Maurie Markman, MD
The rising cost of oncology treatments is a natural result of the rapid advancements in the field, said Maurie Markman, MD. However, he added, unless it is addressed quickly, patients will not be able to access the therapy they need.
, Markman discussed the evolution of biosimilars and ongoing efforts to make treatments more affordable for patients with cancer.
OncLive: What is your opinion on the use of biosimilars?
: Biosimilars are a very interesting concept. Obviously, at the highest level, you look at them and say, "Wow, they will really lower the cost of expensive drugs." It's like “mom and apple pie”—how could you possibly disagree with that? However, I understand that biosimilars are not the same as small-molecule generic drugs. Safety and efficacy are obviously critical endpoints, but based on the additional data we have seen so far, we are not seeing much cost reduction yet. I couldn't tell you the reason why that is, because I am not an economist.
One would hope that the industry would eventually embrace this concept, and as patents expire for the generic drugs, biosimilars would become more prominent in the landscape. [Before this can happen], they need to be proven effective in various settings. Then we would move on to the so-called next generation of biosimilars, as we see with other classes of drugs.
How much of a problem is cost in oncology?
Biosimilars are part of a much larger topic, which is the current price of antineoplastics. It is the price of success, but it is a price that society can no longer continue to bear. We have to figure this out. It would be so simple if there was a magic bullet, but there just isn't. As a healthcare industry, as medical oncologists, as citizens of the United States, we have to come together for a solution.
We are talking about some incredible advances made in the treatment of [patients with] cancer and specifically gynecologic cancer, which is my interest. There is no question regarding the [overall] progress that we have made [in the space].
However, then someone could come in and say, "Well, it doesn't matter because patients will not be able to afford it." They will not be able to receive these drugs because the people paying the bills for them—the employers or whoever—will not be able to afford it. The insurance companies will not be able to afford it. How could that possibly be a good thing? We have to figure this out.
As we move to this concept of precision medicine in various cancers, is this the best cost-effective strategy, because you are essentially giving therapy with a high probability to work?
It is a really wonderful question. I will tell you that most of the pundits are opposed to precision medicine because they simply don't understand it. These pundits point out that precision medicine is not actually saving money because the treatment is more expensive. In fact, it is the case that, as a conceptual framework, precision medicine very much supports cost effectiveness.
Precision medicine turns the treatment of [patients with] cancer into a process. We start with step 1, move on to step 2, and we know the impact each step will have. For example, in chronic myeloid leukemia, no one today would argue that we shouldn't treat these patients with imatinib (Gleevec). By the way, that drug is generic right now. However, the fact of the matter is that precision medicine addresses this issue. You are giving the right drug to the right patient at the right time. Nice slogan, right? It just makes sense.
... to read the full story