Industry perspectives on market access of innovative drugs: The relevance for oncology drugs

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Volumn 7, Issue JUN, 2016, Pages

  Pauwels, Kim ^a   Huys, Isabelle ^a   Casteels, Minne ^a   Simoens, Steven ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICAL AND PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Drug development; Health economics; Health technology assessment; Industry; Market access; Oncology; Pricing and reimbursement; Qualitative research

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; BUDGET; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG PREFERENCE; DRUG SCREENING; EUROPE; HUMAN; PROFIT; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW;

EID: 84977629253     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16639812     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2016.00144     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bergmann, L., Enzmann, H., Thirstrup, S., Schweim, J. K., Widera, I., and Zwierzina, H. (2015). Access to innovative oncology medicines in Europe. Ann. Oncol. 27, 353-356. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv547
2. Berndt, E. R., Nass, D., Kleinrock, M., and Aitken, M. (2015). Decline in economic returns from new drugs raises questions about sustaining innovations. Health Aff. (Millwood) 34, 245-252. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.1029
3. Bryan, S., Roberts, T., Heginbotham, C., and McCallum, A. (2002). QALY-maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey. Health Econ. 11, 679-693. doi: 10.1002/hec.695
4. Cleemput, I., Devries, S., Kohn, L., Devos, C., Van Til, J., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K., et al. (2014). Incorporating Societal Preferences in Reimbursement Decisions-Relativei Importance of Decision Criteria According to Belgian Citizens. Available online at: https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/page_documents/KCE_234_reimbursement_decisions_Report_0.pdf (Accessed Apr 3, 2015).
5. Drummond, M., Tarricone, R., and Torbica, A. (2013). Assessing the added value of health technologies: reconciling different perspectives. Value Health 16, S7-S13. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.10.007
6. Eichler, H. G., Bloechl-Daum, B., Abadie, E., Barnett, D., Konig, F., and Pearson, S. (2010). Relative efficacy of drugs: an emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 277-291. doi: 10.1038/nrd3079
7. European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) (2015). Available online at: http://www.eunethta.eu (Accessed Dec 21, 2015).
8. Europen Medicines Agency (EMA) (2014). Reflection Paper on the Use of Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) Measures in Oncology Studies. Available online at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/06/WC500168852.pdf (Accessed Dec 23, 2015).
9. Experts in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (2013). The price of drugs for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a reflection of the unsustainable prices of cancer drugs: from the perspective of a large group of CML experts. Blood 121, 4439-4442. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-03-490003
10. Fibig, A. (2013). HTA and value-an industry perspective. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 29, 376-377. doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000536
11. Garattini, S., and Bertele, V. (2002). Efficacy, safety, and cost of new anticancer drugs. BMJ 325, 269-271. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7358.269
12. Gautam, A., and Pan, X. (2015). The changing model of big pharma: impact of key trends. Drug Discov. Today 21, 379-384. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2015.10.002
13. Howard, H. D., Bach, B. P., Berndt, R. E., and Conti, M. R. (2015). Pricing in the market for anticancer drugs. J. Econ. Persp. 29, 139-162. doi: 10.3386/w20867
14. IMS Institute for healthcare informatics (2015). Developments in Cancer Treatments, Market dynamics, Patient Access and Value. Available online at: http://www.imshealth.com/en/thought-leadership/ims-institute/reports/global-oncology-trend-2015 (Accessed Feb 29, 2016).
15. Jöhnsson, B. (2015). Bringing in health technology assessment and cost-effectiveness considerations at an early stage of drug development. Mol. Oncol. 9, 1025-1033. doi: 10.1016/j.molonc.2014.10.009
16. Jönsson, B. (2013). Technology Assessment for new oncology drugs. Clin. Cancer Res. 19, 6-11. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1819
17. Kanavos, P., Nicod, E., Espin, J., and van den Aardweg, S. (2010). Short and Long-Term Effects of Value-Based Pricing vs. External Price Referencing. Available online at: http://whocc.goeg.at/Literaturliste/Dokumente/FurtherReading/Short-%20and%20long-term%20effect%20of%20value-based%20pricing.pdf (Accessed Dec 22, 2015).
18. Leopold, C., Mantel-Teeuwisse, A. K., Seyfang, L., Vogler, S., de Joncheere, K., Laing, R. O., et al. (2012a). Impact of external price referencing on medicine prices-a price comparison among 14 European countries. South. Med. Rev. 5, 34-41.
19. Leopold, C., Vogler, S., Mantel-Teeuwisse, A. K., de Joncheere, K., Leufkens, H. G., and Laing, R. (2012b). Differences in external price referencing in Europe: a descriptive overview. Health Policy 104, 50-60. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.09.008
20. Linley, W. G., and Hughes, D. A. (2012). Societal views on NICE, cancer drugs fund, and value-based pricing criteria for prioritising medicines: a cross-sectional survey of 4118 adults in Great-Britain. Health Econ. 22, 948-964. doi: 10.1002/ihec.2872
21. McCabe, C., Bergmann, L., Bosanquet, N., Ellis, M., Enzmann, H., von Euler, M., et al. (2009). Market and patient access to new oncology products in Europe: a current, multidisciplinary perspective. Ann. Oncol. 20, 403-412. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdp320
22. Mestre-Ferrandiz, J., Towse, A., Dellamano, R., and Pistolllato, M. (2015). Multi-Indication Pricing: Pros, Cons and Applicability to the UK. Available online at: https://www.ohe.org/news/multi-indication-pricing-pros-cons-and-applicability-uk (Accessed Feb 29, 2016).
23. National Institute for Health Care excellence (NICE) (2012). Ipilimumab for Previously Treated Advanced (Unresectable or Metastatic) Melanoma-NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA268]. Available online at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta268 (Accessed Dec 21, 2015).
24. Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD) (2015). Focus on Health Spending. Available online at: http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Focus-Health-Spending-2015.pdf (Accessed Dec 15, 2015).
25. Pauwels, K., Huys, I., Casteels, M., De Nys, K., and Simoens, S. (2014). Market access of cancer drugs in European countries: improving resource allocation. Target. Oncol. 9, 95-110. doi: 10.1007/s11523-013-0301-x
26. Schwappach, D. L. (2003). Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation. Health Econ. 12, 255-267.
27. Tandvards-och läkemedelsformansverket (TLV) (2003). General Guidelines for Economic Evaluations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. Available online at: http://www.tlv.se/Upload/English/Guidelines-for-economic-evaluations-LFNAR-2003-2.pdf (Accessed Dec 23, 2015).
28. Vogler, S., Vitry, A., and Babar, Z. U. (2015). Cancer drugs in 16 European countries, Australia, and New Zealand: a cross-country price comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 17, 39-47. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00449-0
29. World Health Organization (WHO) (2014). Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases. Available online at: http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd-status-report-2014/en/ii (Accessed Apr 7, 2015).