Drs Cannon and Rothrock provide insights into their process for defining value among newly launched MDD treatments.
Michael Rothrock, MBA, MHA: It all comes down to clinical value. The efficacy end points, the safety, and the overall cost-to-value equation are going to drive P&T [pharmacy and therapeutics] positivity and receptivity. When we talk about onset, we want something that’s shown to be effective within 2 to 4 weeks at most. We want to have improvement in the tolerability and adverse effect issues, lower weight gain, lower dry mouth, lower rates of somnolence—things that are going to throw a bit of a wrench into a patient staying adherent to the therapy.
Last but not least, when we talk about overall efficacy, we want to make sure there’s a defined treatment paradigm with this patient, not just drug [treatment] but also cognitive behavioral therapy emphasis. That manufacturer who brings these drugs to the market needs to make sure they have programs that will help wrap that service level around the patient as well as the drug.
H. Eric Cannon, PharmD, FAMCP: When we start looking at the timing of onset and efficacy, one of the biggest issues we have is very little ability to identify the appropriate patient subgroup or population in which a treatment might be effective. [Based on] the trials that have been done on the product, as a provider, how do I identify the appropriate patient to receive this treatment? Automatically, if we can identify the appropriate patients or at least narrow that population down, efficacy goes up and the timing of the onset improves. In theory, it’s also safer. We don’t go through the adverse effects with a particular product. In other areas in medicine, we’ve gotten much better at identifying the appropriate populations for [specific treatments]. Anything that comes with a new treatment that helps us understand whom to use that treatment on is a significant advance.
Transcript edited for clarity.