Cancer drug prices are high on the policy agenda worldwide. Previous research found no association between cancer drug benefits and prices at the time of regulatory approval. Drugs approved in the US with uncertain benefits may have spill-over effects in other settings. Our objective was to compare the evidence supporting cancer drug approvals in the US and Brazil, and to examine the association between cancer drug prices and availability of added therapeutic benefit.

We matched all novel cancer drugs approved in the US from 2010–2019 to approvals in Brazil. We extracted data on pivotal study design characteristics and outcomes in the US and Brazil, and evidence supporting price approval in Brazil, including availability of added therapeutic benefit.

From 2010–2019, fifty-six cancer drugs with matching indications were approved in US and Brazil and had their prices authorized in Brazil by December 2020. Drug were available in Brazil following a median 522 days after US approval (IQR: 351–932). In the US, thirty-four (60.7 percent) of the drugs had pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Twelve (21.4 percent) had overall survival benefit. By the time of Brazilian approval, forty-one (73.2 percent) drugs had pivotal RCTs and twenty-two (39.3 percent) had overall survival benefit. A total of twenty-eight (50 percent) drugs did not demonstrate added therapeutic benefit over other authorized drugs for the same indication and had a median reduction from requested to approved price of 6.1 percent (IQR: 0–27.8 percent) in Brazil. The twenty-seven (48.2 percent) drugs with added therapeutic benefit had a median price reduction of 2.0 percent (IQR: 0–9.2 percent).

Half of new cancer drugs approved in Brazil failed to demonstrate added therapeutic benefit. The Brazilian pricing system secured considerable price reductions, ensuring that prices for medicines with no added therapeutic benefit were not higher than existing treatments for the same approved indication. Although evidence was more mature by the time of Brazilian review, pivotal studies often lacked randomization and overall survival endpoints.

Economic models play a central role in the decision-making process of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Inadequate validation methods allow for errors to be included in economic models. These errors may alter the final recommendations and have a significant impact on outcomes for stakeholders.

To describe the patterns of technical errors found in NICE submissions and to provide an insight into the validation exercises carried out by the companies prior to submission.

All forty-one single technology appraisals (STAs) completed in 2017 by NICE were reviewed and all were on medicines. The frequency of errors and information on their type, magnitude, and impact was extracted from publicly available NICE documentation along with the details of model validation methods used.

Two STAs (5 percent) had no reported errors, nineteen (46 percent) had between one and four errors, sixteen (39 percent) had between five and nine errors, and four (10 percent) had more than ten errors. The most common errors were transcription errors (29 percent), logic errors (29 percent), and computational errors (25 percent). All STAs went through at least one type of validation. Moreover, errors that were notable enough were reported in the final appraisal document (FAD) in eight (20 percent) of the STAs assessed but each of these eight STAs received positive recommendations.

Technical errors are common in the economic models submitted to NICE. Some errors were considered important enough to be reported in the FAD. Improvements are needed in the model development process to ensure technical errors are kept to a minimum.

To investigate the impact of the uncertainty stemming from products with European conditional marketing authorization (CMA) or authorization in exceptional circumstances (AEC) on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) recommendations.

Products which received CMA/AEC by European Medicines Agency (EMA) up to 1 December 2016 were identified and matched with corresponding NICE decisions issued by August 2017, the status of which was then traced to August 2019. We assessed whether the conversion of CMA to full marketing authorization triggered a review of a NICE decision. The odds of a recommendation carrying a commercial arrangement for products with and without CMA/AEC were calculated.

Fifty-four products were granted CMA/AEC by EMA. NICE conducted thirty evaluations of products with CMA/AEC. Twelve products were recommended by NICE by August 2017 and fourteen by August 2019. All recommendations had an associated commercial arrangement. The odds of carrying a commercial arrangement were higher for products with CMA/AEC compared to those with full authorization. Conversions from conditional to full authorization among products not recommended by NICE did not trigger an appraisal review.

Uncertainty, stemming from the lack of robust clinical data of products authorized with CMA/AEC, has a substantial impact on HTA recommendations, frequently requiring risk mitigation mechanisms such as commercial and data collection arrangements. Further analyses should be conducted to assess whether the benefits of early access strategies outweigh the risks for patients and the healthcare system.