Strategies to decrease inequalities in cancer therapeutics, care and prevention: Proceedings on a conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the European Academy of Cancer Sciences, Vatican City, February 23-24, 2023.

Analyses of inequalities related to prevention and cancer therapeutics/care show disparities between countries with different economic standing, and within countries with high Gross Domestic Product. The development of basic technological and biological research provides clinical and prevention opportunities that make their implementation into healthcare systems more complex, mainly due to the growth of Personalized/Precision Cancer Medicine (PCM). Initiatives like the USA-Cancer Moonshot and the EU-Mission on Cancer and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan are initiated to boost cancer prevention and therapeutics/care innovation and to mitigate present inequalities. The conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in collaboration with the European Academy of Cancer Sciences discussed the inequality problem, dependent on the economic status of a country, the increasing demands for infrastructure supportive of innovative research and its implementation in healthcare and prevention programs. Establishing translational research defined as a coherent cancer research continuum is still a challenge. Research has to cover the entire continuum from basic to outcomes research for clinical and prevention modalities. Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) are of critical importance for integrating research innovations to preclinical and clinical research, as for ensuring state-of-the-art patient care within healthcare systems. International collaborative networks between CCCs are necessary to reach the critical mass of infrastructures and patients for PCM research, and for introducing prevention modalities and new treatments effectively. Outcomes and health economics research are required to assess the cost-effectiveness of new interventions, currently a missing element in the research portfolio. Data sharing and critical mass are essential for innovative research to develop PCM. Despite advances in cancer research, cancer incidence and prevalence is growing. Making cancer research infrastructures accessible for all patients, considering the increasing inequalities, requires science policy actions incentivizing research aimed at prevention and cancer therapeutics/care with an increased focus on patients' needs and cost-effective healthcare.

Value appropriation in hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Swedish government in an unprecedented move decided to allocate 150 million € to provide funding for new drugs for hepatitis C. This was triggered by the introduction of the first second generation of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) promising higher cure rates and reduced side effects. The drugs were cost-effective but had a prohibitive budget impact. Subsequently, additional products have entered the market leading to reduction in prices and expansions of the eligible patient base. METHODS: We estimated the social surplus generated by the new DAAs in Stockholm, Sweden, for the years 2014-2019. The actual use and cost of the drugs was based on registry data. Effects on future health care costs, indirect costs and QALY gains were estimated using a Markov model based primarily on Swedish data and using previous generations of interferon-based therapies as the counterfactual. RESULTS: A considerable social surplus was generated, 15% of which was appropriated by the producers whose share fell rapidly over time as prices fell. Most of the consumer surplus was generated by QALY gains, although 10% was from reduced indirect costs. QALY gains increased less rapidly than the number of treated patients as the eligibility criteria was loosened. CONCLUSIONS: The transfer of funds from the government to the regions helped generate substantial surplus for both consumers and producers with indirect costs playing an important role. The funding model may serve as a model for the financing of innovative treatments in the future.

Cost of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in Europe and the USA: The GAIN study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) leads to cirrhosis and is associated with a substantial socioeconomic burden, which, coupled with rising prevalence, is a growing public health challenge. However, there are few real-world data available describing the impact of NASH. METHODS: The Global Assessment of the Impact of NASH (GAIN) study is a prevalence-based burden of illness study across Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) and the USA. Physicians provided demographic, clinical, and economic patient information via an online survey. In total, 3,754 patients found to have NASH on liver biopsy were stratified by fibrosis score and by biomarkers as either early or advanced fibrosis. Per-patient costs were estimated using national unit price data and extrapolated to the population level to calculate the economic burden. Of the patients, 767 (20%) provided information on indirect costs and health-related quality of life using the EuroQOL 5-D (EQ-5D; n = 749) and Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire - Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (CLDQ-NAFLD) (n = 723). RESULTS: Mean EQ-5D and CLDQ-NAFLD index scores were 0.75 and 4.9, respectively. For 2018, the mean total annual per patient cost of NASH was €2,763, €4,917, and €5,509 for direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect costs, respectively. National per-patient cost was highest in the USA and lowest in France. Costs increased with fibrosis and decompensation, driven by hospitalisation and comorbidities. Indirect costs were driven by work loss. CONCLUSIONS: The GAIN study provides real-world data on the direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect costs associated with NASH, including patient-reported outcomes in Europe and the USA, showing a substantial burden on health services and individuals. LAY SUMMARY: There has been little research into the socioeconomic burden associated with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The GAIN study provides real-world data on the direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect costs associated with NASH, including patient-reported outcomes in five European countries (UK, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy) and the USA. Mean total annual per patient cost of NASH was estimated at €2,763, €4,917, and €5,509 for the direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect cost categories, respectively.

Propelling Health Care into the Twenties.

The scope and potential of personalised health care are underappreciated and underrealised, often because of resistance to change. The consequence is that many inadequacies of health care in Europe persist unnecessarily, and many opportunities for improvement are neglected. This article identifies the principal challenges, outlines possible approaches to resolving them, and highlights the benefits that could result from greater adoption of personalised health care. It locates the discussion in the context of European policy, focusing particularly on the most recent and authoritative reviews of health care in the EU Member States, and on the newly acquired spirit of readiness and pragmatism among European officials to embrace change and innovative technologies in a new decade. It highlights the attention now being given by policymakers to incentives, innovation, and investment as levers to improve European citizens' prospects in a rapidly evolving world, and how these distinct and disruptive themes contribute to a renaissance in thinking about delivering optimal health care in Europe. It explores the chances offered to patients by specific initiatives in health domains such as cancer and antimicrobial resistance, and by innovative science, novel therapies, earlier diagnosis tools, and deeper understanding of health promotion and prevention. And it reflects on how health care providers could benefit from a shift towards better primary care and towards deploying health data more effectively, including the use of artificial intelligence, coupled with a move to a smoother organisational/regulatory structure and realigned professional responsibilities. The conclusion is that preparing Europe's health care systems for the inevitable strains of the coming years is both possible and necessary. A more courageous approach to embracing personalised health care could guarantee the sustainability of Europe's health care systems before rising demands and exponential costs overwhelm them - an exercise in future-proofing, in ensuring that they are equipped to withstand whatever lies ahead. A focus on the potential and implementation of personalised care would permit more efficient use of resources and deliver better quality health-preserving care.

The cost of cancer in Europe 2018.

BACKGROUND: Cancer care is evolving rapidly, and costs and value of new treatments are frequently debated. Up-to-date evidence on the total cost of cancer is needed to inform policy decisions. This study estimates the cost of cancer in Europe in 2018 and extends a previous analysis for 1995-2014. METHODS: Cancer-specific health expenditure were derived from national estimates. Data on cancer drug sales were obtained from IQVIA. The productivity loss from premature mortality was estimated from data from Eurostat and the World Health Organization. Estimates of the productivity loss from morbidity and informal care costs were based on previous studies. FINDINGS: The total cost of cancer was €199 billion in Europe (EU-27 plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom) in 2018. Total costs ranged from €160 per capita in Romania to €578 in Switzerland (after adjustment for price differentials). Health expenditure on cancer care were €103 billion, of which €32 billion were spent on cancer drugs. Informal care costs were €26 billion. The total productivity loss was €70 billion, composed of €50 billion from premature mortality and €20 billion from morbidity. INTERPRETATION: Health expenditure on cancer care were of a similar magnitude as the sum of non-health-care costs in 2018. Over the last two decades, health spending on cancer has increased faster than the increase in cancer incidence. The productivity loss from premature mortality has decreased because of reductions in mortality in the working-age population. Trends in informal care costs and productivity loss from morbidity are uncertain because of lack of comparable data.

Mission-oriented translational cancer research - health economics.

Health economics is an integrated aspect of all phases of mission-oriented translational cancer research and should be considered an intrinsic component of any study aimed at improving outcomes for patients and intervention costs. Information about value and value for money of new options for prevention and treatment is needed for decisions about their adoption and use by healthcare systems.

Advanced therapy medicinal products and health technology assessment principles and practices for value-based and sustainable healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are beginning to reach European markets, and questions are being asked about their value for patients and how healthcare systems should pay for them. OBJECTIVES: To identify and discuss potential challenges of ATMPs in view of current health technology assessment (HTA) methodology-specifically economic evaluation methods-in Europe as it relates to ATMPs, and to suggest potential solutions to these challenges. METHODS: An Expert Panel reviewed current HTA principles and practices in relation to the specific characteristics of ATMPs. RESULTS: Three key topics were identified and prioritised for discussion-uncertainty, discounting, and health outcomes and value. The panel discussed that evidence challenges linked to increased uncertainty may be mitigated by collection of follow-on data, use of value of information analysis, and/or outcomes-based contracts. For discount rates, an international, multi-disciplinary forum should be established to consider the economic, social and ethical implications of the choice of rate. Finally, consideration of the feasibility of assessing the value of ATMPs beyond health gain may also be key for decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: ATMPs face a challenge in demonstrating their value within current HTA frameworks. Consideration of current HTA principles and practices with regards to the specific characteristics of ATMPs and continued dialogue will be key to ensuring appropriate market access. CLASSIFICATION CODE: I.

Cost of Cancer: Healthcare Expenditures and Economic Impact.

Healthcare expenditures for cancer account for a low share of total healthcare expenditures, compared to the relative burden of the disease. The share has also not changed very much over the last decades. Cost for cancer drugs has increased as a share of total expenditures, but this has been offset by a reduction of inpatient hospital care for cancer. Accounting for the cost of cancer should not be limited to healthcare expenditures. Resources are also used for public and private care of cancer patients outside the healthcare sector, for example for palliative care. Informal care by family and friends is an important complement to professional care, and estimates indicate that this amounts to between half and one-third of the costs of formal care. Indirect costs related to the loss of production for persons with cancer are estimated to be of the same magnitude as the direct healthcare expenditures. Indirect costs related to premature mortality dominate the estimate of indirect costs, but those costs have declined over time, despite increasing incomes, due to the reduction in mortality due to cancer in the economically active age groups. Estimates of indirect costs due to morbidity are uncertain and vary significantly between published studies. A full accounting of the costs of cancer should include an estimate of the health burden of cancer. Loss of quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALY) can be measured and valued based on the willingness to pay for a QALY. Such estimates are possible to derive from decisions about allocating resources for cancer. There are few estimates of these costs, but available studies indicate that the intangible costs of lost QALY are by far the dominating cost of cancer. The value for policy-making of costs of cancer estimates increases when results with consistent methods and data are available that allow comparisons between countries and over time. The evidence about the cost of cancer is still limited, but when current scientific progress produces an increasing number of new options for prevention, diagnosis and treatment, studies of the cost of cancer become increasingly important to inform decisions about resource allocation.

Quality of life after hip, vertebral, and distal forearm fragility fractures measured using the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-VAS, and time-trade-off: results from the ICUROS.

INTRODUCTION: The International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic fractures Study is a multinational observational study set up to describe the costs and quality of life (QoL) consequences of fragility fracture. This paper aims to estimate and compare QoL after hip, vertebral, and distal forearm fracture using time-trade-off (TTO), the EuroQol (EQ) Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS), and the EQ-5D-3L valued using the hypothetical UK value set. METHODS: Data were collected at four time-points for five QoL point estimates: within 2 weeks after fracture (including pre-fracture recall), and at 4, 12, and 18 months after fracture. Health state utility values (HSUVs) were derived for each fracture type and time-point using the three approaches (TTO, EQ-VAS, EQ-5D-3L). HSUV were used to estimate accumulated QoL loss and QoL multipliers. RESULTS: In total, 1410 patients (505 with hip, 316 with vertebral, and 589 with distal forearm fracture) were eligible for analysis. Across all time-points for the three fracture types, TTO provided the highest HSUVs, whereas EQ-5D-3L consistently provided the lowest HSUVs directly after fracture. Except for 13-18 months after distal forearm fracture, EQ-5D-3L generated lower QoL multipliers than the other two methods, whereas no equally clear pattern was observed between EQ-VAS and TTO. On average, the most marked differences between the three approaches were observed immediately after the fracture. CONCLUSIONS: The approach to derive QoL markedly influences the estimated QoL impact of fracture. Therefore the choice of approach may be important for the outcome and interpretation of cost-effectiveness analysis of fracture prevention.

PRIORITIES FOR HEALTH ECONOMIC METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH: RESULTS OF AN EXPERT CONSULTATION.

BACKGROUND: The importance of economic evaluation in decision making is growing with increasing budgetary pressures on health systems. Diverse economic evidence is available for a range of interventions across national contexts within Europe, but little attention has been given to identifying evidence gaps that, if filled, could contribute to more efficient allocation of resources. One objective of the Research Agenda for Health Economic Evaluation project is to determine the most important methodological evidence gaps for the ten highest burden conditions in the European Union (EU), and to suggest ways of filling these gaps. METHODS: The highest burden conditions in the EU by Disability Adjusted Life Years were determined using the Global Burden of Disease study. Clinical interventions were identified for each condition based on published guidelines, and economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE were mapped to each intervention. A panel of public health and health economics experts discussed the evidence during a workshop and identified evidence gaps. RESULTS: The literature analysis contributed to identifying cross-cutting methodological and technical issues, which were considered by the expert panel to derive methodological research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: The panel suggests a research agenda for health economics which incorporates the use of real-world evidence in the assessment of new and existing interventions; increased understanding of cost-effectiveness according to patient characteristics beyond the "-omics" approach to inform both investment and disinvestment decisions; methods for assessment of complex interventions; improved cross-talk between economic evaluations from health and other sectors; early health technology assessment; and standardized, transferable approaches to economic modeling.

The Three-Way Pendulum of Healthcare Innovation.

We are, understandably, forever hearing about the high cost of bringing innovative new drugs and treatments to the healthcare market, especially medicines for smaller subgroups, and the fact that member state health systems often baulk at the prices. This article will argue that such a bypassing and blocking of innovative medicines and treatments is not only counterproductive when it comes to the health of Europe's patients, but actually fails to take into account the economic arguments. The article seeks to show that the long-term benefit to patients and the economy (health means wealth) will outweigh initial costs down the line. Couple this with a smarter use of information technologies and other resources and it will be possible to get much closer to building sustainable healthcare systems in a Europe struggling under the burden of an ageing population.

The cost and burden of cancer in the European Union 1995-2014.

BACKGROUND: There is an intense debate about the cost of cancer and the value of new treatments. However, there is limited data on the cost of cancer in the European Union (EU) and how costs relate to the burden of disease. This paper presents new estimates on the development of the cost of cancer in the EU 1995-2014, with a focus on the major cost components: total health expenditure, cancer drugs, and production loss due to premature mortality. METHODS: Data on overall health expenditure were combined with national disease estimates to derive cancer-specific health expenditure. Data on drug sales were obtained from IMS Health, and epidemiological data were used to calculate life years lost due to cancer. FINDINGS: Health expenditure on cancer increased continuously from €35.7 billion in 1995 to €83.2 billion in 2014 in the EU and spending on cancer drugs from €7.6 billion in 2005 to €19.1 billion in 2014 (current prices). Yet the share of total health expenditure devoted to cancer was mostly constant (around 6 per cent). While expenditures on cancer drugs increased in both absolute and relative terms, other expenditures were stable or decreased, despite increases in cancer incidence driven by a growing and ageing population. Reductions in cancer mortality during working age resulted in decreasing production loss due to premature mortality. INTERPRETATION: Health spending on cancer as a share of total health expenditure is rather low and stable despite the growing incidence and relative burden of cancer. Problems to reallocate funding in health care systems under economic pressure may be one explanation and shifting costs from inpatient to ambulatory care another.

The End of the International Reference Pricing System?

All 28 EU member states except Sweden and the UK apply international reference pricing (IRP), international price comparison, external reference pricing or cross-reference pricing. The attractiveness of using prices of other countries as a benchmark for decisions within a national price control is obvious. Alternative models for price and reimbursement decision making such as value-based pricing (VBP), i.e. cost-effectiveness analyses, are more complicated. However, IRP provides incentives for stakeholders to take action not in line with optimal (welfare-maximizing) pricing. IRP is costly for two reasons. First, manufacturers are incentivised to limit or delay access to new innovative treatments in countries with small markets and/or a low income, which can be costly in terms of loss of health. Second, all countries also experience a loss of welfare (health) because IRP reduces the opportunities for differential pricing (Ramsey pricing), i.e. using the fact that the ability and willingness to pay differs between countries. Thus, IRP results in less sales revenue to finance research and development of new innovative drugs. We can now observe that payers and manufacturers are engaged in different types of risk-sharing schemes, price-volume negotiations, payback arrangements, confidential discounts, coverage with evidence developments, etc., all with the purpose of returning to the old model of price discrimination and Ramsey pricing. Shortly, real prices for use in IRP systems will cease to exist and, thus, we expect to soon see the end of IRP, a new system for price discrimination and an increasing demand for VBP.

Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report.

Clinical trials evaluating medicines, medical devices, and procedures now commonly assess the economic value of these interventions. The growing number of prospective clinical/economic trials reflects both widespread interest in economic information for new technologies and the regulatory and reimbursement requirements of many countries that now consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy. As decision makers increasingly demand evidence of economic value for health care interventions, conducting high-quality economic analyses alongside clinical studies is desirable because they broaden the scope of information available on a particular intervention, and can efficiently provide timely information with high internal and, when designed and analyzed properly, reasonable external validity. In 2005, ISPOR published the Good Research Practices for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials: The ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. ISPOR initiated an update of the report in 2014 to include the methodological developments over the last 9 years. This report provides updated recommendations reflecting advances in several areas related to trial design, selecting data elements, database design and management, analysis, and reporting of results. Task force members note that trials should be designed to evaluate effectiveness (rather than efficacy) when possible, should include clinical outcome measures, and should obtain health resource use and health state utilities directly from study subjects. Collection of economic data should be fully integrated into the study. An incremental analysis should be conducted with an intention-to-treat approach, complemented by relevant subgroup analyses. Uncertainty should be characterized. Articles should adhere to established standards for reporting results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Economic studies alongside trials are complementary to other evaluations (e.g., modeling studies) as information for decision makers who consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy when making resource allocation decisions.

Bringing in health technology assessment and cost-effectiveness considerations at an early stage of drug development.

This paper reviews the issues involved in undertaking HTA studies early in the development of new cancer therapies, and discusses the data and methods for estimating the cost-effectiveness of new diagnostics and treatments. The value for patients of new cancer therapies is based on access to the treatment and optimal use. Realising potential value depends on successful completion of a series of steps, from the initial economic evaluations based on clinical trial data, to the reimbursement decisions based on the evaluations and the implementation of these decisions in clinical practice. Considerable resources have been devoted to the study of the cost-effectiveness of new cancer drugs as a basis for decisions about payment and use. Such resources could be used much more effectively if industry and HTA agencies were to collaborate at an early stage in the development process. The traditional clinical trial approach of using progression-free survival and cross-overs has serious shortcomings, producing data that cannot be used to determine outcomes and, so, cost-effectiveness. A new standard is needed; both regulatory and HTA authorities should be involved in its development.

UNDERSTANDING VARIATIONS IN RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS: A HEALTH PRODUCTION APPROACH.

BACKGROUND: Relative effectiveness has become a key concern of health policy. In Europe, this is because of the need for early information to guide reimbursement and funding decisions about new medical technologies. However, ways that effectiveness (does it work?) and efficacy (can it work?) might differ across health systems are poorly understood. METHODS: This study proposes an analytical framework, drawing on production function theory, to systematically identify and quantify the determinants of relative effectiveness and sources of variation between populations and healthcare systems. We consider how methods such as stochastic frontier analysis and data envelopment analysis using a Malmquist productivity index could in principle be used to generate evidence on, and improve understanding about, the sources of variation in relative effectiveness between countries and over time. RESULTS: Better evidence on factors driving relative effectiveness could: inform decisions on how to best use a new technology to maximum effectiveness; establish the need if any for follow-up post-launch studies, and provide evidence of the impact of new health technologies on outcomes in different healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: The health production function approach for assessment of relative effectiveness is complementary to traditional experimental and observational studies, focusing on identifying, collecting, and analyzing data at the national level, enabling comparisons to take place. There is a strong case for exploring the use of this approach to better understand the impact of new medicines and devices for improvements in health outcomes.

RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS IN BREAST CANCER TREATMENT: A HEALTH PRODUCTION APPROACH.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceuticals' relative effectiveness has come to the fore in the policy arena, reflecting the need to understand how relative efficacy (what can work) translates into added benefit in routine clinical use (what does work). European payers and licensing authorities assess value for money and post-launch benefit-risk profiles, and efforts to standardize assessments of relative effectiveness across the European Union (EU) are under way. However, the ways that relative effectiveness differs across EU healthcare settings are poorly understood. METHODS: To understand which factors influence differences in relative effectiveness, we developed an analytical framework that treats the healthcare system as a health production function. Using evidence on breast cancer from England, Spain, and Sweden as a case study, we investigated the reasons why the relative effectiveness of a new drug might vary across healthcare systems. Evidence was identified from a literature review and national clinical guidance. RESULTS: The review included thirteen international studies and thirty country-specific studies. Cross-country differences in population age structure, deprivation, and educational attainment were consistently associated with variation in outcomes. Screening intensity appeared to drive differences in survival, although the impact on mortality was unclear. CONCLUSIONS: The way efficacy translates into relative effectiveness across health systems is likely to be influenced by a range of complex and interrelated factors. These factors could inform government and payer policy decisions on ways to optimize relative effectiveness, and help increase understanding of the potential transferability of data on relative effectiveness from one health system to another.

Analyzing overall survival in randomized controlled trials with crossover and implications for economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Offering patients in oncology trials the opportunity to cross over to active treatment at disease progression is a common strategy to address ethical issues associated with placebo controls but may lead to statistical challenges in the analysis of overall survival and cost-effectiveness because crossover leads to information loss and dilution of comparative clinical efficacy. OBJECTIVES: We provide an overview of how to address crossover, implications for risk-effect estimates of survival (hazard ratios) and cost-effectiveness, and how this influences decisions of reimbursement agencies. Two case studies using data from two phase III sunitinib oncology trials are used as illustration. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on statistical methods for adjusting for crossover and recent health technology assessment decisions in oncology. RESULTS: We show that for a trial with a high proportion of crossover from the control arm to the investigational arm, the choice of the statistical method greatly affects treatment-effect estimates and cost-effectiveness because the range of relative mortality risk for active treatment versus control is broad. With relatively frequent crossover, one should consider either the inverse probability of censoring weighting or the rank-preserving structural failure time model to minimize potential bias, with choice dependent on crossover characteristics, trial size, and available data. A large proportion of crossover favors the rank-preserving structural failure time model, while large sample size and abundant information about confounding factors favors the inverse probability of censoring weighting model. When crossover is very infrequent, methods yield similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to correct for crossover may lead to suboptimal decisions by pricing and reimbursement authorities, thereby limiting an effective drug's potential.