ArticleClinical drug investigation2016
Linking the Price of Cancer Drug Treatments to Their Clinical Value.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The therapeutic value of treatment for multiple sclerosis: analysis of health technology assessments of three European countries.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Access to Innovative Neurological Drugs in Europe: Alignment of Health Technology Assessments Among Three European Countries.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Modeling the economic outcomes of immuno-oncology drugs: alternative model frameworks to capture clinical outcomes.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2018Article
- Managed Entry Agreements for Oncology Drugs: Lessons from the European Experience to Inform the Future.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveAppropriate pricing of medications is one of the ultimate goals for decision makers, but reliable data on the risk/benefit ratio are often lacking when a Marketing Authorization Application is submitted. Here we propose a method to consistently evaluate price adequacy, which we applied to six anticancer medications approved in Italy in recent years.
methodsWe obtained ratios of cost per survival per day (cost/survival/day) by dividing the total costs of evaluated medications for the median survival gain in days. Each cost/survival/day corresponds to a crude score, with 0 assigned to a cost/survival/day ≥€586. The maximum price considered as adequate was €91 cost/survival/day (score 75) while a score of 100 corresponded to a cost/survival/day ≤€11, based on the thresholds set by the British National Health System (NHS) and the "willingness-to-pay" of the Italian NHS. Crude scores were then adjusted using correction factors for efficacy, safety, quality of life, and prevalence of disease.
resultsNone of the analyzed medications (abiraterone, afatinib, aflibercept, bevacizumab, dabrafenib, and ipilimumab) achieved a final score of 75, corresponding to adequate pricing. The final score for afatinib was the highest with 55 points. Prices of all the other drugs resulted in being inadequate, with negative final scores for bevacizumab, dabrafenib, and ipilimumab.
conclusionsThis method may be considered a tool for the evaluation of appropriateness of price proposed at negotiation and could represent a reliable resource for decision-making. Furthermore, this analysis suggests that most recently approved cancer drugs in Italy do not fulfill price adequacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27153824What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.