CER Daily Newsfeed

Apalutamide vs. Enzalutamide: Survival in Prostate Cancer

(11/29, Bioengineer.org) reports “...At its core, the comparative analysis hinges on clinical endpoints that define success in cancer treatment: progression-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life metrics. Both apalutamide and enzalutamide have been shown to prolong life by delaying cancer progression. However, the nuances of how each drug achieves this highlight crucial differences in mechanisms of action that warrant further exploration.” Full

Real-World Usage of Nintedanib for PPF Differs From Trial Settings

(12/1, Jared Kaltwasser, The American Journal of Managed Care) reports “Real-world data on usage of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor nintedanib (Ofev; Boehringer Ingelheim) suggest there is significant dissonance between how the therapy is being used to treat non–idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis that has progressed to progressive pulmonary fibrosis (non-IPF PPF) in clinical practice and how it was used in clinical trials. The report, published in BMJ Open, suggests additional research is needed to better understand how the therapy performs in real-world practice.” Full

UK-US Trade Deal Brings Higher UK Drug Prices And No Tariffs On Exports To US

(12/1, Francesca Bruce, Pink Sheet) reports “...Under the newly-announced UK-US trade deal, the UK will increase the thresholds used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new medicines, which should allow higher prices for innovative therapies.” Subscription Required

The Erosion of Evidence-Based Medicine: A Doctor’s Warning

(12/1, Corinne Sundar Rao, MD, KevinMD.com) comments “...When physicians endorse therapies without solid data, we expose patients to unknown risks. We weaken public trust in our profession. And we become a salesperson, not a clinician. Medicine loses something every time we prioritize trends over truth. Innovation is important. Curiosity is essential. Emerging therapeutics are exciting. But none of it replaces evidence. If we abandon caution, if we stop demanding data, if we let commerce drive practice, then yes, evidence-based medicine may very well die. It won’t be a dramatic collapse, but rather a slow fall, through a thousand small compromises.” Full

Despite Increase, Most CEAs Still Omit Societal Costs

(12/1, Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health) comments “...We used the Tufts-CEVR CEA Registry to examine 7,800 cost-effectiveness studies from 2013–2023. We found that although CEAs are including societal costs more frequently (increasing from 19% to 28% during the study period), most still omit societal costs. Other key findings: Results became more favorable in 74% of CEAs when studies included societal costs; Compared to US-based studies, CEAs from Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands were more likely to include societal costs, while studies from Canada, Australia, and the UK were less likely to include them.” Full

Denmark Outlines New Framework to Standardize Access to Cancer Medicines

(12/1, The Pharma Letter) reports “...Under the new framework, cost management approaches must not limit access to individually tailored cancer treatments, a key point of concern for patient groups and clinicians. The agreement also highlights a push for greater use of real-world clinical data.” Subscription Required

Key Findings from HTAIn’s Health Technology Studies

(11/28, Bioengineer.org) reports “...Moreover, the positive implications of HTAIn extend beyond technology assessment; they influence broader public health policy and strategies addressing systemic health issues. For example, HTA can identify inadequacies in current practices, challenging the status quo of healthcare delivery. By reassessing the effectiveness of widely used technologies, HTA can usher in changes that improve overall health equity and access, particularly in underserved populations.” Full