The recent approval of abirateron by the FDA for use in metastatic prostate cancer highlights the otherworldly practice of cancer drug pricing.
Sipuleucel-T purported to be an immune stimulator in early trials was reported last year to improve survival of patients with metastatic prostate cancer about 4 months (median) when compared with placebo. Similarly the recently approved abirateron shows a 2 months delay in progression, 3.9 months improvement of median survival.
Sipuleucel-T (Dendreon) you will recall is priced at $97,000 for a course of therapy. The new drug abirateron is a relative “bargain” at $5,000/month.
The industry’s view is that this is a “fair” price. Meaning it is competitive and will earn the company money:
This gives a treatment price of ~ $40K, which I think is very fair, although some patients will obviously take it for longer than that.
In U.K. however NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) notes:
In draft guidance the watchdog said that Zytiga could increase survival by more than three months compared to placebo, but its annual cost of £35,160 was too much for the NHS in England.
Janssen has offered a patient access scheme for the drug that would discount its list price, but NICE said even with this in place, the drug was still not cost effective.
NICE suggests that conventional chemotherapy offers a more cost effective approach.
Medicynical Note: Welcome to the alternative universe of drug pricing in the U.S. This is the only situation where a consumer purchases a product costing many many thousands of dollars that has utility (effectiveness) of 4 months or less. It’s like buying a Mercedes or Porsche that will last 4 months—rational people in rational situations wouldn’t buy such a product.
Cancer patients however are desperate. Drug companies price these drugs to take advantage. Patient care? Cost efficiency? Morality? Not their department.
I do look forward to further studies of these new agents and hope that the results are confirmed. However, I would warn readers that the track record of drug sponsored first studies is that they often exaggerate benefits and minimize toxicity.