Currently Viewing:
The American Journal of Managed Care February 2018
Community Navigators Reduce Hospital Utilization in Super-Utilizers
Michael P. Thompson, PhD; Pradeep S.B. Podila, MS, MHA; Chip Clay, MDiv, BCC; Joy Sharp, BS; Sandra Bailey-DeLeeuw, MSHS; Armika J. Berkley, MPH; Bobby G. Baker, DMin, BCC; and Teresa M. Waters, PhD
Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression and PTSD in Military Personnel
Tara A. Lavelle, PhD; Mallika Kommareddi, MPH; Lisa H. Jaycox, PhD; Bradley Belsher, PhD; Michael C. Freed, PhD; and Charles C. Engel, MD, MPH
Data Breach Locations, Types, and Associated Characteristics Among US Hospitals
Meghan Hufstader Gabriel, PhD; Alice Noblin, PhD, RHIA, CCS; Ashley Rutherford, PhD, MPH; Amanda Walden, MSHSA, RHIA, CHDA; and Kendall Cortelyou-Ward, PhD
ACA Marketplace Premiums and Competition Among Hospitals and Physician Practices
Maria Polyakova, PhD; M. Kate Bundorf, PhD, MBA, MPH; Daniel P. Kessler, JD, PhD; and Laurence C. Baker, PhD
Currently Reading
Pricing of Monoclonal Antibody Therapies: Higher If Used for Cancer?
Inmaculada Hernandez, PharmD, PhD; Samuel W. Bott, BS; Anish S. Patel, BS; Collin G. Wolf, BS; Alexa R. Hospodar, BS; Shivani Sampathkumar, BS; and William H. Shrank, MD, MSHS
Development of a Tailored Survey to Evaluate a Patient-Centered Initiative
Marcy Winget, PhD; Farnoosh Haji-Sheikhi, MS; and Steve M. Asch, MD, MPH
Claims-Based Risk Model for First Severe COPD Exacerbation
Richard H. Stanford, PharmD, MS; Arpita Nag, PhD, MBA, MS; Douglas W. Mapel, MD; Todd A. Lee, PhD; Richard Rosiello, MD; Michael Schatz, MD; Francis Vekeman, MS; Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle, PhD; J.F. Philip Merrigan, PhD; and Mei Sheng Duh, ScD
Impact of Telephonic Comprehensive Medication Reviews on Patient Outcomes
Evan A. DeZeeuw, PharmD; Ashley M. Coleman, PharmD; and Milap C. Nahata, PharmD, MS
Variation in Markups on Outpatient Oncology Services in the United States
Angela Park; Tim Xu, MD, MPP; Michael Poku, MD, MBA; James Taylor, MBBChir, MPH, MRCS(Eng); and Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH

Pricing of Monoclonal Antibody Therapies: Higher If Used for Cancer?

Inmaculada Hernandez, PharmD, PhD; Samuel W. Bott, BS; Anish S. Patel, BS; Collin G. Wolf, BS; Alexa R. Hospodar, BS; Shivani Sampathkumar, BS; and William H. Shrank, MD, MSHS
The annual price of monoclonal antibody therapies used in oncology and hematology is about $100,000 higher than those used in other disease states.
ABSTRACT

Objectives: The rising prices of specialty drugs have prompted a debate about how medications are priced. With the average price of cancer drugs doubling in the last decade, the unsustainability of drug prices is especially concerning in oncology and hematology. The objective of this study was to compare the prices of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) approved in the last 20 years by the FDA across disease states.

Study Design: We identified all indications approved by the FDA for mAbs from 1997 to 2016 and calculated the annual price of 1-year treatment for each mAb–indication combination as the product of the US average wholesale price per milligram and the recommended dose.

Methods: We compared the annual price of treatment with each mAb across disease states using generalized linear models with gamma distribution and log link, controlling for route of administration, chemical structure, source, and time since FDA approval.

Results: The average annual price of a mAb was $96,731, exceeding $100,000 for 34 mAb–indication combinations. Oncology and hematology mAbs represented 40% of the mAb–indication combinations approved, yet they accounted for more than 85% of those priced $100,000 or higher. After adjusting for factors that can affect production costs, the annual price of oncology or hematology mAbs was $149,622 higher than those used in cardiovascular or metabolic disorders; $98,981 higher than in immunology; $128,856 higher than in infectious diseases or allergy; and $106,830 higher than in ophthalmology (all P <.001).

Conclusions: The annual price of mAb therapies is about $100,000 higher in oncology and hematology than in other disease states.

Am J Manag Care. 2018;24(2):109-112
Takeaway Points
  • The average price of a cancer drug has doubled in the last decade, and targeted therapies represent an important driver of that increase.
  • We identified all monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies approved by the FDA in the last 20 years and compared their annual price across disease states.
  • Oncology and hematology mAbs represented 40% of the mAb–indication combinations approved, yet they accounted for more than 85% of those priced $100,000 or higher. With a median annual price of $142,833, the annual price of mAbs used in oncology or hematology was about $100,000 higher than those used in other disease states.
The unsustainable rising prices of specialty drugs have prompted a debate about how medications are priced. Manufacturers contend that high prices are essential to recoup research and development costs; however, a growing societal chorus believes that manufacturers are maximizing profits at the expense of patients and the healthcare system. Concerns about drug pricing policies are amplified in oncology and hematology,1-6 where vulnerable patients and their families often have unrealistic expectations about the value of treatment.7 Of note, the mean price of a cancer drug has doubled in the last decade, and targeted therapies represent an important driver of this increase.1,7,8 In this study, we compared the annual price of monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies approved in the last 20 years by the FDA across disease states. Specifically, we evaluated whether the prices were higher for mAbs used in cancer than for those used in other disease states. We limited our analysis to mAbs to minimize the potential impact of varying production costs among different types of molecules.

METHODS

Study Design

We identified all indications approved by the FDA for mAbs from 1997 to 2016 using the FDA website.9 After excluding radioactive mAb­–indication combinations (n = 1), antidotes (n = 1), and those approved for diagnostic purposes (n = 3), withdrawn from the market by 2016 (n = 2), or not available to the public for other reasons (n = 2), our sample included 107 unique mAb–indication combinations (eAppendix Table 1 [eAppendices available at ajmc.com]). From the FDA-approved label of each mAb, we extracted the recommended dose for each indication, chemical structure (whole mAb, antigen-binding fragment antibody, or other), source (human, humanized, chimeric, or murine), and route of administration (subcutaneous, intravenous, intramuscular, or intraocular). We categorized indications into 5 disease states: oncology or hematology, cardiology or endocrinology, immunology, infectious diseases or allergy, and ophthalmology. We further classified oncology and hematology indications into 7 categories: bone cancer; breast cancer; gastrointestinal cancer; lung, head, or neck cancer; melanoma; hematologic malignancies and hematologic disorders; and other types of cancer, which included glioblastoma, metastatic renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and neuroblastoma (details in Figure).

Endpoints

We extracted the US average wholesale price per milligram as of January 2017 from UpToDate10 and calculated the annual price of treatment for a standard patient—a 70-kg/1.80-m adult, a 40-kg patient in the case of mAb–indication combinations approved for juvenile conditions (ie, with childhood onset), or a 4.5-kg infant for mAb–indication combinations used in pediatrics (ie, for diseases that occur in the first weeks of life)—for each mAb–indication combination as the product of the recommended dose for 1 year of treatment and the price per milligram. We used lower-bound values for the weight of a standard patient because dosing is based on weight only for some mAbs, so using a higher value would increase the probability of type I error when comparing prices of mAbs that require dose adjustment with those that do not.

Statistical Analysis

We constructed generalized linear models with gamma distribution and log link to evaluate how the annual price of treatment differed across disease states. We controlled for route of administration, chemical structure, time since FDA approval, and source, all of which can affect production costs.11 We followed the same methodology to examine how pricing of oncology and hematology mAb–indication combinations differed by type of cancer or hematologic disorder. All analyses were conducted at the mAb–indication combination level, meaning that for mAbs approved for more than 1 indication, each indication counted as a separate observation (details in Table [part A and part B]).

RESULTS

Our sample included 107 mAb–indication combinations, with a mean (median) annual price of $96,731 ($58,968). The annual price of treatment exceeded $100,000 for 34 (32%) mAb–indication combinations and was highest for 2 indications of eculizumab ($800,280 for atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome and $592,654 for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria) and lowest for denosumab, which is indicated for fracture prevention ($2465) (eAppendix Table 1). The annual price of treatment was highest for mAbs used in oncology or hematology (median, $142,833; interquartile range [IQR], $73,920-$164,291], followed by immunology (median, $53,969; IQR, $28,056-$68,770) (Figure and eAppendix Table 2). Of 43 oncology and hematology mAb–indication combinations, 29 (67%) were priced higher than $100,000 per year of treatment. Although oncology and hematology mAb–indication combinations represented only 40% of all mAb–indication combinations approved in the last 20 years (43 of 107), they accounted for more than 85% of those priced $100,000 or higher (29 of 34). Within oncology and hematology indications, the annual price of treatment was highest for mAbs indicated for types of cancer delineated as “other,” which included glioblastoma, metastatic renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and neuroblastoma (median, $167,152; IQR, $158,456-$230,225), followed by lung, head, or neck cancer (median, $163,746; IQR, $162,086-$181,417).

After adjusting for route of administration, source, chemical structure, and time since FDA approval, the annual price of oncology or hematology mAbs was $149,622 higher than those used in cardiovascular or metabolic disorders; $98,981 higher than in immunology; $128,856 higher than in infectious diseases or allergy; and $106,830 higher than in ophthalmology (all P <.001) (Table). Other than disease state, the chemical structure of a mAb was the only factor significantly associated with pricing. In subgroup analysis, we found no significant differences in prices of mAbs by type of cancer or hematologic disorder, which was probably due to the small sample size of each group, as well as the large price variability of hematology mAbs.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis is the first to compare the price of mAbs approved by the FDA in the last 20 years across disease states. Our results document the high prices of this type of medication; with an average price of $96,731, the annual price of treatment exceeded $100,000 for 32% of 107 mAb–indication combinations approved by the FDA between 1997 and 2016. Oncology and hematology mAbs represented 40% of the combinations approved, yet they accounted for more than 85% of those priced $100,000 or higher. After adjusting for factors that can affect production costs, we found that mAb therapies approved for the treatment of cancer and hematologic disorders are around $100,000 per year of treatment more expensive than mAbs used in other disease states.

Higher prices for mAbs used in oncology and hematology may be explained by multiple factors. First, in order to recover development costs, manufacturers set higher prices for drugs used for a short period of time or for drugs indicated in rare conditions. This likely explains why the 2 most expensive mAb–indication combinations were those with eculizumab, originally approved for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, which affects only 5000 patients in the United States.12 In addition, duration of treatment is usually shorter in cancer, where drugs are commonly used for weeks or months, than in other disease states where drugs may be used for years. Second, the therapeutic arsenal available for the treatment of some types of cancer and hematologic disorders is narrower than in other disease states, which makes patients and providers less responsive to the prices of these medications. Third, payers have limited levers to restrict access to, and hence lower prices for, cancer drugs.6,13 This is because Medicare Part D plans are required to include all cancer drugs in their formularies and some states also mandate the coverage of cancer drugs by private insurers.6,14

Limitations

This study was designed to describe patterns in pricing and did not aim to assess the process manufacturers apply when determining the asking price for their medications. Moreover, our study did not attempt to assess the value of the agents studied in terms of cost-effectiveness or clinical outcomes. In addition, our study did not evaluate the pricing of targeted therapies other than mAbs, and we used average wholesale prices, which do not account for manufacturers’ rebates. Nevertheless, this does not invalidate our results because the objective of our study was not to estimate net drug prices after discounts but to compare prices across disease states, and rebates should not differ across disease states.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite these limitations, our study has important implications. At a time when healthcare resources are constrained and threaten state and federal budgets, the rapidly rising costs of prescription drugs, specialty drugs in particular, will continue to garner media and policy attention.7 In the absence of some type of value framework where prices are justified by the value they bring to specific patients or the population, attention to drug pricing is likely to grow. There may be a unique opportunity for clinical experts and manufacturers to collaborate and redefine how the value of pharmaceuticals is measured and fundamentally shift the way manufacturers are reimbursed for high-cost medications like mAbs.5,15-17
Author Affiliations: Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, School of Pharmacy, University of Pittsburgh (IH, SWB, ASP, CGW, ARH, SS), Pittsburgh, PA; Insurance Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (WHS), Pittsburgh, PA.

Source of Funding: University of Pittsburgh internal funds.

Author Disclosures: Mr Bott owns stock in Merck, Incyte, and Johnson & Johnson. Mr Wolf is employed as an intern by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr Shrank is employed in the Insurance Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and has received consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson. The remaining authors report no relationship or financial interest with any entity that would pose a conflict of interest with the subject matter of this article.

Authorship Information: Concept and design (IH, SWB, ASP, CGW, ARH, SS, WHS); acquisition of data (SWB, ASP, CGW, ARH, SS, WHS); analysis and interpretation of data (IH, SWB, ASP, ARH, WHS); drafting of the manuscript (IH, SWB, CGW, ARH, SS, WHS); critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (ARH, WHS); statistical analysis (IH); obtaining funding (IH); and supervision (IH, WHS).

Address Correspondence to: Inmaculada Hernandez, PharmD, PhD, Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, School of Pharmacy, University of Pittsburgh, 3501 Terrace St, Pittsburgh, PA 15261. Email: inh3@pitt.edu.
REFERENCES

1. Kantarjian HM, Fojo T, Mathisen M, Zwelling LA. Cancer drugs in the United States: Justum Pretium—the just price [erratum in J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(30):3523. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.64.8527]. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(28):3600-3604. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.1845.

2. Kantarjian H, Steensma D, Rius Sanjuan J, Elshaug A, Light D. High cancer drug prices in the United States: reasons and proposed solutions. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(4):e208-e211. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2013.001351.

3. Light DW, Kantarjian H. Market spiral pricing of cancer drugs. Cancer. 2013;119(22):3900-3902. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28321.

4. Chhatwal J, Mathisen M, Kantarjian H. Are high drug prices for hematologic malignancies justified? a critical analysis. Cancer. 2015;121(19):3372-3379. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29512.

5. Boniva [prescribing information]. South San Francisco, CA: Genentech, Inc; 2013. accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/021455s014s015lbl.pdf. Updated April 2013. Accessed March 9, 2014.

6. Bach PB. Limits on Medicare’s ability to control rising spending on cancer drugs [erratum in N Engl J Med. 2009;360(9):944. doi: 10.1056/NEJMx090006]. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(6):626-633. doi: 10.1056/NEJMhpr0807774.

7. Vivot A, Jacot J, Zeitoun JD, Ravaud P, Crequit P, Porcher R. Clinical benefit, price and approval characteristics of FDA-approved new drugs for treating advanced solid cancer, 2000-2015. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(5):1111-1116. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx053.

8. Shih YC, Smieliauskas F, Geynisman DM, Kelly RJ, Smith TJ. Trends in the cost and use of targeted cancer therapies for the privately insured nonelderly: 2001 to 2011. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(19):2190-2196. doi: 10.1200/jco.2014.58.2320.

9. US Food and Drug Administration website. fda.gov. Accessed February 9, 2017.

10. UpToDate website. uptodate.com. Accessed February 9, 2017.

11. Kelley B. Industrialization of mAb production technology: the bioprocessing industry at a crossroads. MAbs. 2009;1(5):443-452.

12. Hill A, Platts PJ, Smith A, et al. The incidence and prevalence of paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria (PNH) and survival of patients in Yorkshire. Blood. 2006;108(11):985. bloodjournal.org/content/108/11/985. Published 2006. Accessed March 1, 2017.

13. Ramsey SD, Lyman GH, Bangs R. Addressing skyrocketing cancer drug prices comes with tradeoffs: pick your poison. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(4):425-426. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5813.

14. Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Manual: chapter 6—Part D drugs and formulary requirements. CMS website. cms.gov/Medicare/Prescription-Drug-Coverage/PrescriptionDrugCovContra/Downloads/Part-D-Benefits-Manual-Chapter-6.pdf. Updated January 15, 2016. Accessed April 19, 2017.

15. Brennan T, Shrank W. New expensive treatments for hepatitis C infection. JAMA. 2014;312(6):593-594. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.8897.

16. Bach PB, Pearson SD. Payer and policy maker steps to support value-based pricing for drugs. JAMA. 2015;314(23):2503-2504. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.16843.

17. Pfister DG. The just price of cancer drugs and the growing cost of cancer care: oncologists need to be part of the solution. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(28):3487-3489. doi: 10.1200/jco.2013.50.3466.
PDF
 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2019 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up