Drug costs and benefits of medical treatments in high-unmet need solid tumours in the Nordic countries
(2016) In Journal of Cancer Policy 7. p.12-22- Abstract
Introduction: Regional and hospital decision-makers increasingly require analyses assessing the cost-benefit profile of new cancer drugs. This analysis evaluates the cost-benefit profile of nano albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) in pancreatic cancer, versus other drugs indicated in high-unmet need solid tumour indications in Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden). Methods: For a selected number of cancer dugs, approved for metastatic cancer or non-curable treatment intention patients by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) after 2000, and indicated in high-unmet need solid tumours (defined as OS in first line for trial comparator ≤12 months), a regression analysis was conducted. Overall treatment costs of... (More)
Introduction: Regional and hospital decision-makers increasingly require analyses assessing the cost-benefit profile of new cancer drugs. This analysis evaluates the cost-benefit profile of nano albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) in pancreatic cancer, versus other drugs indicated in high-unmet need solid tumour indications in Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden). Methods: For a selected number of cancer dugs, approved for metastatic cancer or non-curable treatment intention patients by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) after 2000, and indicated in high-unmet need solid tumours (defined as OS in first line for trial comparator ≤12 months), a regression analysis was conducted. Overall treatment costs of cancer drugs, divided by OS and PFS months, were related to the clinical improvement offered versus trial comparator. Results: Eleven of 42 drugs (26.2%) with at least one indication in solid tumours met inclusion criteria. On average, a good (R2 = 0.5359) fit between costs per OS month and OS relative benefit versus trial comparator was observed. Nab-paclitaxel offered an OS improvement of +27% versus trial comparator (average improvement: +31%), at a cost per OS month of €1,684 (average cost: €2,247). Correlation between costs per PFS month and relative PFS benefit versus trial comparator was still observed, but the goodness of fit was lower (R2 = 0.1853) than for the OS analysis. Conclusion: Treatment costs of new cancer therapies should reflect their clinical value, consistently among different indications with comparable characteristics. Nab-paclitaxel, recently approved in pancreatic cancer, showed a similar cost per OS or PFS month ratio compared to other drugs for high-unmet need solid tumours.
(Less)
- author
- Osterlund, Pia ; Sorbye, Halfdan ; Pfeiffer, Per ; Johnsson, Anders LU ; Rodrigues, Filipe and Furneri, Gianluca
- publishing date
- 2016-03-01
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- Journal of Cancer Policy
- volume
- 7
- pages
- 11 pages
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:84962593268
- wos:000379251700003
- ISSN
- 2213-5383
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jcpo.2015.12.003
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- id
- 9083cecf-f278-4001-ac25-c5fde654a888
- date added to LUP
- 2016-06-02 15:32:34
- date last changed
- 2024-01-04 07:59:10
@article{9083cecf-f278-4001-ac25-c5fde654a888,
abstract = {{<p>Introduction: Regional and hospital decision-makers increasingly require analyses assessing the cost-benefit profile of new cancer drugs. This analysis evaluates the cost-benefit profile of nano albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) in pancreatic cancer, versus other drugs indicated in high-unmet need solid tumour indications in Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden). Methods: For a selected number of cancer dugs, approved for metastatic cancer or non-curable treatment intention patients by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) after 2000, and indicated in high-unmet need solid tumours (defined as OS in first line for trial comparator ≤12 months), a regression analysis was conducted. Overall treatment costs of cancer drugs, divided by OS and PFS months, were related to the clinical improvement offered versus trial comparator. Results: Eleven of 42 drugs (26.2%) with at least one indication in solid tumours met inclusion criteria. On average, a good (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.5359) fit between costs per OS month and OS relative benefit versus trial comparator was observed. Nab-paclitaxel offered an OS improvement of +27% versus trial comparator (average improvement: +31%), at a cost per OS month of €1,684 (average cost: €2,247). Correlation between costs per PFS month and relative PFS benefit versus trial comparator was still observed, but the goodness of fit was lower (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.1853) than for the OS analysis. Conclusion: Treatment costs of new cancer therapies should reflect their clinical value, consistently among different indications with comparable characteristics. Nab-paclitaxel, recently approved in pancreatic cancer, showed a similar cost per OS or PFS month ratio compared to other drugs for high-unmet need solid tumours.</p>}},
author = {{Osterlund, Pia and Sorbye, Halfdan and Pfeiffer, Per and Johnsson, Anders and Rodrigues, Filipe and Furneri, Gianluca}},
issn = {{2213-5383}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{03}},
pages = {{12--22}},
publisher = {{Elsevier}},
series = {{Journal of Cancer Policy}},
title = {{Drug costs and benefits of medical treatments in high-unmet need solid tumours in the Nordic countries}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpo.2015.12.003}},
doi = {{10.1016/j.jcpo.2015.12.003}},
volume = {{7}},
year = {{2016}},
}