Market entry agreements for innovative pharmaceuticals subject to indication broadening: a case study for pembrolizumab in the Netherlands.

Abstract

ObjectivesManaged entry agreements (MEAs) and especially financial based agreements are commonly used in European countries for innovative cancer pharmaceuticals. These agreements facilitate access to innovative treatments while mitigating financial risks for payers. This study focuses on the confidential price agreement made by the Dutch government for the reimbursement of pembrolizumab, the implications of broadening indications on cost-effectiveness, and the viability or desirability of said agreement. MethodsWe selected five indications where pembrolizumab was deemed effective and developed portioned survival models for each indication. Survival and progression-free survival data from the published trials were utilized to recreate individual patient data and we extrapolated --using parametric models-- to a time horizon of 30 years. Inputs for both quality of life and costs were derived from available literature and were indexed. ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged between €35,313 and €322, 349 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) depending on the indication. Only one indication fell under the €80,000 (or €100,000) cost-effectiveness threshold. When applying the average reported discount on intramural pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands, ICERs ranged between €20,881 and €252,934 per QALY gained, and the €80,000 (or €100,000) threshold was met in three indications out of five. ConclusionsOur results show that pembrolizumab could be cost-effective in some indications, depending on the confidential price agreement established. However, the possibility of reimbursing not cost-effective care when the price is anchored in one indication remains possible. Indication-based pricing (IBP) could help align value and price for innovative pharmaceuticals that are subject to indication broadening.