BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Kaczyński Łukas (Aestimo s.c., Kraków, Polska), Serafin Beata (Aestimo s.c., Kraków, Polska), Prząda-Machno Patrycja (Pfizer Polska, Warszawa, Polska), Kaczor Marcin (Aestimo s.c., Uniwersytet Jagielloński Collegium Medicum, Kraków, Polska)
Tytuł
Is The Cost-Effectiveness Threshold Cost-Effective in Cancer Therapy?
Źródło
Journal of Health Policy and Outcomes Research, 2015, nr 2, s. 68-79, rys., bibliogr. 36 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Efektywność, Leczenie, Koszty, Choroby nowotworowe
Effectiveness, Medical treatment, Costs, Cancer
Uwagi
summ.
Abstrakt
To compare availability of innovative cancer drugs in countries with established cost-effectiveness threshold (Great Britain, Czech Republic, Sweden and Poland) and where this criterion is not used (Germany, France, Italy), and to assess the relationship between the reimbursement system and the expenditures and health outcomes. The analysis of reimbursement decisions concerning innovative cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency in the years 2012-2013 and the available data concerning incidence, 5-year relative survival rate and the treatment costs of breast, lung, colon and prostate cancer. The assessment included 19 innovative drugs. Most of them were covered by reimbursement in countries without a cost-effectiveness threshold - 80.7%, compared to the countries with a cost-effectiveness threshold - 59.6% (48.7% including Poland). Three products were financed in all reimbursement systems, with the exception of Poland: Perjeta, Xalkori and Xtandi. In countries without the cost-effectiveness threshold the health outcomes expressed as 5-year relative survival were better compared to EU in general or to most of countries which use the cost-effectiveness threshold, whereas expenditures per capita in most cancers were diversified - large (15-27 €, Germany) or similar to the countries with the cost-effectiveness threshold (6-13 €, France and Italy). In Poland for most evaluated cancers the lowest 5-year relative survival was noted, with the lowest expenditure per capita (5-9 €) simultaneously (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Bae YHJ., Mullins D. Do Value Thresholds for Oncology Drugs Differ from Nononcology Drugs? J. Manag. Care. Pharm. 2014; 20: 1086-1092
  2. National institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments. 2009 [cited 15.10.2015]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-tag387/resources/appraising-life-extending-end-of-life-treatments-paper2;
  3. Aitken M. Impact of cost-per-QALY reimbursement criteria on access to cancer drugs. IMS Institute for healthcare informatics. 2014; [cited 15.10.2015]. Available from: https://www.imshealth.com/files/web/IMSH%20Institute/Healthcare%20Briefs/IHII_CPQ_Impact_on_Access_to_Cancer_Drugs.pdf;
  4. Wojciechowska U., Didkowska J. Zachorowania i zgony na nowotwory złośliwe w Polsce. Krajowy Rejestr Nowotworów, Centrum Onkologii - Instytut im. Marii Skłodowskiej - Curie; [cited 15.10.2015]. Available from: http://onkologia.org.pl/raporty/
  5. De Angelis R., San M., Coleman MP. et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15:23-34
  6. GLOBOCAN 2012. Estimated Cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. 2012; [cited 15.10.2015]. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Default.aspx;
  7. Luengo-Fernandez R., Leal J., Gray A., Sullivan R. Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: a population-based cost analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14:1165-1174
  8. Rémuzat C., Toumi M., Falissard B. New drug regulations in France: what are the impacts on market access? Part 1 - Overview of new drug regulations in France. Journal of Market Access & Health Policy 2013; 1: 20891
  9. Pricing and Reimbursement Questions. Conférence Bleue. European Lawyers' Conference on Pharmaceutical and Health Care Affairs. 2015; [cited 15.10.2015]. Available from: http://www.arthurcox.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Pricing-and-Reimbursement-Questions.pdf;
  10. Bergmann L., Enzmann H., Broich K. et al. Actual developments in European regulatory and health technology assessment of new cancer drugs: what does this mean for oncology in Europe? Ann. Oncol. 2014; 25: 303-306
  11. IMS Consulting Group. AMNOG: Seven Learnings for Strategic Market Access Decisions in Germany. 2012; [cited 15.10.2015]. Available from: http://pl.scribd.com/doc/290575228/AMNOG-Seven-Learnings-Strategic-Access-Germany#scribd;
  12. Van Engen A., Latimer NR., Böhler YB., Holmstrom S. Should we adjust overall survival estimates for treatment switching in oncology? Issue Panels - Session I ISPOR 17th Annual Congress. 2014; [cited 15.10.2015]. Available from: http://www.ispor.org/Event/ProgramList/2014Amsterdam?type=IssuePanel;
  13. Kudrin A. Reimbursement challenges with cancer immunotherapeutics. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2012; 8: 1326-1334
  14. Ivandic V. Requirements for benefit assessment in Germany and England - overview and comparison. Health Econ. Rev. 2014; 4: 12
  15. Available from: http://www.agenziafarmaco.gov.it/it; [cited 15.10.2015]
  16. Available from: http://www.aotm.gov.pl/www/index.php?id=909; [cited 15.10.2015]
  17. Ustawa z dnia 12 maja 2011 r. o refundacji leków, środków spożywczych specjalnego przeznaczenia żywieniowego oraz wyrobów medycznych. (Dz.U. 2011 nr 122 poz. 696) Available from: http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20111220696;
  18. Available from: http://www.sukl.eu/folder/1533/display/; [cited 15.10.2015]
  19. Barnieh L., Manns B., Harris Blom M. et al. A Synthesis of Drug Reimbursement Decision-Making Processes in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Countries. Value Health. 2014; 17:98-108
  20. Mezerová V. Způsoby hodnocení kvality života z pohledu pacjenta. Chech HTA. 2013; [cited 15.10.2015]. Available from: http://czechhta.cz/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Kvalita-%C5%BEivota-z-pohledu-pacienta.pdf;
  21. Epstein D. The use of Comparative Effectiveness Research and Health Technology Assessment in European countries: current situation and prospects for the future. Department of Applied Economics, University of Granada. 2014; [cited 15.10.2015]. Available from: https://www.ugr.es/;
  22. NICE. Process and methods guides. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. 2013; [cited 15.10.2015]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf;
  23. Value Based Assessment of Drugs . Hauses of Parliament. Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology. 2015. POSTnote no. 487; [cited 15.10.2015]. Available from: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/POST-PN-487;
  24. Available from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/cancer-questions/cancer-drugs-fund; [cited 15.10.2015]
  25. NHS England Standard Operating Procedures: The Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF). Guidance to support operation of the CDF in 2014-15. 2014; [cited 15.10.2015]. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/sop-cdf-1114.pdf;
  26. Paris V., Belloni A. Value in Pharmaceutical Pricing. OECD Health Working Paper No. 63, 2013; [cited 15.10.2015]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s21368en/s21368en.pdf;
  27. The Swedish Pharmaceutical Reimbursement System. Pharmaceutical Benefits Board. 2007; [cited 15.10.2015]. Available from: http://www.tlv.se/Upload/English/ENG-swe-pharma-reimbursement-system.pdf;
  28. Karpa W. Alternatywna metoda kalkulacji progu efektywności kosztowej w analizie farmakoekonomicznej na przykładzie grupy chorób niedokrwiennych serca. Metody Ilościowe W Badaniach Ekonomicznych 2014; XV: 17-25
  29. Available from: http://www.who.int/choice/costs/CER_thresholds/en/; [cited 15.10.2015].
  30. Lis J., Orlewska E., Frey J. Podstawy farmaekonomiki. Przegląd Urologiczny 2004; 3:25
  31. Garau M., Shah KK., Mason AR., Wang Q., Towse A., Drummond MF. Using QALYs in Cancer. A Review of the Methodological Limitations. Pharmacoeconomics 2011; 29: 673-685
  32. Gaujoux-Viala C., Rat AC., Guillemin F. et al. Responsiveness of EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with early arthritis: results from ESPOIR cohort. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2012; 71:1478-1483
  33. Czech M. Farmakoekonomika. Ekonomiczna ocena programów zdrowotnych. Oficyna wydawnicza PW, 2004; 63-75
  34. Available from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/type/lung-cancer/treatment/statistics-and-outlook-for-lung-cancer; [cited 15.10.2015]
  35. Rzyman W.: Rak płuc. Forum Medycyny Rodzinnej.2008; 2(6): 407-420
  36. Kolbarczyk WP., Gujski M., Brzozowski S., Tytko Z., Ścibek A. Walka z nowotworami i opieka onkologiczna w Polsce wobec wyzwań demograficznych i epidemiologicznych - propozycje rozwiązań. Instytut Ochrony Zdrowia. Warszawa 2015; 15
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2299-1247
Język
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.7365/JHPOR.2015.2.6
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu