Introduction New targeted therapies have changed cancer treatment in the past decades. However, high prices of targeted anticancer medications have increased economic burden for both patients and health insurance systems. In July 2017, China implemented combined medication price negotiation and mandatory reimbursement policies for 15 targeted anticancer medications. This study assesses effects of the policy on hospital procurement prices, volumes and spending. Methods Using a quasi-experimental interrupted time series design, we analysed procurement data from the Chinese Medical Economic Information of 789 public hospitals in 30 provinces between January 2016 and September 2018. The intervention group consisted of 15 targeted anticancer medications with negotiated prices in 2017. The comparison group consisted of six targeted anticancer medications without negotiated prices by 2018. The effective date of the policy was September 2017. Results After the implementation of the 2017 medication price negotiation and reimbursement policy, cost per defined daily dose (DDD) of the 15 targeted anticancer medications dropped US$71.21 on average from an average US$169.24/DDD before (p=0.000). Compared with what would have happened without the intervention, cost/DDD of price-negotiated medications decreased by 48.9% (p=0.000), procurement volumes increased by 143.0% (p=0.000) and hospital medication spending decreased by 6.9% (p=0.146). Conclusions The 2017 medication price negotiation and reimbursement policy decreased targeted medication procurement costs per DDD, increased volumes procured and at least temporarily contained spending. These changes should result in better access to and affordability of targeted anticancer medications in China.

Aggressive care near patients’ end-of-life (EOL) entails limited therapeutic values, high costs, and compromised quality of life (QoL). In this study, we aimed to estimate the global prevalence of aggressive care in patients with cancer and explore potential subgroup differences. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from database inception to Feb 16, 2024. Eligible studies reported the prevalence of aggressive EOL care using at least one quantifiable measure. Random-effects models were used to derive the pooled prevalence and subgroup analyses were performed to investigate differences in the prevalence of aggressive care across regions, the country's level of economic development, tumor types, ages, and sample sizes. This review is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42023467839. A total of 129 studies were included in this systematic review, of which 118 (91.5%) were from high-income countries. Studies were mostly conducted in the Americas (60, 46.5%), Europe (34, 26.4%), and Western Pacific (31, 24.0%). Measures of aggressive care were inconsistent across studies, with the most commonly used measure being the use of chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life (DOLs) (n = 87, 67.4%) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay in the last 30 DOLs (n = 87, 67.4%). The prevalence of the five claims-based measures of aggressive care, i.e., chemotherapy in the last 14 DOLs, ICU stay in the last 30 DOLs, repeated hospital admission in the last 30 DOLs, repeated emergency room (ER) visit in the last 30 DOLs, and hospice care <3 days before death were 11.6% (95% CI, 9.8%–13.4%), 14.4% (95% CI, 11.8%–17.0%), 17.9% (95% CI, 14.4%–21.4%), 14.8% (95% CI, 12.0%–17.6%), and 14.4% (95% CI, 11.2%–17.6%), respectively. Regional differences were statistically significant in the prevalence of ICU stay and repeated hospital admission in the last 30 DOLs (p < 0.01; p = 0.03). Patients with hematologic malignancies were more likely to receive aggressive care than those with solid tumors, as seen in their higher rates of chemotherapy in the last 14 DOLs (21.7% versus 11.6%; p = 0.03), ICU stay in the last 30 DOLs (25.5% versus 10.8%; p < 0.01), and hospice care <3 days before death (26.7% versus 14.2%; p < 0.01). In addition, the prevalence of chemotherapy in the last 14 DOLs (26.2%; p < 0.01) and repeated hospital admission in the last 30 DOLs (31.4%; p < 0.01) were highest among pediatric patients with cancer. This meta-analysis found that aggressive EOL care was common in patients with cancer, regardless of the definition used, and varied by regions and populations. It is necessary to be aware of the global burden of aggressive care for patients with cancer near their EOL and take prompt action to address it. 10.13039/501100001809 National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72274004).

The consumption of antibiotics is a major driver in the development of antimicrobial resistance. This study aims to identify the trends and patterns of the total antibiotic consumption in China’s tertiary hospitals from 2011 to 2015 by retrospectively analyzing aggregated monthly surveillance data on antibiotic sales made to 468 hospitals from 28 provinces. Antibiotic consumption was expressed in DDD per 1,000 inhabitants per day (DID). We compared population weighted antibiotic consumption patterns in China with European countries using indicators from the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption (ESAC). Total antibiotic consumption, including all the specific antibiotic class except for aminoglycoside antibacterials, were significantly increased during the study period from an average of 7.97 DID in 2011 to 10.08 DID in 2015. In 2015, the eastern regions of China consumed the most antibiotics using population denominator while the western regions consumed the most using inpatient denominator. Cephalosporins accounted for 28.6% of total DID, followed by beta-lactam-beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations (20.0%), macrolides (17.4%), and fluoroquinolones (10.5%). Antibiotic in parenteral form accounted for nearly half of all antibiotics. Although over the past few years major efforts had been made to reduce the risks of excessive antibiotic use through antibiotic stewardship, total antibiotic consumption showed a significant upward trend during the study period. A consistent preference for cephalosporins, macrolides, beta-lactam-beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations, as well as parenteral preparations was observed.

The primary goal of cancer drug therapy is to prolong life or to improve quality of life.^1,2 Overall survival (OS) is the most reliable clinical trial end point to inform regulatory approvals of new cancer drugs.^3,4 However, most cancer drugs approved in the US and Europe lack evidence of OS benefit. For instance, more than two-thirds of cancer drug approvals granted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2008 and 2012 were based on surrogate end points, and only 14% of drugs initially approved on the basis of surrogate end points had demonstrated OS benefits after a median follow-up of 4.4 years.⁵ Further, drugs met the threshold for clinically meaningful benefit in less than half of trials supporting solid tumor indication approvals by the FDA between 2006 and 2016.⁶ Similarly, among cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2009 and 2013, only 51% showed significant improvement of survival or quality of life at a minimum of 3.3 years follow-up, and survival gains over existing therapy were marginal.⁷

Background High prices of anticancer medicines have increased the economic burden for both patients and health insurance systems. Since 2017, China has implemented national price negotiations for medicines, relying on evidence from health technology assessments. We aim to assess the relation between negotiated price and value of anticancer medicines listed in China’s National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL). Methods For all price-negotiated anticancer medicines and corresponding indications listed in the latest NRDL between 2017 and 2020, we collected their clinical outcomes data, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), in supporting trials. Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to estimate the association between the daily cost and clinical benefit of each indication. Results In total, 75 indications of 46 branded anticancer medicines were included for analysis. The median daily costs for the anticancer therapies that had gone through negotiation in 2017–2020 were US$87.6, US$71.8, US$58.9, and US$39.7, respectively. For indications supported by randomized trials, no correlation between daily costs and OS and PFS benefit of the price-negotiated cancer therapies was observed (N = 41, r = −0.05, and N = 49, r = 0.04, respectively). For cancer indications newly listed in NRDL in 2020, the association between their daily cost and OS benefit was −0.78 (N = 4, p = 0.221) and 0.01 (N = 8, p = 0.986) before and after the price negotiation. Conclusion Though the negotiation policy decreased prices of anticancer medicines in China, no statistically significant correlation was observed between their daily costs and clinical benefits. A more transparent and credible pricing approach needs to be established to promote value-based anticancer medicines and healthcare system efficiency.