PD-1 value-based price benchmarks are updated while main conclusions of the analysis remain unchanged
Boston, Mass., October 7, 2016 – The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has released a corrected version of its Evidence Report assessing the comparative clinical effectiveness and value of treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This updated version corrects an error in the calculation of the discounts from list price for PD-1 and PD-L1 drugs to reach the ICER value-based price benchmarks associated with long-term cost-effectiveness. Discount figures for TKI drugs for NSCLC were calculated correctly and require no update. Corrected figures for PD-1 and PD-L1 drugs are shown below. Importantly, the conclusions of the analysis remain unchanged: significant discounts from list price for PD-1 and PD-L1 drugs would be needed to reach a price range that aligns well with how much added benefit these drugs provide for patients.
All key stakeholders in the ICER report process will be directly notified of this correction, including patient groups and drug manufacturers. The voting members of the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council have also been notified of this change and will be using the updated report as the basis of the discussions and votes at the public meeting to discuss the report on October 20th in St. Louis, MO. Outreach to media outlets with the corrected information will also be done.
Atezolizumab 1200mg vial:
- Previous value-based price benchmark discount: 47%-62%
- Corrected discount: 31%-53%
Pembrolizumab 100mg vial:
- Previous value-based price benchmark discount: 61%-73%
- Corrected discount: 39%-61%
Nivolumab 100mg vial:
- Previous value-based price benchmark discount: 52%-65%
- Corrected discount: 57%-68%
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent non-profit research institute that produces reports analyzing the evidence on the effectiveness and value of drugs and other medical services. ICER’s reports include evidence-based calculations of prices for new drugs that accurately reflect the degree of improvement expected in long-term patient outcomes, while also highlighting price levels that might contribute to unaffordable short-term cost growth for the overall health care system.
ICER’s reports incorporate extensive input from all stakeholders and are the subject of public hearings through three core programs: the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF), the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (Midwest CEPAC), and the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC). These independent panels review ICER’s reports at public meetings to deliberate on the evidence and develop recommendations for how patients, clinicians, insurers, and policymakers can improve the quality and value of health care. For more information about ICER, please visit ICER’s website.