Estimated generic prices of cancer medicines deemed cost-ineffective in England: a cost estimation analysis

Objectives The aim of this study was to estimate lowest possible treatment costs for four novel cancer drugs, hypothesising that generic manufacturing could significantly reduce treatment costs. Setting This research was carried out in a non-clinical research setting using secondary data. Participants There were no human participants in the study. Four drugs were selected for the study: bortezomib, dasatinib, everolimus and gefitinib. These medications were selected according to their clinical importance, novel pharmaceutical actions and the availability of generic price data. Primary and secondary outcome measures Target costs for treatment were to be generated for each indication for each treatment. The primary outcome measure was the target cost according to a production cost calculation algorithm. The secondary outcome measure was the target cost as the lowest available generic price; this was necessary where export data were not available to generate an estimate from our cost calculation algorithm. Other outcomes included patent expiry dates and total eligible treatment populations. Results Target prices were £411 per cycle for bortezomib, £9 per month for dasatinib, £852 per month for everolimus and £10 per month for gefitinib. Compared with current list prices in England, these target prices would represent reductions of 74–99.6%. Patent expiry dates were bortezomib 2014–22, dasatinib 2020–26, everolimus 2019–25 and gefitinib 2017. The total global eligible treatment population in 1 year is 769 736. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that affordable drug treatment costs are possible for novel cancer drugs, suggesting that new therapeutic options can be made available to patients and doctors worldwide. Assessing treatment cost estimations alongside cost-effectiveness evaluations is an important area of future research.

[1]  N. Ford,et al.  Minimum Costs for Producing Hepatitis C Direct-Acting Antivirals for Use in Large-Scale Treatment Access Programs in Developing Countries , 2014, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[2]  Lorenzo Marconi,et al.  EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. , 2010, European urology.

[3]  Lindsay Sarah Ritz,et al.  Policies to promote use of generic medicines in low and middle income countries: a review of published literature, 2000-2010. , 2012, Health policy.

[4]  E. Montserrat,et al.  Chronic lymphocytic leukemia: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. , 2011, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[5]  J. Love Remuneration guidelines for non-voluntary use of a patent on medical technologies , 2005 .

[6]  F. Hulstaert,et al.  Are biosimilars the next tool to guarantee cost-containment for pharmaceutical expenditures? , 2013, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[7]  O. Ukoumunne,et al.  Dasatinib, nilotinib and standard-dose imatinib for the first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia: systematic reviews and economic analyses. , 2012, Health technology assessment.

[8]  H. Rugo,et al.  A clinician's guide to biosimilars in oncology. , 2016, Cancer treatment reviews.

[9]  F. Knaul,et al.  Closing the Cancer Divide: A Blueprint to Expand Access in Low and Middle Income Countries , 2011 .

[10]  E. Hoen A victory for global public health in the Indian Supreme Court , 2013 .

[11]  Thomas J. Smith,et al.  Delivering maximum clinical benefit at an affordable price: engaging stakeholders in cancer care. , 2014, The Lancet. Oncology.

[12]  G. Cooke,et al.  Analysis of minimum target prices for production of entecavir to treat hepatitis B in high- and low-income countries , 2015, Journal of virus eradication.

[13]  Bernadette A. Thomas,et al.  Global, regional, and national age–sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 , 2015, The Lancet.

[14]  angesichts der Corona-Pandemie,et al.  UPDATE , 1973, The Lancet.

[15]  Joan Costa-Font,et al.  Competition in Off-Patent Drug Markets: Issues, Regulation and Evidence , 2008 .

[16]  M. Baccarani,et al.  Chronic myeloid leukemia: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. , 2012, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[17]  E. Hoen Access to Cancer Treatment: A study of medicine pricing issues with recommendations for improving access to cancer medication , 2015 .

[18]  J. Knoben,et al.  An overview of the FDA publication Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations. , 1990, American journal of hospital pharmacy.

[19]  J. Bryant,et al.  The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bortezomib and thalidomide in combination regimens with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid for the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2011, Health technology assessment.

[20]  C. Mathers,et al.  GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer , 2013 .

[21]  P. Savage,et al.  Development and economic trends in cancer therapeutic drugs: a 5-year update 2010–2014 , 2015, British Journal of Cancer.

[22]  A. B. Prasad,et al.  British National Formulary , 1994 .

[23]  Randall Kuhn,et al.  Trends in Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceuticals Since the Doha Declaration: A Database Analysis , 2012, PLoS medicine.

[24]  J. Bergh,et al.  A catalyst for change: the European cancer Patient's Bill of Rights. , 2014, The oncologist.

[25]  A. Wilson The British National Formulary. , 1963, The Practitioner.

[26]  John Hudson,et al.  Generic take-up in the pharmaceutical market following patent expiry A multi-country study , 2000 .

[27]  P. Workman,et al.  Discovery of small molecule cancer drugs: Successes, challenges and opportunities , 2012, Molecular oncology.

[28]  Breakaway : The global burden of cancer — challenges and opportunities , 2009 .

[29]  T. Fojo,et al.  Cancer drugs in the United States: Justum Pretium--the just price. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[30]  C Proudlove,et al.  Gefitinib for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. , 2010, Health technology assessment.

[31]  Richard Sullivan,et al.  Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: a population-based cost analysis. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[32]  Bernadette A. Thomas,et al.  Global, regional, and national age–sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 , 2015, The Lancet.

[33]  J. Hornaday,et al.  Cancer Facts & Figures 2004 , 2004 .

[34]  J. Colquitt,et al.  Dasatinib, high-dose imatinib and nilotinib for the treatment of imatinib-resistant chronic myeloid leukaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2012, Health technology assessment.

[35]  P Barton,et al.  Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2011, Health technology assessment.