Lucia Gozzo1, Andrea Navarria1, Valentina Drago2, Laura Longo3, Silvana Mansueto3, Giacomo Pignataro4, Americo Cicchetti5, Salvatore Salomone1, Filippo Drago6. 1. Department of Biomedical and Biotechnological Sciences, Section of Pharmacology, University of Catania, Via S. Sofia 64, Catania, Italy. 2. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Università del Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy. 3. Regional Pharmacovigilance Centre of Catania, A.O.U. Policlinico, Vittorio Emanuele, Catania, Italy. 4. Department of Economics and Quantitative Methods, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 5. Department of Economics and Management and ALTEMS (Graduate School of Health Economics and Management), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy. 6. Department of Biomedical and Biotechnological Sciences, Section of Pharmacology, University of Catania, Via S. Sofia 64, Catania, Italy. f.drago@unict.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Appropriate 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: None 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. CONCLUSIONS: This 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.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Appropriate 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: None 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. CONCLUSIONS: This 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.
Authors: Daniel A Goldstein; Qiushi Chen; Turgay Ayer; David H Howard; Joseph Lipscomb; Bassel F El-Rayes; Christopher R Flowers Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C McCabe; L Bergmann; N Bosanquet; M Ellis; H Enzmann; M von Euler; B Jönsson; K-J Kallen; D Newling; V Nüssler; B Paschen; R de Wilde; N Wilking; C Teale; H Zwierzina Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-10-14 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Lecia V Sequist; James Chih-Hsin Yang; Nobuyuki Yamamoto; Kenneth O'Byrne; Vera Hirsh; Tony Mok; Sarayut Lucien Geater; Sergey Orlov; Chun-Ming Tsai; Michael Boyer; Wu-Chou Su; Jaafar Bennouna; Terufumi Kato; Vera Gorbunova; Ki Hyeong Lee; Riyaz Shah; Dan Massey; Victoria Zazulina; Mehdi Shahidi; Martin Schuler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James Chih-Hsin Yang; Vera Hirsh; Martin Schuler; Nobuyuki Yamamoto; Kenneth J O'Byrne; Tony S K Mok; Victoria Zazulina; Mehdi Shahidi; Juliane Lungershausen; Dan Massey; Michael Palmer; Lecia V Sequist Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Karl Claxton; Steve Martin; Marta Soares; Nigel Rice; Eldon Spackman; Sebastian Hinde; Nancy Devlin; Peter C Smith; Mark Sculpher Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: E J Gibson; N Begum; I Koblbauer; G Dranitsaris; D Liew; P McEwan; A A Tahami Monfared; Y Yuan; A Juarez-Garcia; D Tyas; M Lees Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2018-03-08