Chauca Strand G, Bonander C, Jakobsson N, Johansson N, Svensson M. Assessment of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the reimbursement decisions of new cancer drugs.
ESMO Open 2022;
7:100569. [PMID:
36037568 PMCID:
PMC9588887 DOI:
10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100569]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2022] [Revised: 07/06/2022] [Accepted: 07/24/2022] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to describe the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence supporting reimbursement decisions of new cancer drugs and analyze the influence of trial characteristics and the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) on the likelihood of reimbursement in Sweden.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Data were extracted from all appraisal dossiers for new cancer drugs seeking reimbursement in Sweden and claiming added therapeutical value between the years 2010 and 2020. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and logistic regression models were also used with the cost per QALY, study design, comparator, and evidence on final outcomes in the clinical trials as predictors of reimbursement.
RESULTS
All 60 included appraisals were based on trial evidence that assessed at least one final outcome (overall survival [OS] or quality of life [QoL]), although rarely as a primary outcome. Of the appraisals with a final decision (n = 58), 79% were approved for reimbursement. Among the reimbursed drugs, only half had trial evidence demonstrating improved OS or QoL. Only one drug had trial evidence supporting improvements in both OS and QoL. The average cost per QALY for reimbursed cancer drugs was estimated to be 748 560 SEK (€73 583). A higher cost per QALY was found to decrease the likelihood of reimbursement by 9.4% for every 100 000 SEK (€9830) higher cost per QALY (P = 0.03). For cost-effectiveness models without direct evidence of improvements in final outcomes, a larger QALY gain was observed compared with those with evidence mainly relying on intermediate and surrogate outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
There are substantial uncertainties in the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence underlying reimbursement decisions of new cancer drugs. Decision makers should be cautious of the limited evidence on patient-centered outcomes and the implications of allocating resources to expensive treatments with uncertain value for money.
Collapse