scholarly journals Bénéfice clinique et coût des traitements anticancéreux

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (11) ◽  
pp. 1095-1097
Author(s):  
Bertrand Jordan

A detailed analysis of the clinical benefit for 47 approved cancer drugs, using two internationally recognized assessment systems, shows essentially no correlation between clinical benefit and weekly treatment costs. This is true both in the USA and in four European countries, although prices are dramatically lower in Europe.

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 664-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin N Vokinger ◽  
Thomas J Hwang ◽  
Thomas Grischott ◽  
Sophie Reichert ◽  
Ariadna Tibau ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7071-7071
Author(s):  
Aaron Philip Mitchell ◽  
Sara Tabatabai ◽  
Pranammya Dey ◽  
Jennifer Ohn ◽  
Michael A. Curry ◽  
...  

7071 Background: The cost of many cancer drugs is very high, but it is unclear if these costs are associated with commensurate improvement in outcomes. We aimed to assess the association between the cost of cancer treatments and their clinical benefit, using the NCCN Evidence Blocks value assessment framework. Methods: The NCCN Evidence Blocks include 4 measures of clinical benefit: Efficacy, Safety, Quality of Evidence, and Consistency of Evidence. The NCCN assigns scores on each measure ranging from 1 (least favorable) to 5 (most favorable). We obtained the NCCN Evidence Blocks scores as of December 31, 2018 for all recommended cancer treatments for the 30 most prevalent cancers in the US. For each treatment, we calculated total treatment costs (including drugs, administration fees, and supportive care medications) using Medicare reimbursement rates. We categorized treatments as either “time-limited” or “time-unlimited” according to whether their costs are best reflected as per full treatment course (often, adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatments) (time-limited) or per month of therapy (often, treatments for advanced disease) (time-unlimited). We used generalized estimating equations, with clustering within treatment indications, to estimate the association between Evidence Blocks scores and treatment costs, modeling the expected change in cost associated with a one-unit increase in the score on an Evidence Blocks measure. Results: There were 541 time-unlimited and 845 time-limited treatments. Among time-unlimited treatments, monthly treatment cost ranged from $4 to $64,630. Monthly treatment cost was positively associated with Efficacy ($3,036, 95%CI: $1,782, $4,289) and Quality of Evidence ($1,509, 95%CI: $171, $2,847) but negatively associated with Safety (-$1,470, 95%CI: -$2,790, -$151) and Consistency of Evidence (-$2,003, 95%CI -$3,420, -$586). Among time-limited treatments, cost per course of therapy ranged from $0 to $775,559, and no measure was significantly associated with cost. Evidence Blocks scores accounted for little of the variation in treatment cost (linear model R-squared = 0.10 for time-unlimited, and < 0.01 for time-unlimited). Conclusions: The association between NCCN Evidence Blocks measures and treatment cost was inconsistent, and accounted for little of the cost variation among treatments for the same indication. The clinical benefit of cancer treatments does not appear to be a primary determinant of treatment cost, suggesting that current pricing models may be inadequate to incentivize the development and utilization of high-value treatments.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6638-6638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin Noëlle Vokinger ◽  
Thomas J Hwang ◽  
Ariadna Tibau Martorell ◽  
Thomas J Rosemann ◽  
Aaron S Kesselheim

6638 Background: Given rising cancer drug costs, Medicare recently proposed to tie some US drug prices to average prices paid by comparable countries. To understand the potential scope of this policy, we assessed differences in cancer drug prices in the US and selected European countries. We also evaluated the correlation between drug prices and their clinical benefit, as measured by two value frameworks: the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework v2 (ASCO VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale v1.1 (ESMO-MCBS). Methods: We identified all new drugs for adult solid and hematologic cancers, approved by the FDA from 2009-2017 and that have also been approved by the EMA by December 31, 2018. US average sales prices (and if not available, wholesale acquisition costs) were extracted as of February 1, 2019, and compared to comparable currency-adjusted ex-factory drug costs in England, France, Germany, and Switzerland. ASCO VF and ESMO-MCBS scores were assessed for pivotal trials supporting solid tumor drugs; in case of multiple trials, we focused on the highest score. Consistent with the developers of the rating scales, “high benefit” was defined as scores of A-B (neo/adjuvant setting) and 4-5 (palliative setting) on the ESMO-MCBS scale and scores≥45 on the ASCO VF. Linear regression models and non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test and were used to assess the association between drug prices and benefit scores. Results: The study cohort included 63 drugs approved by the FDA and the EMA during the study period. 46 (73%) were approved for solid tumors, and 17 (27%) were approved for hematologic malignancies. Overall, median cancer drug prices in included European countries were 52% (interquartile range: 37-72%) lower than US prices. There was no statistically significant association between monthly treatment cost and ASCO-VF or ESMO-MCBS scores in any country. There was also no association between price differential between US and median European drug prices and either ASCO-VF (P = 0.599) or ESMO-MBCS (P = 0.321) scores. Conclusions: Cancer drug prices in the US were significantly higher than in the compared European countries. Drug prices of cancer drugs were not associated with clinical benefit in the US or in European countries.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6612-6612 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Jönsson ◽  
F. Lichtenberg ◽  
J. Lundkvist ◽  
C. Svedman ◽  
N. Wilking

6612 Background: A number of new innovative cancer drugs have recently been approved or are in the process of being approved. We have analysed the access and uptake of 65 oncology drugs in 25 countries (19 European countries, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa and the USA) over a 10 year period based on sales data provided by IMS Health. Methods: We calculated an index of number of patients treated based on sales per inhabitant or per person who died from a specific cancer type. The age composition (vintage) of the drug arsenal used was calculated based on sales for cancer drugs introduced before 1995; between 1995–1999, 2000–2002 and after 2002 respectively. The vintage of the drug arsenal used was also analysed in relation to different economic and health care system characteristics. We performed three types of analysis of the effect of cancer drug vintage on cancer survival and mortality using difference-in-difference research designs. Results: Different patterns of uptake were seen in the countries studied, both with respect to speed of uptake and level of use. Fast uptake of most new drugs was seen in Austria, France, Switzerland, Spain and the USA, and slow uptake as well as low usage was seen in Poland, Hungary, New Zealand, South Africa and the UK. For some of the most recently approved drugs the variation in uptake is especially marked. The vintage of the cancer drug “arsenal” used also differs significantly between countries. Nearly half (44%) of the observed improvement in the two-year cancer survival rate between 1992 and 2000 at 50 USA cancer centres could be attributed to the use of newer cancer drugs. Around one sixth (14% − 19%) of the inter-country differences in 5-year cancer survival rates across 5 major European countries is due to differences in the uptake of newer drugs (post-1985) in each country. Nearly one third (30%) of the decline in cancer mortality rates seen during the period 1995 –2003, could be accounted for by the use of newer drugs. The observed decrease in mortality of 16% would have been only 11% if newer drugs had not been used. Conclusions: Patient access to innovative cancer drugs varies significantly between countries affecting mortality rates, and further research is needed into the determinants and consequences of these variations. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wim H van Harten ◽  
Anke Wind ◽  
Paolo de Paoli ◽  
Mahasti Saghatchian ◽  
Simon Oberst

Author(s):  
Peter Hoare

In many countries, including the UK, proposals are currently being made for the extension of legal deposit to electronic and other non-print material. Some countries such as Switzerland and the Netherlands have no national legal deposit legislation, though voluntary deposit works well in the latter. Norway has the most advanced legislation, requiring the deposit of all lands of media. In few countries is any range of material actively handled, and a very few deal with online publications. There is scope for international coordination of proposals through such bodies as CDNL, CENL, IFLA and UNESCO. The aim of totally comprehensive collecting of all published material may be accepted as unrealistic, and some selectively is likely to be necessary. The current situation with regard to deposit of non-print material in 11 west European countries, Australia, Canada and the USA is recounted.


2016 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Manski ◽  
John Moeller ◽  
Haiyan Chen ◽  
Eeva Widström ◽  
Stefan Listl

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kalai Mathee ◽  
Hilary F. Logan ◽  
Norman K. Fry

The Journal of Medical Microbiology has a global presence with an international Editorial Board. Asian countries such as PR China, India and Iran are prolific in the submission of manuscripts. Overall, the acceptance rate has been highest for European countries, the USA, Canada and Australia, and lowest for African, Asian and Latin American (LATAM) countries. The creation of regional Editors to assist the authors from these countries would serve the scientific community.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document