METHODS: A total of 429 respondents diagnosed with urologic cancers (prostate cancer, bladder and renal cancer) from Sarawak General Hospital and Subang Jaya Medical Centre in Malaysia were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Objective and subjective FT were measured by catastrophic health expenditure (healthcare-cost-to-income ratio greater than 40%) and the Personal Financial Well-being Scale, respectively. HRQoL was measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General 7 Items scale.
RESULTS: Objective and subjective FT were experienced by 16.1 and 47.3% of the respondents, respectively. Respondents who sought treatment at a private hospital and had out-of-pocket health expenditures were more likely to experience objective FT, after adjustment for covariates. Respondents who were female and had a monthly household income less than MYR 5000 were more likely to experience average to high subjective FT. Greater objective FT (OR = 2.75, 95% CI 1.09-6.95) and subjective FT (OR = 4.68, 95% CI 2.63-8.30) were associated with poor HRQoL.
CONCLUSIONS: The significant association between both objective and subjective FT and HRQoL highlights the importance of reducing FT among urologic cancer patients. Subjective FT was found to have a greater negative impact on HRQoL.
METHODS: A systematic search for studies concerning the perception of financial burden among cancer patients and their families was conducted. Several electronic resources such as Medline, Elsevier (Science Direct), Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL and Scopus (SciVerse) were searched. Additionally, manual search through indices citation was also thoroughly utilized. The main outcome of interest was the prevalence of perceived financial hardship among cancer patients and their families. Studies reported only the cost of cancer treatment and qualitative studies were excluded. Our search was limited to articles that were published from 2003 to 2013.
RESULT: Ten studies were included in this review and with a majority originating from high-income countries. The prevalence of the financial burden perception was reported between 14.8 and 78.8 %. The most frequent and significant risk factor reported associated with the perception of financial difficulty was the households with low income. Discontinuation of treatment and poverty were conversely the important consequences of financial burden in cancer patients and their families.
CONCLUSION: Evidently, cancer is a long-term illness that requires a high financial cost, and a significant number of cancer patients and families struggle with financial difficulty. Identifying such groups with a high risk of facing financial difficulty is a crucial measure to ensure safety nets are readily available for these targeted population.
METHODS: Data on patient costs were collected prospectively in the first year following diagnosis by using a self-administered questionnaire and telephone interviews at three time points for all four stages of colorectal cancer. The patient cost data consisted of direct out-of-pocket payments for medical-related expenses such as hospital stays, tests and treatment and for non-medical items such as travel and food associated with hospital visits. In addition, indirect cost data related to the loss of productivity of the patient and caregiver(s) was assessed. The patient's perceived level of financial difficulty and types of coping strategy were also explored.
RESULT: The total 1-year patient cost (both direct and indirect) increased with the stage of colorectal cancer: RM 6544.5 (USD 2045.1) for stage I, RM 7790.1 (USD 2434.4) for stage II, RM 8799.1 (USD 2749.7) for stage III and RM 8638.2 (USD 2699.4) for stage IV. The majority of patients perceived paying for their healthcare as somewhat difficult. The most frequently used financial coping strategy was a combination of current income and savings.
CONCLUSION: Despite the high subsidisation in public hospitals, the management of colorectal cancer imposes a substantial financial burden on patients and their families. Moreover, the majority of patients and their families perceive healthcare payments as difficult. Therefore, it is recommended that policy- and decision-makers should further consider some financial protection strategies and support for cancer treatment because cancer is a very costly and chronic disease.
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.
METHODS: Data on highest education attained were gathered for 459,170 participants (70% women) from 10 European countries. A relative index of inequality (RII) based on adult education was calculated for comparability across countries and generations. Cox regression models were applied to estimate relative inequality in pancreatic cancer risk, stratifying by age, gender, and center, and adjusting for known pancreatic cancer risk factors.
RESULTS: A total of 1,223 incident pancreatic cancer cases were included after a mean follow-up of 13.9 (±4.0) years. An inverse social trend was found in models adjusted for age, sex, and center for both sexes [HR of RII, 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.59], which was also significant among women (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05-1.92). Further adjusting by smoking intensity, alcohol consumption, body mass index, prevalent diabetes, and physical activity led to an attenuation of the RII risk and loss of statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: The present reanalysis does not sustain the existence of an independent social inequality influence on pancreatic cancer risk in Western European women and men, using an index based on adult education, the most relevant social indicator linked to individual lifestyles, in a context of very low pancreatic cancer survival from (quasi) universal public health systems.
IMPACT: The results do not support an association between education and risk of pancreatic cancer.
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: Literature search was performed using 6 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, EconLit, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and ISI Web of Knowledge). The final search was performed in October 2018. All potential economic studies were then checked for eligibility. The reporting and methodological qualities of each study were independently assessed by 2 authors of this review, using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards, Drummond, and Philips checklists. To compare the different currencies used in these studies, all costs were converted into US dollars (2016).
RESULTS: A total of 6 studies were included; most of them were performed from the healthcare provider perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for evaluation performed for a lifetime horizon were reported at $8573 and $20 816 per quality-adjusted life-year in 2 studies. The model outcome was generally sensitive to the changes in trastuzumab drug acquisition cost and discount rate, as well as its clinical effectiveness. For the quality assessment, all studies fulfilled more than 50% of the requirements in the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards, Drummond, and Philips checklists.
CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant trastuzumab therapy is considered a cost-effective option for early breast cancer in Asian countries including China, Iran, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan. All studies were generally well conducted. Economic evaluations from the societal perspective, with inclusion of indirect and informal care costs, are warranted to facilitate informed decision making among policy makers.
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.