Determining the Comparative Value of Pharmaceutical Risk-Sharing Policies in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using Real-World Data

BACKGROUND

Risk-sharing arrangements (RSAs) can be used to mitigate uncertainty about the value of a drug by sharing the financial risk between payer and pharmaceutical company. We evaluated the projected impact of alternative RSAs for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapies based on real-world data.

METHODS

Data on treatment patterns of Dutch NSCLC patients from four different hospitals were used to perform "what-if" analyses, evaluating the costs and benefits likely associated with various RSAs. In the scenarios, drug costs or refunds were based on response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) response, survival compared to the pivotal trial, treatment duration, or a fixed cost per patient. Analyses were done for erlotinib, gemcitabine/cisplatin, and pemetrexed/platinum for metastatic NSCLC, and gemcitabine/cisplatin, pemetrexed/cisplatin, and vinorelbine/cisplatin for nonmetastatic NSCLC.

RESULTS

Money-back guarantees led to moderate cost reductions to the payer. For conditional treatment continuation schemes, costs and outcomes associated with the different treatments were dispersed. When price was linked to the outcome, the payer's drug costs reduced by 2.5% to 26.7%. Discounted treatment initiation schemes yielded large cost reductions. Utilization caps mainly reduced the costs of erlotinib treatment (by 16%). Given a fixed cost per patient based on projected average use of the drug, risk sharing was unfavorable to the payer because of the lower than projected use. The impact of RSAs on a national scale was dispersed.

CONCLUSIONS

For erlotinib and pemetrexed/platinum, large cost reductions were observed with risk sharing. RSAs can mitigate uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness or budget impact of drugs, but only when the type of arrangement matches the setting and type of uncertainty.

[Oral vinorelbine therapy for non-small cell lung cancer: clinical and pharmacoeconomic aspects]

AIM

To evaluate clinical and pharmacoeconomic aspects of treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by oral vinorelbine.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The evaluation was conducted based on randomized trials that compared NSCLC therapy by oral vinorebline with injectable form of vinorelbine and peme- trexed. Treatment costs were calculated on the basis of prices registered in 2016 including VAT and 10% of trade allow- ances. Medical services costs were calculated based on tariffs of obligatory health insurance for St. Petersburg in 2016.

RESULTS

Clinical trials showed that with comparable effi- cacy and tolerability 3 of 4 patients preferred oral vinorelbine to its injectable form, although therapy costs of oral form in- creased 1,9 times. Compared with pemetrexed, therapy of pa- tients with NSCLC by oral vinorelbine allowed reducing costs 1,74 times and the savings occurred 310.0 thousand rubles per 1 patient.

CONCLUSION

Currently oral vinorelbine therapy can be regarded as a mode that is comparable by efficacy and tol- erability both with intravenous injections of vinorelbine and pemetrexed therapy. As compared with intravenous vinorelbine its oral form requires additional costs but, being compared with pemetrexed, oral vinorelbine can significantly reduce the burden on the health budget.