indications were authorized in China, including 20 drugs (25.6%) (for 30 indications) approved in China only. Of all indications, 26 (18.4%) were evaluated in single-arm or dose-optimization trials, most of which were authorized after 2017. By June 30, 2021, 34 drug indications (24.1%) had a documented lack of OS gain. For 68 indications (48.2%) that had documented evidence of OS benefit, the median magnitude of OS improvement was 4.1 (range, 1.0-35.0) months. After a median follow-up of 1.9 (range, 1.0-11.1) years from approval, OS data for 13 indications (9.2%) were either not reported or were still not mature. Fewer than one-third of cancer drug indications approved in China only had documented evidence of OS benefits (9 of 30 [30.0%]), whereas more than one-half of the cancer drug indications also available in the US or Europe had OS benefits (59 of 111 [53.1%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, almost half of cancer drug indications approved in China had demonstrated OS gain. With the increase of cancer drug approvals based on single-arm trials or immature survival data in recent years, these findings highlight the need to routinely monitor the clinical benefits of new cancer therapies in China

Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license Background: The trade-off between comparative effectiveness and reproductive morbidity of different treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) remains unclear. We aimed to determine the risks of treatment failure and preterm birth associated with various treatment techniques. Methods: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database for randomised and non-randomised studies reporting on oncological or reproductive outcomes after CIN treatments from database inception until March 9, 2022, without language restrictions. We included studies of women with CIN, glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, or stage IA1 cervical cancer treated with excision (cold knife conisation [CKC], laser conisation, and large loop excision of the transformation zone [LLETZ]) or ablation (radical diathermy, laser ablation, cold coagulation, and cryotherapy). We excluded women treated with hysterectomy. The primary outcomes were any treatment failure (defined as any abnormal histology or cytology) and preterm birth (

Policy Points Only a small minority of new drugs in "nonprotected" classes are widely covered by Part D plans nationwide in the year after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Part D plans frequently apply utilization management restrictions such as prior authorizations to newly approved drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. Drug price influences both formulary inclusion (in nonprotected classes) and coverage restrictions (in both protected and nonprotected classes), while other drug characteristics such as therapeutic benefits are not consistently associated with formulary design. Plans do not seem to favor the minority of drugs that are determined to offer added therapeutic benefit over existing alternatives.Medicare Part D is an outpatient prescription drug benefit for older Americans covering more than 46 million beneficiaries. Except for mandatory coverage for essentially all drugs in six protected classes, plans have substantial flexibility in how they design their formularies: which drugs are covered, which drugs are subject to restrictions, and what factors determine formulary placement. Our objective in this paper was to document the extent to which Part D plans limit coverage of newly approved drugs.We examined the formulary design of 4,582 Part D plans from 2014 through 2018 and measured (1) the decision to cover newly approved drugs in nonprotected classes, (2) use of utilization management tools in protected and nonprotected classes, and (3) the association between plan design and drug-level characteristics such as 30-day cost, therapeutic benefit, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expedited regulatory pathway.The FDA approved 109 new drugs predominantly used in outpatient settings between 2013 and 2017. Of these, 75 fell outside of the six protected drug classes. One-fifth of drugs in nonprotected classes (15 out of 75) were covered by more than half of plans during the first year after approval. Coverage was often conditional on utilization management strategies in both protected and nonprotected classes: only seven drugs (6%) were covered without prior authorization requirements in more than half of plans. Higher 30-day drug costs were associated with more widespread coverage in nonprotected classes: drugs that cost less than $150 for a 30-day course were covered by fewer than 20% of plans while those that cost more than $30,000 per 30 days were covered by more than 50% of plans. Plans were also more likely to implement utilization management tools on high-cost drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. A higher proportion of plans implemented utilization management strategies on covered drugs with first-in-class status than drugs that were not first in class. Other drug characteristics, including availability of added therapeutic benefit and inclusion in FDA expedited regulatory approval, were not consistently associated with plan coverage or formulary restrictions.Newly approved drugs are frequently subject to formulary exclusions and restrictions in Medicare Part D. Ensuring that formulary design in Part D is linked closely to the therapeutic value of newly approved drugs would improve patients' welfare.

Aims Pre-registration of study protocols in accessible databases is required for publication of study results in high-impact medical journals. Nonetheless, data on characteristics of clinical trials registered in these databases and their outcome, in terms of result reporting and publication are limited. Methods and results We searched for interventional, late-phase cardiovascular disease (CVD) studies in adults registered in Clinicaltrials.gov. first posted after 1 January 2013 and completed up to 31 December 2018. Data on study design, result reporting, and publication were collected, and potential associations with a pre-defined set of explanatory factors were examined. In total, 250 CVD trials were included in the analysis. Of these, 193 (77.2%) were randomized studies, 99 (39.6%) open label designs, and 126 (50.4%) had industry as main sponsor. One hundred and seventy-nine trials (71.6%) evaluated the effect of drugs and 27 (10.8%) evaluated devices. The most common primary outcomes were non-clinical endpoints (76.0%), with only 17% of studies evaluating clinical endpoints. Industry-funded trials focused on patent-protected drugs and devices more often than non-industry-funded trials (72.0% vs. 30.6%, P Conclusion Among late-stage cardiovascular trials only one-fourth had results posted on clinicaltrials.gov and

BackgroundEconomic models play a central role in the decision-making process of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Inadequate validation methods allow for errors to be included in economic models. These errors may alter the final recommendations and have a significant impact on outcomes for stakeholders.ObjectiveTo describe the patterns of technical errors found in NICE submissions and to provide an insight into the validation exercises carried out by the companies prior to submission.MethodsAll forty-one single technology appraisals (STAs) completed in 2017 by NICE were reviewed and all were on medicines. The frequency of errors and information on their type, magnitude, and impact was extracted from publicly available NICE documentation along with the details of model validation methods used.ResultsTwo STAs (5 percent) had no reported errors, nineteen (46 percent) had between one and four errors, sixteen (39 percent) had between five and nine errors, and four (10 percent) had more than ten errors. The most common errors were transcription errors (29 percent), logic errors (29 percent), and computational errors (25 percent). All STAs went through at least one type of validation. Moreover, errors that were notable enough were reported in the final appraisal document (FAD) in eight (20 percent) of the STAs assessed but each of these eight STAs received positive recommendations.ConclusionsTechnical errors are common in the economic models submitted to NICE. Some errors were considered important enough to be reported in the FAD. Improvements are needed in the model development process to ensure technical errors are kept to a minimum.

Objective To evaluate the frequency with which relevant and accurate information about the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs are communicated to patients and clinicians in regulated information sources in Europe. Design Document content analysis. Setting European Medicines Agency. Participants Anticancer drugs granted a first marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency, 2017-19. Main outcome measures Whether written information on a product addressed patients’ commonly asked questions about: who and what the drug is used for; how the drug was studied; types of drug benefit expected; and the extent of weak, uncertain, or missing evidence for drug benefits. Information on drug benefits in written sources for clinicians (summaries of product characteristics), patients (patient information leaflets), and the public (public summaries) was compared with information reported in regulatory assessment documents (European public assessment reports). Results 29 anticancer drugs that received a first marketing authorisation for 32 separate cancer indications in 2017-19 were included. General information about the drug (including information on approved indications and how the drug works) was frequently reported across regulated information sources aimed at both clinicians and patients. Nearly all summaries of product characteristics communicated full information to clinicians about the number and design of the main studies, the control arm (if any), study sample size, and primary measures of drug benefit. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information to patients about how drugs were studied. 31 (97%) summaries of product characteristics and 25 (78%) public summaries contained information about drug benefits that was accurate and consistent with information in regulatory assessment documents. The presence or absence of evidence that a drug extended survival was reported in 23 (72%) summaries of product characteristics and four (13%) public summaries. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information about the drug benefits that patients might expect based on study findings. Scientific concerns about the reliability of evidence on drug benefits, which were raised by European regulatory assessors for almost all drugs in the study sample, were rarely communicated to clinicians, patients, or the public. Conclusions The findings of this study highlight the need to improve the communication of the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs in regulated information sources in Europe to support evidence informed decision making by patients and their clinicians.

This study examines the Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approval pathway and whether preapproval initiation was associated with faster conversion to traditional approval or withdrawal for drugs with nononcology indications.

Importance: Germany's unique approach to coverage determination and pricing has ensured that effective medicines remain on the market, often at prices reduced through negotiation. However, less is known about trade-offs of this approach with regard to initial availability of medicines. Objective: To examine differences in the timing and scope of new medicines available in Germany and the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study analyzed initial availability of new medicines approved by regulatory agencies in Germany and the US between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2018, and followed up through December 31, 2019. Data analysis was conducted from January 1, 2020, to July 1, 2022. A total of 599 novel approvals were reviewed. Generic, biosimilar, vaccine, and combination medicines were excluded. Exposures: US Food and Drug Administration approvals were reviewed for therapies categorized as new molecular entities or new active ingredients. German approvals were reviewed from secondary administrative data of authorized medicines that determine availability in Germany, including data presented by the European Medicines Agency. Main Outcomes and Measures: Approvals were analyzed to determine the percentage of medicines approved and available in the US, Germany, or both countries and compare the times to reach the market. Results: Analysis of 599 new medicines demonstrated that fewer were available in Germany compared with the US (80% vs 92% of all potential therapies) and that the median difference in time to market was 4 months (95% CI, -44.40 to 44.76 months). Forty-nine medicines were approved in Germany but not in the US, 75% of which were rejected by the US Food and Drug Administration, were withdrawn, or had US equivalent agents. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, fewer new medicines were available in Germany compared with the US between 2004 and 2018. In addition, drugs entered the German market later than in the US. OA Förderung 2022

ObjectiveA network meta-analysis (NMA) usually assesses multiple outcomes across several treatment comparisons. TheVitruvian plotaims to facilitate communication of multiple outcomes from NMAs to patients and clinicians.MethodsWe developed this tool following the recommendations on the communication of benefit–risk information from the available literature. We collected and implemented feedback from researchers, statisticians, methodologists, clinicians and people with lived experience of physical and mental health issues.ResultsWe present theVitruvian plot, which graphically presents absolute estimates and relative performance of competing interventions against a common comparator for several outcomes of interest. We use two alternative colour schemes to highlight either the strength of statistical evidence or the confidence in the evidence. Confidence in the evidence is evaluated across six domains (within-study bias, reporting bias, indirectness, imprecision, heterogeneity and incoherence) using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) system.ConclusionsTheVitruvian plotallows reporting of multiple outcomes from NMAs, with colourings appropriate to inform credibility of the presented evidence.

Importance Launch prices of new cancer drugs in the US have substantially increased in recent years despite growing concerns about the quantity and quality of evidence supporting their approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Objective To assess the use of and spending on new oral targeted cancer drugs among US residents with employer-sponsored insurance between 2011 and 2018, stratified by the strength of available evidence of benefit. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cross-sectional study, dispensing claims for oral targeted cancer drugs first approved by the FDA between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were analyzed. The number of patients with drugs dispensed and the total payment for all claims were aggregated by calendar year, and these outcomes were arrayed according to evidence underlying FDA approvals, including pivotal study design (availability of randomized clinical trials) and overall survival (OS) benefit, as documented in drug labels. This study was conducted from July 17, 2019, to July 23, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures Annual and cumulative numbers of patients who had dispensing events, and annual and cumulative sums of payment for eligible drugs. Results Of 37 348 patients who had at least 1 of the 44 new oral targeted drugs dispensed between 2011 and 2018, 21 324 were men (57.1%); mean (SD) age was 64.1 (13.1) years. Most individuals (36 246 [97.0%]) received drugs for which evidence from randomized clinical trials existed; however, a growing share of patients received drugs without documented OS benefit during the study period: from 12.7% in 2011 to 58.8% in 2018. Cumulative spending on all sample drugs totaled $3.5 billion by the end of 2018, of which 96.8% was spent on drugs that were approved based on a pivotal randomized clinical trial. Cumulative spending on drugs without documented OS benefit ($1.8 billion [51.6%]) surpassed that on drugs with documented OS benefit ($1.7 billion [48.4%]) by the end of 2018. Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that drugs used for treatment of cancer without documented OS benefits are adopted in the health system and account for substantial spending.

Various stakeholders in the pharmaceutical supply chain assign the specialty label to drugs on the basis of a combination of several unrelated factors, including whether a drug treats a rare condition. But the single most common feature of specialty drugs is high cost.

The Priority Medicines (PRIME) scheme was launched by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2016 to expedite the development and approval of promising products targeting conditions with high unmet medical need. Manufacturers of PRIME drugs receive extensive regulatory advice on their trial designs. Until June 2018, the EMA granted PRIME status to 39 agents, evaluated in 138 studies (102 initiated before and 36 after PRIME eligibility). A third of the studies forming the basis of PRIME designation were randomized controlled trials, and a quarter of the studies were blinded. There was no statistically significant difference between trials initiated before and after PRIME designation in terms of randomized design and use of blinding. However, significantly more efficacy studies included a clinical end point after PRIME designation than before, and significantly fewer included surrogate measures alone. There were no statistically significant differences between the trial designs of PRIME and non-PRIME-designated products.

This cross-sectional study examines how information on overall survival benefits of novel cancer drug indications is communicated in labeling.

IntroductionCancer drug prices are high on the policy agenda worldwide. Previous research found no association between cancer drug benefits and prices at the time of regulatory approval. Drugs approved in the US with uncertain benefits may have spill-over effects in other settings. Our objective was to compare the evidence supporting cancer drug approvals in the US and Brazil, and to examine the association between cancer drug prices and availability of added therapeutic benefit.MethodsWe matched all novel cancer drugs approved in the US from 2010–2019 to approvals in Brazil. We extracted data on pivotal study design characteristics and outcomes in the US and Brazil, and evidence supporting price approval in Brazil, including availability of added therapeutic benefit.ResultsFrom 2010–2019, fifty-six cancer drugs with matching indications were approved in US and Brazil and had their prices authorized in Brazil by December 2020. Drug were available in Brazil following a median 522 days after US approval (IQR: 351–932). In the US, thirty-four (60.7 percent) of the drugs had pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Twelve (21.4 percent) had overall survival benefit. By the time of Brazilian approval, forty-one (73.2 percent) drugs had pivotal RCTs and twenty-two (39.3 percent) had overall survival benefit. A total of twenty-eight (50 percent) drugs did not demonstrate added therapeutic benefit over other authorized drugs for the same indication and had a median reduction from requested to approved price of 6.1 percent (IQR: 0–27.8 percent) in Brazil. The twenty-seven (48.2 percent) drugs with added therapeutic benefit had a median price reduction of 2.0 percent (IQR: 0–9.2 percent).ConclusionsHalf of new cancer drugs approved in Brazil failed to demonstrate added therapeutic benefit. The Brazilian pricing system secured considerable price reductions, ensuring that prices for medicines with no added therapeutic benefit were not higher than existing treatments for the same approved indication. Although evidence was more mature by the time of Brazilian review, pivotal studies often lacked randomization and overall survival endpoints.

Importance Numerous cancer drugs have received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on clinical trial outcomes that are otherwise not acceptable for traditional FDA approval; the accelerated approval process allows outcomes based on surrogate measures that are only reasonably likely to estimate clinical benefits. In England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evaluates the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of drugs after they have received regulatory approval and issues recommendations regarding their coverage in the National Health Service (NHS). However, the level of concordance between European and FDA decision-making in the context of drugs qualifying for FDA accelerated approval is unknown. Objective To compare FDA accelerated approval decisions for cancer drugs with NICE coverage decisions. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study compared cancer drug indications that received FDA accelerated approval from December 11, 1992, to May 31, 2017, with the same set of drug indication pairs in England until August 31, 2019. Data from European Public Assessment Reports developed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and public appraisal documents from NICE were used to determine NHS coverage recommendations. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public appraisal documents were analyzed for drug indications, characteristics of clinical evidence, cost-effectiveness, and coverage decisions. Data were analyzed from September 1 to December 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures Cancer drug indication coverage decision by NICE. Results From 1992 to 2017, 93 cancer drug indications received FDA accelerated approval, 6 of which were subsequently withdrawn, leaving 87 cancer drug indications on the market. As of August 2019, 5 of these indications had been withdrawn or denied market authorization for the European Union by the EMA. From the cohort of EMA-approved drugs, an additional 7 drug indications were not recommended by NICE and were not deemed to have sufficient clinical benefits or cost-effectiveness to warrant mandatory public coverage in England; 5 drugs were not recommended based on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness criteria, and 2 drugs were not recommended based on cost-effectiveness criteria alone. In total, 12 drug indications were not recommended for public coverage in the NHS, and an additional 30 drug indications were not reviewed by either the EMA (14 drug indications) or NICE (16 drug indications) by the study end date. Most drug indications recommended by NICE were conditional on the negotiation of additional confidential discounts, the imposition of restricted indications that limited prescribing to specific patient subgroups, or the collection of additional data. Among the 9 drug indications with evidence of overall survival benefit at the time of NICE review, 2 were not recommended for public funding based on cost-effectiveness criteria. Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, 30 cancer drug indications that were granted accelerated approval by the FDA were not subsequently reviewed by either European regulators or NICE, and 12 drugs were denied authorization or coverage owing to insufficient safety, clinical efficacy, or cost-effectiveness. National Health Service coverage of cancer drugs given FDA accelerated approval commonly required additional price concessions, restrictions to approved indications, or review of additional data.

Background: Non-invasive Cardiovascular imaging (NICI), including cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging provides important information to guide the management of patients with cardiovascular conditions. Current rates of NICI use and potential policy determinants in the United States of America (US) and England remain unexplored.Methods: We compared NICI activity in the US (Medicare fee-for-service, 2011–2015) and England (National Health Service, 2012–2016). We reviewed recommendations related to CMR from Clinical Practice Guidelines, Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC), and Choosing Wisely. We then categorized recommendations according to whether CMR was the only recommended NICI technique (substitutable indications). Reimbursement policies in both settings were systematically collated and reviewed using publicly available information.Results: The 2015 rate of NICI activity in the US was 3.1 times higher than in England (31,055 vs. 9,916 per 100,000 beneficiaries). The proportion of CMR of all NICI was small in both jurisdictions, but nuclear cardiac imaging was more frequent in the US in absolute and relative terms. American and European CPGs were similar, both in terms of number of recommendations and proportions of indications where CMR was not the only recommended NICI technique (substitutable indications). Reimbursement schemes for NICI activity differed for physicians and hospitals between the two settings.Conclusions: Fee-for-service physician compensation in the US for NICI may contribute to higher NICI activity compared to England where physicians are salaried. Reimbursement arrangements for the performance of the test may contribute to the higher proportion of nuclear cardiac imaging out of the total NICI activity. Differences in CPG recommendations appear not to explain the variation in NICI activity between the US and England.

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to aducanumab for treating Alzheimer’s disease based on the drug’s amyloid reducing effects. This was despite evidence from several earlier studies that shrinkage of β-amyloid protein plaques does not predictably delay cognitive impairment.1 The controversial decision has drawn attention to the use of surrogate endpoints—laboratory values, radiographic images, or other physical measures that may serve as indicators of clinical outcomes such as symptom control or mortality—in clinical trials of new drugs.2 In fact, the approval of aducanumab is only the latest example of growing regulatory reliance on surrogate endpoints, even though their use can cause problems for patients, clinicians, drug regulators, and health technology assessment bodies. We argue for more selective use of surrogate endpoints when evaluating new drugs, restricting their use to chronic diseases, especially when collecting data on patient relevant clinical outcomes requires trials with unattainably long follow up.

Recently licensed cell and gene therapies have promising but highly uncertain clinical benefits. They are entering the market at very high prices, with the latest entrants costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. The significant long-term uncertainty posed by these therapies has already complicated the use of conventional economic evaluation approaches such as cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, which are widely used for assessing the value of new health interventions. Cell and gene therapies also risk jeopardising healthcare systems’ financial sustainability. As a result, there is a need to recalibrate the current health technology assessment methods used to measure and compensate their value. In this paper, we outline a set of technical adaptations and methodological refinements to address key challenges in the appraisal of cell and gene therapies’ value, including the assessment of efficiency and affordability. We also discuss the potential role of alternative financing mechanisms. Ultimately, uncertainties associated with cell and gene therapies can only be meaningfully addressed by improving the evidence base supporting their approval and adoption in healthcare systems.

Policy Points Regulatory agencies may have limited evidence on the clinical benefits and harms of new drugs when deciding whether new therapeutic agents are allowed to enter the market and under which conditions, including whether approval is granted under special regulatory pathways and obligations to address knowledge gaps through postmarketing studies are imposed. In a matched comparison of marketing applications for cancer drugs of uncertain therapeutic value reviewed by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), we found frequent discordance between the two agencies on regulatory outcomes and the use of special regulatory pathways. Both agencies often granted regular approval, even when the other agency judged there to be substantial uncertainty about drug benefits and risks that needed to be resolved through additional studies in the postmarketing period. Postmarketing studies imposed by regulators under special approval pathways to address remaining questions of efficacy and safety may not be suited to deliver timely, confirmatory evidence due to shortcomings in study design and delays, raising questions over the suitability of the FDA's Accelerated Approval and the EMA's Conditional Marketing Authorization as tools for allowing early market access for cancer drugs while maintaining rigorous regulatory standards. Context: Regulatory agencies are increasingly required to make market approval decisions for new drugs on the basis of limited clinical evidence, a situation commonly encountered in cancer. We aimed to investigate how regulators manage uncertainty in the benefit-risk profiles of new cancer drugs by comparing decisions for the world's two largest regulatory bodies—the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA)—over a 5-year period. Methods: We systematically identified a set of cancer drug-indication pairs for which data on efficacy and safety was less complete than that required for regular approval at time of market entry from 2009 to 2013, as determined by the FDA's use of Accelerated Approval (AA) or the EMA's use of Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA) pathways, and matched these across the two agencies. Using publicly available information, we compared regulatory pathways and outcomes, final approved indications, and postmarketing obligations imposed by the agencies. Findings: We identified 21 cancer drug-indication pairs that received FDA AA, EMA CMA, or both. Although most applications relied on identical pivotal trials across the FDA and the EMA, regulatory pathways often differed; 57% of indications received either FDA AA or EMA CMA, and regular approval by the other agency. After approval, the EMA more often accepted single-arm studies to confirm clinical benefit compared to the FDA (75% vs. 29% of indications), and the FDA more commonly requested randomized controlled trials (85% vs. 50%). Forty-one percent of confirmatory trials after FDA AA were conducted in different populations than the approved indication, compared to 13% after EMA CMA. Both agencies relied primarily on surrogate measures of patient benefit for postmarketing obligations. After a median follow-up of 7.25 years, 40% of FDA and 61% of EMA postmarketing obligations after AA and CMA, respectively, were delayed. Conclusions: US and European regulators often deemed early and less complete evidence on benefit-risk profiles of cancer drugs sufficient to grant regular approval, raising questions over regulatory standards for the approval of new medicines. Even when imposing confirmatory studies in the postmarketing period through special approval pathways, meaningful evidence may not materialize due to shortcomings in study design and delays in conducting required studies with due diligence.

Introduction Preregistration of study protocols in publicly accessible databases is required for publication of study results in high-impact medical journals. Nonetheless, data on the characteristics of clinical trials registered in these databases and their outcome, in terms of result reporting and publication are limited. Methods The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive analysis of the characteristics of late-stage, cardiovascular disease (CVD) trials registered in Clinicaltrials.gov. We searched for interventional, late-phase (annotated as phase III) CVD studies in adults first posted after 1/1/2013 and completed up to 31/12/2018. Data on study design, result reporting, result spinning and publication were collected, and potential associations with a pre-defined set of explanatory factors were examined. Results The search yielded 352 studies. One hundred were excluded from further analysis because they were misclassified as CVD studies, while 2 were excluded as duplicate entries. In total, 250 CVD trials were included in the analysis. The most commonly studied fields were hypertension, coronary artery disease and heart failure. Of these, 193 (77.2%) were randomized studies, 99 (39.6%) open label designs, and 126 (50.4%) had industry as main sponsor. 179 trials (71.6%) evaluated the effect of drugs and 27 (10.8%) evaluated devices. Industry-funded trials focused on patent-protected drugs and devices more often than non-industry-funded trials (72.0% vs. 30.6%, P Conclusions Among late-stage cardiovascular trials only 1/4 had their results posted on clinicaltrials.gov and less than half had results published. Industry sponsors were more likely to invest in research on patent-protected drugs and devices than were non-industry sponsors. Having industry as a sponsor was independently associated with increased likelihood of results posting, but decreased likelihood of results publication. Results reporting was significantly associated with lower risk of results spinning. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

ObjectivesTo investigate the impact of the uncertainty stemming from products with European conditional marketing authorization (CMA) or authorization in exceptional circumstances (AEC) on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) recommendations.MethodsProducts which received CMA/AEC by European Medicines Agency (EMA) up to 1 December 2016 were identified and matched with corresponding NICE decisions issued by August 2017, the status of which was then traced to August 2019. We assessed whether the conversion of CMA to full marketing authorization triggered a review of a NICE decision. The odds of a recommendation carrying a commercial arrangement for products with and without CMA/AEC were calculated.ResultsFifty-four products were granted CMA/AEC by EMA. NICE conducted thirty evaluations of products with CMA/AEC. Twelve products were recommended by NICE by August 2017 and fourteen by August 2019. All recommendations had an associated commercial arrangement. The odds of carrying a commercial arrangement were higher for products with CMA/AEC compared to those with full authorization. Conversions from conditional to full authorization among products not recommended by NICE did not trigger an appraisal review.ConclusionsUncertainty, stemming from the lack of robust clinical data of products authorized with CMA/AEC, has a substantial impact on HTA recommendations, frequently requiring risk mitigation mechanisms such as commercial and data collection arrangements. Further analyses should be conducted to assess whether the benefits of early access strategies outweigh the risks for patients and the healthcare system.

BackgroundPolicy responses to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term care (LTC) require robust and timely evidence on mortality and spread of the disease in these settings. The aim of this living systematic review is to synthesise early international evidence on mortality rates and incidence of COVID-19 among people who use and provide LTC.MethodsWe report findings of a living systematic review (CRD42020183557), including studies identified through database searches up to 26 June 2020. We searched seven databases (MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL Plus; Web of Science; Global Health; WHO COVID-19 Research Database; medRxiv) to identify all studies reporting primary data on COVID-19 related mortality and incidence of disease among LTC users and staff. We excluded studies not focusing on LTC. Included studies were critically appraised and results on number of deaths and COVID-19 related mortality rates, case fatality rates, and excess deaths (co-primary outcomes), as well as incidence of disease, hospitalisations, and ICU admissions were synthesised narratively.FindingsA total of 54 study reports for 49 unique primary studies or outbreak reports were included. Outbreak investigations in LTC facilities found COVID-19 incidence rates of between 0.0% and 71.7% among residents and between 0.4% and 64.0% among staff at affected facilities. Mortality rates varied from 0.0% to 17.1% of all residents at outbreak facilities, with case fatality rates between 0.0% and 33.7%. In included studies of outbreaks, no LTC staff members had died.Studies of wider LTC populations found that between 0.4% and 40.8% of users, and between 4.0% and 23.8% of staff were infected, although the generalisability of these studies is limited.There was limited information on the impact of COVID-19 on LTC in the community.InterpretationLong-term care users have been particularly vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we found wide variation in spread of disease and mortality rates between outbreaks at individual LTC facilities. Further research into the factors determining successful prevention and containment of COVID-19 outbreaks is needed to protect long-term care users and staff.FundingThis work was partially conducted as part of the “Strengthening responses to dementia in developing countries” (STRiDE) project, supported by the UK Research and Innovation’s Global Challenges Research Fund (ES/P010938/1). The funders had no role in the design and execution of this study, interpretation of its results, and decision to submit this work to be published.

Background. Personalizing medical treatment often requires practitioners to compare multiple treatment options, assess a patient’s unique risk and benefit from each option, and elicit a patient’s preferences around treatment. We integrated these 3 considerations into a decision-modeling framework for the selection of second-line glycemic therapy for type 2 diabetes. Methods. Based on multicriteria decision analysis, we developed a unified treatment decision support tool accounting for 3 factors: patient preferences, disease outcomes, and medication efficacy and safety profiles. By standardizing and multiplying these 3 factors, we calculated the ranking score for each medication. This approach was applied to determining second-line glycemic therapy by integrating 1) treatment efficacy and side-effect data from a network meta-analysis of 301 randomized trials ( N = 219,277), 2) validated risk equations for type 2 diabetes complications, and 3) patient preferences around treatment (e.g., to avoid daily glucose testing). Data from participants with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2003–2014, N = 1107) were used to explore variations in treatment recommendations and associated quality-adjusted life-years given different patient features. Results. Patients at the highest microvascular disease risk had glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists or basal insulin recommended as top choices, whereas those wanting to avoid an injected medication or daily glucose testing had sodium-glucose linked transporter 2 or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors commonly recommended, and those with major cost concerns had sulfonylureas commonly recommended. By converting from the most common sulfonylurea treatment to the model-recommended treatment, NHANES participants were expected to save an average of 0.036 quality-adjusted life-years per person (about a half month) from 10 years of treatment. Conclusions. Models can help integrate meta-analytic treatment effect estimates with individualized risk calculations and preferences, to aid personalized treatment selection.

Which treatment is best for me? This question is at the centre of the clinical consultation. And yet, too often, the question is not answerable with available evidence on drugs and devices. The two Lancet Series papers on comparative effectiveness 1 , 2 document the shortcomings of the process for regulatory approval in incentivising the generation of comparative effectiveness evidence that is useful for patients, clinicians, and the health-care system. The paucity of meaningful comparative data on drugs and devices before and after market entry compromises clinical decision making. We argue that measurable ethical obligations to patients should form the core of future comparative effectiveness research in an era of personalised medicine.