Cost Effectiveness and Cancer Drugs

Battley, Jodie E.; Connell, Louise C.; Graham, Donna M.; O’Reilly, Seamus

doi:10.1200/jco.2013.53.9932

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the launch of the ICI nivolumab on the Japanese market, the extremely high price of this drug created a debate on the cost‐effectiveness of oncology drugs among patients, oncologists, and the media in Japan. Cost‐effectiveness is now one of the most serious problems related to oncology societies worldwide . Mailankody and Prasad reported that there was no significant relationship between cost and percentage improvement in endpoints such as PFS and OS .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cost-effectiveness is now one of the most serious problems related to oncology societies worldwide. 9,10,[17][18][19] Mailankody and Prasad reported that there was no significant relationship between cost and percentage improvement in endpoints such as PFS and OS. 15 First, we used the same approach to analyze the relationship between oncology drug prices and clinical endpoints.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Owing to the prolongation of OS in patients with many types of cancer, however, medical care expenditures, 7 especially oncology drug prices, are rapidly increasing not only in Japan but also worldwide. [8][9][10][11] As an extreme case, the price of nivolumab (Opdivo® Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan), which is currently indicated for melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), bladder cancer, head and neck cancer, and Hodgkin's disease, has been set at ¥730 000 per 100 g, with the cost of treatment per patient estimated at ¥35 million per year. A Japanese government panel decided to cut the official price of nivolumab by 50% on the basis of social criticism in November 2016 that the drug was too expensive.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lack of correlation between the costs of anticancer drugs and clinical benefits in Japan

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS) are primary endpoints of phase III studies of new anticancer drugs. Medical care expenditures, especially oncology drug prices, are rapidly increasing; however, the impact of oncology drug prices on OS and PFS is unclear. We analyzed the relationship between oncology drug prices and clinical outcomes in Japan. The costs of a full course or 1 year of treatment were estimated on the basis of the latest National Health Insurance Drug Price Standards, and the relationship between costs and improvements in OS or PFS obtained with each drug were analyzed. Cost‐effectiveness was compared between new‐class drugs and next‐in‐class drugs. We then developed a simple model for estimating the costs required to prolong OS and PFS by 1 day and used this model to compare cost‐effectiveness. Drug costs were not significantly related to treatment outcomes in terms of PFS or OS. There was no significant difference in the median cost between novel drugs and the next‐in‐class drugs (P = 0.39). The oncology drug cost required to prolong PFS by 1 day was more expensive than the drug cost required for prolong OS by 1 day. Prices of oncology drugs should be decided on the basis of actual clinical benefits for cancer patients, and the drug price evaluation process should be disclosed in Japan.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lack of correlation between the costs of anticancer drugs and clinical benefits in Japan

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From 1995 to 2013, the average launch price of anticancer drugs increased by 10% or an average of $8500 annually after adjustments for inflation and health benefits . Increasing drug costs have prompted the need for a critical evaluation regarding their value . The value of cancer treatments can be assessed with a framework developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology that takes the clinical benefits, toxicities, and treatment costs into account …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 Increasing drug costs have prompted the need for a critical evaluation regarding their value. 5 The value of cancer treatments can be assessed with a framework developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology that takes the clinical benefits, toxicities, and treatment costs into account. 6 Cost-effectiveness analyses are commonly used to evaluate the potential costs and benefits of health interventions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%