Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28290490›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2017

The high price of anticancer drugs: origins, implications, barriers, solutions.

Vinay Prasad, Kevin De Jesús, Sham Mailankody

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 188 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
188citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

188 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

128 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Vinay PrasadDivision of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Knight Cancer Institute, Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, and Center for Health Care Ethics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239, USA.
Kevin De JesúsPonce Health Sciences University-School of Medicine, P.O. Box 7004, Ponce, Puerto Rico 00716-2347, USA.
Sham MailankodyMyeloma Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, New York 10065, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Globally, annual spending on anticancer drugs is around US$100 billion, and is predicted to rise to $150 billion by 2020. In the USA, a novel anticancer drug routinely costs more than $100,000 per year of treatment. When adjusted for per capita spending power, however, drugs are most unaffordable in economically developing nations, such as India and China. Not only are launch prices high and rising, but individual drug prices are often escalated during exclusivity periods. High drug prices harm patients - often directly through increased out-of-pocket expenses, which reduce levels of patient compliance and lead to unfavourable outcomes - and harms society - by imposing cumulative price burdens that are unsustainable. Moreover, high drug prices are not readily explained by rational factors, including the extent of benefit patients are likely to derive, the novelty of the agents, or spending on research and development. Herein, we summarize the available empirical evidence on the costs of anticancer drugs, probe the origins and implications of these high costs, and discuss proposed solutions.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsCost ControlDeveloping CountriesDrug CostsDrug DiscoveryDrug IndustryHealth ExpendituresHumansAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID28290490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.