A review of economic impact of targeted oral anticancer medications

An analysis of the trends in the usage of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme-subsidised cancer drugs in Australia from 2012 to 2022

PURPOSE

Cancer treatment remains a significant and escalating healthcare expense worldwide. Although annual reports on total cancer care costs are available, the potential impact of evolving treatment guidelines and the introduction of new drugs on future budgeting remains largely uncertain. The aim of this study was to examine the trends in the use of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS)-subsidised cancer drugs in Australia over the past decade.

METHODS

PBS codes for all PBS-subsidised cancer drugs that were listed in government-endorsed treatment protocols were obtained and used to retrieve usage data. Their patterns of use, represented by the number of prescriptions (services) processed by Services Australia, were analysed for the period between 2012 and 2022.

RESULTS

The overall prescribing of cancer drugs is outpacing Australia's population growth, primarily due to an ageing population and the accelerated rise in cancer diagnoses observed over the past decade. From 846 eviQ protocols, 141 cancer drugs were available on the PBS, of which kinase inhibitor (39 drugs) and monoclonal antibody drugs (24 drugs) had the highest increase in use during the study period; 16% and 23% respectively. Of the 8 drug classes, hormonal agents (20 drugs) were the most prescribed.

CONCLUSION

The utilisation of PBS-listed cancer drugs is increasing faster than population growth, especially for high-cost monoclonal antibody and kinase inhibitor drugs, indicating continued pressure on government spending.

Feasibility of an Individualized Dispensing Program for Patients Prescribed Oral Anticancer Drugs to Prevent Waste

PURPOSE

Waste of oral anticancer drugs (OACDs) causes financial and environmental burdens. This study evaluates the feasibility of an individualized dispensing program to prevent waste of OACDs.

METHODS

Adult patients were dispensed individualized quantities of niraparib, abiraterone, enzalutamide, ruxolitinib, osimertinib, or imatinib as standard care, during the first 6 months of treatment. The first 50 patients participated in an feasibility evaluation conform five domains of Bowen's Framework. (1) implementation: reach (eligible patients included) and protocol fidelity (executions following protocol) assessed from pharmacy data, (2) acceptability: rated from 1 to 10 and agreement with theoretical framework acceptability domains via a survey among patients and pharmacy technicians, (3) practicality: program's costs, (4) effect: compared with previous practice (full package supply per month), defined as difference in unused OACD unit doses and net cost-savings, and (5) demand: potential scale-up of the program by including more OACDs.

RESULTS

Participants' median age was 67 (interquartile range [IQR], 58-71) years, and 76% was male. (1) Implementation: reach and protocol fidelity were 89% and 90%, respectively. (2) Acceptability was high among patients (median, 9; IQR, 8-9) and pharmacy technicians (median, 7; IQR, 6-8). All acceptability domains were agreed on. (3) Practicality: program costs were €4,289. (4) Effect: unused OACD unit doses were reduced by 34%, causing net cost-savings of €693 per discontinued patient. (5) Demand: the program could be scaled up to seven times by including all OACDs.

CONCLUSION

Individualized dispensing for patients prescribed OACDs is feasible for preventing waste in terms of implementation, acceptability, practicality, effect, and demand.

Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature

We reviewed current literature reviews regarding economics of cancer-related health care to identify focus areas and gaps. We searched PubMed for systematic and other reviews with the Medical Subject Headings "neoplasms" and "economics" published between January 1, 2010, and April 1, 2020, identifying 164 reviews. Review characteristics were abstracted and described. The majority (70.7%) of reviews focused on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses. Few reviews addressed other types of cancer health economic studies. More than two-thirds of the reviews examined cancer treatments, followed by screening (15.9%) and survivorship or end-of-life (13.4%). The plurality of reviews (28.7%) cut across cancer site, followed by breast (20.7%), colorectal (11.6%), and gynecologic (8.5%) cancers. Specific topics addressed cancer screening modalities, novel therapies, pain management, or exercise interventions during survivorship. The results indicate that reviews do not regularly cover other phases of care or topics including financial hardship, policy, and measurement and methods.

Safety and cost-effectiveness of ponatinib versus other tyrosine kinase inhibitors as second-line therapy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in the United States

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ponatinib compared with second-line TKIs in the treatment of adult patients with CML who failed, or were intolerant to, first-line TKIs. A Markov state transition model was conducted. Model transition, adverse-effect probabilities, utility data and medical costs were obtained from clinical trials and literature. Measurements included medications, follow-ups, adverse events, allogeneic stem cell transplantation and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Univariable and Bayesian multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted using Monte Carlo simulations. Dasatinib resulted in an ICER of $79,086/QALY compared to nilotinib. Ponatinib yielded an ICER of $176,278/QALY and $141,563/QALY compared to dasatinib and nilotinib, respectively. Dasatinib was the optimal treatment at a $100,000/QALY threshold. The probability (36%-40%) for ponatinib or dasatinib optimal treatment was associated with thresholds of $160,000-$180,000/QALY. Dasatinib and ponatinib can be considered cost-effective options and provide clinical benefits compared to other second-line TKIs for CML in the US.

Impacts of anticancer drug parity laws on mortality rates

This study investigates the impacts of anticancer drug parity laws on mortality rates in the United States using a difference-in-differences approach. Using data from 2004 to 2017 Compressed Mortality Files, we show that the anticancer drug parity laws reduce the mortality rate for head/neck malignant cancers but have no impact on malignant cancers of other types. We also rule out an insurance expansion channel that may influence the relationship between anticancer drug parity laws and malignant cancer mortality. Our results are robust to various specifications and falsification tests. Our findings imply that providing equal access to oral anticancer drugs is an effective tool for the prevention of premature mortality.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration anticancer drug approval trends from 2016 to 2018 for lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer

Objective

This paper aims to describe the clinical and regulatory aspects of new drugs and indications that were approved for lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer, from 2016 to 2018, in order to provide health technology assessment trends in oncology.

Methods

Data were collected from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) online database for new medications and indications approved for the above-mentioned types of cancer. Data regarding clinical study characteristics and regulatory information were collected.

Results

From 2016 to 2018, 53 percent of the FDA approvals of new drugs and indications for the most incident cancers were for oral protein kinase inhibitor monotherapy for advanced lung cancer. Since 2018, four drugs were approved as tumor-agnostic therapies. A biomarker was included in 72 percent of indications, and 58 percent of approvals were for targeted therapies, potentially heralding an end to research into conventional cytotoxic agents. A special designation for faster approval was granted in 78 percent of new approvals. The majority of the studies were open label randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (44 percent), followed by blind RCTs, single-arm clinical trials, and cohort studies. Only 14 percent of studies used overall survival as the primary end point; the vast majority used surrogate end points, and did not use patient-important outcomes. Three biosimilars were approved in the period.

Conclusion

Advanced lung cancer therapy, mainly targeted drugs, accounted for 53 percent of approvals. Special designations for faster approval were used in 78 percent of FDA approvals, and four drugs were approved for tumor-agnostic treatment—a new form of approval.

Pharmacoeconomics Evaluations of Oral Anticancer Agents: Systematic Review of Characteristics, Methodological Trends, and Reporting Quality

OBJECTIVES

To review literature characteristics, describe methodological trends, and assess the reporting quality of the economic evaluations of oral anticancer drugs (OACDs).

METHODS

The review included comparative economic evaluations of OACDs. The search was conducted via PubMed, Embase, EconLit, and Economic Evaluation Database, and studies till December 2017 were included. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist, literature inclusion and data extraction were performed in duplicate by separate investigators. Outcome measures were literature characteristics, gaps and methodological trends, and reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Data were summarized on the basis of methodological themes of interest. Descriptive statistics and tabulations were used for result presentation.

RESULTS

Out of 241 found articles, 21 were included. There is a recent increasing interest in the economics of OACDs, whereby the cost per quality-adjusted life-year, via cost-utility analysis, is the most used for decision making. Most of the studies were from the payer perspective, and the primary sources of data were clinical trials, expert panels, and medical charts. The dominance status (higher effect, lower cost) was a commonly reported outcome. Decision-analytic modeling was used in most of the studies, mostly including Markov modeling. Studies were highly heterogeneous in methodological aspects, and the included studies did not meet most of the reporting quality criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

High heterogeneity in methods in studies may limit the robustness and transferability of results, potentially misleading decision makers toward wrong decisions on OACDs. The transferability and generalizability of results are further limited by a "less than ideal" adherence to current reporting standards.

Artocarpin, an isoprenyl flavonoid, induces p53-dependent or independent apoptosis via ROS-mediated MAPKs and Akt activation in non-small cell lung cancer cells

Artocarpin has been shown to exhibit cytotoxic effects on different cancer cells, including non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC, A549). However, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Here, we explore both p53-dependent and independent apoptosis pathways in artocarpin-treated NSCLC cells. Our results showed that artocarpin rapidly induced activation of cellular protein kinases including Erk1/2, p38 and AktS473. Inhibition of these protein kinases prevented artocarpin-induced cell death. Moreover, artocarpin-induced phosphorylation of these protein kinases and apoptosis were mediated by induction of reactive oxygen species (ROS), as pretreatment with NAC (a ROS scavenger) and Apocynin (a Nox-2 inhibitor) blocked these events. Similarly, transient transfection of p47Phox or p91Phox siRNA attenuated artocarpin-induced NADPH oxidase activity and cell death. In addition, p53 dependent apoptotic proteins including PUMA, cytochrome c, Apaf-1 and caspase 3 were activated by artocarpin, and these effects can be abolished by antioxidants, MAPK inhibitors (U0126 and SB202190), but not by PI3K inhibitor (LY294002). Furthermore, we found that artocarpin-induced Akt phosphorylation led to increased NF-κB activity, which may act as an upstream regulator in the c-Myc and Noxa pathway. Therefore, we propose that enhancement of both ERK/ p38/ p53-dependent or independent AktS473/NF-κB/c-Myc/Noxa cascade by Nox-derived ROS generation plays an important role in artocarpin-induced apoptosis in NSCLC cells.

Oral Chemotherapy in Patients with Hematological Malignancies-Care Process, Pharmacoeconomic and Policy Implications

Patients with hematologic malignancies are increasing being prescribed oral anticancer medications (OAMs) and/or biologics. These newer targeted OAMs are associated with a host of practical and pharmacoeconomic implications for patients and healthcare providers. Issues such as safety, procurement challenges, and the need for proactive involvement of all stakeholders to optimize adherence for successful use of these agents are increasingly being recognized. The current reactive model is negatively impacting the patient experience through delays in care, financial toxicity, and decreased safety. It also impacts the healthcare providers in the form of lost revenue and staff burnout due to labor-intensive procurement and patient financial assistance burdens. In this review, we describe some of the issues identified and discuss potential strategies to improve patient access, minimize healthcare burden, and review current policy initiatives and patient advocacy efforts to reduce financial toxicity.

Cost-effectiveness of kinase inhibitors for hematologic malignancies: a systematic and critical review

INTRODUCTION

Several genetic disruptions lead to constitutive activation of those kinases leukemic cells depend on for survival and proliferation. Kinase inhibitors (KI) are major therapeutic innovations for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL) and myelofibrosis (MF) providing a relevant improvement of quality-adjusted survival in patients with high-risk or refractory disease. CML patients are being treated with first-generation KI imatinib since many years, achieving expected survivals longer than 10 years. Second- and third generations KIs, such as nilotinib, dasatinib, ponatinib and bosutinib, recently expanded the therapeutic yield for CML and treatment discontinuation in patients with persistent deep molecular response is being pursued. Areas covered: This review summarizes available evidence on economic analyses of KI treatments for CML, CLL and MF aimed at identifying the key determinants of KI cost-effectiveness. Expert commentary: On converse, specific KIs for CLL and MF patients have been marketed only in the last few years. Ibrutinib and idelalisib allowed to improve the outcomes of relapsed/refractory CLL and of patients with poor genetic features, while the first-in-class JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib allowed to improve symptoms of advanced MF patients and to prolong survival in responders. In the current situation of healthcare budget restrictions worldwide, the value for cost of the above KIs has been questioned.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical-industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.50) (13 papers), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

Financial Burden for Patients With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Enrolled in Medicare Part D Taking Targeted Oral Anticancer Medications

PURPOSE

The number of targeted oral anticancer medications (TOAMs) has grown rapidly in the past decade. The high cost of TOAMs raises concerns about the financial aspect of treatment, especially for patients enrolled in Medicare Part D plans because of the coverage gap.

METHODS

We identified patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who were new TOAM users from the SEER registry data linked with Medicare Part D data, from years 2007 to 2012. We followed these patients throughout the calendar year when they started taking the TOAMs and examined their out-of-pocket (OOP) payments and gross drug costs, taking into account their benefit phase, plan type, and cost share group.

RESULTS

We found that 726 (81%) of the 898 patients with CML who received TOAMs had reached the catastrophic phase of their Medicare Part D benefit within the year of medication initiation, with a large majority of patients reaching this phase in less than a month. Patients without subsidies showed a clear pattern of a spike in OOP payments when they began treatment with TOAMs. The OOP payment for patients with subsidies was substantially lower. The monthly gross drug costs were similar between patients with and without subsidies.

CONCLUSION

Patients experience quick entry and exit from the coverage gap (also called the donut hole) as a result of the high price of TOAMs. Closing the donut hole will provide financial relief during the initial month(s) of treatment but will not completely eliminate the financial burden.

Economic evaluation of therapeutic cancer vaccines and immunotherapy: a systematic review

Cancer immunotherapy is a rapidly growing field in oncology. One attractive feature of cancer immunotherapy is the purported combination of minimal toxicity and durable responses. However such treatments are often very expensive. Given the wide-spread concern over rising health care costs, it is important for all stakeholders to be well-informed on the cost and cost-effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies. We performed a comprehensive literature review of cost and cost-effectiveness research on therapeutic cancer vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, to better understand the economic impacts of these treatments. We summarized our literature searches into three tables by types of papers: systematic review of economic studies of a specific agent, cost and cost-effectiveness analysis. Our review showed that out of the sixteen immunotherapy agents approved, nine had relevant published economic studies. Five out of the nine studied immunotherapy agents had been covered in systematic reviews. Among those, only one (rituximab for non-Hodgkin lymphoma) was found to be cost-effective. Of the four immunotherapy drugs not covered in systematic reviews (alemtuzumab, ipilimumab, sipuleucel-T, ofatumumab), high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported for each. Many immunotherapies have not had economic evaluations, and those that have been studied show high ICERs or frank lack of cost-effectiveness. One major hurdle in improving the cost-effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies is to identify predictive biomarkers for selecting appropriate patients as recipients of these expensive therapies. We discuss the implications surrounding the economic factors involved in cancer immunotherapies and suggest that further research on cost and cost-effectiveness of newer cancer vaccines and immunotherapies are warranted as this is a rapidly growing field with many new drugs on the horizon.

Patterns of use of oral anticancer treatments in France: a Retrospective Analysis of Cancer Treatments given ORally from 2004 to 2012 (Re-ACTOR study)

BACKGROUNDS AND OBJECTIVES

Increasing use of oral anticancer treatments (OATs) in oncology is modifying the treatment paradigm for cancer. Nonetheless, available data on the pattern of use of OATs and its evolution over time are limited. The objective of this study was to describe the patterns of use of OATs in France from 2004 to 2012.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using Oncology Analyzer, a physician survey database. All patients actively treated by an oral or an intravenous anticancer treatment between October 2004 and September 2012 were enrolled in the database. Descriptive analyses were performed by treatment category with a focus on the last year of collection and the evolution across the study period.

RESULTS

From October 2011 to September 2012, a sample of 7426 patients treated by oral or intravenous active anticancer treatments was analyzed: 74% of patients receiving an OAT were diagnosed with a solid tumor, 52% of whom had a stage IV cancer. The use of OATs increased with age and was the highest in patients over 80 years. From 2004 to 2012, the proportion of cancer patients receiving OATs increased by four percentage points (from 28.4% to 32.5%). Additionally, for treatments available in both forms, a marked preference for oral formulations was observed.

LIMITATIONS

The patterns and trend of use prior to 2004 were not addressed due to lack of information in the database. The use of a market research database is relevant for highly prevalent cancers but for rare cancers the sample size is limited, underlining the utility of using other data sources such as cancer registries.

CONCLUSIONS

The Re-ACTOR study provides an overview of OAT use in France, which was prescribed to 32% of cancer patients in France in 2012, principally to older patients and to those with solid tumors and with metastatic disease.

Cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy combined with thoracic radiotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for limited stage small cell lung cancer: A population-based propensity-score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The addition of thoracic radiotherapy improves the outcome of limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC), however, the cost-effectiveness of this process has never been reported. We aimed to estimate the short-term cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy combined with thoracic radiotherapy (C-TRT) versus chemotherapy alone (C/T) for LS-SCLC patients from the payer's perspective (Taiwan National Health Insurance).

METHODS

We identified LS-SCLC patients diagnosed within 2007-2009 through a comprehensive population-based database containing cancer and death registries, and reimbursement data. The duration of interest was one year within diagnosis. We included potential confounding covariables through literature searching and our own experience, and used a propensity score to construct a 1:1 population for adjustment. We used a net benefit (NB) approach to evaluate the cost-effectiveness at various willingness-to-pay (WTP) levels. Sensitivity analysis regarding potential unmeasured confounder(s) was performed.

RESULTS

Our study population constituted 74 patients. The mean cost (2013 USD) and survival (year) was higher for C-TRT (42 439 vs. 28 357; 0.94 vs. 0.88). At the common WTP level (50 000 USD/life-year), C-TRT was not cost effective (incremental NB - 11 082) and the probability for C-TRT to be cost effective (i.e. positive net benefit) was 0.005. The result was moderately sensitive to potential unmeasured confounder(s) in sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide evidence that when compared to C/T, C-TRT is effective in improving survival, but is not cost-effective in the short-term at a common WTP level from a payer's perspective. This information should be considered by clinicians when discussing thoracic radiotherapy with their LS-SCLC patients.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted oral anti-cancer drugs: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Over the last 15 years, a paradigm shift in oncology has led to the approval of dozens of targeted oral anti-cancer medications (OAMs), which have become the standard of care for certain cancers. While more convenient for patients than infused drugs, the possibility of non-adherence and the frequently high costs of targeted OAMs have proven controversial.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to perform the first comprehensive review of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of targeted OAMs.

METHODS

A literature search in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports published by the National Institute for Health Research HTA Programme in the UK was performed, covering articles published in the 5 years prior to 30 September 2013. Our inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed English-language full-text original research articles with a primary focus on CEA related to targeted OAMs. We categorized these articles by treatment setting (i.e. cancer site/type, line of therapy, and treatment and comparator) and synthesized information from the articles into summary tables.

RESULTS

We identified 41 CEAs covering nine of the 18 targeted OAMs approved by the US FDA as of December 2012. These medications were studied in seven cancers, most often as second-line therapy for advanced-stage patients. In over half of treatment settings where a targeted OAM was compared with treatment that was not a targeted OAM, targeted OAMs were considered cost effective. Limitations in interpreting these findings include the risk of bias due to author conflicts of interest, cross-country variation, and difficulties in generalizing clinical trial evidence to community practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Several types of cost-effectiveness studies remain under-represented in the literature on targeted OAMs, including those for follow-on indications approved after the initial indication for a drug and for off-label indications, head-to-head comparisons of targeted OAMs with other targeted OAMs and targeted intravenous therapies, and studies that adopt a perspective other than the payer's. Keeping up with the increasing number of approved targeted OAMs will also prove an important challenge for economic evaluation.