Background: In 2022, Medicare alone spent $42.1 billion on prescription drugs, with antineoplastic and classical hematology drugs accounting for 44% and 8% of the total, respectively (2024 MedPAC Data Book). While antineoplastic drugs have been extensively studied, classical hematology drugs have received comparatively little attention. We analyzed US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of classical hematology drugs over the past 30 years and examined their per-patient costs and annual total US sales.

Methods: We identified all classical hematology drugs (those prescribed by hematologist/oncologists for non-malignant indications) approved by the FDA from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2024, including novel pharmaceuticals (synthesized from chemical compounds), biologics (derived from living organisms), and biosimilars (highly similar, but not identical, to biologics previously approved). Cost estimates for 2024 were based on wholesale acquisition costs (WAC), using annual WAC for continuous-duration treatments and typical course WAC for fixed-duration treatments. WAC and US gross sales data for 2024 were obtained from IPD Analytics (Aventura, FL).

Results: A total of 98 classical hematology drugs were approved over the past 30 years—11% in 1995–2004, 26% in 2005–2014, and 63% in 2015–2024. These included pharmaceuticals (36%), biologics (54%), and biosimilars (10%). Six gene therapies received approval: 3 for hemophilia and 1 each for sickle disease, beta thalassemia, and sickle cell disease/beta thalassemia (dual indication). Common categories of indications included bleeding (31%), anemia (30%), neutropenia (9%), and thrombocytopenia (9%). Leading diagnoses were hemophilia (25%), chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (9%), thromboembolism (8%), paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH; 7%), anemia of chronic kidney disease (6%), iron deficiency anemia (6%), and immune thrombocytopenia (5%).

The median cost for gene therapies was $2.9 million per treatment (range: $2.2 million–$3.5 million). Among non-gene therapies, median costs were $3,000 per course for fixed-duration treatments (range: $64–$378,000) and $467,000 annually for continuous-duration treatments (range: $2,400–$1.8 million). The most expensive fixed-duration treatments targeted hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis ($378,000/8-week course), while the most expensive continuous-duration treatments were for hemophilia (median: $630,000/year; range: $270,000–$853,000).

Estimated 2024 US gross sales across all drugs exceeded $70 billion. Top-selling indications included thromboembolism ($43.5 billion), hemophilia ($6.9 billion), immune thrombocytopenia ($4.9 billion), PNH ($4.7 billion), chemotherapy-induced neutropenia ($2.8 billion), anemia of chronic kidney disease ($2.0 billion), and iron deficiency anemia ($1.8 billion). Total sales for all gene therapies combined were $143 million. Six drugs have been discontinued (year approved/year discontinued/reason): betrixaban (2017/2020/business), daprodustat (2023/2024/business), fidanacogene elaparvovec (2024/2025/business), oprelvekin (1997/2011/business), peginesatide (2012/2013/safety), and voxelotor (2019/2024/safety).

There are limitations to our study. Some drugs have non-classical hematology indications (anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation; luspatercept in myelodysplastic neoplasm) and/or may also be prescribed by non-classical hematologists (erythropoiesis stimulating agents by nephrologists and medical oncologists). We were unable to disaggregate the sales data in these situations. Therefore, the annual sales for certain indications may be overestimated.

Conclusions: Classical hematology drugs contribute substantially to US prescription drug spending, with over $70 billion in annual sales and medications for thromboembolism accounting for over half of the costs. Approvals have accelerated over the past three decades, doubling each decade. Biologics and biosimilars now represent two-thirds of approvals. Continuous-duration treatments, particularly for rare hereditary diseases like hemophilia, carry significant financial burden, with annual costs per patient often exceeding $0.5 million. In these conditions, if gene therapies demonstrate durable efficacy, they may prove to be cost-effective alternatives. As more gene therapies are developed, evaluating their long-term value relative to chronic high-cost treatments will be essential for shaping future reimbursement and access strategies.

This content is only available as a PDF.
Sign in via your Institution