, new research shows.
“Our study of people with neurologic conditions found that fewer than 20% were being treated with new medications,” study author Brian C. Callaghan, MD, with University of Michigan Health in Ann Arbor, said in a statement.
“For new, high-cost medications that have similar effectiveness to older drugs, limited use is likely appropriate. However, future studies are needed to look into whether the high costs are barriers to those new medications that can really make a difference for people living with neurologic disease,” Dr. Callaghan said.
The study was published online in Neurology.
Most expensive drugs
Using insurance claims data, the investigators compared the utilization and costs of new-to-market drugs from 2014 to 2018 with those for existing guideline-supported medications for treating 11 neurologic conditions.
The new drugs included:
- erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab for migraine.
- ocrelizumab and peginterferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis (MS).
- pimavanserin and safinamide for Parkinson’s disease.
- droxidopa for orthostatic hypertension.
- eculizumab for myasthenia gravis (MG).
- edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
- deutetrabenazine and valbenazine for Huntington’s disease and tardive dyskinesia.
- patisiran and inotersen for transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR).
- eteplirsen and deflazacort for Duchenne disease.
- nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).
Utilization of new drugs was modest – they accounted for one in five prescriptions for every condition except tardive dyskinesia (32% for valbenazine), the researchers noted.
Mean out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for the new medications, although there was large variability among individual drugs.
The two most expensive drugs were edaravone, for ALS, with a mean out-of-pocket cost of $713 for a 30-day supply, and eculizumab, for MG, which costs $91 per month.
“For new-to-market medications, the distribution of out-of-pocket costs were highly variable and the trends over time were unpredictable compared with existing guideline-supported medications,” the authors reported.
They noted that potential reasons for low utilization of newer agents include delay in provider uptake and prescriber and/or patient avoidance because of high cost.
Given that most of the new neurologic agents offer little advantage compared with existing treatments – exceptions being new drugs for SMA and ATTR – drug costs should be a key consideration in prescribing decisions, Dr. Callaghan and colleagues concluded.
One limitation of the study is that follow-up time was short for some of the recently approved medications. Another limitation is that the number of people in the study who had rare diseases was small.
Revolution in neurotherapeutics
“We are living in a time when new treatments bring hope to people with neurologic diseases and disorders,” Orly Avitzur, MD, president of the American Academy of Neurology, said in a statement.
“However, even existing prescription medication can be expensive and drug prices continue to rise. In order for neurologists to provide people with the highest quality care, it is imperative that new drugs are accessible and affordable to the people who need them,” Dr. Avitzur added.
Writing in a linked editorial, A. Gordon Smith, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said there is a revolution in neurotherapeutics, with particularly robust growth in new drug approvals for orphan diseases (those affecting < 200,000 Americans).
“This study adds to a growing literature indicating rising drug prices are a threat to the health care system. No matter how effective a disease-modifying therapy may be, if a patient cannot afford the cost, it doesn’t work,” Dr. Smith wrote.
He added that neurologists must be “diligent in assessing for financial toxicity and appropriately tailor individual treatment recommendations. We must insist on development of point-of-care tools to accurately estimate each patient’s potential financial toxicity including RTBT [real-time benefit tools].
“Neurologists’ primary obligation is to the individual patient, but we are also compelled to support access to high-quality care for all people, which requires advocacy for appropriate policy reforms to ensure value based and fair drug pricing and treatment success,” Dr. Smith added.
The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology Health Services Research Subcommittee. Dr. Callaghan consults for a PCORI grant, DynaMed, receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology, and performs medical/legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.