Progression-free survival, overall survival and quality of life: What is their medicoeconomic importance in oncology?

Medico-economic evaluations estimate, for a given health technology, the added cost and the clinical benefit compared to a reference strategy. The objective here is to analyze the criteria used to measure clinical benefit as the basis for market access and reimbursement decisions for drugs in oncology both in France and in Europe. Prolonged overall survival is the criterion of choice to demonstrate the benefit of an anticancer drug; a survival gain of 2 to 3 months or more would be considered as relevant for a new product versus the comparator. In the absence of survival benefit or mature data on survival, progression-free survival or symptom-free survival and the availability of alternative curative treatments, decrease in drug toxicity and quality of life improvement may be considered. Differences in clinical benefit assessment between regulatory agencies and payers are not specific to France. Case studies show that it is difficult to find a consistency in reimbursement and pricing decisions and to identify factors that may fully explain reimbursement decisions when survival benefit is not demonstrated.

Medico-economic evaluation of healthcare products. Methodology for defining a significant impact on French health insurance costs and selection of benchmarks for interpreting results.

Decree No. 2012-1116 of 2 October 2012 on medico-economic assignments of the French National Authority for Health (Haute autorité de santé, HAS) significantly alters the conditions for accessing the health products market in France. This paper presents a theoretical framework for interpreting the results of the economic evaluation of health technologies and summarises the facts available in France for developing benchmarks that will be used to interpret incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. This literature review shows that it is difficult to determine a threshold value but it is also difficult to interpret then incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) results without a threshold value. In this context, round table participants favour a pragmatic approach based on "benchmarks" as opposed to a threshold value, based on an interpretative and normative perspective, i.e. benchmarks that can change over time based on feedback.

Relative added value: what are the tools to evaluate it?

The relative added value of a drug is currently evaluated in France by the Transparency Commission (TC) of the National Health Authority (HAS), by assigning a level of Improvement in Actual Benefit (IAB). IAB is based on two parameters, efficacy and safety of the product, in a defined target population, either as compared to one or more other drugs with similar indications, or within therapeutic strategy. The items used for evaluation, including the level of clinical effect, the relevance of the comparator, the choice of comparison criteria and the methodology used (indirect comparison, non-inferiority studies, etc.), have been reviewed by the working group in Giens with regard to an analysis of the opinion on TC issued between 2004 and 2007 in several therapeutic areas First of all, this attempt at rationalisation based on the criteria used to assess the relative added value demonstrated the rareness of direct comparative data, and was followed by a discussion on the possible broadening of the evaluation criteria. The group discussed taking into account the Public Health Impact (PHI), which has now been incorporated into the assessment of Actual Benefit (AB). The group believes that PHI seems to be more related to the notion of IAB than to that of AB. Indeed, it is frequently the relative added value of a new drug that produces an impact in public health. Conversely, considering the comparative evaluation criteria of PHI, which are not systematically taken into account in IMSR (such as improvement in the health of the population, meeting a public health need or impact on the healthcare system), PHI could legitimately be included in the assessment of the relative added value of a drug. Other parameters such as compliance or impact on professional practice have been considered. Thus, the notion of relative added value, evaluated at initial registration, could be based on an expected improvement in medical service. The notion of expected medical service leads to the requirement of producing additional data in real life (post-registration studies), which would support the definitive notion of improvement in actual benefit at the time of renewed registration, while taking into account the place occupied by the drug in the therapeutic strategy.