PubMed2026
BACKGROUND: Combination therapies are increasingly central to modern pharmacotherapy, particularly in oncology and other high-burden diseases. However, pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement systems remain largely designed for single-product-single-indication interventions. When multiple patented medicines are used together, especially when owned by different manufacturers, conventional pricing frameworks may struggle to align prices with the value of the combination while preserving incentives for innovation and timely patient access. OBJECTIVE: To identify, describe, and critically assess the methods, models, and policy frameworks proposed in the literature to establish prices for combination therapies, with particular attention to value attribution mechanisms, cost-sharing arrangements between manufacturers, and budget impact considerations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and a pre-registered Open Science Framework protocol. Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EconLit, CRD databases, and grey literature sources for publications up to July 2025. Eligible studies analysed pricing approaches, economic models, reimbursement mechanisms, or policy frameworks relevant to combination therapies, including more recent multi-indication pricing literature. Given the heterogeneity of the literature, findings were synthesized using a structured narrative and thematic approach. RESULTS: Sixty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The literature was dominated by conceptual and policy analyses, with relatively few empirical or implementation-oriented studies. Value attribution emerged as the central methodological challenge in pricing combination therapies. Several complementary approaches were proposed to operationalise value attribution, including adaptations of indication- or pathway-based pricing, manufacturer cost-sharing arrangements, managed entry agreements, and outcome-based reimbursement mechanisms. Empirical evidence suggests that health systems continue to rely primarily on pragmatic and often partial solutions rather than fully specified pricing frameworks. A complementary review of the multi-indication pricing literature indicates that, although the two fields address different pricing problems, they share important methodological and institutional lessons that can inform the development of pricing frameworks for combination therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The literature provides a growing repertoire of conceptual approaches for pricing combination therapies but limited empirical evidence on implementation. Pricing frameworks should place value attribution at their core while combining complementary policy mechanisms adapted to national pricing and reimbursement systems. Lessons from multi-indication pricing provide a valuable foundation but require additional governance mechanisms to address value attribution, multi-manufacturer negotiation, and implementation challenges specific to combination therapies.