Low-value approvals and high prices might incentivize ineffective drug development

An Addendum to this article was published on 12 November 2018

Drug regulators’ acceptance of any statistically significant improvement shown in a single randomized trial and lofty drug prices has created a situation where it is now, hypothetically, profitable for a company to run a clinical trials portfolio of chemically inert compounds. While the current cancer drug pipeline is certainly superior to inert drugs, we must rethink market incentives to encourage transformational drug development.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Break- even point at which a null trials agenda would turn a profit based on one or two nominally significant randomized trials.

References

  1. 1.

    Tang, J., Shalabi, A. & Hubbard-Lucey, V. M. Comprehensive analysis of the clinical immuno-oncology landscape. Ann. Oncol. 29, 84–91 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Fojo, T., Mailankody, S. & Lo, A. Unintended consequences of expensive cancer therapeutics-the pursuit of marginal indications and a me-too mentality that stifles innovation and creativity: the John Conley Lecture. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 140, 1225–1236 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Gyawali, B. & Prasad, V. Drugs that lack single-agent activity: are they worth pursuing in combination? Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 14, 193 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Carlisle, B. et al. Benefit, risk, and outcomes in drug development: a systematic review of sunitinib. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 108, djv292 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Zhu, A. X. et al. Effect of everolimus on survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after failure of sorafenib: the EVOLVE-1 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 312, 57–67 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Chan, A. et al. Neratinib after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer (ExteNET): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 17, 367–377 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Gyawali, B. & Ando, Y. Adjuvant sunitinib for high-risk-resected renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of ASSURE and S-TRAC trials. Ann. Oncol. 28, 898–899 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Prasad, V. & Mailankody, S. Research and development spending to bring a single cancer drug to market and revenues after approval. JAMA Intern. Med. 177, 1569–1575 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Sertkaya, A. et al. Key cost drivers of pharmaceutical clinical trials in the United States. Clin. Trials 13, 117–126 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Basch, E. Toward a patient-centered value framework in oncology. JAMA 315, 2073–2074 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sham Mailankody.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prasad, V., McCabe, C. & Mailankody, S. Low-value approvals and high prices might incentivize ineffective drug development. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 15, 399–400 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-018-0030-2

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing