Resource Use and Care Quality Differences Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Chemotherapy.

Importance: Medicare Advantage (MA) has grown significantly over the last decade; however, MA's performance for patients with serious conditions, such as cancer, remains unclear. Objective: To compare resource use and care quality between MA and traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries undergoing cancer chemotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used TM claims and MA encounter records from January 2015 to December 2019. Participants were MA and TM beneficiaries who initiated cancer chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019. Inverse probability of treatment weighting balanced characteristics between MA and TM beneficiaries, and regression estimation was used. The analysis was conducted between August 2023 and May 2024. Exposure: Chemotherapy initiation after a 1-year washout period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation. Resource use was measured using standardized prices for services in both MA and TM, covering hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, Part D drugs, and hospice services. Chemotherapy utilization was examined for Part B chemotherapy, Part B supportive drugs, and Part D chemotherapy. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations, avoidable ED visits, preventable hospitalizations during the 6-month episode, and survival days up to 18 months from chemotherapy initiation. Results: The study comprised 96 501 MA enrollees contributing to 98 872 episodes (mean [SD] age, 72.9 [7.6] years; 55 859 [56.5%] female; 7371 [7.5%] Hispanic, 14 778 [14.9%] non-Hispanic Black, and 75 130 [75.0%] non-Hispanic White participants) and 206 274 TM beneficiaries, contributing 212 969 episodes (mean [SD] age, 72.7 [8.3] years; 121 263 [56.9%] female; 8356 [3.9%] Hispanic, 16 693 [7.8%] non-Hispanic Black, and 182 228 [85.6%] non-Hispanic White participants). Adjusted total resource use per enrollee during the 6-month episode was $8718 (95% CI, $8343 to $9094) lower in MA than TM ($62 599 vs $71 317). Part B chemotherapy resource use accounted for most of the difference in total resource use, with MA enrollees having $5032 (95% CI, $4772 to $5293) lower use than TM beneficiaries. Lower resource use for Part B chemotherapy in MA was associated with both fewer chemotherapy visits (-1.06 visits; 95% CI, -1.10 to -1.02 visits) and less expensive chemotherapy per visit (-$277; 95% CI, -$275 to -$179). Findings on quality were mixed, but importantly, survival did not differ between MA and TM patients who initiated chemotherapy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, MA enrollment was associated with lower resource use but not shorter survival.

Narrative review of value frameworks in urothelial carcinoma and positioning of enfortumab vedotin.

AIMS: Evaluate existing oncology value frameworks in terms of their methodology, structure, characteristics, and functionality using the example of enfortumab vedotin, an approved therapy for urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: A search of PubMed, grey literature, and official websites of relevant international organizations was performed from January 2022 to March 2023. RESULTS: Six frameworks were identified and analyzed, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology's assessment framework, European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's DrugAbacus, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's assessment framework, and the Drug Assessment Framework. Comparisons across frameworks were challenging, owing to differing approaches, objectives, perspectives, methodology, and criteria. Based on the results of the EV-301 study (NCT03474107), the European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale assigned a score of 4 out of 5 to enfortumab vedotin administered after chemotherapy and immunotherapy. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Evidence Blocks enabled assessment of enfortumab vedotin compared with other treatments for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, resulting in the positioning of enfortumab vedotin as a preferred regimen after chemotherapy and immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Application of value frameworks in oncology can contribute to informed value-based decision-making. However, comparisons across frameworks should be made with caution and limited to the same lines of treatment. Enfortumab vedotin may contribute to optimizing outcomes in patients previously treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Changes in Out-of-Pocket Spending for Common Oral Cancer Medications After the Inflation Reduction Act.

This economic evaluation assesses changes to patient out-of-pocket spending for oral cancer medications before and after the Inflation Reduction Act.

Systemic treatments for advanced prostate cancer: relationship between health insurance plan and treatment costs.

OBJECTIVES: The high costs of cancer care can cause significant harm to patients and society. Prostate cancer, the leading nonskin malignancy in men, is responsible for the second-highest out-of-pocket (OOP) payments among all malignancies. Multiple first-line treatment options exist for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); although their costs vary substantially, comparative effectiveness data are limited. There is little evidence of how gross payments made by insurers and OOP payments made by patients differ by treatment and health plan type and how these payment differences relate to utilization. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We used IBM MarketScan databases from 2013-2019 to identify men with prostate cancer who initiated treatment with 1 of 6 drugs approved for first-line treatment of mCRPC. We calculated and compared gross and OOP payments and drug utilization across drug and insurance plan types. RESULTS: We identified 4298 patients who met our inclusion criteria. Insurer payments varied substantially by first-line therapy but were similar across different health plan types, except for docetaxel. OOP payments for a given first-line therapy, in contrast, varied by health plan type. Utilization of first-line therapies varied by plan type in unadjusted analyses, but not after adjusting for patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The extent to which patient OOP payments for drugs reflect differences in gross payments made by insurers varies across health insurance plan types. However, even though OOP payments for the same treatment differ across plan types, treatment choice is not significantly different across type of health insurance after controlling for patient characteristics.

Bolusing IV Administration Sets With Monoclonal Antibodies Reduces Cost and Chair Time: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies are widely used anticancer therapies. Increasing demand for ambulatory care necessitates exploration of efficiency measures. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate the impacts on chair time and associated cost of priming IV administration sets with a bolus of the prescribed monoclonal antibody drugs. A secondary objective was to assess the associated incidence of hypersensitivity reactions. METHODS: A large tertiary hospital in Brisbane, Australia, conducted a randomized controlled trial (N = 128) with a two-arm design. Included monoclonal antibodies were daratumumab, obinutuzumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab. FINDINGS: There was a statistically significant reduction in chair time for obinutuzumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab compared with the control. Findings suggest that this priming intervention reduces chair time and cost for some monoclonal antibody drugs. Future research could assess this practice in other oncology therapies.

Cost trends of metastatic renal cell carcinoma therapy: the impact of oral anticancer agents and immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy (IO) and oral anticancer agents (OAA) have improved outcomes for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but there is a need to understand real-world costs from the perspective of payers and patients. METHODS: We used retrospective fee-for-service Medicare 100% claims data to study patients diagnosed with mRCC in 2015-2019. We identified initial treatment type and costs (the year after diagnosis) and analyzed differences in monthly and 12-month costs over time and between OAA, IO, and combination groups and the association between Out-Of-Pocket (OOP) costs and adherence. RESULTS: We identified 15 407 patients with mRCC (61% male; 85% non-Hispanic White). A total of 6196 received OAA, IO, or combination OAA/IO as initial treatment. OAA use decreased (from 31% to 11%) with a simultaneous rise in patients receiving IO (3% to 26%) or combination IO/OAA therapy (1% to 11%). Medicare payments for all patients with mRCC increased by 41%, from $60 320 (95% confidence interval = 58 260 to 62 380) in 2015 to $85 130 (95% confidence interval = 82 630 to 87 630) in 2019. Payments increased in patients who received OAA, IO, or combination OAA/IO but were stable in those with other/no treatment. Initial higher OOP responsibility ($200-$1000) was associated with 13% decrease in percent days covered in patients receiving OAA in the first 90 days of treatment, compared with those whose OOP responsibility was less than $200. CONCLUSION: From 2015 to 2019, costs for Medicare patients with mRCC rose substantially due to more patients receiving IO or IO/OAA combined therapy and increases in costs among those receiving those therapies. Increased OOP costs was associated with decreased adherence.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the tislelizumab versus docetaxel for advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in China.

Background: Tislelizumab is the first PD-1 inhibitor in China to demonstrate superior efficacy in second-line or third-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab compared to docetaxel from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A dynamic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab in comparison to docetaxel in second or third-line treatment. The efficacy data utilized in the model were derived from the RATIONALE-303 clinical trial, while cost and utility values were obtained from the drug data service platform and published studies. The primary outcomes of the model encompassed quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to validate the robustness of the base case analysis results. Results: The tislelizumab group demonstrated a cost increase of CNY 117,473 and a gain of 0.58 QALYs compared to the docetaxel group, resulting in an ICER value of CNY 202,927 per QALY gained. Conclusion: The administration of tislelizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC not only extends the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Moreover, this treatment demonstrates a favorable cost-effectiveness profile across the Chinese population.

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant icotinib versus chemotherapy for patients with stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer in China.

OBJECTIVE: Icotinib has been approved for adjuvant treatment of stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in China, yet the long-term costs and outcomes of this strategy are unknown. Thus, we examined the cost effectiveness of adjuvant icotinib, compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, for the treatment of resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC. DESIGN: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, comparing 2-year adjuvant icotinib with four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using a Markov model. Model inputs were obtained from local data and literature. The influence of model parameters and assumptions was explored in sensitivity analyses. All costs are expressed in 2022 US dollars, and costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 5% per year. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at three times the per capita gross domestic product. SETTING: The Chinese healthcare system perspective. PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical Chinese cohort of patients with resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC. INTERVENTIONS: Icotinib versus chemotherapy. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The incremental cost per QALY gained with the use of 2-year icotinib, from the Chinese healthcare system perspective, was $3440.66 compared with adjuvant chemotherapy. At a WTP threshold of $40 500, adjuvant icotinib was the optimal treatment in over 99% of replications. The interpretation of the results was insensitive to model and input assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant icotinib may be a cost-effective treatment for resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC as the WTP threshold is set at $40 500 per QALY.

Assessment of national reimbursement anticancer medications availability in China: based on a medical institution perspective.

BACKGROUND: High clinical value national reimbursement anticancer medications (NRAMs) are pivotal treatments for patients with cancer. However, the availability of NRAMs in medical institutions is unknown. This study aimed to assess the availability of NRAMs in national and provincial medical institutions. METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilized national health insurance data to access the availability of NRAMs in national and provincial medical institutions. Further statistical analyses and visualizations were conducted in terms of medical institution level and daily cost. Using the Spearman's rank correlation test (α = 0.05), we calculated the correlation between the availability rates of NRAMs and their negotiation access time, daily cost, per capita disposable income, provincial gross product, and number of policy releases. RESULTS: Overall, 81 NRAMs, with an average availability rate of approximately 1.01% nationwide, were included. There were significant differences between provinces for each drug, and the availability of NRAMs gradually decreased in tertiary (13.41%), secondary (1.58%), and primary medical institutions (< 0.05%). Differences were also observed in the availability rate of NRAMs in various daily drug cost ranges. Among the factors examined, negotiation access time (r1 = 0.425), daily cost (r2 = - 0.326), per capita disposable income (r3 = 0.645), provincial gross product (r4 = 0.433), and number of policy releases (r5 = 0.461) were all correlated with the availability of NRAMs. CONCLUSIONS: The low availability of NRAMs in national and provincial medical institutions indicates that their willingness to equip NRAMs needs to be improved. All factors examined in this study affected the availability of NRAMs. Our findings can guide policymakers in improving relevant policies.

Budget impact analysis of introducing fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and biologics in the United States from the payer perspective.

AIMS: Fruquintinib is a selective small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-1, -2, and -3 recently approved in the United States (US) for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who have previously been treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF biological therapy, and if RAS wild-type and medically appropriate, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. This study aimed to estimate the 5-year budget impact of fruquintinib from a US payer perspective (commercial and Medicare). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to compare two scenarios: a reference scenario in which patients received regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, or trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab and an alternative scenario in which patients received reference scenario treatments or fruquintinib. Market shares were evenly divided across available options. A 5-year time horizon and a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members was assumed. The model included epidemiological inputs to estimate the eligible population; clinical inputs for treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse event (AE) frequency; and cost inputs for treatment, AEs, disease management, subsequent therapy, and terminal care costs. Budget impact was reported as total, per member per year (PMPY), and per member per month (PMPM). RESULTS: The model estimated an eligible population of 194 patients (39 per year) over 5 years. In the base case, the estimated 5-year budget impact of fruquintinib was $4,077,073 ($0.82 PMPY and 0.07 PMPM) for a commercial health plan. During the first year, the estimated budget impact was $627,570 ($0.63 PMPY and 0.05 PMPM). Results were robust across sensitivity analyses. PMPM costs from the Medicare perspective were greater than the base-case (commercial) ($0.17 vs. $0.07) due to higher incidence of CRC in that population. CONCLUSIONS: Fruquintinib is associated with a low budget impact for payers based on proposed thresholds in the US.

Fruquintinib is a treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after or not responded to multiple guideline-recommended therapies. This budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the added costs a health plan would incur over a 5-year period if it chose to cover this therapy. The analysis found that the per plan member per month cost of covering fruquintinib was $0.07 for a United States commercial health plan and $0.17 for Medicare.

[Evaluation of Health Economics in Oncology Drug Therapy].

Cancer treatment has made remarkable progress in recent years, particularly in the field of drug therapy. However, the high-cost of new drugs has led to active discussions about cost-effectiveness in cancer treatment. This article examines the pharmacoeconomics of drug therapy in cancer treatment from both macro and micro perspectives. From a macro perspective, Japan's drug pricing system determines prices based on the presence or absence of similar drugs. The system aims to balance the incentives for developing innovative new drugs with the sustainability of healthcare costs. The increasing share of drug costs in overall healthcare expenditure, especially for anticancer drugs, poses a significant challenge. From a micro perspective, hospitals face challenges in managing their revenue structure due to the low profit margins on anticancer drugs and the complex diagnosis-related group(DPC)classification system. The use of expensive anticancer drugs, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, increases the drug cost burden on hospitals. While the high-cost medical care benefit system sets an upper limit on patient out-of-pocket expenses, the increasing use of high-priced drugs remains a concern for both patients and healthcare providers. Balancing patient access to innovative treatments with the sustainability of healthcare costs is a critical issue in cancer drug therapy. Addressing this challenge requires a comprehensive approach that considers both macro and micro perspectives.

Effectiveness of Aerobic Training for Adverse Symptoms Related to Chemotherapy During Treatment: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial With Cost-Effectiveness Assessment.

BACKGROUND: One strategy to prevent adverse effects resulting from chemotherapy treatment is to perform physical exercises during treatment. However, there is still no consensus on the best type and intensity of exercise, nor when it should be started. Most studies have been carried out in patients with breast cancer, usually a few weeks after starting chemotherapy, on an outpatient basis 2 to 3 times a week. The main differences in our study are that we carried out physical training in hospitalized patients undergoing a cycle of chemotherapy for cancer treatment and that this training was carried out 5 times a week and was not restricted to a specific type of cancer. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the effects of aerobic training on symptoms related to chemotherapy (nausea, vomiting, asthenia, and sensation of weakness), fatigue, mobility, clinical complications, and length of hospital stay of patients during the drug treatment cycle. We also evaluated patient satisfaction with the proposed intervention, the adverse effects of aerobics training, and the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: This is a controlled and randomized trial with blinded evaluation that will include 94 hospitalized patients with cancer for 1 or more cycles of chemotherapy. The intervention group will perform aerobic training during a cycle of chemotherapy. The control group will receive a booklet with guidelines for staying active during the hospitalization period. The groups will be compared using a linear mixed model for fatigue, mobility, and chemotherapy-related symptoms before and after the intervention. The length of hospital stay will also be compared between groups using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The incidence of complications will be compared using the χ2 test. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will be performed for the impact of exercise and quality-adjusted life years with the EQ-5D-3L-21 quality of life trials. The implementation variables (acceptability, suitability, and feasibility) will be evaluated by frequencies. RESULTS: The clinical trial registration was approved in March 2023. Recruitment and data collection for the trial are ongoing, and the results of this study are likely to be published in late 2025. CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy has side effects that negatively impact the quality of life of patients with cancer. Aerobic exercise can reduce these side effects in a simple and inexpensive way. The field of work of physical therapists could be expanded to oncology if the intervention works. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos RBR-6b4zwx3; https://tinyurl.com/39c4c7wz. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/60828.

Asciminib for third-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on treatment-free remission approach. / [Artículo traducido] Asciminib para el tratamiento de la leucemia mieloide crónica en tercera línea: análisis coste-efectividad basado en el enfoque de remisión libre de tratamiento.

INTRODUCTION: The first targeted therapy in oncology, imatinib, revolutionized chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treatment and spurred research in targeted therapies for various cancers. CML results from a chromosomal translocation, forming the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. Asciminib has been recently approved for 3rd-line refractory or intolerant patients. Treatment-free remission (TFR) is attainable with sustained deep molecular response (DMR) and this approach could be incorporated into pharmacoeconomic models. AIMS: To establish a cost-effectiveness model comparing asciminib to approved third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (bosutinib and ponatinib) with a focus on achieving TFR. Additionally, the budgetary impact of incorporating asciminib as a therapeutic alternative is assessed. METHODS: This model is based on a Markov chain with seven states. The condition for achieving TFR is to remain for 5 years in DMR state. Efficacy of the model was measured in QALYs, and the costs included in the base case analysis are based in Spain. A probabilistic (PSA) and deterministic analysis (DSA) were carried out to assess the variability of the model. There were achieved two independent models comparing asciminib vs. bosutinib and asciminib vs. ponatinib. RESULTS: Asciminib, when compared with ponatinib, is a cost-saving alternative, as efficacy is similar between alternatives, and asciminib has a lower cost of 30,275 €. Asciminib showed 4.33 more QALYs and a higher cost (203,591 €) than bosutinib, resulting in an ICER of €47,010.49 per QALY. PSA shows that the parameters with higher influence in the variability of the model were the probability of transitioning to BP and probabilities of achieving MMR and DMR. A one-way analysis reports that the drug cost has a higher influence on both models, and the discount rate significantly affects the asciminib vs. bosutinib model. CONCLUSION: Asciminib broadens therapeutic choices for patient's refractory or intolerant to two prior lines of treatment in a cost-effective manner. The costs of drugs significantly impact the overall cost of the disease, emphasizing the importance of the selected discount rates for each drug. Given the relatively low incidence of CML, the introduction of asciminib has a limited budgetary impact, warranting individualized decisions based on patient`s clinical characteristics.

Access to essential and innovative anti-cancer medicines: a longitudinal study in Nanjing, China.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the availability, cost, affordability of anti-cancer medicines in Nanjing, Jiangsu. METHODS: A longitudinal tracking investigation study was performed to collect information about 24 essential anti-cancer medicines (EAMs) and 17 innovative anti-cancer medicines (IAMs) in 26 healthcare institutions in Nanjing from 2016 to 2020. The availability, cost, drug utilization and affordability of EAMs and IAMs were investigated. RESULTS: The availability of EAMs showed no significant changes in Nanjing, but the availability of IAMs showed a significant increase in 2018 and 2019 and tended to stabilize in 2020. For EAMs, the DDDc(Defined Daily Dose cost) of LPGs (Lowest-Priced Generics) showed no significant changes, and the DDDc of OBs (Originator Brands) and IAMs significantly decreased. The DDDs(Defined Daily Doses) of EAMs (LPGs) showed a decreasing trend since 2016 and rose again in 2019. Overall, the DDDs of EAMs (LPGs) decreased by 25.18% between 2016 and 2020, but the proportion selected for clinical treatment remained at 67.35% in 2020. The DDDs of EAMs (OBs) and IAMs both showed an increasing trend year by year, with a proportional increase of 207.72% and 652.68%, respectively; but the proportion selected for clinical treatment was only 16.09% and 16.56% respectively in 2020. EAMs (LPGs) had good affordability for urban residents but poor affordability for rural residents; the affordability of EAMs (OBs) and IAMs was poor for both urban and rural residents. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant changes in the availability and cost of EAMs (LPGs), whose lower prices showed better affordability. Although their relative change in drug utilization showed a decreasing trend, they still dominated clinical treatment. Driven by the national drug price negotiation (NDPN) policy, the availability of IAMs was on the rise. It is necessary to further develop and strengthen policies for essential medicines procurement assessment to improve the accessibility of EAMs.

The Early Access and the Potential Cost Savings by the Compassionate Use of Onco-haematological Drugs: Results from the Italian Study Compass-O.

BACKGROUND: Compassionate drug use (CDU) provides early access to not yet authorised medicines and is funded by pharmaceutical companies. The observational retrospective study Compass-O monitored the CDU of onco-haematological drugs, managed by seven Italian units for cytotoxic drug preparations (Unità Farmaci Antiblastici [UFA]), between 1 January, 2016 and 31 December, 2021. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the CDU of onco-haematological drugs managed by seven Italian UFA, between 2016 and 2021. METHODS: The seven UFA provided anonymised data concerning CDU approved in the study period. The early access and potential cost savings for the National Health System (Servizio Sanitario Nazionale [SSN]) were analysed for CDU concerning drug-therapeutic indication combinations with complete data and reimbursed by SSN up to December 2023 (date of study execution), according to the executive decision of the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco [AIFA]). Both analyses distinguished solid/liquid tumours and categorised the combinations as innovative (fully/conditionally) or non-innovative based on AIFA assessments. RESULTS: Compass-O collected 783 CDU authorisations, with 572 (73.1%) analysable in terms of early access and cost savings. On average, early access amounted to 514 days and the total cost savings was €376,115,801. Compassionate drug use approvals involved mainly solid tumours (93.7% vs 6.3% for liquid tumours), and the combination of trastuzumab emtansine-breast cancer was the most dispensed (n = 73; early access = 426 days; potential cost savings: €610,388). Out of 572 CDU approvals, 200 (35%) were innovative drug-therapeutic indication combinations, with 598 days of early access and a total potential saving of €113,124,069. CONCLUSIONS: The study Compass-O showed a significant economic burden of CDU and a relevant need for early access, particularly for innovative drugs. However, there is currently no structured monitoring of CDU in Italy, suggesting the need for a national observatory, of which Compass-O can be the pilot phase.

Clinical benefit, reimbursement outcomes, and prices of FDA-approved cancer drugs reviewed through Project Orbis in the USA, Canada, England, and Scotland: a retrospective, comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Project Orbis is a global initiative that aims to streamline regulatory review processes across international regulators in the USA, Canada, Australia, UK, Israel, Brazil, Singapore, and Switzerland to bring promising cancer drugs to patients earlier. We explored the clinical benefit, time to regulatory approval and health technology assessment recommendations, reimbursement outcomes, and monthly treatment prices of cancer drugs reviewed through this initiative. METHODS: For this retrospective, comparative analysis, we identified cancer drug approvals reviewed through Project Orbis in the USA, Canada, and the UK between May 1, 2019, and Nov 1, 2023. Approvals of cancer drugs reviewed Project Orbis were extracted from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncology Centre of Excellence and all other FDA approvals from the Drugs@FDA database. The co-primary outcomes were time of regulatory review, time from regulatory approval to health technology assessment recommendation (England, Scotland, and Canada), reimbursement outcomes, clinical benefit (defined as median gains in progression-free survival and overall survival) between cancer drug approvals reviewed by Project Orbis and other FDA approval processes, and monthly treatment prices. The Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's Exact tests were used to examine statistical significance between approvals reviewed through Project Orbis and other FDA approvals during the same period. FINDINGS: Between May 1, 2019 and Nov 1, 2023, 81 (33%) of 244 cancer drugs approved by the FDA were reviewed through Project Orbis. The median overall survival gains were 4·1 months (IQR 3·3-5·1) compared with 2·7 months (2·1-3·9) for other FDA approvals. Similarly, progression-free survival gains were 2·6 months (IQR 1·7-4·9) for Project Orbis compared with 2·6 months (0·6-5·1) for other FDA approvals. Neither overall survival (p=0·11) nor progression-free survival (p=0·44) gains were significantly different between the two cohorts of approvals. Of the 14 UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approvals reviewed by the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), the agency gave positive recommendations for all 14 (100%). Of the 15 MHRA approvals reviewed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the agency gave positive recommendations for six (40%). Of the 49 approvals reviewed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), the agency conditionally recommended 44 (90%). The time between regulatory approval to NICE recommendation increased from a median of 137 days (IQR 102-172) in 2021 to 302 days (184-483) in 2023, SMC recommendation increased from 185 days (in 2021 for one drug only) to 368 days (IQR 313-476) in 2023, and CADTH decision increased from 97 days (in 2020 for one drug only) to 202 days (IQR 153-304) in 2023. The median monthly price of approvals reviewed through Project Orbis was US$20 000 per month (IQR 13 000-37 000). INTERPRETATION: Clinical outcomes of Project Orbis were no different than other FDA approvals during the same time, and access, after a successful health technology assessment, was considerably delayed or absent, raising questions about whether Project Orbis participation translates into faster patient access to medicines with high clinical benefit and sustainable costs. Although future challenges might benefit from regulatory harmonisation, the advantages are currently unclear. FUNDING: None.

An analysis of the trends in the usage of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme-subsidised cancer drugs in Australia from 2012 to 2022.

PURPOSE: Cancer treatment remains a significant and escalating healthcare expense worldwide. Although annual reports on total cancer care costs are available, the potential impact of evolving treatment guidelines and the introduction of new drugs on future budgeting remains largely uncertain. The aim of this study was to examine the trends in the use of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS)-subsidised cancer drugs in Australia over the past decade. METHODS: PBS codes for all PBS-subsidised cancer drugs that were listed in government-endorsed treatment protocols were obtained and used to retrieve usage data. Their patterns of use, represented by the number of prescriptions (services) processed by Services Australia, were analysed for the period between 2012 and 2022. RESULTS: The overall prescribing of cancer drugs is outpacing Australia's population growth, primarily due to an ageing population and the accelerated rise in cancer diagnoses observed over the past decade. From 846 eviQ protocols, 141 cancer drugs were available on the PBS, of which kinase inhibitor (39 drugs) and monoclonal antibody drugs (24 drugs) had the highest increase in use during the study period; 16% and 23% respectively. Of the 8 drug classes, hormonal agents (20 drugs) were the most prescribed. CONCLUSION: The utilisation of PBS-listed cancer drugs is increasing faster than population growth, especially for high-cost monoclonal antibody and kinase inhibitor drugs, indicating continued pressure on government spending.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Hepatic Arterial Chemotherapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China: A Comparative Analysis of HAIC-FO and Sorafenib.

BACKGROUND The FOHAIC-1 trial showed hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (HAIC-FO) improved survival, compared with sorafenib, in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness comparison between HAIC-FO and sorafenib from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. MATERIAL AND METHODS The economic evaluation was conducted between July 2023 and February 2024, spanning a 10-year investment horizon. A Markov model was developed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of HAIC-FO vs sorafenib. Health states incorporated in the model comprised progression-free disease, progressed disease, and death. Transition probabilities were derived from data obtained from the FOHAIC-1 trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Additionally, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the model's robustness. RESULTS The HAIC-FO group accrued a total cost of $22,781, whereas the sorafenib group totaled $18,795. In terms of effectiveness, the HAIC-FO group achieved 1.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), whereas the sorafenib group attained 0.65 QALYs. Compared with sorafenib, HAIC-FO yielded an additional 0.41 QALYs at a cost of additional $3,985, resulting in an incremental cost of $9,720 per QALY gained. The one-way sensitivity analysis revealed the final ICER remained below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,492 per QALY, when considering parameter fluctuations. Additionally, probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 99.8% probability that the ICER for HAIC-FO compared with sorafenib would fall below the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS Compared with sorafenib, HAIC-FO emerged as a cost-effective first-line treatment option for patients facing advanced HCC in China.

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Systemic Treatments for Advanced and Metastatic Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in the development of biomarker-directed therapy and immunotherapy, for advanced and metastatic gastric cancers, have the potential to improve survival and quality of life. Much attention has been directed towards second- and later-line treatments, and the landscape here is evolving rapidly. However, uncertainty in relative effectiveness, high costs and uncertainty in cost effectiveness represent challenges for decision makers. OBJECTIVE: To identify economic evaluations for the second-line or later-line treatment of advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. Also, to assess key criteria (including model assumptions, inputs and outcomes), reporting completeness and methodological quality to inform future cost-effectiveness evaluations. METHODS: A systematic literature search (from database inception to 5 March 2023) of EconLit via EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library (restricted to National Health Service [NHS] Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment [HTA] Database), Embase, MEDLINE and of grey literature was conducted. This aimed to identify systemic treatments that align with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines. Data were collected on key criteria and on reporting completeness and methodological quality. A narrative synthesis focussed on cost-effectiveness and cost-of-illness studies. Outcomes of interest included total and incremental costs and outcomes (life-years and quality-adjusted life-years), ratios of incremental costs per unit outcome and other summary cost and outcome measures. Also, for cost-effectiveness studies, reporting completeness and the methodological quality were assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Philips Checklist, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 19 eligible economic evaluations were identified (cost-effectiveness studies [n = 15] and cost-of-illness studies [n = 4]). There was a general lack of consistency in the methodological approaches taken across studies. In the main, the cost-effectiveness studies indicated that the intervention under consideration was more effective and more costly than the comparator(s). However, most interventions were not cost effective. No studies were fully compliant with reporting-completeness and methodological-quality requirements. Given the lack of consistency in the approaches taken across cost-of-illness studies, outcomes could not be directly compared. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first published systematic literature review that has qualitatively synthesised economic evaluations for advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. There were differences in the approaches taken across the cost-effectiveness studies and the cost-of-illness studies. The conclusions of most of the cost-effectiveness studies were consistent despite identified differences in approaches. In the main, the interventions under consideration were not cost effective, presenting challenges to sustainability and affordability. We highlight a requirement for cost-effectiveness evaluations and for second-line or later-line treatments of advanced and metastatic gastric cancer that consider all relevant comparators and that are compliant with reporting-completeness and methodological-quality requirements. By addressing the methodological gaps identified here, future healthcare decision-making, within the context of this rapidly changing treatment landscape, would be better informed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023405951.

Commercial markups on pediatric oncology drugs at 340B pediatric hospitals.

Eligible pediatric hospitals can purchase clinician-administered drugs at discounted rates through the 340B Drug Pricing Program and charge payers prices exceeding drug acquisition costs, but the magnitude of these markups is not known. In a study of newly approved oncology drugs at pediatric 340B hospitals, median negotiated prices ranged from 102% (interquartile range [IQR]: 91%-156%) of average sales price (ASP) at Phoenix Children's Hospital to 630% (IQR: 526%-630%) at Driscoll Children's Hospital. Pediatric hospitals participating in the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program can extract steep payments on new drugs from commercial insurers, though with wide variation between and within hospitals.