Does Therapeutic Repurposing in Cancer Meet the Expectations of Having Drugs at a Lower Price?

Therapeutic repurposing emerged as an alternative to the traditional drug discovery and development model (DDD) of new molecular entities (NMEs). It was anticipated that by being faster, safer, and cheaper, the development would result in lower-cost drugs. As defined in this work, a repurposed cancer drug is one approved by a health regulatory authority against a non-cancer indication that then gains new approval for cancer. With this definition, only three drugs are repurposed for cancer: Bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG) vaccine (superficial bladder cancer, thalidomide [multiple myeloma], and propranolol [infantile hemangioma]). Each of these has a different history regarding price and affordability, and it is not yet possible to generalize the impact of drug repurposing on the final price to the patient. However, the development, including the price, does not differ significantly from an NME. For the end consumer, the product’s price is unrelated to whether it followed the classical development or repurposing. Economic constraints for clinical development, and drug prescription biases for repurposing drugs, are barriers yet to be overcome. The affordability of cancer drugs is a complex issue that varies from country to country. Many alternatives for having affordable drugs have been put forward, however these measures have thus far failed and are, at best, palliative. There are no immediate solutions to the problem of access to cancer drugs. It is necessary to critically analyze the impact of the current drug development model and be creative in implementing new models that genuinely benefit society.