New cancer drugs in Sweden: Assessment, implementation and access

Defining 'therapeutic value' of medicines: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

In recent years, discussions on the importance and scope of therapeutic value of new medicines have intensified, stimulated by the increase of prices and number of medicines entering the market. This study aims to perform a scoping review identifying factors contributing to the definition of the therapeutic value of medicines.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Business Source Premier, EconLit, Regional Business News, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scope and Pool databases through December 2020 in English, German, French, Italian and Spanish.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies that included determinants for the definition of therapeutic value of medicines were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted using the mentioned data sources. Two reviewers independently screened and analysed the articles. Data were analysed from April 2021 to May 2022.

RESULTS

Of the 1883 studies screened, 51 were selected and the identified factors contributing to the definition of therapeutic value of medicines were classified in three categories: patient perspective, public health perspective and socioeconomic perspective. More than three-quarters of the included studies were published after 2014, with the majority of the studies focusing on either cancer disorders (14 of 51, 27.5%) or rare diseases (11 of 51, 21.6%). Frequently mentioned determinants for value were quality of life, therapeutic alternatives and side effects (all patient perspective), prevalence/incidence and clinical endpoints (all public health perspective), and costs (socioeconomic perspective).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple determinants have been developed to define the therapeutic value of medicines, most of them focusing on cancer disorders and rare diseases. Considering the relevance of value of medicines to guide patients and physicians in decision-making as well as policymakers in resource allocation decisions, a development of evidence-based factors for the definition of therapeutic value of medicines is needed across all therapeutic areas.

A Data-Adaptive Loss Function for Incomplete Data and Incremental Learning in Semantic Image Segmentation

In the last years, deep learning has dramatically improved the performances in a variety of medical image analysis applications. Among different types of deep learning models, convolutional neural networks have been among the most successful and they have been used in many applications in medical imaging. Training deep convolutional neural networks often requires large amounts of image data to generalize well to new unseen images. It is often time-consuming and expensive to collect large amounts of data in the medical image domain due to expensive imaging systems, and the need for experts to manually make ground truth annotations. A potential problem arises if new structures are added when a decision support system is already deployed and in use. Since the field of radiation therapy is constantly developing, the new structures would also have to be covered by the decision support system. In the present work, we propose a novel loss function to solve multiple problems: imbalanced datasets, partially-labeled data, and incremental learning. The proposed loss function adapts to the available data in order to utilize all available data, even when some have missing annotations. We demonstrate that the proposed loss function also works well in an incremental learning setting, where an existing model is easily adapted to semi-automatically incorporate delineations of new organs when they appear. Experiments on a large in-house dataset show that the proposed method performs on par with baseline models, while greatly reducing the training time and eliminating the hassle of maintaining multiple models in practice.

Access to innovative cancer medicines in a middle-income country - the case of Mexico

BACKGROUND

Cancer has become the third cause of death in Mexico. Treatment for cancer is often complex and lengthy. New and better medicines enter the market at high prices, which may limit access. Like most Latin American countries, Mexico has an essential cancer medicines list that includes innovative medicines. Their accessibility and use in the public sector remains unknown. Therefore, we describe the use, as a proxy of access, of innovative and essential cancer medicines in the public sector in Mexico, by insurance institution, and by five regions between 2010 to 2016.

METHODS

We used drug utilization research methods to assess the use of eight patented cancer medicines. Through the national transparency platform, we obtained data on the quantities of these medicines used in all public health facilities and social health insurance institutions and recalculated those figures into defined daily dose (DDD) per 1000 population per year.

RESULTS

Overall, the use of all medicines increased over the years, especially for trastuzumab, rituximab and imatinib. The use of innovative medicines was higher per population covered in social health insurance institutions than in governmental facilities. Throughout the study period, the Central region (including Mexico City) has used more medicines per population than the other regions.

CONCLUSIONS

The use and access of some essential innovative cancer medicines has increased over the years, but remains unequal across insurance schemes and regions. Particularly, the Ministry of Health Insurance scheme and Northern and Western regions in the country would benefit from additional efforts to increase access to essential cancer medicines.

Rationing cancer treatment: a qualitative study of perceptions of legitimate limit-setting

Background

Governments are facing tough choices about whether to fund new, promising but highly expensive drugs within the public healthcare system. Decisions that some drugs are not sufficiently beneficial relative to their cost to merit public funding are often contentious. The importance of making decisions that stakeholders can understand and accept as legitimate is increasingly recognized and is commonly understood to be a crucial component for stakeholder support and successful implementation. Yet, little is known about clinicians’ perceptions of legitimate limit-setting. This study aimed to examine oncologists’ perceptions of the legitimacy of governmental decisions to deny patients access to new cancer drugs because effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the drugs has not been demonstrated.

Methods

Semi-structured in-depth interviews with 12 Norwegian oncologists were carried out. Data were interpreted with the use of theory driven thematic analysis. The analytical framework of Accountability for reasonableness aided data gathering and interpretation.

Results

The participants endorsed the ideal of explicit criteria-based priority setting. Yet, when confronted with actual rationing decisions, they were far more equivocal. They advocated for increased access to drugs and were not always prepared to accept rationing of drugs they felt would benefit their patient. Distrust in the Norwegian centralised drug review process was found and different rationales were identified: i) Lack of engagement with the process, ii) Disagreement with the use of rationing criteria, iii) Lack of transparency and lack of dispute resolution procedures. Concerns about the wider implications of rationing decisions were reported. Most importantly, these related to negative impact on patient-doctor relationship of micro-level rationing and to inequities in drug availability resulting from privatisation of high-cost cancer treatment.

Conclusions

Drawing on the analytical framework, we conclude that perceptions of legitimacy regarding rationing of high-cost drugs include procedural fairness. However, notions of substantive justice also seem to be important for accepting reasons given for decisions. Regulatory legitimacy may further warrant a more sophisticated theoretical account of second-order beliefs about the justifiability of rationing new technologies. These findings indicate a need for a broader concept of legitimacy than is commonly used in the literature on healthcare prioritisation.

Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy in non-small cell lung cancer in northern Norway: budget impact and expected gain-a model-based analysis

Background

Pembrolizumab is a new drug approved in several countries for second-line therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) being programmed cell death ligand (PD-L1) positive. This drug has a high cost, and the cost-effectiveness ratio has been debated.

Patients and methods

The budget impact to the Northern Norwegian Regional Health Authority trust of implementing pembrolizumab in second-line therapy in patients with PD-L1-positive NSCLC was calculated. A model was developed employing data from the Cancer Registry of Norway, the KEYNOTE-010 study, the price list from The Hospital Pharmacy of North Norway, the cost of analysing PD-L1 expression and the cost of travelling. Today's cost of second-line therapy was compared with the new standard employing pembrolizumab. The sale price of pembrolizumab in Norway was not published due to price confidentiality. Norwegian krone (NKr) was converted into Euros (€) at a rate of 1€=Nkr 8.8138. (Bank of Norway, 21 February 2017).

Results

105 new patients were identified available for pembrolizumab per year. The annual cost of pembrolizumab was €5.2 million, hospital pharmacy administration costs €0.1 million, PD-L1 testing €0.3 million, oncologist/pulmonologist/nurses €0.2 million, radiology €0.06 million and transportation €0.4 million. Savings due to avoided present second-line therapy was calculated €0.4 million. Consequently, the cost of implementing pembrolizumab was €5.5 million and the annual budget impact was €5.0 million. A mean gain of at least 9 months per patient treated was necessary to make pembrolizumab cost-effective.

Conclusions

The net budget impact of pembrolizumab was €5.0 million. The expenditure could not be indicated cost-effective. Price confidentiality is a growing problem in health economics and it has become a 'menu without prices' setting.

Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL)

Rare diseases are an important public health issue with high unmet need. The introduction of the EU Regulation on orphan medicinal products (OMP) has been successful in stimulating investment in the research and development of OMPs. Despite this advancement, patients do not have universal access to these new medicines. There are many factors that affect OMP uptake, but one of the most important is the difficulty of making pricing and reimbursement (P&R) decisions in rare diseases. Until now, there has been little consensus on the most appropriate assessment criteria, perspective or appraisal process. This paper proposes nine principles to help improve the consistency of OMP P&R assessment in Europe and ensure that value assessment, pricing and funding processes reflect the specificities of rare diseases and contribute to both the sustainability of healthcare systems and the sustainability of innovation in this field. These recommendations are the output of the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL), a collaboration between rare disease experts, patient representatives, academics, health technology assessment (HTA) practitioners, politicians and industry representatives. ORPH-VAL reached its recommendations through careful consideration of existing OMP P&R literature and through a wide consultation with expert stakeholders, including payers, regulators and patients. The principles cover four areas: OMP decision criteria, OMP decision process, OMP sustainable funding systems and European co-ordination. This paper also presents a guide to the core elements of value relevant to OMPs that should be consistently considered in all OMP appraisals. The principles outlined in this paper may be helpful in drawing together an emerging consensus on this topic and identifying areas where consistency in payer approach could be achievable and beneficial. All stakeholders have an obligation to work together to ensure that the promise of OMP's is realised.

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.

Impact of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality

The degree to which observed reductions in breast cancer mortality is attributable to screening mammography has become increasingly controversial. We examined this issue with three fundamentally different approaches: (i) Chronology--the temporal relationship of the onset of breast cancer mortality decline and the national implementation of screening mammography; (ii) Magnitude--the degree to which breast cancer mortality declined relative to the amount (penetration) of screening mammography; (iii) Analogy--the pattern of mortality rate reductions of other cancers for which population screening is not conducted. Chronology and magnitude were assessed with data from Europe and North America, with three methods applied to magnitude. A comparison of eight countries in Europe and North America does not demonstrate a correlation between the penetration of national screening and either the chronology or magnitude of national breast cancer mortality reduction. In the United States, the magnitude of the mortality decline is greater in the unscreened, younger women than in the screened population and regional variation in the rate of breast cancer mortality reduction is not correlated with screening penetrance, either as self-reported or by the magnitude of screening-induced increase in early-stage disease. Analogy analysis of United States data identifies 14 other cancers with a similar distinct onset of mortality reduction for which screening is not performed. These five lines of evidence from three different approaches and additional observations discussed do not support the hypothesis that mammography screening is a primary reason for the breast cancer mortality reduction in Europe and North America.