ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2017
Comparing the Approval and Coverage Decisions of New Oncology Drugs in the United States and Other Selected Countries.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China and the United States healthcare systems.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- A comparison of cancer treatment protocols in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Oncologists' preferences for frontline TKI treatment of Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a discrete choice experiment.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Disparities in the access to immune checkpoint inhibitors approved in the United States, the European Union and mainland China: a serial cross-sectional study.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Cancer drug indication approvals in China and the United States: a comparison of approval times and clinical benefit, 2001-2020.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- Cost and public reimbursement of cancer medicines in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.Irish journal of medical science · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced esophageal cancer.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Italian version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS)-Total Care (TC): development and psychometric validation in patients undergoing cancer treatment or follow-up.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Improving quality, affordability, and equity of multiple sclerosis care.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2021Article
- Time to add screening for financial hardship as a quality measure?CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2021Article
- The validation of the Italian version of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST).Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Article
- Targeting Financial Toxicity in Oncology Specialty Pharmacy at a Large Tertiary Academic Medical Center.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2019Article
- A network approach to developing immuno-oncology combinations in Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2019Article
- A comparison of new drugs approved by the FDA, the EMA, and Swissmedic: an assessment of the international harmonization of drugs.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Article
- The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: Understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrections.2017
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobal pharmaceutical sales for anticancer drugs were $74.4 billion in 2014, ranking first for drugs by therapeutic class. Countries may differ substantially in the approval and coverage decisions for anticancer drugs.
objectiveTo compare the approval and coverage decisions for new anticancer drugs between the United States and 4 other countries: the United Kingdom, France, Australia, and Canada.
methodsWe identified all new anticancer drug indications approved by the FDA between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2013. For each country, we reviewed the organizations, processes, criteria, and special considerations used to make approval and coverage decisions for the drug indications approved. We further quantified and compared the variations across the 5 countries in the approval and coverage decisions as of June 30, 2014, for new anticancer drug indications.
results"Of 45 anticancer drug indications approved in the United States between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2013, 67% (30) were approved by the European Medicines Agency, and 53% (24) were approved in Canada and Australia before December 31, 2013. The U.S. Medicare program covered all 45 drug indications, and as of June 30, 2014, the United Kingdom covered 87% (26) of those approved in Europe- 58% (26) of the drug indications covered by Medicare. France, Canada, and Australia covered 42% (19), 29% (13), and 24% (11) of the drug indications covered by Medicare, respectively". [corrected].
conclusionsApproval and reimbursement decisions vary substantially by country. The United States had the fewest access restrictions, and Australia was the most restrictive of the 5 countries that were examined. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study, and the authors report no conflicts of interest. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Zhang, along with Hernandez and Hueser. All authors participated in data collection, and data interpretation was performed by Zhang and Hernandez, along with Hueser. The manuscript was written and revised by Zhang and Hernandez, along with Hueser.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.