OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to summarize the current evidence base of reported utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs.
METHODS: A structured electronic search combining terms for utility, utility valuation methods and generic terms for cancer treatment was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE in June 2011. Inclusion criteria were: (1) elicitation of utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs and (2) primary data. Two reviewers identified studies and extracted data independently. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria from the 853 abstracts initially identified, collectively reporting 218 utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs. All 18 studies used short descriptions (vignettes) to obtain the utility values, with nine studies presenting the vignettes used in the valuation exercises. Of the 218 utility values, 178 were elicited using standard gamble (SG) or time trade-off (TTO) approaches, while 40 were elicited using visual analogue scales (VAS). There were 169 utility values of specific chemotherapy-related ADEs (with the top ten being anaemia [34 values], nausea and/or vomiting [32 values], neuropathy [21 values], neutropenia [12 values], diarrhoea [12 values], stomatitis [10 values], fatigue [8 values], alopecia [7 values], hand-foot syndrome [5 values] and skin reaction [5 values]) and 49 of non-specific chemotherapy-related adverse events. In most cases, it was difficult to directly compare the utility values as various definitions and study-specific vignettes were used for the ADEs of interest.
LIMITATIONS: This review was designed to provide an overall description of existing literature reporting utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs. The findings were not exhaustive and were limited to publications that could be identified using the search strategy employed and those reported in the English language.
CONCLUSIONS: This review identified wide ranges in the utility values reported for broad categories of specific chemotherapy-related ADEs. There were difficulties in comparing the values directly as various study-specific definitions were used for these ADEs and most studies did not make the vignettes used in the valuation exercises available. It is recommended that a basic minimum requirement be developed for the transparent reporting of study designs eliciting utility values, incorporating key criteria such as reporting how the vignettes were developed and presenting the vignettes used in the valuation tasks as well as valuing and reporting the utility values of the ADE-free base states. It is also recommended, in the future, for studies valuing the utilities of chemotherapy-related ADEs to define the ADEs according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) definitions for chemotherapy-related ADEs as the use of the same definition across studies would ease the comparison and selection of utility values and make the overall inclusion of adverse events within economic models of chemotherapy agents much more straightforward.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the existing cost-effectiveness evaluations of breast-cancer medication in developing-countries.
METHODOLOGY: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and EconLit. Two researchers determined the final articles, extracted data, and evaluated their quality using the Quality of Health-Economic Studies (QHES) tool. The interclass-correlation-coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess interrater-reliability. Data were summarized descriptively.
RESULTS: Fourteen pharmacoeconomic studies published from 2009 to 2019 were included. Thirteen used patient-life-years as their effectiveness unit, of which 10 used quality-adjusted life-years. Most of the evaluations focused on trastuzumab as a single agent or on regimens containing trastuzumab (n = 10). The conclusion of cost-effectiveness analysis varied among the studies. All the studies were of high quality (QHES score >75). Interrater reliability between the two reviewers was high (ICC = 0.76).
CONCLUSION: In many studies included in the review, the use of breast-cancer drugs in developing countries was not cost-effective. Yet, more pharmacoeconomic evaluations for the use of recently approved agents in different disease stages are needed in developing countries.
METHODS: Cross-sectional survey design was used for the present study. Pricing data from ten counties including one from South-East Asia, two from Western Pacific and seven from Eastern Mediterranean regions were used in this study. Purchasing power parity (PPP)-adjusted mean unit prices for 26 anti-cancer drug presentations (similar pharmaceutical form, strength, and pack size) were used to compare prices of anti-cancer drugs across three regions. A structured form was used to extract relevant data. Data were entered and analysed using Microsoft Excel®.
RESULTS: Overall, Taiwan had the lowest mean unit prices while Oman had the highest prices. Six (23.1%) and nine (34.6%) drug presentations had a mean unit price below US$100 and between US$100 and US$500 respectively. Eight drug presentations (30.7%) had a mean unit price of more than US$1000 including cabazitaxel with a mean unit price of $17,304.9/vial. There was a direct relationship between income category of the countries and their mean unit price; low-income countries had lower mean unit prices. The average PPP-adjusted unit prices for countries based on their income level were as follows: low middle-income countries (LMICs): US$814.07; high middle income countries (HMICs): US$1150.63; and high income countries (HICs): US$1148.19.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a great variation in pricing of anticancer drugs in selected countires and within their respective regions. These findings will allow policy makers to compare prices of anti-cancer agents with neighbouring countries and develop policies to ensure accessibility and affordability of anti-cancer drugs.
METHODS: We extracted sales volume data for 39 anti-cancer medicines from the IQVIA database. We divided the total quantity sold by the reference defined daily dose to estimate the total number of defined daily doses sold, per country per year, for three types of anti-cancer therapies (traditional chemotherapy, targeted therapy and endocrine therapy). We adjusted these data by the number of new cancer cases in each country for each year.
FINDINGS: We observed an increase in sales across all types of anti-cancer therapies in all countries. The largest number of defined daily doses of traditional chemotherapy per new cancer case was sold in Thailand; however, the largest relative increase per new cancer case occurred in Indonesia (9.48-fold). The largest absolute and relative increases in sales of defined daily doses of targeted therapies per new cancer case occurred in Kazakhstan. Malaysia sold the largest number of adjusted defined daily doses of endocrine therapies in 2017, while China and Indonesia more than doubled their adjusted sales volumes between 2007 and 2017.
CONCLUSION: The use of sales data can fill an important knowledge gap in the use of anti-cancer medicines, particularly during periods of insurance coverage expansion. Combined with other data, sales volume data can help to monitor efforts to improve equitable access to essential medicines.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the economic burden of treating cancer patients.
METHOD: Descriptive cross-sectional cost of illness study in the leading teaching and referral hospital in Kenya, with data collected from the hospital files of sampled adult patients for treatment during 2016.
RESULTS: In total, 412 patient files were reviewed, of which 63.4% (n = 261) were female and 36.6% (n = 151) male. The cost of cancer care is highly dependent on the modality. Most reviewed patients had surgery, chemotherapy and palliative care. The cost of cancer therapy varied with the type of cancer. Patients on chemotherapy alone cost an average of KES 138,207 (USD 1364.3); while those treated with surgery cost an average of KES 128,207 (1265.6), and those on radiotherapy KES 119,036 (1175.1). Some patients had a combination of all three, costing, on average, KES 333,462 (3291.8) per patient during the year.
CONCLUSION: The cost of cancer treatment in Kenya depends on the type of cancer, the modality, cost of medicines and the type of inpatient admission. The greatest contributors are currently the cost of medicines and inpatient admissions. This pilot study can inform future initiatives among the government as well as private and public insurance companies to increase available resources, and better allocate available resources, to more effectively treat patients with cancer in Kenya. The authors will be monitoring developments and conducting further research.
FINDINGS: Differences in genetics, environment, lifestyle, diet and culture are all likely to influence the management of advanced prostate cancer in the APAC region when compared with the rest of the world. When considering the strong APCCC 2017 recommendation for the use of upfront docetaxel in metastatic castration-naïve prostate cancer, the panel noted possible increased toxicity in Asian men receiving docetaxel, which would affect this recommendation in the APAC region. Although androgen receptor-targeting agents appear to be well tolerated in Asian men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, access to these drugs is very limited for financial reasons across the region. The meeting highlighted that cost and access to contemporary treatments and technologies are key factors influencing therapeutic decision-making in the APAC region. Whilst lower cost/older treatments and technologies may be an option, issues of culture and patient or physician preference mean, these may not always be acceptable. Although generic products can reduce cost in some countries, costs may still be prohibitive for lower-income patients or communities. The panellists noted the opportunity for a coordinated approach across the APAC region to address issues of access and cost. Developments in technologies and treatments are presenting new opportunities for the diagnosis and treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Differences in genetics and epidemiology affect the side-effect profiles of some drugs and influence prescribing.
CONCLUSIONS: As the field continues to evolve, collaboration across the APAC region will be important to facilitate relevant research and collection and appraisal of data relevant to APAC populations. In the meantime, the APAC APCCC 2018 meeting highlighted the critical importance of a multidisciplinary team-based approach to treatment planning and care, delivery of best-practice care by clinicians with appropriate expertise, and the importance of patient information and support for informed patient choice.