Literature DB >> 25454346

Bringing in health technology assessment and cost-effectiveness considerations at an early stage of drug development.

Bengt Jönsson1.   

Abstract

This paper reviews the issues involved in undertaking HTA studies early in the development of new cancer therapies, and discusses the data and methods for estimating the cost-effectiveness of new diagnostics and treatments. The value for patients of new cancer therapies is based on access to the treatment and optimal use. Realising potential value depends on successful completion of a series of steps, from the initial economic evaluations based on clinical trial data, to the reimbursement decisions based on the evaluations and the implementation of these decisions in clinical practice. Considerable resources have been devoted to the study of the cost-effectiveness of new cancer drugs as a basis for decisions about payment and use. Such resources could be used much more effectively if industry and HTA agencies were to collaborate at an early stage in the development process. The traditional clinical trial approach of using progression-free survival and cross-overs has serious shortcomings, producing data that cannot be used to determine outcomes and, so, cost-effectiveness. A new standard is needed; both regulatory and HTA authorities should be involved in its development.
Copyright © 2014 Federation of European Biochemical Societies. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical trials; Cost-effectiveness; Early development; Health technology assessment; Outcome research; Relative effectiveness

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25454346      PMCID: PMC5528742          DOI: 10.1016/j.molonc.2014.10.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Oncol        ISSN: 1574-7891            Impact factor:   6.603


  19 in total

Review 1.  Outcomes research in oncology: history, conceptual framework, and trends in the literature.

Authors:  S J Lee; C C Earle; J C Weeks
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-02-02       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Progression-free survival: meaningful or simply measurable?

Authors:  Christopher M Booth; Elizabeth A Eisenhauer
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-02-27       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Progression-free survival as a clinical trial endpoint in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  S J Hotte; G A Bjarnason; D Y C Heng; M A S Jewett; A Kapoor; C Kollmannsberger; J Maroun; L A Mayhew; S North; M N Reaume; J D Ruether; D Soulieres; P M Venner; E W Winquist; L Wood; J H E Yong; F Saad
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.677

4.  EMA's parallel advice workshop bridges regulatory and reimbursement divide.

Authors:  Suzanne Elvidge
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 84.694

5.  The randomized registry trial--the next disruptive technology in clinical research?

Authors:  Michael S Lauer; Ralph B D'Agostino
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Principles for planning and conducting comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Bryan R Luce; Michael F Drummond; Robert W Dubois; Peter J Neumann; Bengt Jönsson; Uwe Siebert; J Sanford Schwartz
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.744

7.  Pazopanib versus sunitinib in renal cancer.

Authors:  Jochen Casper; Silke Schumann-Binarsch; Claus-Henning Köhne
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-11-14       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Cost effectiveness of EML4-ALK fusion testing and first-line crizotinib treatment for patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Sandjar Djalalov; Jaclyn Beca; Jeffrey S Hoch; Murray Krahn; Ming-Sound Tsao; Jean-Claude Cutz; Natasha B Leighl
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-02-24       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Updating cost-effectiveness--the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold.

Authors:  Peter J Neumann; Joshua T Cohen; Milton C Weinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Methods for adjusting for bias due to crossover in oncology trials.

Authors:  K Jack Ishak; Irina Proskorovsky; Beata Korytowsky; Rickard Sandin; Sandrine Faivre; Juan Valle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.981

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Next-generation multiple myeloma treatment: a pharmacoeconomic perspective.

Authors:  S Vincent Rajkumar; Jean Luc Harousseau
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2016-10-14       Impact factor: 22.113

2.  Real-World Use and Outcomes of Olaparib: a Population-Based Cohort Study.

Authors:  Irene Eriksson; Björn Wettermark; Kjell Bergfeldt
Journal:  Target Oncol       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 4.493

3.  Perspectives to mitigate payer uncertainty in health technology assessment of novel oncology drugs.

Authors:  Oriol Solà-Morales; Timm Volmer; Lorenzo Mantovani
Journal:  J Mark Access Health Policy       Date:  2019-01-22

Review 4.  Mission-oriented translational cancer research - health economics.

Authors:  Bengt Jönsson; Richard Sullivan
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2019-02-20       Impact factor: 6.603

5.  Cabozantinib for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Amir Shlomai; Moshe Leshno; Daniel A Goldstein
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-09-23       Impact factor: 4.409

6.  Big Data and Real-World Data based Cost-Effectiveness Studies and Decision-making Models: A Systematic Review and Analysis.

Authors:  Z Kevin Lu; Xiaomo Xiong; Taiying Lee; Jun Wu; Jing Yuan; Bin Jiang
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 5.810

7.  Industry Perspectives on Market Access of Innovative Drugs: The Relevance for Oncology Drugs.

Authors:  Kim Pauwels; Isabelle Huys; Minne Casteels; Steven Simoens
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 5.810

8.  Trends in clinical development timeframes for antiviral drugs launched in the UK, 1981-2014: a retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Derek J Ward; Edward Hammond; Luan Linden-Phillips; Andrew J Stevens
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-11-16       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 9.  Emerging Use of Early Health Technology Assessment in Medical Product Development: A Scoping Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Maarten J IJzerman; Hendrik Koffijberg; Elisabeth Fenwick; Murray Krahn
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 10.  A Scoping Review of Different Methods of Assessing the Impact of New Medical Technologies at Early Stages of Development.

Authors:  Zahra Goudarzi; Shekoufeh Nikfar; Abbas Kebriaeezadeh; Reza Yousefi Zenouz; Akbar Abdollahi Asl; Nader Tavakoli
Journal:  Med J Islam Repub Iran       Date:  2021-10-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.