Report Store | Pharma intelligence
  • My Account
    • 0Shopping Cart
  • $0.00
  • Disease analysis
    • Anemias
    • Bacterial infections
    • Bleeding disorders
    • Brain Cancer
    • Breast and gynecological cancer
    • Cardiovascular and Metabolic
    • Central Nervous System
    • Cerebrovascular diseases
    • Dermatology
    • Diabetes and diabetic complications
    • Gastroenterology
    • Gastrointestinal cancer
    • Head and Neck Cancer
    • Hypertension
    • Immunology and Inflammation
    • Infectious Diseases
    • Ischemic heart disease
    • Leukemia
    • Lung Cancer
    • Lymphoma
    • Oncology overview
    • Market Spotlight
    • Mens Health
    • Neurology
    • Oncology
    • Ophthalmology
    • Other Hematological Cancers
    • Other metabolic diseases
    • Other Solid Cancers
    • Pain
    • Psychiatry
    • Respiratory
    • Rheumatology
    • Skin cancer
    • Thrombosis
    • Urological cancer
    • Vaccines
    • Viral infections
    • Women’s Health
  • Strategy analysis
    • Bleeding disorders
    • Breast and gynecological cancer
    • Cardiovascular and Metabolic
    • Central Nervous System
    • Commercial Strategy
    • Dealmaking and R&D
    • Head and Neck Cancer
    • Hot Topics
    • Infectious Diseases
    • KOL Insight
    • Leukemia
    • Lung Cancer
    • Manufacturing
    • Market Access
    • Neurology
    • Oncology
    • Outsourcing
    • Pricing & Reimbursement
    • R&D
    • Regulatory & Therapeutic Area
    • Trends
    • Urological cancer
  • Company analysis
    • Big Pharma
    • Emerging Pharma
    • Hot Topics
    • Japan Pharma
    • M&A Analysis
    • Mid Pharma
  • Drug analysis
    • A
    • B-C
    • D-F
    • G-L
    • M-O
    • P-R
    • S-T
    • U-Z
  • MedTech analysis
    • Allergy
    • Autoimmune / Immunology
    • Cardiovascular
    • Dermatology
    • Endocrine
    • ENT / Dental
    • Gastroenterology
    • Hearing
    • Hematology
    • Infectious Diseases
    • Metabolic
    • Neurology
    • Obstetrics / Gynecology
    • Oncology
    • Ophthalmology
    • Orthopedics
    • Osteoporosis
    • Psychiatry
    • Renal
    • Respiratory
    • Rheumatology
    • Urology
  • Opinion & analysis
    • Business Development
    • Business Management
    • Clinical Trials
    • Digital Health
    • Cybersecurity
    • Compliance & Risk
    • Digital patient management
    • Digital policy & regulation
    • Finance & Pricing
    • Healthcare Innovation
    • ICT and Health
    • Leadership
    • Legislation Regulation & Policy
    • Market Access
    • Market Intelligence
    • Medical
    • Pharmaceutical Device
    • Pharmaceutical Research
    • Strategy & Innovation
    • Tech companies & Data
    • Tech & Pharma
  • Blogs
  • Search
  • Menu
You are here: Home > Blogs > Strategy > As Keytruda expands, payers recoil

As Keytruda expands, payers recoil

December 28, 2018 | Strategy

Melanie senior

Checkpoint inhibitors like Merck’s Keytruda (pembrolizumab) and Bristol Myers Squibb’s Opdivo (nivolumab) are extending the lives of many cancer patients. Yet their success across a growing range of cancers is forcing payers to negotiate harder bargains, including reimbursement caps.

 

Keytruda’s December 2018 approval in Europe as an adjuvant treatment for late-stage melanoma patients who have undergone surgery is just the latest in a string of approvals for the drug across multiple cancer types and settings. Keytruda is used across cancers of the skin, lung, blood, head and neck, liver, intestine and cervix, among others. Based on its quarterly sales trajectory, it will soon be an $8 billion blockbuster.

 

At an average cost of about $13,000 per month, Keytruda, like others in its class, is much pricier than chemotherapy. Much of the data supporting checkpoint inhibitors are strong – the KEYNOTE-054 trial backing Keytruda’s recent EU melanoma approval, which enrolled over 1000 patients, showed a 44% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death compared to placebo.

 

It’s hard to argue with that. (These patients’ current option, post-surgery, is to ‘watch and wait’ to see if the disease returns.) UK watchdog the National Institute of Health & Care Excellence (NICE) agreed to make the drug available via the Cancer Drugs Fund.

 

Yet this is a ‘managed access’ scheme – a temporary agreement, while further data are collected on the drug’s longer term benefits, particularly overall survival. CDF will fund the drug until the end of 2021, after which NICE will review its guidance.

 

The US FDA will issue its decision on Keytruda in this melanoma setting by February 2019. Checkpoint inhibitor approvals will continue – and may accelerate – beyond that. The drugs work by interfering with a mechanism used by cancer cells to hide from our immune system. This unlocks our body’s own defences against the abnormal cells. It is a fairly general approach, which works across several tumor types, especially those, like melanomas, where there is already a low-level immune response.

 

Checkpoint inhibitors are already a crowded class. Alongside category-leader Keytruda and Opdivo, the first to gain approval back in December 2014, sit Bristol’s Yervoy, Roche’s Tecentriq, Merck KGAa’s Bavencio, AstraZeneca’s Imfinzi and Sanofi/Regeneron’s Libtayo – plus plenty more in late-stage development.

 

Competition, in theory, gives payers more negotiating power. But checkpoint inhibitors are not all the same. Some inhibit different receptors within the complex immune-system control pathways. This makes them more appropriate in some settings than in others. Dosing and administration frequency can vary, along with toxicity. So some checkpoint inhibitors may carve a niche where there are relatively few alternatives.

 

And some may work better in combination with other treatments – not just older, chemotherapy drugs, but newer targeted therapies, too, with high price tags of their own.

For example, Keytruda is in a Phase III trial alongside Amgen’s oncolytic virus drug, Imlygic. Early data suggest that the duo may significantly enhance the strength of response. Adding an oncolytic virus may also expand checkpoint inhibitors’ reach beyond tumors that already trigger a low-level immune response, to include those that are immunologically “cold” – which accounts for the majority. That could unleash even faster growth in the class.

 

These dynamics will force a range of new pricing and payment structures, beyond the relatively straightforward price-volume arrangements, and overall spending caps, already in place in some European markets. The same drug used within a combination may have to be priced lower than when used alone, for example. Pricing may need to be linked to specific indications. Payers may insist on even stronger survival data.

 

Indication- and combination-specific pricing approaches are compelling in theory, and have long been investigated. Implementing them has proved very tricky, though. Checkpoint inhibitors’ runaway growth may be what helps overcome those practical barriers.

Related Content

Reimbursement and payer management of immune checkpoint inhibitors

FacebookTweetPin

Related posts:

As Rare Disease Drugs Multiply, So Must Creative Ways to Pay for Them
Strategy

As Rare Disease Drugs Multiply, So Must Creative Ways to Pay for Them

  • February, 19 2019
  • 1370

Patients suffering from one of the many hundreds of rare diseases known to exist have a better chance than ever of finding a treatment. Companies large and small continue to invest, given high unmet need and very targeted populations. Progress must contin

New Pharma Models for a new Healthcare Era
Strategy

New Pharma Models for a new Healthcare Era

  • January, 10 2019
  • 1377

When Google in November 2018 hired David Feinberg to head up its healthcare efforts, it was just the latest sign of the tech giant’s ambitions in the sector. Feinberg was previously president and CEO of Geisinger, among the US’ largest and most forward-lo

Is January’s M&A a flash in the pan, or does it signal sustained dealmaking heat
Strategy

Is January’s M&A a flash in the pan, or does it signal sustained dealmaking heat

  • January, 10 2019
  • 1285

2019 started with a bang for pharma M&A: by January 7, $82 billion worth of shopping had been announced. Bristol Myers Squibb’s $74 billion cash and stock offer for Celgene on New Year’s day is the fourth-largest deal ever. It was followed days later

Related Content
Read more
  • Home
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Refund policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Discounts
  • Market Spotlight – Reports
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • Sitemap
Copyright © 2022 Pharma Intelligence UK Limited Pharma Intelligence UK Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG. Pharma Intelligence UK Limited is part of the Pharma Intelligence Group.
Rare and Innovative? Not Enough for European Payers Gene therapy ‘cures’ force new payment models

Sign up to the Pharma Intelligence Report Store Newsletter to get the latest blogs, news, reports and discounts!

Pharma Intelligence
This is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.
Call Back
Scroll to top