ArticleEClinicalMedicine2020
Cost-effectiveness of cancer drugs: Comparative analysis of the United States and England.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Next-generation sequencing for guiding matched targeted therapies in people with relapsed or metastatic cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Modelled CKD Benefits of Broad Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitor Eligibility in the UK.Kidney international reports · 2026Article
- Long-term costs associated with healthcare use of people with cancer in Scotland.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of health technology assessment decision-making for cancer drugs in Germany and England.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Integrating clinical and economic outcomes in the elderly myeloma management: a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Tumor Treating Fields: An Innovative Therapy for Glioblastoma and Other Solid Tumors.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2025Article
- Impact of Improved Diagnosis and Treatment on Holistic CKD Burden.Kidney international reports · 2025Article
- Health care policies, drug costs, and time toxicities in biologics for HER2-positive breast cancer: cost minimization analysis of direct and indirect costs.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab With Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Article
- Repurposing of Anti-Infectives for the Management of Onchocerciasis Using Machine Learning and Protein Docking Studies.Bioinformatics and biology insights · 2025Article
- Pricing, price revision, and clinical value of anticancer drugs in Japan: a retrospective observational study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Willingness to Pay for a Quality-Adjusted Life Year among Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients at a Tertiary Hospital of Vietnam, 2022.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- An Exploratory Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of a Multi-cancer Early Detection Blood Test Compared with Standard of Care Screening in Ontario, Canada.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Article
- Real-world use of inotuzumab ozogamicin is associated with lower health care costs than blinatumomab in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the first relapsed/refractory setting.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Article
- [High-cost medicines: the difficult balance between individual and collective rightsMedicamentos de alto custo: o difícil equilíbrio entre direitos individuais e coletivos].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2024Article
- Real-World Evidence Studies in Oncology Therapeutics: Hope or Hype?Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2023Review
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Six Immunotherapy-Based Regimens and Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Public Payer Perspective.JCO oncology practice · 2023Article
- Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Article
- Comparison of Cancer-Related Spending and Mortality Rates in the US vs 21 High-Income Countries.JAMA health forum · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEngland's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the US' Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) both conduct cost-effectiveness evaluations for new cancer drugs to help payers make drug coverage decisions. However, NICE and ICER assessments have been noted to reach different conclusions. We aim to better understand the degree to which their recommendations diverge and what drives these apparent differences.
methodsWe compared the methods and results of publicly available cost-effectiveness evaluations performed by ICER and NICE of similarly assessed cancer drugs. Assessments were compared based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparator treatment, price, recommendation, and the design of the economic evaluation.
findingsAmong 11 commonly assessed cancer drugs, ICER and NICE were in concordance for 7 evaluations and in discordance on the cost-effectiveness and coverage decisions for 4 drugs. Most new cancer drugs were not cost-effective in either the US (7/11) or England (7/11). Furthermore, NICE's capacity to negotiate price discounts and access schemes result in much lower cost per QALY valuations and more favourable recommendations than those of ICER for similarly assessed cancer drugs. INTERPRETATIONS: NICE and ICER employ similar health technology assessment (HTA) methodologies and were aligned with most recommendations, finding that many new and expensive cancer drugs are cost ineffective. Growing use of ICER assessments will continue to send stronger price signals to manufacturers that cancer drugs with low value for money will be viewed less favourably by private insurers. NICE provides an important reminder of how much lower other countries pay for drugs when comparative effectiveness and value-based pricing are integrated into public drug coverage decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.