Evaluating the Potential for Oncology Products to Achieve Cost-of-Treatment Premium When Transitioning From Intravenous to Subcutaneous Delivery
Author(s)
Jona Hoxha, MPharm, MPhil1, Rosie Brady, PhD2, Grace Miller, Global Health Policy2.
1Senior Consultant, Access Infinity, London, United Kingdom, 2Access Infinity, London, United Kingdom.
1Senior Consultant, Access Infinity, London, United Kingdom, 2Access Infinity, London, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential for oncology therapies to command a cost-of-treatment (CoT) price premium when transitioning from intravenous (IV) to subcutaneous (SubQ) formulations
METHODS: A targeted secondary research approach was employed using Nuro business intelligence platform to identify a comprehensive set of analogue oncology products that initially launched in IV form and subsequently introduced SubQ formulations. These analogues were then subjected to in-depth analysis to explore pricing trends associated with the transition and publicly available reports were interrogated to determine basis of (any HTA and) pricing outcomes
RESULTS: Several factors can have an impact on the potential to achieve a CoT price premium. HTA reports of analogues revealed that payers take in consideration differential efficacy and safety, dosing, budget impact and HCRU. Where HTA assessments of re-formulations are available, any expected change in patient population size between formulations is outlined and may impact pricing negotiations. All scope markets price most analogues at CoT parity, resulting in significant differences in price/mg between SubQ and IV formulations due to dosing differences
CONCLUSIONS: Across all 9 analogues identified, CoT price parity vs. IV formulation at the list level is common. In clinical effectiveness and budget impact markets which have already reimbursed the IV formulation, SubQ re-formulations are typically priced at a list level CoT parity. In cost-effective markets, deviations from CoT parity at the list level can be explained by confidential discounts and economic analyses showing reduced HCRU.
METHODS: A targeted secondary research approach was employed using Nuro business intelligence platform to identify a comprehensive set of analogue oncology products that initially launched in IV form and subsequently introduced SubQ formulations. These analogues were then subjected to in-depth analysis to explore pricing trends associated with the transition and publicly available reports were interrogated to determine basis of (any HTA and) pricing outcomes
RESULTS: Several factors can have an impact on the potential to achieve a CoT price premium. HTA reports of analogues revealed that payers take in consideration differential efficacy and safety, dosing, budget impact and HCRU. Where HTA assessments of re-formulations are available, any expected change in patient population size between formulations is outlined and may impact pricing negotiations. All scope markets price most analogues at CoT parity, resulting in significant differences in price/mg between SubQ and IV formulations due to dosing differences
CONCLUSIONS: Across all 9 analogues identified, CoT price parity vs. IV formulation at the list level is common. In clinical effectiveness and budget impact markets which have already reimbursed the IV formulation, SubQ re-formulations are typically priced at a list level CoT parity. In cost-effective markets, deviations from CoT parity at the list level can be explained by confidential discounts and economic analyses showing reduced HCRU.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
HPR77
Topic
Health Policy & Regulatory
Topic Subcategory
Pricing Policy & Schemes
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Oncology