Pricing Trends and Overlapping Indications of Checkpoint Inhibitors for Cancer Treatment.
1/5 보강
[PURPOSE] Multiple checkpoint inhibitors are approved for cancer treatment in the United States, accounting for nearly 20% of Medicare Part B spending.
APA
Paul JM, Mitchell AP, et al. (2025). Pricing Trends and Overlapping Indications of Checkpoint Inhibitors for Cancer Treatment.. JCO oncology practice, OP2500099. https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-25-00099
MLA
Paul JM, et al.. "Pricing Trends and Overlapping Indications of Checkpoint Inhibitors for Cancer Treatment.." JCO oncology practice, 2025, pp. OP2500099.
PMID
41202200 ↗
Abstract 한글 요약
[PURPOSE] Multiple checkpoint inhibitors are approved for cancer treatment in the United States, accounting for nearly 20% of Medicare Part B spending. To explore why prices remain high, this study analyzed pricing trends for checkpoint inhibitors from 2015 to 2024 and the degree of overlap of their US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications.
[METHODS] For 11 FDA-approved checkpoint inhibitors, we studied quarterly average sales prices from public Medicare spending files from Q3 2015 to Q1 2024; prices were standardized to cost per 28-day treatment for non-small cell lung cancer. We compared the FDA-labeled indications as of January 2024 to determine the degree of overlap, defining indications on the basis of tumor type (or mutation status) and stage of treatment.
[RESULTS] Monthly prices for checkpoint inhibitors decreased slightly over the study period, largely attributable to high inflation from 2020 to 2023. Five drugs, including pembrolizumab and nivolumab, maintained prices within 7% of each other; five other drugs were introduced at prices 3%-20% lower than the existing checkpoint inhibitors. In Q1 2024, monthly prices ranged from $7,783 in US dollars (USD) (ipilimumab) to $14,872 USD (dostarlimab). We identified 55 distinct indications for the 11 drugs; of these, 24 (44%) were approved for only one drug and 16 (29%) for only two drugs. Pembrolizumab accounted for 45 of 55 (82%) total indications and 18 of 24 (75%) nonoverlapping indications. Of eight checkpoint inhibitors launched since 2015, three were initially approved for nonoverlapping uses.
[CONCLUSION] Prices of checkpoint inhibitors have decreased only slightly since introduction. This may be partially explained by lack of overlapping indications, which hinders direct competition among within-class drugs. Expanding drug price negotiations or incentivizing comparative effectiveness research may help to promote competition and address high prices.
[METHODS] For 11 FDA-approved checkpoint inhibitors, we studied quarterly average sales prices from public Medicare spending files from Q3 2015 to Q1 2024; prices were standardized to cost per 28-day treatment for non-small cell lung cancer. We compared the FDA-labeled indications as of January 2024 to determine the degree of overlap, defining indications on the basis of tumor type (or mutation status) and stage of treatment.
[RESULTS] Monthly prices for checkpoint inhibitors decreased slightly over the study period, largely attributable to high inflation from 2020 to 2023. Five drugs, including pembrolizumab and nivolumab, maintained prices within 7% of each other; five other drugs were introduced at prices 3%-20% lower than the existing checkpoint inhibitors. In Q1 2024, monthly prices ranged from $7,783 in US dollars (USD) (ipilimumab) to $14,872 USD (dostarlimab). We identified 55 distinct indications for the 11 drugs; of these, 24 (44%) were approved for only one drug and 16 (29%) for only two drugs. Pembrolizumab accounted for 45 of 55 (82%) total indications and 18 of 24 (75%) nonoverlapping indications. Of eight checkpoint inhibitors launched since 2015, three were initially approved for nonoverlapping uses.
[CONCLUSION] Prices of checkpoint inhibitors have decreased only slightly since introduction. This may be partially explained by lack of overlapping indications, which hinders direct competition among within-class drugs. Expanding drug price negotiations or incentivizing comparative effectiveness research may help to promote competition and address high prices.