June 2014 Edition Vol.8, Issue 6

The Three “A’s” of Treatment Options: Approved, Accessible and Affordable – Market Access Implications of Big News from ASCO 2014

The Three “A’s” of Treatment Options:  Approved, Accessible and Affordable – Market Access Implications of Big News from ACSO 2014 (continued)

The strong positive recurrence-free survival data reported in EORTC 18071 for stage III melanoma patients receiving adjuvant treatment with Yervoy represents a significant advance in treatment, especially considering the limited treatment options and low survival rates for patients whose disease recurs. Few would argue that these outcomes are a very good thing for patients. However, the treatment cost per cycle in the adjuvant setting is more than three times greater than for the current indication of metastatic disease, due to higher dosing. Further, treatment continues after the initial four rounds with maintenance infusions every three months for up to three years. At the current WAC price of Yervoy, a first year of adjuvant treatment will likely exceed $300,000, a cost likely to spark renewed scrutiny among payers. Until Yervoy receives an FDA indication or National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline recommendations (level IIb or higher), oncology practices are likely to experience claims rejections due to a dose in excess of the indication. Even if or when payers do reimburse for adjuvant use, practices will be waiting 90 days or more to get reimbursed the $50,000 to $60,000 for a single round or treatment. Patients with coinsurance on their medical benefit will incur over $1,000 in out-of-pocket cost for a single round of treatment. It is not unreasonable to expect oncology practices to seek alternatives to buy-and-bill reimbursement for adjuvant treatment of melanoma.

RESONATE:  Will it be the Gleevec® Story all Over Again?

Gleevec® was launched in 2001 at a price of $2,200 per month, a moderate (10%-20%) premium to the standard of care at the time, interferon.6 Hailed as a “miracle drug,” its price was unprecedented for a pill. Gleevec has a current WAC price of $7,660,7 comparable to many other oral TKIs. However, unlike many other TKIs that increase median overall survival and PFS by a few months and whose value for the cost is frequently called into question by payers, Gleevec is usually cited as the exception. By increasing the estimated 10-year survival from less than 20% to above 80%,6 payers often refer to Gleevec as a cure for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and rarely question its value.

Fast forward 12 years to November 2013, when Imbruvica was launched with an indication in the rare mantle cell lymphoma at a cost of $130,000. The Wall Street Journal speculated that “Imbruvica's cost could raise eyebrows even among doctors accustomed to high prices for many drugs.”8 Three months later, Imbruvica received approval for relapsed/refractory CLL, though at a lower cost of $98,400 due to the lower dose. However, there are four times as many CLL patients than MCL patients. Imbruvica received its indication based on an open-label Phase II study and proved its efficacy in the RESONATE trial, a Phase III study comparing it to Arzerra. Imbruvica was associated with a 78.5% reduction in the risk of relapse and a 56.6% reduction in the risk of death. These results conceivably place Imbruvica in a similar category of perceived value as Gleevec when payers consider the degree of efficacy provided, even at a cost nearing $100,000 per year.

However, the CLL market is growing increasingly crowded. Unlike when Gleevec launched, payers now have specialty tiers and differential formulary placement as tools to steer utilization or perhaps stimulate competitive contracting. Another important consideration is that Imbruvica competes against several different IV therapies, most notable Rituxan® plus Treanda®, which far surpasses Imbruvica use in both first- and second-relapse CLL.4 In addition to habit and familiarity, Imbruvica will have to overcome two additional factors. First, infused drugs still represent the dominant source of revenue for oncology practices. Secondly, patients are more likely to encounter very high cost sharing with orals compared with injectable drugs. While Pharmacyclics and Janssen Biotech have established a robust financial assistance program, 60% of CLL patients have a Medicare Part D drug benefit,9 making them ineligible for manufacturer financial support. While several not-for-profit copay foundations have CLL funds, donations to the funds may not be directed to specific drugs. 

Closing Thoughts

We are in an exciting era of clinical development of cancer treatment. Oncologists and hematologists have an unprecedented array of tools at their disposal to extend the lives of cancer patients. Biopharmaceutical companies have invested countless years and billions of dollars to bring these drugs to market. This investment and the unmet needs that these drugs address are reflected in high prices that are driving explosive growth in spending on cancer care. Not only do physicians have more “tools in their toolbox,” but payers have a growing armamentarium of tools at their disposal to help rein in the cost trend. Be it through pathways, prior authorization, formulary tiers or cost sharing, payers will continue to leverage these tools to exercise influence over drug selection and utilization. Clinical evidence is and will remain the single most important determinant of access in the U.S., but the evidence can no longer be viewed in scientific isolation. Not only payers but also patients and physicians will weigh the evidence within a broader value context that takes price, therapeutic alternatives, and outcomes into account.

___________________________________________________________________________________

About the Contributor

Debbie Warner is Vice President of Commercial Planning at Kantar Health.

Kantar Health is a leading global healthcare advisory firm and trusted advisor to the world’s largest pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device and diagnostic companies. It combines evidence-based research capabilities with deep scientific, therapeutic and clinical knowledge, commercial development know-how, and marketing expertise to help clients launch products and differentiate their brands in the marketplace.

Kantar Health’s oncology-related offers include Oncology Conference Insight, client-directed oncology conference coverage that analyzes the most important research at significant oncology meetings; and

CancerMPact® Treatment Architecture, which assesses the current clinical management of cancer patients by site and stage for all treatment modalities.

If you would like us to act as catalysts for you, contact us at www.kantarhealth.com/contactus.


References:

  1. http://www.obroncology.com/obrgreen/article/Whats-in-Store-at-ASCO-2014#_ftn3
  2. Heinemann, Abstract LBA3506, ASCO 2013.
  3. Kantar Health CancerMPact® Biomarker Analysis 2014 accessed June 11, 2014
  4. Kantar Health CancerMPact® Patient Metrics 2014 accessed June 11, 2014
  5. Kantar Health Oncology Market Access™ 2014 oncologist survey
  6. Blood First Edition Paper, prepublished online April 25, 2013; DOI 10.1182/blood-2013-03-490003
  7. IHS Global Insight: Country & Industry Forecasting, PharmaOnline International, accessed
    June 13, 2014
  8. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303289904579196064064198886
    June 13, 2014
  9. Kantar Health Oncology Market Access™ 2013 Payer Mix Analysis

 

Pages: 1 2

Post a Comment

OBR Archives

To view previous issues of OBR green you can visit our archives. The entire library of OBR green articles is searchable.