Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
By Sriparna Roy
(Reuters) – Price increases for five of the 10 drugs that contributed the most to U.S. medical spending in 2023 were not supported by clinical evidence and increased costs by $815 million, an influential drug price watchdog said on Thursday.
The Institute for Clinical Economic Review (ICER) said half of the drugs it evaluated had price increases based on new evidence of added benefits or reduced harm, while the other half lacked such evidence.
Johnson & Johnson’s ( NISE: ) cancer drug Darzalek was on the list for the second time this year for price increases not supported by clinical evidence. According to the report, the 7.6 percent increase in the cost of treatment added about $190 million to US spending.
ICER’s methodology represents the perspective of insurance companies, not patients, a Johnson & Johnson spokesman said.
The methodology is deeply flawed and leaves out key information, including new FDA approval and several study reports, the spokesman added.
Gilead (NASDAQ:) HIV drug Biktarvi, Novartis (SIX:) ‘heart drugs Entresto, Ekelikis (NASDAQ:)’ cancer therapy Cabometic and Pfizer (NISE:)’s rheumatoid arthritis drug Xeljanz were the other four drugs that contributed to an unsupported increase in spending.
Biktarvi contributed more than the other four on the list, said ICER Vice President for Research Foluso Agbula.
The report ignored evidence about Biktarvi, including data that led to two FDA label updates and two clinical guideline updates because of its relevance to clinical practice, a Gilead spokesman said.
“We continue to see price increases that are well above the rate of inflation for many of the most expensive drugs,” Agbula added.
Last year, eight out of 10 high-spending drugs saw significant price increases, accounting for $1.27 billion in additional costs, according to a US price research firm.
Merck (NS:)’s Keytruda was among the top ten most expensive drugs, but ICER said the 4.1% treatment price increase was supported by clinical evidence.
Although the drugs had new clinical evidence, the report did not attempt to determine whether the price increases were fully justified by meeting the health and well-being benchmark that could be determined by a formal cost-effectiveness analysis.
