Budget impact analysis of subcutaneous trastuzumab compared to intravenous trastuzumab in Saudi HER2-positive breast cancer patients

A Step Toward the Development of the First National Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework to Support Healthcare Decision Making in Saudi Arabia

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of implementing multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and to select the criteria for preparing a national MCDA framework for health technology assessment of orphan drugs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

METHODS

The study was conducted in 3 phases. In phase I, a targeted literature review was performed to gather relevant information on the implementation of MCDA in healthcare decision making. Phase II was a cross-sectional survey, conducted to obtain insights from different stakeholders and key opinion leaders on specific topics from the KSA perspective. Phase III included a round-table discussion involving experts to validate the results obtained in the phase II survey and further elaborate on specific requirements that may be critical for developing the first national MCDA framework in the KSA.

RESULTS

All the key opinion leaders involved in the study acknowledged the importance of implementing MCDA in the KSA. The Ministry of Health was assigned the responsibility of chairing the MCDA decision process. The experts selected the quantitative, qualitative, and economic criteria to be considered for the MCDA framework. The stakeholders decided to initiate a pilot phase using the deliberative MCDA methodology for the assessment of orphan drugs based on the selected criteria for a period of 1 year and then reevaluate the need to adapt the pragmatic MCDA model.

CONCLUSION

This article describes the novel initiative that examined the feasibility and process required for the development of the first MCDA framework in the KSA to support healthcare decision making.

Evaluation of the economic benefits, administration times, and patient preferences associated with the use of biotechnological drugs administered subcutaneously and intravenously in patients with cancer: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Cancer imposes a high economic burden with medical care and medication costs. We evaluate the costs, the use of resources, the administration time, and the patient preferences associated with the use of biotechnological drugs in SC and IV presentations.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and seven additional databases. The search was carried out in September 2021 and included only studies directly comparing SC and IV presentations. Evidence was synthesized narratively.

RESULTS

34 references were included, which only analyzed bortezomib, daratumumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. Reduction in preparation costs of SC compared to IV presentations ranged from 6.6% to 50.1%, and in administration costs from 4.5% to 95.3%. SC administration of rituximab and trastuzumab resulted in less productivity loss. More than 68% of patients reported greater satisfaction with the SC route. A reduction of time in the infusion chair, lower costs of resources for preparation, and health personnel for the administration process were identified with SC administration.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SC daratumumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab in patients with cancer reduces direct and indirect costs and adverse events compared to IV use. Patients prefer the SC administration, perceiving more comfort, and less pain at the administration site.

Budget impact analysis of breast cancer medications: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer globally among women, with 2,261,419 new cases in 2020; systemic treatment may be neo-adjuvant, adjuvant, or both. BC subtype guides the standard systemic therapy administered, which consists of endocrine therapy for all HR + tumors, trastuzumab-based HER2-directed antibody therapy plus chemotherapy for all HER2 + tumors (with endocrine therapy given in addition, if concurrent HR positivity), and chemotherapy alone for the triple-negative subtype. This study aimed to identify, evaluate, and systematically review all budget impact analyses (BIAs) of BC medications worldwide.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases were thoroughly searched up to 26th March 2022 to identify original published studies which evaluate BIA of BC medications. ISPOR Task Force guidelines were used to assess the quality of included studies. This study was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

In total, 17 BIAs were included in the study. About half of the studies were conducted in Europe. The results of the BIAs showed that most of the included BIAs are conducted from the payer's perspective; they have different methodological frameworks for recommended chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy agents to treat BC. For the same medications, the results of budgetary effects are not consistent in diverse countries. Nine out of the 17 studies were focused on trastuzumab, in which the biosimilar form reduced costs, but the brand form increased costs, especially in a 52-week treatment period.

CONCLUSION

Researchers should conduct the budget impact analysis of high-value medications such as anti-tumor drugs more objectively, and the accuracy of parameters needs to be more strictly guaranteed. Furthermore, it is worthy of declaring that the budgetary impact of the same drug is not always consistent over time, so the researchers should measure access to medication in the long run.

Is the Scope of Costs Considered in Budget Impact Analyses for Anticancer Drugs Rational? A Systematic Review and Comparative Study

Background: With the increasing disease burden of cancer worldwide, more and more anticancer drugs have been approved in many countries, and the results of budget impact analyses (BIAs) have become important evidence for related reimbursement decisions.

Objectives: We systematically reviewed whether BIAs for anticancer drugs consider the scope of costs rationally and compared the results of different cost scopes to provide suggestions for future analyses and decision-making.

Methods: Eligible BIAs published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 2016 to 2021 were identified based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We extracted 15 terms from the included studies and analyzed how they considered the scope of costs. In addition, a budget impact model was developed for the introduction of geptanolimab to China's National Reimbursement Drug List to enable a comparison of two cost-scope scenarios.

Results: A total of 29 studies were included in the systematic review. All 29 studies considered the costs of anticancer drugs, and 25 (86%) also considered condition-related costs, but only 11 (38%) considered subsequent treatment costs. In the comparative study, the predicted budget impacts from 2022 to 2024 were significantly impacted by subsequent treatment costs, with annual differences between the two cost-scope scenarios of $39,546,664, $65,866,161, and $86,577,386, respectively.

Conclusions: The scope of costs considered in some existing BIAs for anticancer drugs are not rational. The variations between different cost scopes in terms of budget impact were significant. Thus, BIAs for anticancer drugs should consider a rational scope of costs that adheres to BIA guidelines. Researchers and decision-makers should pay more attention to the scope of costs to achieve better-quality BIAs for anticancer drugs and enhance reimbursement decision-making.