Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted oral anti-cancer drugs: A systematic review

Fabrice Smieliauskas, Chun Ru Chien, Chan Shen, Daniel M. Geynisman, Ya Chen Tina Shih

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Over the last 15 years, a paradigm shift in oncology has led to the approval of dozens of targeted oral anti-cancer medications (OAMs), which have become the standard of care for certain cancers. While more convenient for patients than infused drugs, the possibility of non-adherence and the frequently high costs of targeted OAMs have proven controversial. Objective: Our objective was to perform the first comprehensive review of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of targeted OAMs. Methods: A literature search in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports published by the National Institute for Health Research HTA Programme in the UK was performed, covering articles published in the 5 years prior to 30 September 2013. Our inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed English-language full-text original research articles with a primary focus on CEA related to targeted OAMs. We categorized these articles by treatment setting (i.e. cancer site/type, line of therapy, and treatment and comparator) and synthesized information from the articles into summary tables. Results: We identified 41 CEAs covering nine of the 18 targeted OAMs approved by the US FDA as of December 2012. These medications were studied in seven cancers, most often as second-line therapy for advanced-stage patients. In over half of treatment settings where a targeted OAM was compared with treatment that was not a targeted OAM, targeted OAMs were considered cost effective. Limitations in interpreting these findings include the risk of bias due to author conflicts of interest, cross-country variation, and difficulties in generalizing clinical trial evidence to community practice. Conclusions: Several types of cost-effectiveness studies remain under-represented in the literature on targeted OAMs, including those for follow-on indications approved after the initial indication for a drug and for off-label indications, head-to-head comparisons of targeted OAMs with other targeted OAMs and targeted intravenous therapies, and studies that adopt a perspective other than the payer's. Keeping up with the increasing number of approved targeted OAMs will also prove an important challenge for economic evaluation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)651-680
Number of pages30
JournalPharmacoEconomics
Volume32
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2014

Fingerprint

Mouth Neoplasms
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Biomedical Technology Assessment
Therapeutics
Costs and Cost Analysis
Conflict of Interest
Neoplasms
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Standard of Care
Research
PubMed
Libraries
Language
Clinical Trials

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacology
  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Smieliauskas, Fabrice ; Chien, Chun Ru ; Shen, Chan ; Geynisman, Daniel M. ; Shih, Ya Chen Tina. / Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted oral anti-cancer drugs : A systematic review. In: PharmacoEconomics. 2014 ; Vol. 32, No. 7. pp. 651-680.
@article{896b808834b64519924eb849b7b19c9d,
title = "Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted oral anti-cancer drugs: A systematic review",
abstract = "Background: Over the last 15 years, a paradigm shift in oncology has led to the approval of dozens of targeted oral anti-cancer medications (OAMs), which have become the standard of care for certain cancers. While more convenient for patients than infused drugs, the possibility of non-adherence and the frequently high costs of targeted OAMs have proven controversial. Objective: Our objective was to perform the first comprehensive review of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of targeted OAMs. Methods: A literature search in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports published by the National Institute for Health Research HTA Programme in the UK was performed, covering articles published in the 5 years prior to 30 September 2013. Our inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed English-language full-text original research articles with a primary focus on CEA related to targeted OAMs. We categorized these articles by treatment setting (i.e. cancer site/type, line of therapy, and treatment and comparator) and synthesized information from the articles into summary tables. Results: We identified 41 CEAs covering nine of the 18 targeted OAMs approved by the US FDA as of December 2012. These medications were studied in seven cancers, most often as second-line therapy for advanced-stage patients. In over half of treatment settings where a targeted OAM was compared with treatment that was not a targeted OAM, targeted OAMs were considered cost effective. Limitations in interpreting these findings include the risk of bias due to author conflicts of interest, cross-country variation, and difficulties in generalizing clinical trial evidence to community practice. Conclusions: Several types of cost-effectiveness studies remain under-represented in the literature on targeted OAMs, including those for follow-on indications approved after the initial indication for a drug and for off-label indications, head-to-head comparisons of targeted OAMs with other targeted OAMs and targeted intravenous therapies, and studies that adopt a perspective other than the payer's. Keeping up with the increasing number of approved targeted OAMs will also prove an important challenge for economic evaluation.",
author = "Fabrice Smieliauskas and Chien, {Chun Ru} and Chan Shen and Geynisman, {Daniel M.} and Shih, {Ya Chen Tina}",
year = "2014",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1007/s40273-014-0160-z",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "651--680",
journal = "PharmacoEconomics",
issn = "1170-7690",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",
number = "7",

}

Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted oral anti-cancer drugs : A systematic review. / Smieliauskas, Fabrice; Chien, Chun Ru; Shen, Chan; Geynisman, Daniel M.; Shih, Ya Chen Tina.

In: PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 32, No. 7, 07.2014, p. 651-680.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted oral anti-cancer drugs

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Smieliauskas, Fabrice

AU - Chien, Chun Ru

AU - Shen, Chan

AU - Geynisman, Daniel M.

AU - Shih, Ya Chen Tina

PY - 2014/7

Y1 - 2014/7

N2 - Background: Over the last 15 years, a paradigm shift in oncology has led to the approval of dozens of targeted oral anti-cancer medications (OAMs), which have become the standard of care for certain cancers. While more convenient for patients than infused drugs, the possibility of non-adherence and the frequently high costs of targeted OAMs have proven controversial. Objective: Our objective was to perform the first comprehensive review of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of targeted OAMs. Methods: A literature search in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports published by the National Institute for Health Research HTA Programme in the UK was performed, covering articles published in the 5 years prior to 30 September 2013. Our inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed English-language full-text original research articles with a primary focus on CEA related to targeted OAMs. We categorized these articles by treatment setting (i.e. cancer site/type, line of therapy, and treatment and comparator) and synthesized information from the articles into summary tables. Results: We identified 41 CEAs covering nine of the 18 targeted OAMs approved by the US FDA as of December 2012. These medications were studied in seven cancers, most often as second-line therapy for advanced-stage patients. In over half of treatment settings where a targeted OAM was compared with treatment that was not a targeted OAM, targeted OAMs were considered cost effective. Limitations in interpreting these findings include the risk of bias due to author conflicts of interest, cross-country variation, and difficulties in generalizing clinical trial evidence to community practice. Conclusions: Several types of cost-effectiveness studies remain under-represented in the literature on targeted OAMs, including those for follow-on indications approved after the initial indication for a drug and for off-label indications, head-to-head comparisons of targeted OAMs with other targeted OAMs and targeted intravenous therapies, and studies that adopt a perspective other than the payer's. Keeping up with the increasing number of approved targeted OAMs will also prove an important challenge for economic evaluation.

AB - Background: Over the last 15 years, a paradigm shift in oncology has led to the approval of dozens of targeted oral anti-cancer medications (OAMs), which have become the standard of care for certain cancers. While more convenient for patients than infused drugs, the possibility of non-adherence and the frequently high costs of targeted OAMs have proven controversial. Objective: Our objective was to perform the first comprehensive review of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of targeted OAMs. Methods: A literature search in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports published by the National Institute for Health Research HTA Programme in the UK was performed, covering articles published in the 5 years prior to 30 September 2013. Our inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed English-language full-text original research articles with a primary focus on CEA related to targeted OAMs. We categorized these articles by treatment setting (i.e. cancer site/type, line of therapy, and treatment and comparator) and synthesized information from the articles into summary tables. Results: We identified 41 CEAs covering nine of the 18 targeted OAMs approved by the US FDA as of December 2012. These medications were studied in seven cancers, most often as second-line therapy for advanced-stage patients. In over half of treatment settings where a targeted OAM was compared with treatment that was not a targeted OAM, targeted OAMs were considered cost effective. Limitations in interpreting these findings include the risk of bias due to author conflicts of interest, cross-country variation, and difficulties in generalizing clinical trial evidence to community practice. Conclusions: Several types of cost-effectiveness studies remain under-represented in the literature on targeted OAMs, including those for follow-on indications approved after the initial indication for a drug and for off-label indications, head-to-head comparisons of targeted OAMs with other targeted OAMs and targeted intravenous therapies, and studies that adopt a perspective other than the payer's. Keeping up with the increasing number of approved targeted OAMs will also prove an important challenge for economic evaluation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84903946015&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84903946015&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40273-014-0160-z

DO - 10.1007/s40273-014-0160-z

M3 - Review article

C2 - 24821281

AN - SCOPUS:84903946015

VL - 32

SP - 651

EP - 680

JO - PharmacoEconomics

JF - PharmacoEconomics

SN - 1170-7690

IS - 7

ER -