ArticleEcancermedicalscience2025
Wisely frugal: ensuring sustainable funding for novel cancer therapeutics through a budget impact analysis in resource-limited settings.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Introduction: Cancer care in Sri Lanka is predominantly provided through its state health system which is free at the point of delivery. We performed a budget impact analysis of novel cancer drugs with a view to enabling better prioritising of their procurement. Methods: Median survival gain was obtained for each indication of a novel cancer drug by a review of the literature. The direct cost of drug procurement was obtained from the Ministry of Health of Sri Lanka and the cost per life year gained was computed for each indication. Two thresholds - per capita gross domestic product (GDP) per life year gained (GDP × 1 = US$3815) and three times per capita GDP per life year gained (GDP × 3 = US$11445) were considered to determine cost effectiveness. The cumulative annual cost of these treatments was subsequently determined. Results: Data obtained on 42 novel cancer drugs spanning across 90 indications were included in the analysis. The cumulative annual treatment cost when the threshold was set at GDP × 1 was United States Dollar (US$) 6 million and it increased to US$ 13.2 million if the threshold was expanded (GDP × 3 = US$11445). Only 27 indications met the (GDP × 3 = US$11445) threshold while there were 18 drugs that did not meet the thresholds for any indication. Without a threshold, if every eligible patient were to receive treatment as currently indicated, the total cost would reach almost US$ 300 million per year. Conclusion: Budget impact analyses and defining cost-effectiveness thresholds will lead to considerable savings and help prioritise the procurement of novel agents in the state health system in Sri Lanka.
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.