Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of FDA-Approved Drugs for Cancer Indications, 2015-2017

Background:

In addition to a drug's anti-tumor efficacy and tissue toxicity, it is now apparent that affordability is a pivotal factor determining the net therapeutic value of an anti-cancer compound. Cost-Effectiveness Analyses (CEA) are therefore key to appreciating the overall balance between the clinical and economical repercussions of a pharmaceutical agent. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness data of newly approved drugs in cancer care.

Methods:

The FDA website was reviewed for all drugs approved for any cancer indication between the years 2015-2017. A systematic search of Pubmed and Google Scholar was conducted for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses (CEA) of each of these medications. Average Wholesale Prices were collected from Uptodate.com.

Results:

30 drugs were approved for cancer indications in 2015-2017. Each of the approved drugs had an average of 1.27 CEA studies (range 0-6). 4 of the 38 (10.5%) available CEAs were done before approval of an index drug. 18 (60%) of the approved medications had an available published CEA at the time of our search (March, 2018). Partition survival modelling (31.5%) and Markov modelling (26.3%) were the most common methods of analysis. 47.3% (18/38) of the CEAs were thought to reflect a favorable ICER per the analysis's investigators. The nature of the malignancy (solid versus hematologic) did not distinguish between the mean number of a drug's CEAs (1.25; 1.2) but drugs for solid cancer indications were less likely to be associated with a favorable CE assessment compared with hematological cancers (47.8% versus 58.3%). "Expensive" drugs (defined as monthly cost greater than 8,618 dollars) had a lower mean number of CEA studies than "less expensive" drugs (1.09 versus 1.36) and were less likely to be associated with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile (27.2% versus 73.6%). 47.3% (18/38) of the economic evaluations were published as conference proceeding/abstract, 36.8% (14/38) were in the form of a full-text article, and the remainder as journal letters or conference posters (6/38; 15.7%).

Conclusion:

Insufficient data on the cost-effectiveness profile of novel anti-cancer medications jeopardises our ability to determine their real value. Although these drugs are being routinely used in a large-scale fashion, gaps persist as to their financial harm relative to the associated (potential) clinical benefit. Our study shows that recently-approved anti-cancer drugs have a very small number of CEAs to back their clinical-societal merit. Paradoxically, more costly drugs have fewer CEAs compared with cheaper drugs. Also of note, the majority of the analyses followed the approval of the drug, were published in a non full-text format, and were associated with non-sustainable ICER values. We argue that publication of rigorous, peer-reviewed CEAs should be a mandatory pre-approval step for academia/industry and serve as a pre-requisite to the routine distribution and usage of new cancer-directed medications.