Carina Schey1,2, Genevieve Meier3, Janice Pan3. 1. Global Market Access Solutions, Geneva, Switzerland. carina@gmasoln.com. 2. Unit of PharmacoEpidemiology and PharmacoEconomics, Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. carina@gmasoln.com. 3. Eisai Co. Ltd., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma is a complex cancer for which several drugs have been developed over the years. More recently, drugs that target the specific cancer cell mutations have been developed for metastatic cell carcinoma. However, even with the recent influx of targeted therapy options, significant unmet needs exist in around half of treated renal cell carcinoma patients following the failure of first-line therapy. The aim of this study was to review the health technology appraisals of renal cell carcinoma treatments in several countries to establish what factors might affect the reimbursement decisions. METHODS: The reimbursement data for 10 drugs in several countries were collated from the health technology assessment bodies for each country. The data included information on clinical trials used in the submission documents for the health technology assessment, the reimbursement decisions and the reasons for those decisions, as well as any specific restrictions for use of any of the included drugs. RESULTS: Of the 10 drugs reviewed, only everolimus received a positive reimbursement decision by all the health technology assessment bodies included in the study. The most common reason for a negative reimbursement decision was lack of demonstration of cost-effectiveness of the drugs. Another frequently cited reason was unproven clinical efficacy and poor impact on overall survival. CONCLUSION: Despite the many treatment guidelines and current treatment options that are available for renal cell carcinoma, there remains an unmet need in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. On the basis of this analysis, the key reason for a drug not obtaining a positive reimbursement decision is due to poor efficacy or uncertainty of the drug's efficacy. FUNDING: Eisai, Inc.
INTRODUCTION:Metastatic renal cell carcinoma is a complex cancer for which several drugs have been developed over the years. More recently, drugs that target the specific cancer cell mutations have been developed for metastatic cell carcinoma. However, even with the recent influx of targeted therapy options, significant unmet needs exist in around half of treated renal cell carcinomapatients following the failure of first-line therapy. The aim of this study was to review the health technology appraisals of renal cell carcinoma treatments in several countries to establish what factors might affect the reimbursement decisions. METHODS: The reimbursement data for 10 drugs in several countries were collated from the health technology assessment bodies for each country. The data included information on clinical trials used in the submission documents for the health technology assessment, the reimbursement decisions and the reasons for those decisions, as well as any specific restrictions for use of any of the included drugs. RESULTS: Of the 10 drugs reviewed, only everolimus received a positive reimbursement decision by all the health technology assessment bodies included in the study. The most common reason for a negative reimbursement decision was lack of demonstration of cost-effectiveness of the drugs. Another frequently cited reason was unproven clinical efficacy and poor impact on overall survival. CONCLUSION: Despite the many treatment guidelines and current treatment options that are available for renal cell carcinoma, there remains an unmet need in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. On the basis of this analysis, the key reason for a drug not obtaining a positive reimbursement decision is due to poor efficacy or uncertainty of the drug's efficacy. FUNDING: Eisai, Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health technology assessment; Metastatic renal cell carcinoma; Reimbursement