With the US drug pricing debate unlikely to dissipate anytime soon, it is interesting to note prominent oncologists once againvoicing their opinion on the relative value of cancer therapies earlier this month.
Certain drugs that appear to offer little or no incremental benefit versus established therapies, but frequently cost considerably more, have attracted particular criticism, and not for the first time; Sanofi's colorectal cancer treatment Zaltrap was cited as meeting this criteria by oncologists from the Sloane Kettering Memorial Cancer Centre (SKMCC) back in 2012. The New York Times editorial, in which the cost and efficacy of Zaltrap was profiled, can now be viewed as a key catalyst in the broader US drug pricing debate (FirstWord Lists: Framing the US drug pricing debate – the key flashpoints).
Peter Bach and Leonard Saltz, both leading oncologists at the SKMCC who co-edited The New York Times piece (alongside colleague Robert Wittes), are among those who have recently revived public debate during an interview with Reuters. The former is also responsible for developing DrugAbacus, an interactive tool for considering the basis of cancer drug prices. DrugAbacus is one of a handful of notable independent sources that have begun to provide assessment of US drug prices over the past few years – see also Spotlight On Interview: Chief medical officer Richard Schilsky discusses ASCO's new cancer drug value framework.
For the pharmaceutical industry, increased focus on the relative value of cancer therapies in the US market could have profound implications, given the current levels of investment being made in oncology R&D. Challenges to established means of market share gain for newly launched cancer therapies will come in numerous forms; FirstWord is polling US oncologists to gauge opinion on five key questions that will shape how the value of cancer drugs is perceived and how they are priced…
Which of the following statements do you agree with the most, regarding evolving use of cancer therapies in the US over the next five years?
There will be no tightening of usage for therapies that demonstrate no/minimal clinical benefit over alternative therapies without a notable price discount
There will be a minimal tightening of usage for therapies that demonstrate no/minimal clinical benefit over alternative therapies without a notable price discount
There will be a moderate tightening of usage for therapies that demonstrate no/minimal clinical benefit over alternative therapies without a notable price discount
There will be a significant tightening of usage for therapies that demonstrate no/minimal clinical benefit over alternative therapies without a notable price discount
There will be a very significant tightening of usage for therapies that demonstrate no/minimal clinical benefit over alternative therapies without a notable price discount
What is your opinion towards the use of treatment pathways/programmes that are designed in part to offer the best value in treating cancer?
Highly unfavourable
Moderately unfavourable
Slightly unfavourable
Neutral
Slightly favourable
Moderately favourable
Highly favourable
How supportive are you of the view that biosimilar cancer products should be used aggressively as a means to drive down costs and facilitate expenditure on novel branded products?
Not supportive
Slightly supportive
Moderately supportive
Very supportive
Extremely supportive
Factoring in available clinical data and potential cost, what is your opinion towards the next wave of immuno-oncology therapies – i.e. the PD-(L)1 inhibitors?
Efficacy of these agents significantly outweighs cost impact
Efficacy of these agents moderately outweighs cost impact
Efficacy of these agents marginally outweighs cost impact
Efficacy and cost of these agents is neutral
Cost of these agents marginally outweighs efficacy impact
Cost of these agents moderately outweighs efficacy impact
Cost of these agents significantly outweighs efficacy impact
Is personalised medicine (i.e. use of diagnostics/biomarkers) being used to its full potential for the treatment of cancer?
No – it is completely underused versus the opportunity that exists
It is being used marginally well
It is being used moderately well
It is being used very well
It is being used extremely well
You will be able to read the results and analysis later this week.
Results and related analysis will be published for FirstWord Pharma PLUS subscribers to read, with the opportunity for non-FirstWord Pharma PLUS subscribers to purchase these findings. To be notified when poll results and analysis become available, please click here.
As always, FirstWord would very much like to receive your feedback and suggestions.
Note: FirstWord Polls are powered by MedePolls, a fast-turnaround service to conduct instant polls of up to five questions with guaranteed samples that include physicians from dozens of specialities and over 100 markets. To conduct this poll with a different audience, or an entirely different poll, contact us atinfo@firstwordpharma.com.
