Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36782175›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Launch sequencing of pharmaceuticals with multiple therapeutic indications: evidence from seven countries.

Mackenzie Mills, Daniel Michaeli, Aurelio Miracolo, Panos Kanavos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Assessment of Financial Impact of Expanding the Scope of Drug Usage in South Korea.International journal of health policy and management · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors.

Mackenzie MillsDepartment of Health Policy and LSE Health - Medical Technology Research Group (MTRG), London School of Economics, Houghton St, London, WC2A 2AE, UK. M.J.Mills@lse.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8756-3484
Daniel MichaeliDepartment of Health Policy and LSE Health - Medical Technology Research Group (MTRG), London School of Economics, Houghton St, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Aurelio MiracoloDepartment of Health Policy and LSE Health - Medical Technology Research Group (MTRG), London School of Economics, Houghton St, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Panos KanavosDepartment of Health Policy and LSE Health - Medical Technology Research Group (MTRG), London School of Economics, Houghton St, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew medicines are increasingly being identified as efficacious across multiple indications. The impact of current pricing and reimbursement policies on launch decisions across these indications remains unclear.

objectiveThis paper, first, maps marketing authorisation and HTA coverage recommendation sequences of multi-indication medicines across Germany, France, England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and the USA, and, second, evaluates the clinical characteristics, clinical development time and coverage recommendation time of multi-indication medicines, drawing comparisons between the first and subsequent indications of an approved molecule.

methodsMedicine approvals by the Food and Drug Administration between 2009-2019 were screened to identify multi-indication products with approved oncology indications. Data on clinical trial characteristics, clinical performance and HTA outcomes were extracted from publicly available regulatory approval and HTA reports.

resultsRelative to subsequent indications, first indications were more likely to receive conditional marketing authorisation, have an orphan designation, have a single arm phase II pivotal trial and lower MCBS score. Subsequent indications had faster HTA coverage recommendation times in England and Canada. While the majority of first indications received HTA coverage recommendations across all settings, the proportion of subsequent indications with HTA coverage recommendations was lower and uptake varied considerably across settings.

conclusionsDiscordance in the value of first versus subsequent indications can pose major challenges in systems that define price based on the initial indication. Current pricing and reimbursement systems generate significant fragmentation in the approval and availability of multi-indication products across settings.

Indexed as

Pharmaceutical PreparationsEnglandFranceGermanyHumansScotlandPharmaceutical PreparationsClinical DevelopmentHTAIndication-based pricingOncologyRegulatory Approval

Identifiers

PMID36782175
PMCPMC9923892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.