Background: Economic evaluations are an integral component of many clinical trials. Costs used in those analyses are based on the prices of branded drugs when they first enter the market. The effect of genericization on the cost-effectiveness (ce) or cost-utility (cu) of an intervention is unknown because economic analyses are rarely updated using the costs of generic drugs. Methods: We re-examined the ce or cu of regimens previously evaluated in Canadian Cancer Trials Group (cctg) studies that included prospective economic evaluations and where genericization has occurred or is anticipated in Canada. We incorporated the new costs of generic drugs to characterize changes in ce or cu. We also determined acceptable cost levels of generic drugs that would make regimens reimbursable in a publicly funded health care system. Results: The four randomized controlled trials included (representing 1979 patients) were cctg br.10 (early lung cancer, adjuvant vinorelbine-cisplatin vs. observation, n = 172), cctg br.21 (metastatic lung cancer, erlotinib vs. placebo, n = 731), cctg co.17 (metastatic colon cancer, cetuximab vs. best supportive care, n = 557), and cctg ly.12 (relapsed or refractory lymphoma, gemcitabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin vs. cytarabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin, n = 619). Since the initial publication of those trials, the genericization of vinorelbine, erlotinib, cetuximab, and cisplatin has taken place or is expected in Canada. Costs of generics improved the ces and cus of treatment significantly. For example, genericization of erlotinib ($1460.25 per 30 days) resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $45,746 per life-year gained compared with $94,638 for branded erlotinib. Likewise, genericization of cetuximab ($275.80 per 100 mg) produced an icer of $261,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) gained compared with $299,613 for branded cetuximab. Decreases in the cost of generic cetuximab to $129.39 and $63.51 would further improve the icer to $150,000 and $100,000 per QALY respectively. Conclusions: Genericization of a costly oncology drug can modify the ce and cu of a regimen significantly. Failure to revisit economic analyses with the costs of generics could be a missed opportunity for funding bodies to optimize value-based allocation of health care resources. At current levels, the costs of generics might not be sufficiently low to sustain publicly funded health care systems.
Background: Economic evaluations are an integral component of many clinical trials. Costs used in those analyses are based on the prices of branded drugs when they first enter the market. The effect of genericization on the cost-effectiveness (ce) or cost-utility (cu) of an intervention is unknown because economic analyses are rarely updated using the costs of generic drugs. Methods: We re-examined the ce or cu of regimens previously evaluated in Canadian Cancer Trials Group (cctg) studies that included prospective economic evaluations and where genericization has occurred or is anticipated in Canada. We incorporated the new costs of generic drugs to characterize changes in ce or cu. We also determined acceptable cost levels of generic drugs that would make regimens reimbursable in a publicly funded health care system. Results: The four randomized controlled trials included (representing 1979 patients) were cctg br.10 (early lung cancer, adjuvant vinorelbine-cisplatin vs. observation, n = 172), cctg br.21 (metastatic lung cancer, erlotinib vs. placebo, n = 731), cctg co.17 (metastatic colon cancer, cetuximab vs. best supportive care, n = 557), and cctg ly.12 (relapsed or refractory lymphoma, gemcitabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin vs. cytarabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin, n = 619). Since the initial publication of those trials, the genericization of vinorelbine, erlotinib, cetuximab, and cisplatin has taken place or is expected in Canada. Costs of generics improved the ces and cus of treatment significantly. For example, genericization of erlotinib ($1460.25 per 30 days) resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $45,746 per life-year gained compared with $94,638 for branded erlotinib. Likewise, genericization of cetuximab ($275.80 per 100 mg) produced an icer of $261,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) gained compared with $299,613 for branded cetuximab. Decreases in the cost of generic cetuximab to $129.39 and $63.51 would further improve the icer to $150,000 and $100,000 per QALY respectively. Conclusions: Genericization of a costly oncology drug can modify the ce and cu of a regimen significantly. Failure to revisit economic analyses with the costs of generics could be a missed opportunity for funding bodies to optimize value-based allocation of health care resources. At current levels, the costs of generics might not be sufficiently low to sustain publicly funded health care systems.
Authors: William H Shrank; Joshua N Liberman; Michael A Fischer; Charmaine Girdish; Troyen A Brennan; Niteesh K Choudhry Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Michael Crump; John Kuruvilla; Stephen Couban; David A MacDonald; Vishal Kukreti; C Tom Kouroukis; Morel Rubinger; Rena Buckstein; Kevin R Imrie; Massimo Federico; Nicola Di Renzo; Kang Howson-Jan; Tara Baetz; Leonard Kaizer; Michael Voralia; Harold J Olney; A Robert Turner; Jonathan Sussman; Annette E Hay; Marina S Djurfeldt; Ralph M Meyer; Bingshu E Chen; Lois E Shepherd Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthew C Cheung; Annette E Hay; Michael Crump; Kevin R Imrie; Yuyao Song; Shazia Hassan; Nancy Risebrough; Jonathan Sussman; Stephen Couban; David MacDonald; Vishal Kukreti; C Tom Kouroukis; Tara Baetz; David Szwajcer; Pierre Desjardins; Lois Shepherd; Ralph M Meyer; Al Le; Bingshu E Chen; Nicole Mittmann Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Timothy Winton; Robert Livingston; David Johnson; James Rigas; Michael Johnston; Charles Butts; Yvon Cormier; Glenwood Goss; Richard Inculet; Eric Vallieres; Willard Fry; Drew Bethune; Joseph Ayoub; Keyue Ding; Lesley Seymour; Barbara Graham; Ming-Sound Tsao; David Gandara; Kenneth Kesler; Todd Demmy; Frances Shepherd Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-06-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Derek J Jonker; Chris J O'Callaghan; Christos S Karapetis; John R Zalcberg; Dongsheng Tu; Heather-Jane Au; Scott R Berry; Marianne Krahn; Timothy Price; R John Simes; Niall C Tebbutt; Guy van Hazel; Rafal Wierzbicki; Christiane Langer; Malcolm J Moore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lindsey A Torre; Rebecca L Siegel; Elizabeth M Ward; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: HoUng Kim; Rieke Alten; Luisa Avedano; Axel Dignass; Fernando Gomollón; Kay Greveson; Jonas Halfvarson; Peter M Irving; Jørgen Jahnsen; Péter L Lakatos; JongHyuk Lee; Souzi Makri; Ben Parker; Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet; Stefan Schreiber; Steven Simoens; Rene Westhovens; Silvio Danese; Ji Hoon Jeong Journal: Drugs Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 9.546
Authors: Adam Fundytus; Manju Sengar; Dorothy Lombe; Wilma Hopman; Matthew Jalink; Bishal Gyawali; Dario Trapani; Felipe Roitberg; Elisabeth G E De Vries; Lorenzo Moja; André Ilbawi; Richard Sullivan; Christopher M Booth Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 41.316