“Magnitude of clinical benefit” of solid tumour drugs and their real-world application in the Austrian health care setting

Analysis of oncological drugs authorised in Spain in the last decade: association between clinical benefit and reimbursement

BACKGROUND

Our study aimed to assess whether there was a relationship between clinical benefits and reimbursement decisions as well as the inclusion of economic evaluations in  therapeutic positioning reports (IPTs) and to explore factors influencing reimbursement decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed all anti-cancer drugs approved in Spain from 2010 to September 2022. The clinical benefit of each drug were evaluated using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) 1.1. The characteristics of these drugs were obtained from the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices. Reimbursement status information was obtained using BIFIMED, a web resource available in Spanish and consulted the agreements of the Interministerial Committee on Pricing of Medicines (CIPM).

RESULTS

In total, 73 drugs were included involving 197 indications. Almost half of the indications had substantial clinical benefit (49.8% yes vs. 50.3% no). Of the 153 indications with a reimbursement decision, 61 (56.5%) reimbursed indications had substantial clinical benefit compared to 14 (31.1%) of the non-reimbursed (p < 0.01). The median gain of overall survival was 4.9 months (2.8-11.2) for reimbursed indications and 2.9 months (1.7-5) in non-reimbursed (p < 0.05). Only six (3%) indications had an economic evaluation in the IPT.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that there is a relationship between substantial clinical benefit and the reimbursement decision in Spain. However, we also found that the overall survival gain was modest, and a significant proportion of the reimbursed indications had no substantial clinical benefit. Economic evaluations in IPTs are infrequent and cost-effectiveness analysis is not provided by CIPM.

Precision medicine and the fragmentation of solidarity (and justice)

Solidarity is a fundamental social value in many European countries, though its precise practical and theoretical meaning is disputed. In a health care context, I agree with European writers who take solidarity normatively to mean roughly equal access to effective health care for all. That is, solidarity includes a sense of justice. Given that, I will argue that precision medicine represents a potential weakening of solidarity, albeit not a unique weakening. Precision medicine includes 150 targeted cancer therapies (mostly for metastatic cancer), all of which are extraordinarily expensive. Our critical question: Must a commitment to solidarity as defined mean that all these targeted cancer therapies should be guaranteed to all within each country in the European Union, no matter the cost, no matter the degree of effectiveness? Such a commitment would imply that cancer was ethically special, rightfully commandeering unlimited resources. That in itself would undermine solidarity. I offer multiple examples of how current and future dissemination of these targeted cancer drugs threaten a commitment to solidarity. An alternative is to fund more cancer prevention efforts. However, that too proves a threat to solidarity. Solidarity, with or without a sense of justice, is too abstract a notion to address these challenges. Further, we need to accept that we can only hope to achieve "rough justice" and "supple solidarity." The precise practical meaning of these notions needs to be worked out through a fair and inclusive process of rational democratic deliberation, which is the real and practical foundation of just solidarity.

Cancer care near the end-of-life in Austria: A retrospective data analysis

Objective

Since end‐of‐life care (EOL) is an internationally accepted indicator for the quality of oncological care we aimed to investigate the current EOL care situation for Austrian cancer patients especially concerning the place of death cancer treatment hospitalisation near death and palliative care.

Methods

A retrospective data analysis was carried out based on Austrian routine inpatient data of the years 2012 to 2016. Data including the date of death of adult patients with a main hospital discharge diagnosis of a neoplasm were included. All analyses were source‐related and based on the place of residence.

Results

In total 80818 cancer patients have died between 2012 and 2016 of whom 53.4% died in the inpatient setting. Palliative care at the EOL (last hospitalisation) was present in 12.9% of patients whereby more than 50% were admitted two to 14 days before death. Considering cancer treatment at the EOL (30 days before death) 6.9% of cancer patients have received chemotherapy 1.7% radiation therapy and 0.75% were treated with a monoclonal antibody.

Conclusion

In international comparison Austria appears to do well on quality indicators concerning ICU‐admission and chemotherapy treatment average on hospital death and poorly on hospital admissions and timely referral for palliative care.