ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Pricing, price revision, and clinical value of anticancer drugs in Japan: a retrospective observational study.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The high cost of anticancer drugs has raised concerns due to the financial burden on patients and pressure on healthcare systems. We examine the relation between pricing premiums, price revision, and clinical value for anticancer drugs approved in Japan. Methods: We included anticancer drugs approved in Japan from 2013 to 2023. Differences in clinical value, as measured by the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), among drugs receiving different premium proportions, were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between treatment costs and clinical outcomes and value, including progression-free survival (PFS) gain, overall survival (OS) gain, objective response rate (ORR) gain and ESMO-MCBS. We also compared the magnitude of price revisions and price reductions with different clinical values. We used regression analysis to explore the association between clinical value, price revision, and influencing factors. Results: Our cohort included 94 anticancer drugs and 119 key clinical trials. 39 drugs (41.49%) received premium pricing, while 55 drugs (58.51%) did not. Drugs with pricing premiums had higher ESMO scores than those without (3 vs. 2; P = 0.0013), with ESMO scores showing an increasing trend as the proportion of additional scores rose. Pearson correlation analysis revealed no significant association between daily treatment cost and ESMO score (r = 0.025, P = 0.79), PFS gain (r = -0.12, P = 0.37), OS gain (r = -0.25, P = 0.066), or ORR gain (r = 0.049, P = 0.8). Additionally, no significant differences were observed between high clinical value drugs (ESMO = 4-5) and low-to-medium clinical value drugs (ESMO = 1-3) in median price revision percentage and median price reduction percentage (-0.02% vs. 0.00%, P = 0.65; -9.86% vs. -13.55%, P = 0.607). Moreover, multivariate linear regression analysis revealed no association between ESMO scores, premium proportion, PFS gain, OS gain, ORR gain, approval year (P = 0.32; P = 0.06; P = 0.71; P = 0.06; P = 0.50; P = 0.51). Discussion: Our study found that Japan's price premium reflects clinical value and provides incentives for high-clinical-value anticancer drugs. However, during both initial pricing and subsequent revision phases, there is room for improvement in aligning drug prices with clinical value. Policymakers should further refine pricing and revision systems to more effectively promote clinical value-driven drug pricing.
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.