High technology drugs for cancer: the decision process for adding to a formulary

Descriptive comparison of hospital formulary decisions with published oncology valuation methods

INTRODUCTION

As cost of cancer therapy continues to increase, several organizations have developed rubrics to ascertain treatment. No studies have evaluated these methods for hospital formulary decision-making. We applied different value measurement tools to formulary decisions from one hospital system to assess their operational utility.

METHODS

We evaluated four value systems: National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, DrugAbacus drug pricing, European Society for Medical Oncology clinical benefit scale, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology net health benefit. Each value score or cost was assessed against our hospital formulary requests between 2012 and 2016. Formulary requests accepted and rejected were compared with respect to their relative numbers of National Comprehensive Cancer Network blocks, difference between DrugAbacus and actual cost, and European Society for Medical Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology scores.

RESULTS

Twenty-two chemotherapy requests were included, with 20 approvals and 2 rejections. No correlation was observed between number of evidence blocks and formulary acceptance (p = 0.13). Most drugs had a higher actual price than the DrugAbacus suggested cost (p = 0.036). No significant differences were observed in European Society for Medical Oncology (p = 0.90) or American Society of Clinical Oncology (p = 0.70) scores between drugs that were accepted or rejected. When evaluating monthly cost per point of American Society of Clinical Oncology score, a numerical difference between groups was observed (median = $369.7 versus $1256.8 per point, p = 0.61).

CONCLUSIONS

Existing oncology value assessment systems only variably inform hospital formulary decisions. The American Society of Clinical Oncology net health benefit score deserves further study as a method to systematically quantify the clinical safety and efficacy of formulary medication addition relative to cost.

Advanced and controlled drug delivery systems in clinical disease management

Advanced and controlled drug delivery systems are important for clinical disease management. In this review the most important new systems which have reached clinical application are highlighted. Microbiologically controlled drug delivery is important for gastrointestinal diseases like ulcerative colitis and distally localized Crohn's disease. In cardiology the more classic controlled release systems have improved patient compliance and decreased side effects. In the treatment of intractable pain the spinal and transdermal route is well documented. In neurology the flattened peak-through levels of antiepileptic drugs and anti Parkinson's drugs represents a more predictable kinetic profile. Tracheal delivery of corticosteroids and sympaticomimetics in asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease is fully accepted in clinical practice: delivery by this route results in better efficacy and a better safety profile. In gynaecology the delivery of pulsatile hormones (LHRH) is used for pregnancy induction, while transdermal oestrogens are promising in the prevention of osteoporosis. In surgical practice the use of antibiotic impregnated bone cement and antibiotic impregnated biodegradable collagens is well established. To prevent infections intravascular catheters coated with heparin or antibiotics are used. In ophthalmology the Ocusert systems provide a controlled release of different drugs in the eye. Most spectacular is the clinical introduction of the first liposomal drugs; amfotericine B and daunorubicine. Liposomal formulations of these drugs have enhanced activity and decreased toxicity compared to conventional formulations.