Unsupported price hikes added $815 mln to US drug spending in 2023
Adds J&J's comment in paragraph 4 and 5, Gilead's comment in paragraph 8
By Sriparna Roy
Dec 12 (Reuters) -Price increases for five of the 10 drugs that contributed the most to a rise in U.S. medical spending in 2023 were not supported by clinical evidence and drove costs higher by $815 million, an influential drug pricing watchdog said on Thursday.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) said that half of the drugs assessed had price increases based on new evidence of additional benefits or reduced harm, while the other half lacked such evidence.
Johnson & Johnson's JNJ.N cancer drug Darzalex was on the list of price increases not backed by clinical evidence for the second time this year. A 7.6% rise in the treatment's list price added about $190 million to U.S. spending, according to the report.
The ICER's methodology represents the perspective of insurance companies, not patients, a Johnson & Johnson spokesperson said.
The methodology is deeply flawed and omits key information, including a new FDA approval and several study reports, the spokesperson added.
Gilead's GILD.O HIV drug Biktarvy, Novartis' NOVN.S heart drug Entresto, Exelixis' EXEL.O cancer therapy Cabometyx and Pfizer's PFE.N rheumatoid arthritis drug Xeljanz were the other four drugs that contributed to increased spending without being backed by data.
Biktarvy contributed more than the other four on the list, the ICER's Vice President of Research Foluso Agboola said.
The report disregarded evidence on Biktarvy, including data that prompted two FDA label updates and two clinical guideline updates due to its significance for clinical practice, a Gilead spokesperson said.
"We continue to see list price increases that are far above the rate of inflation for many of the costliest drugs," Agboola added.
Last year, eight of the 10 high-expenditure drugs had substantial price increases, accounting for $1.27 billion in additional costs, according to the U.S. pricing research firm.
Merck's MRK.N Keytruda was among the top ten most expensive drugs, but the ICER said that the 4.1% increase in the treatment's list price was supported by clinical evidence.
Even though the drugs did have new clinical evidence, the report did not attempt to determine whether the price increases were fully justified by meeting a health-benefit price benchmark that might be determined by a formal cost-effectiveness analysis.
Reporting by Sriparna Roy, Bhanvi Satija and Sneha S K in Bengaluru; Editing by Alan Barona
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
