Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if clinical benefits of novel anticancer drugs, measured by the ASCO Value Framework and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, have increased over time in parallel with increasing costs., Methods: Anticancer drugs from phase III randomized controlled trials cited for clinical efficacy evidence in drug approvals between January 2006 to December 2015 were identified and scored using both frameworks. For each drug, the monthly price and incremental anticancer drug costs were calculated. Relationships between cost and year of approval were examined using generalized linear regressions models. Ordinary least square models were used to evaluate relationships between ASCO and ESMO scores and year of approval. Spearman correlation coefficients between costs and clinical benefit scores were calculated., Results: In total, 42 randomized controlled trials were included. Both monthly prices and incremental anticancer drug costs were significantly associated with year of approval and showed an average annual increase of 9% and 21%, respectively. The predicted mean incremental anticancer drug cost increased from $30,447 in 2006 to $161,141 in 2015 (greater than five-fold increase). Both ASCO and ESMO scores were not statistically associated with year of approval or correlated with monthly prices or incremental anticancer drug costs., Conclusion: Over the past decade, costs of novel oncology drugs have increased, while clinical benefits of these medications have not experienced a proportional positive change. The incremental anticancer drug costs have increased at a much greater rate than monthly prices, indicating that the increase in anticancer drug costs may be higher than commonly reported.

Purpose: Cancer drug wastage occurs when a parenteral drug within a fixed vial is not administered fully to a patient. This study investigated the extent of drug wastage, the financial impact on the hospital budget, and the cost savings associated with current mitigation strategies., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study in three University of Toronto-affiliated hospitals of various sizes. We recorded the actual amount of drug wasted over a 2-week period while using current mitigation strategies. Single-dose vial cancer drugs with the highest wastage potentials were identified (14 drugs). To calculate the hypothetical drug wastage with no mitigation strategies, we determined how many vials of drugs would be needed to fill a single prescription., Results: The total drug costs over the 2 weeks ranged from $50,257 to $716,983 in the three institutions. With existing mitigation strategies, the actual drug wastage over the 2 weeks ranged from $928 to $5,472, which was approximately 1% to 2% of the total drug costs. In the hypothetical model with no mitigation strategies implemented, the projected drug cost wastage would have been $11,232 to $149,131, which accounted for 16% to 18% of the total drug costs. As a result, the potential annual savings while using current mitigation strategies range from 15% to 17%., Conclusion: The financial impact of drug wastage is substantial. Mitigation strategies lead to substantial cost savings, with the opportunity to reinvest those savings. More research is needed to determine the appropriate methods to minimize risk to patients while using the cost-saving mitigation strategies.

Purpose: Patients with unresectable wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer benefit from fluoropyrimidines (FP), oxaliplatin (O), irinotecan (I), bevacizumab (Bev), and epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI). The most cost-effective regimen remains unclear., Methods: A Markov model was constructed to examine the costs and outcomes of three treatment strategies: strategy A (reference strategy): EGFRI monotherapy in third line ([3L]; ie, first-line [1L]: Bev + FOLFIRI [FP + I] or FOLFOX [FP + O]; second line [2L]: FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 3L: EGFRI); strategy B: EGFRI and I in 3L (ie, 1L: Bev + FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 2L: FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 3L: EGFRI + I); and strategy C: EGFRI in 1L (ie, 1L: EGFRI + FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 2L: Bev + FOLFIRI/FOLFOX; 3L: best supportive care). Efficacy data of the treatments were obtained from the literature. Health system resource use information was derived from chart review and the literature. Using Euro-QOL 5 Dimensions, utilities were obtained by surveying medical oncologists and costs from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the literature. The perspective of the Canadian public health care system was used over a 5-year time horizon with a 5% discount in 2012 Canadian dollars., Results: All three strategies had similar efficacy, but strategy C was most expensive. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for strategies B and C compared with A were 119,623 and 3,176,591, respectively. The model was primarily driven by the acquisition cost of the drugs. Strategy B was most cost effective when the willingness-to-pay threshold was > $130,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analysis showed that strategy C would be cost-effective only when the progression-free survival of EGFRI is better than Bev in 1L with hazard ratio < 0.23 at willingness-to-pay of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year., Conclusion: First-line use of EGFRI in metastatic colorectal cancer is not cost effective at its current pricing relative to Bev., (Copyright © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose As costs of cancer care rise, there has been a shift to focus on value. Drug wastage affects costs to patients and health care systems without adding value. Historically, cost-effectiveness analyses have used models that assume no drug wastage; however, this may not reflect real-world practices. We sought to identify the frequency of drug wastage modeling in economic evaluations of modern parenteral therapies for hematologic malignancies. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of new US Food and Drug Administration-approved parenteral chemotherapies with indications for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of studies that modeled drug wastage in base-case analyses. If wastage was considered in primary analyses, we reported the impact of wastage on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and drug acquisition costs. Results Wastage was considered in base-case analyses in less than one third of all publications reviewed (12 of 38; 32%). Of these, two studies went on to complete sensitivity analyses and reported significant changes in the calculated ICER as a result. In one study, the ICER increased by 32%, and in the second, accounting for wastage changed a positive ICER to a dominant result. Conclusion Potential costs associated with drug wastage are considered in only one third of modern cost-effectiveness models. The impact of wastage on calculated ICERs and drug acquisition costs is potentially substantial. The modeling of wastage in base-case and sensitivity analyses is recommended for future economic evaluations of new intravenous therapies for hematologic malignancies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]