Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34661604›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2021

Real-world Use of and Spending on New Oral Targeted Cancer Drugs in the US, 2011-2018.

Mengyuan Fu, Huseyin Naci, Christopher M Booth, Bishal Gyawali, Austin Cosgrove, Sengwee Toh, Ziyue Xu, Xiaodong Guan, Dennis Ross-Degnan, Anita K Wagner

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Enhancing medication adherence with blister-packed oral oncolytics: A case example in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Prior Authorization and Association With Delayed or Discontinued Prescription Fills.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Harnessing Real-World Evidence to Advance Cancer Research.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023
    Review
  18. A Proposal to Increase Value and Equity in the Development and Distribution of New Pharmaceuticals.International journal of health services : planning, administration, evaluation · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Mengyuan FuDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Huseyin NaciDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Christopher M BoothDivision of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences, Queen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Canada.
Bishal GyawaliDivision of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences, Queen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Canada.
Austin CosgroveDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sengwee TohDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ziyue XuDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Xiaodong GuanDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Dennis Ross-DegnanDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Anita K WagnerDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Launch prices of new cancer drugs in the US have substantially increased in recent years despite growing concerns about the quantity and quality of evidence supporting their approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Objective: To assess the use of and spending on new oral targeted cancer drugs among US residents with employer-sponsored insurance between 2011 and 2018, stratified by the strength of available evidence of benefit. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, dispensing claims for oral targeted cancer drugs first approved by the FDA between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were analyzed. The number of patients with drugs dispensed and the total payment for all claims were aggregated by calendar year, and these outcomes were arrayed according to evidence underlying FDA approvals, including pivotal study design (availability of randomized clinical trials) and overall survival (OS) benefit, as documented in drug labels. This study was conducted from July 17, 2019, to July 23, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual and cumulative numbers of patients who had dispensing events, and annual and cumulative sums of payment for eligible drugs. Results: Of 37 348 patients who had at least 1 of the 44 new oral targeted drugs dispensed between 2011 and 2018, 21 324 were men (57.1%); mean (SD) age was 64.1 (13.1) years. Most individuals (36 246 [97.0%]) received drugs for which evidence from randomized clinical trials existed; however, a growing share of patients received drugs without documented OS benefit during the study period: from 12.7% in 2011 to 58.8% in 2018. Cumulative spending on all sample drugs totaled $3.5 billion by the end of 2018, of which 96.8% was spent on drugs that were approved based on a pivotal randomized clinical trial. Cumulative spending on drugs without documented OS benefit ($1.8 billion [51.6%]) surpassed that on drugs with documented OS benefit ($1.7 billion [48.4%]) by the end of 2018. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that drugs used for treatment of cancer without documented OS benefits are adopted in the health system and account for substantial spending.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAntineoplastic AgentsCross-Sectional StudiesDrug ApprovalDrug CostsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID34661604
PMCPMC8524355

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.