Drug cost savings in phase III hematological oncology clinical trials in a university hospital

Pharmaceutical cost savings from the treatment of oncology patients in clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was twofold: to assess the annual pharmaceutical savings associated with the treatment of cancer patients at Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital and to estimate the cost of innovative antineoplastic therapies that patients receive as experimental treatment, both during clinical trials throughout 2020.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An observational and financial analysis of the drug cost related to clinical trials was applied. Direct cost savings to the Regional Health System of Cantabria and the cost of innovative therapies used as an experimental treatment in clinical trials were quantified.

RESULTS

This study includes 38 clinical trials with a sample of 101 patients. The clinical trials analyzed provide a total cost savings of €603,350.21 and an average cost saving of €6,630.22 per patient. Furthermore, the total investment amounts to €789,892.67, with an average investment of €15,488.09 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trials are essential for the advancement of science. Furthermore, clinical trials can be a significant source of income for both hospitals and Regional Health Systems, contributing to their financial sustainability.

Evaluation of drug cost savings related to clinical trials from the perspective of a university hospital

OBJECTIVES

Clinical trials are an opportunity for patients to access innovative therapy, but patient inclusion in clinical trials can also result in cost savings for hospitals. Our objective was to evaluate the economic impact of clinical trials drug cost savings in a French academic institution from the perspectives of both the French Health Insurance (FHI) and hospitals.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational, cost saving analysis was performed on all the clinical trials initiated in our university hospital between 2015 and 2020. Only trials involving an investigational medicinal product were considered. Drug cost savings were defined as the best standard of care, defined in the protocol, whose cost was covered by a sponsor.

RESULTS

Of the 646 trials undertaken during the 6 years analysed, 21% (212/646) led to cost savings, mostly driven by the industrial sponsor (92%, €6 984 283/€7 591 612) for a total of €7 591 612 (91% from the FHI's perspective (€6 959 115/€7 591 612)). Oncology trials generated 79.1% (€6 004 966/€7 591 612) of global cost savings, mostly driven by onco-haematology (33.1%, €1 983 146/€6 004 966), onco-pneumology (29.2%, €1 754 333/€6 004 966) and onco-dermatology (23.5%, €1 409 553/€6 004 966) followed by hepatogastroenterology trials (6.9%, €413 113/€6 004 966). Of the 162 drugs, the top 15 generated 75.3% (€5 715 479/€7 591 612) of savings and were grouped together: 12 antineoplastic agents (six per os and six intravenous) and three per os antiviral for hepatitis C.

CONCLUSIONS

With ever-changing prices and new innovative treatments, such cost avoidance must be regularly evaluated. We provided objective evidence that clinical trials could achieve potential cost savings for the FHI and hospitals, in addition to the potential benefit to patients of having access to innovative investigational medicinal products.

Drug cost avoidance analysis of cancer clinical trials in Spain: a study on cost contributors and their impact

Objective

Analyze the cost contributors and their impact on the drug cost avoidance (DCA) resulting from cancer clinical trials over the period of 2015–2020 in a tertiary-level hospital in Spain (HCUVA).

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study of a total of 53 clinical trials with 363 patients enrolled. We calculated the DCA from the price of the best standard of care (i.e.: drugs that the institution would otherwise fund). A linear regression model was used to determine cost contributors and estimate their impact.

Results

The total DCA was ~ 4.9 million euros (31 clinical trials; 177 enrollees), representing ~ 30% and ~ 0,05% approximately of the annual pharmaceutical expenditures at the HCUVA and for the Spanish Health System, respectively. Cancer type analysis showed that lung cancer had the highest average DCA by trial, indicating that treatments in these trials were the most expensive. Linear regression analysis showed that the number of patients in a trial did not significantly affect that trial's DCA. Instead, cancer type, phase trials, and intention of treatment were significant cost contributors to DCA. Compared to digestive cancer trials, breast and lung trials were significantly more expensive, (p < 0.05 and p < 0.1, respectively). Phase III trials were more expensive than Phase II (p < 0.01) and adjuvant trials were less expensive than palliative (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

We studied cost contributors that significantly impacted the estimated DCA from cancer clinical trials. Our work provides the groundwork to explore DCA contributors with potential to enhance public relations material and serve as a negotiating tool for budgeting, thus playing an important role to inform decisions about resource allocation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08222-9.

The economic impact of compassionate use of medicines

BACKGROUND

Compassionate use programs (CUP) for medicines respond to the ethical imperative of providing access to medicines before marketing approval to patients not recruited in trials. The economic impact of clinical trials has previously been investigated. No evidence on the net economic benefit of CUP exists. This research aims to address this information gap by estimating the economic consequences of 11 CUP in Italy conducted between March 2015 and December 2020 from the perspective of public health care system in Italy (National Health Service). Eight programs concern cancer treatments, two refer to spinal muscular atrophy, and one is indicated for multiple sclerosis.

METHODS

Since CUP medicines are covered by the industry, the net economic benefit includes: (i) avoided costs of the Standard of Care (SoC) the patients would have received had they not joined the CUP, (ii) costs not covered by the pharmaceutical industry sponsor, but instead sustained by payers, such as those associated with adverse events (only severe side effects resulting in hospitalisation and attributable to CUP medicines), and (iii) costs for combination therapies and diagnostic procedures not used with the SoC. The SoC costing relied on publicly available data. Information on adverse events and diagnostic procedures was retrieved from the CUP and monetized using the relevant fee for episode or service. One CUP was excluded since a SoC was not identified.

RESULTS

2,713 patients were treated in the 11 CUP where a SoC was identified. The SoC mean cost per patient ranged from €11,415 to €20,299. The total cost of the SoC ranged between €31.0 and €55.1 million. The mean cost per patient covered by hospitals hosting CUP was equal to €1,646, with a total cost of €4.5 million. The net economic benefit ranged €26.5 million - €50.6 million.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite research limitations, this paper illustrates for the first time the net economic impact of CUP from a public payer perspective. It is important to integrate these estimates with the prospective effects of CUP implementation, i.e., the economic value of the comparative benefit profile of medicines used in CUP versus the SoC, including effects from a societal perspective.