Advanced

Drug costs and benefits of medical treatments in high-unmet need solid tumours in the Nordic countries

Osterlund, Pia; Sorbye, Halfdan; Pfeiffer, Per; Johnsson, Anders LU ; Rodrigues, Filipe and Furneri, Gianluca (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)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Journal of Cancer Policy
volume
7
pages
11 pages
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • Scopus:84962593268
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
2016-11-08 07:43:06
@misc{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},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {03},
  pages        = {12--22},
  publisher    = {ARRAY(0x910cbb0)},
  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},
  volume       = {7},
  year         = {2016},
}