Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39177786›Full record

ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2025

Updated analysis of the prescription and evaluation of protein kinase inhibitors for oncology in Germany.

Caecilia S Obst, Roland Seifert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. New drugs and their performance 10 years after approval: a systematic analysis.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025
    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

2 authors.

Caecilia S ObstInstitute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Roland SeifertInstitute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. seifert.roland@mh-hannover.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recent analysis from our group ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37014400/ ) has shown that the immense costs of the 20 protein kinase inhibitors for oncology approved from 2015 to 2019 are largely caused by drugs whose additional benefit has not been proven. We updated our analysis by adding the newly approved protein kinase inhibitors of the years 2020 and 2021. Based on the 2021 and 2022 Arzneiverordnungsreport (AVR), we expanded our analysis to include a total of nine protein kinase inhibitors newly approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2020 and 2021. As a result, 29 protein kinase inhibitors were identified for an update of our analysis. For these 29 drugs, all additional benefit assessments published by the Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (GBA) were analyzed. The additional benefit assessments of the GBA were compared with the corresponding assessments of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hämatologie und Onkologie (DGHO, German Society for Hematology and Oncology) and the Arzneimittelkommission der deutschen Ärzteschaft (AkdÄ, Drug Commission of the German Medical Association). In addition, a total number of 91 drug advertisements published in the journal Oncology Research and Treatment in 2022 were analyzed. The number of protein kinase inhibitors for which no additional benefit can be found by the GBA is increasing, whereas the number of drugs for which a considerable additional benefit can be found is decreasing. Thus, in the current 2022 (re)assessment of additional benefit by the GBA, no additional benefit was identified for 50% of the drugs (2020, 46%). Nineteen percent were assessed with a minor additional benefit (2020, 18%) and also 19% with a considerable additional benefit (2020, 27%). For 12% of the drugs, the additional benefit could not be quantified by the GBA (2020, 9%). The benefit assessments by other medical societies often differ significantly from those of the GBA, mainly due to different evaluations of various endpoint parameters. In addition, more and more protein kinase inhibitors are being approved as orphan drugs. However, their additional benefit cannot be quantified by the GBA in most cases (78%). In 38% of the advertisements of an oncology journal, protein kinase inhibitors are promoted, which shows the pharmacoeconomic importance of these drugs. In summary, the current additional benefit assessment procedure in Germany is very questionable, and reforms are urgently needed to maintain the stability of the German healthcare system, which is being undermined by the high cost of medicines, particularly for drugs whose additional benefits have not been proven.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsNeoplasmsProtein Kinase InhibitorsDrug ApprovalGermanyHumansMedical OncologyAntineoplastic AgentsProtein Kinase InhibitorsAVREarly benefit assessmentHealth economicsOncologyOrphan drugsPharmaceutical costsTargeted therapeutics

Identifiers

PMID39177786
PMCPMC11825581

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.