Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33941174›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Challenges in valuing and paying for combination regimens in oncology: reporting the perspectives of a multi-stakeholder, international workshop.

Nicholas R Latimer, Daniel Pollard, Adrian Towse, Chris Henshall, Lloyd Sansom, Robyn L Ward, Andrew Bruce, Carla Deakin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Pricing combination products: not how but who?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicholas R LatimerSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK. n.latimer@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5304-5585
Daniel PollardSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK.
Adrian TowseOffice of Health Economics, London, UK.
Chris HenshallOffice of Health Economics, London, UK.
Lloyd SansomSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Robyn L WardFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6877-8906
Andrew BruceAmgen, Sydney, Australia.
Carla DeakinNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, UK.
Office Of Health Economics · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GBAmgen (Australia) · AUNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence · GBThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

Bellberry Limited Bellberry LimitedYorkshire Cancer Research S406NL
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is increasingly common for two or more treatments for cancer to be combined as a single regimen. Determining value and appropriate payment for such regimens can be challenging. This study discusses these challenges, and possible solutions.

methodsStakeholders from around the world attended a 2-day workshop, supported by a background paper. This study captures key outcomes from the discussion, but is not a consensus statement.

resultsWorkshop attendees agreed that combining on-patent treatments can result in affordability and value for money challenges that delay or deny patient access to clinically effective treatments in many health systems. Options for addressing these challenges include: (i) Increasing the value of combination therapies through improved clinical development; (ii) Willingness to pay more for combinations than for single drugs offering similar benefit, or; (iii) Aligning the cost of constituent therapies with their value within a regimen. Workshop attendees felt that (i) and (iii) merited further discussion, whereas (ii) was unlikely to be justifiable. Views differed on the feasibility of (i). Key to (iii) would be systems allowing different prices to apply to different uses of a drug.

conclusionsCommon ground was identified on immediate actions to improve access to combination regimens. These include an exploration of the legal challenges associated with price negotiations, and ensuring that pricing systems can support implementation of negotiated prices for specific uses. Improvements to clinical development and trial design should be pursued in the medium and longer term.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyNeoplasmsCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansCancerCombination therapyCost‐effectivenessCostsEconomic evaluationPricingReimbursementValue‐based pricing

Identifiers

PMID33941174
PMCPMC8091555
OpenAlexW3158803294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.