A willingness-to-pay study of oral epidermal growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

The Perceived Value of Liquid Biopsy: Results From a Canadian Validation Study of Circulating Tumor DNA T790M Testing-Patient's Willingness-to-Pay: A Brief Report

Introduction

Liquid biopsy is recommended to diagnose molecular resistance to targeted therapy in patients with lung cancer. Nevertheless, not all jurisdictions provide funding and patient access. We report patients' perceived value of liquid biopsy in targeted therapy resistance.

Methods

Canadian patients participating in a national EGFR T790M liquid biopsy validation study completed structured interviews measuring perceived value and willingness-to-pay for plasma circulating tumor DNA testing as an alternative to tumor biopsy using open-ended and iterative bidding approaches.

Results

A total of 60 patients with advanced lung cancer participated with a median age of 64 years (range: 31-87 y); 69% were Asian and 45% female. All had received prior EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor; 17% also received chemotherapy. All patients preferred to have plasma testing over repeat tumor biopsy. In the context of the Canadian publicly funded system, patients estimated that a median of 300 (interquartile range: 150-800) Canadian dollars was a reasonable price to pay for liquid biopsy. Patients were personally willing to pay a median 100 (interquartile range: 33-350) Canadian dollars.

Conclusions

In a system that covers the cost of standard diagnostic tests, patients with lung cancer indicated high willingness-to-pay out-of-pocket for liquid biopsy in the setting of acquired targeted therapy resistance. Patients have high perceived value of plasma genotyping and prefer it to repeat tumor biopsy.

Willingness to pay for cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Willingness to pay (WTP) studies examine the maximum amount of money an individual is willing to pay for a specified health intervention, and can be used to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. Our objectives were to assess how people value cancer-related interventions, identify differences in the methodologies used, and review the trends in studies' publication.

AREAS COVERED

We extracted PubMed and EconLit articles published in 1997-2020 that reported WTP for cancer-related interventions, characterized the methodological differences and summarized each intervention's mean and median WTP values. We reviewed 1,331 abstracts and identified 103 relevant WTP studies, of which 37 (36%) focused on treatment followed by screening (26), prevention (21), diagnosis (7) and other interventions (12). The methods used to determine WTP values were primarily discrete-choice questions (n = 54, 52%), bidding games (15), payment cards (12) and open-ended questions (12). We found a wide variation in WTP reported values ranged from below $100 to over $20,000.

EXPERT OPINION

The WTP literature on oncology interventions has grown rapidly. There is considerable heterogeneity with respect to the type of interventions and diseases assessed, the respondents' characteristics, and the study methodologies. This points to the need to establish international guidelines for best practices in this field.

Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Understanding patient preferences in cancer management is essential for shared decision-making. Patient or societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) for desired outcomes in cancer management represents their preferences and values of these outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate how current literature has addressed WTP in relation to cancer treatment and achievement of outcomes.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched from inception until 2 March 2021 to include studies with primary data of WTP values for cancer treatments or achievement of outcomes that were elicited using stated preference methods.

RESULTS

Fifty-four studies were included in this review. All studies were published after year 2000 and more than 90% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Sample size of the studies ranged from 35 to 2040, with patient being the most studied population. There was a near even distribution between studies using contingent valuation and discrete choice experiment. Based on the included studies, the highest WTP values were for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ($11,498-$589,822), followed by 1-year survival ($3-$198,576), quality of life (QoL) improvement ($5531-$139,499), and pain reduction ($79-$94,662). Current empirical evidence suggested that improvement in QoL and pain reduction had comparable weights to survival in cancer management.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides a summary on stated preference studies that elicited patient preferences via WTP and summarised their respective values. Respondents in this review had comparable WTP for 1-year survival and QoL, suggesting that improvement in QoL should be emphasised together with survival in cancer management.

Line of therapy and patient preferences regarding lung cancer treatment: a discrete-choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

A growing literature on patient preferences informs decisions in research, regulatory science, and value assessment, but few studies have explored how preferences vary across patients with differing treatment experience. We sought to quantify patient preferences for the benefits and risks of lung cancer treatment and test how preferences differed by line of therapy (LOT).

METHODS

Preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) following rigorous patient and stakeholder engagement. The DCE spanned five attributes (each with three levels): progression-free survival (PFS), short-term side effects, long-term side effects, risk of developing late-onset side effects, and mode of administration (MOA) - each defined across 3 relevant levels. A D-efficient design was used to generate 3 survey blocks of 9 paired-profile choice tasks each and respondents were asked which profile they preferred and then if they preferred to have no treatment (opt-out). A mixed logit model, controlling for opt-out, was used to estimate preferences. Preferences and trade-offs between PFS and other attributes were compared across two groups: those receiving ≤1 LOT and those receiving ≥2 LOT.

RESULTS

Of the 466 participants, 42% received ≤1 LOT and 58% received ≥2 LOT. Stated preferences differed between the groups overall (p<.001) and specifically for 18 months of PFS (p<.001), moderate short-term side effects (p<.001), no long-term side effects (p=.03), and 30% chance of late-onset side effects (p=.02). Those receiving differing amounts of LOT were willing to trade different amounts of PFS to change from moderate to mild short-term side effects (p<.001), moderate to no (p<.001) and mild to no (p<.001) long-term side effects. There were also differing amounts of tradeoff acceptable between the groups for a 10% decrease in risk of late-onset side effects (p=.016), a decrease in MOA from infusion every 3 weeks to pills taken daily at any time (p=.005) and from pills taken daily without food to pills taken daily at any time (p<.001).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate differences in preferences based on experience with LOT, suggesting that patient treatment experience may have an impact on their preferences. As patient preference data become an important component of treatment decision making, preference differences should be considered when recommending therapies at different stages in the treatment journey. Understanding patient preferences regarding treatment decisions is essential to informing shared decision-making and ensuring treatment plans are consistent with patients' goals.

Preferences of lung cancer patients for treatment and decision-making: a systematic literature review

The consideration of patient preferences in decision-making has become more important, especially for life-threatening diseases such as lung cancer. This paper aims to identify the preferences of lung cancer patients with regard to their treatment and involvement in the decision-making process. We conducted a systematic literature review from 12 electronic databases and included studies published between 2000 and 2012. A total of 20 studies were included in this review. These revealed that lung cancer patients do have preferences that should be considered in treatment decisions; however, these preferences are not homogenous. We found that patients often consider life extension to be more important than the health-related quality of life or undesirable side effects. This preference seems to depend on patient age. Nausea and vomiting are the most important side effects to be avoided; the relevance of other side effects differs highly between subgroups. The majority of lung cancer patients, nevertheless, seem to prefer a passive rather than an active role in decision-making, although the self-reported preferences differed partly from the physicians' perceptions. Overall, we identified an urgent need for larger studies that are suitable for subgroup analyses and incorporate multi-attributive measurement techniques.

Identifying stakeholder opinion regarding access to “high-cost medicines”: A systematic review of the literature

Objective: To identify the viewpoints and perceptions of different stakeholders regarding high cost medicines (HCMs). Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify original research articles. Using predefined categories, data related to the viewpoints of different stakeholders was systematically extracted and analyzed. Results: Thirty seven original research articles matched the criteria. The main stakeholders identified include physicians, patients, public and health funding authorities. The influence of media and other economic and ethical issues were also identified in the literature. A large number of stakeholders were concerned about lack of access to HCMs. Physicians have difficulty balancing the the rational use of expensive drugs while at the same time acting as “patients’ advocate”. Patients would like to know about all treatment options, even if they may not be able to afford them. The process and criteria for reimbursement should be transparent and access has to be equitable across patient groups. Conclusion: Access to HCMs could be improved through transparency and involvement of all stakeholders, especially patients and the public. Moral issues and the “rule of rescue” could influence decision-making process significantly. At system level, objectivity is important to ensure that the system is equitable and transparent.

Update on the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: focus on the cost-effectiveness of new agents

Background

The incidence of lung cancer and the cost of drug treatment have increased dramatically in the last decade. This article examines the costs of new target agents, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and anti-angiogenic drugs.

Methods

This study uses PubMed research to focus on the topics of lung cancer, economics, and new targeted therapies.

Results

The published papers only addressed TKIs and anti-angiogenic antibodies. For gefitinib, the results favored a clinical-based selection, despite the low number of studies. Erlotinib was studied in second line and as a maintenance treatment (with the studies reaching opposite conclusions in terms of cost-effectiveness). Economic analyses were not in favor of bevacizumab, but the studies on this topic were very heterogeneous.

Conclusion

The economic impact of a drug depends on the health care system organization. Future clinical trials must include economic analyses, particularly with TKIs in the first line.

How affordable are targeted therapies in non-small cell lung cancer?

As the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) evolves to include more targeted therapies, costs of treatment have increased significantly. Advances in NSCLC treatment include longer survival duration, and in some cases, better progression-free survival and quality of life, and the potential for decreased toxicity. Through pharmacoeconomic analyses, payors seek to value the improvements in outcomes from novel therapies, and relate these improvements to their costs. In NSCLC, three categories of novel agents have been introduced into clinical practice: (1) agents targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR); (2) agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and (3) novel chemotherapy agents, specifically pemetrexed. Here we review published economic analyses for these agents in lung cancer, and their potential impact on treatment decisions.

Analysis of wait times and costs during the peri-diagnostic period for non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To determine the wait times and healthcare costs around the time of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) diagnosis for a large, population-based cohort of patients.

METHODS

Data on baseline demographics, diagnostic and staging tests, timelines of investigations, and frequency of physician visits and hospital admissions were obtained from a provincial cancer registry and health administrative databases for 2852 patients, who were diagnosed with NSCLC from 1996 to 2000 in Manitoba, Canada. Dates between investigations were used to determine wait times surrounding diagnosis and fee codes for physician and hospital services were used to estimate costs.

RESULTS

The median wait times from chest x-ray to chest computed tomography (CT) scan and from CT scan to definitive histological diagnosis were 8 (inter-quartile range 1-25) and 18 (inter-quartile range 3-42) days, respectively. At least 25% of patients waited more than 55 days from initial suspicion on chest x-ray to final diagnosis of NSCLC. The mean cost per case of NSCLC diagnosis was $6,978 (in Canadian dollars) where the majority of expenses was attributed to hospital admissions and repeated physician visits before a diagnosis was confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite clinical suspicion for NSCLC, a significant number of patients wait more than 8 weeks for a definitive diagnosis. Substantial costs are incurred by the Canadian universal healthcare system in the months surrounding diagnosis. Establishment of more efficient and cost-effective healthcare delivery in the peri-diagnostic time period may benefit the system as well as the patients.

Understanding how out-of-pocket expenses, treatment value, and patient characteristics influence treatment choices

PURPOSE

Cost sharing, intended to control the "overuse" of health care resources, may also reduce use of necessary services. The influence of cost on the treatment choices of patients with life-threatening illness, such as cancer, is unknown.

METHODS

A convenience sample of patients undergoing surveillance following curative treatment for localized cancer completed a paper survey that included three scenarios to elicit the maximum copayment they would be willing to pay for better treatment outcomes. Scenario A described a treatment for a curable cancer in terms of recurrence risk. Scenarios B and C described treatments for noncurable cancer in terms of the 2-year survival probability and median life expectancy.

RESULTS

The sample (n = 60) was 78% female, 83% aged <65 years, and 58% college graduates. Thirteen percent reported making financial sacrifices to pay for treatment. Patients were willing to pay higher copayments for more effective treatments (p < .05 for all three scenarios). In scenario B, patients who were employed demonstrated a greater willingness to pay (WTP) (odds ratio [OR], 12.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-80.4), when controlling for efficacy. In scenario C, college graduates showed greater WTP (OR, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.2-20.9) and patients who reported previous financial sacrifices showed lower WTP (OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.04-0.6).

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that patients may be less willing to pay high copayments for treatments with modest benefit. Even among this relatively young, affluent, and educated population, demographic variables were related to WTP. Larger studies in more diverse populations should be conducted to better understand how cost may influence treatment decisions and cancer treatment outcomes.

Erlotinib in non-small-cell lung cancer: a review of the clinical and economic evidence

Lung cancer is the most common cancer diagnosis in the world and the leading cause of cancer-related death. Despite considerable investment into drug development, to date, the survival gains have been relatively modest and treatment costs are often high, leading to concerns regarding the value of the existing therapeutic options. Erlotinib, an oral EGF-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been evaluated in multiple trials and patient populations in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, and is currently approved for use after failure of first- or second-line treatment. Recently reported clinical trial data suggest that the indication for erlotinib may be expanded into the first-line maintenance setting after chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. However, the monthly treatment cost for erlotinib is high, raising concerns regarding its value, especially in combination with other, often expensive, treatments. This article reviews the clinical and economic evidence on the use of erlotinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Willingness to pay to sustain and expand National Health Insurance services in Taiwan

Background

The purpose of the present study was to investigate people's willingness to pay to sustain the current National Health Insurance (NHI) program in Taiwan and to extend that program to cover long-term care services.

Methods

A survey was administered to 1800 inpatients and 1800 outpatients, selected from health care facilities across all accreditation levels that were operating under the supervision of six different regional branches of Taiwan's Bureau of National Health Insurance (BNHI). We used a contingent valuation method with closed-ended questions to elicit participants' willingness to pay for continued national heath insurance and additional institutional long-term care services. We divided participants into six subgroups and asked individuals in these groups referendum-like yes-no questions about whether they were willing to pay one of six price bids: New Taiwan Dollar (NT$) 50, NT$100, NT$200, NT$300, NT$400, or NT$500. Logistic regression was used to analyze willingness to pay.

Results

We found maximum willingness to pay for continued coverage by the NHI program and additional institutional long-term care services to be NT$66 and NT$137 dollars per month, respectively.

Conclusion

We found that people were willing to pay more for their insurance coverage. With regard to methodology, we also found that using a contingent valuation method to elicit peoples' willingness to pay for health policy issues is valid. The results of the present referendum-like study can serve as a reference for future policy decision making.

Economic analysis of albumin-bound paclitaxel for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer

Background. An albumin-bound formulation of paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) was developed to provide additional efficacy and to overcome the safety drawbacks of paclitaxel and docetaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer. To provide health economic data for the Canadian setting, an economic analysis comparing each of nab-paclitaxel and docetaxel, both as alternatives to paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer was conducted.

Methods. The clinical and safety data were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing either nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m2 q3wk) or docetaxel (100 mg/m 2 q3wk), to standard paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 q3wk). Health care resource use for the delivery of chemotherapy and the management of grade III/IV toxicity was collected from the oncology literature. Treatment preferences and health state utilities were obtained from 24 female oncology nurses and pharmacists using the time trade-off technique.

Results. Nab-paclitaxel had the lowest incidence of grade III/IV toxicity. This translated to lower overall costs for managing the grade III/IV events relative to both docetaxel and paclitaxel ($597 vs. $2626 vs. $1227). Using the median number of cycles administered and the cost impact of grade III/ IV toxicity, the overall cost for nab-paclitaxel would be $15,105 compared to $15,268 for docetaxel and $3557 for paclitaxel. When treatment preferences were assessed, 20 of 24 (83.3%) respondents selected nab-paclitaxel as their preferred choice compared to only 4 who selected docetaxel. These corresponded to a gain of 0.203 and 0.016 QALYs for nab-paclitaxel and docetaxel, respectively. With these utility benefits, the incremental cost per QALY gained was more favorable for nab-paclitaxel than docetaxel ($56,800 vs. $739,600).

Conclusions. Nab-paclitaxel would be an economically reasonable alternative to docetaxel in MBC patients. As an alternative to paclitaxel, formulary committees must decide if the $56,800 cost per QALY represents good value in their health care setting. J Oncol Pharm Practice (2009) 15: 67—78.

Ancillary human health benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation

BACKGROUND

Greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation policies can provide ancillary benefits in terms of short-term improvements in air quality and associated health benefits. Several studies have analyzed the ancillary impacts of GHG policies for a variety of locations, pollutants, and policies. In this paper we review the existing evidence on ancillary health benefits relating to air pollution from various GHG strategies and provide a framework for such analysis.

METHODS

We evaluate techniques used in different stages of such research for estimation of: (1) changes in air pollutant concentrations; (2) avoided adverse health endpoints; and (3) economic valuation of health consequences. The limitations and merits of various methods are examined. Finally, we conclude with recommendations for ancillary benefits analysis and related research gaps in the relevant disciplines.

RESULTS

We found that to date most assessments have focused their analysis more heavily on one aspect of the framework (e.g., economic analysis). While a wide range of methods was applied to various policies and regions, results from multiple studies provide strong evidence that the short-term public health and economic benefits of ancillary benefits related to GHG mitigation strategies are substantial. Further, results of these analyses are likely to be underestimates because there are a number of important unquantified health and economic endpoints.

CONCLUSION

Remaining challenges include integrating the understanding of the relative toxicity of particulate matter by components or sources, developing better estimates of public health and environmental impacts on selected sub-populations, and devising new methods for evaluating heretofore unquantified and non-monetized benefits.

Economic evaluations of medical care interventions for cancer patients: how, why, and what does it mean?

While the past decade has seen the development of multiple new interventions to diagnose and treat cancer, as well as to improve the quality of life for cancer patients, many of these interventions have substantial costs. This has resulted in increased scrutiny of the costs of care for cancer, as well as the costs relative to the benefits for cancer treatments. It is important for oncologists and other members of the cancer community to consider and understand how economic evaluations of cancer interventions are performed and to be able to use and critique these evaluations. This review discusses the components, main types, and analytic issues of health economic evaluations using studies of cancer interventions as examples. We also highlight limitations of these economic evaluations and discuss why members of the cancer community should care about economic analyses.

Gefitinib: a consideration of cost

Cancer care is one of the most significant healthcare costs in the USA. The National Institute of Health (NIH) estimates healthcare spending at US$171.6 billion (2002), with lung cancer estimated as the diagnosis with the second highest cost. As additional lines of therapy and newer targeted agents are incorporated into the treatment of lung cancer, these costs will further increase. Gefitinib, an EGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is well established in Asia for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Although not widely available in the West, encouraging data have recently been reported from a large, global Phase III study of gefitinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. This paper reviews the data supporting the use of gefitinib in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell-lung cancer and considers its potential economic impact, as well as quality-of-life outcomes, compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Docetaxel in non-small cell lung cancer: impact on quality of life and pharmacoeconomics

Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths in industrialised countries, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for the majority of cases. A large proportion of patients present with advanced disease and are >65 years of age at the time of diagnosis. Systemic chemotherapy may be offered in an effort to improve survival and quality of life (QOL). Chemotherapy with platinum-based compounds has been shown to modestly improve survival and QOL, and is considered the standard of care as first-line treatment in patients with a good performance status. The last decade has seen the emergence of newer generation chemotherapy agents for the treatment of all cancer types. We review the evidence for the use of docetaxel, an antimicrotubular agent, in patients with advanced NSCLC. In this review, we evaluate not only the effects of docetaxel on survival, but also its impact on QOL and economic issues. Docetaxel is a potent anticancer agent with activity both as a single agent or in combination, and is used both as a first- and second-line treatment in advanced NSCLC. The improvements observed in patients' QOL and the cost effectiveness of docetaxel make it a very reasonable choice in older patients with good performance status and advanced disease who are candidates for chemotherapy.

Economic impact of gefitinib for refractory non-small-cell lung cancer: a Markov model-based analysis

Few data are available on the economics of target therapy or refractory non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the mean global management costs (MC) per patient treated with gefitinib for NSCLC, and the costs of the different management phases.

METHOD

A Markov approach was used to model treatment costs in a cohort of 106 patients treated with gefitinib as part of a compassionate-use program (third-line treatment) in six public-sector teaching hospitals. The economic analysis adopted the health care payer's perspective, and only direct costs were taken into account.

RESULTS

The mean duration of gefitinib treatment was 4.6 +/- 5.8 months (1-29 months); median survival was 4 months, 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 12.3% and 4.7%, respectively. The mean total management cost was 39,979 euros +/- 20,279. The model showed that first- and second-line treatments accounted for respectively 29.5% and 44.1% of this cost, while gefitinib periods represented 10.7%, periods of remission 1.25%, and terminal care 14.5%. A sensitivity analysis showed that the price of gefitinib had little influence on the total cost.

CONCLUSION

The cost of third-line gefitinib therapy for NSCLC appears acceptable from the healthcare payer's perspective, but this needs to be confirmed in dedicated cost-effectiveness studies.