The economic impact of the transition from branded to generic oncology drugs.
Antineoplastic Agents
/ economics
Cetuximab
/ economics
Cisplatin
/ economics
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cytarabine
/ economics
Deoxycytidine
/ analogs & derivatives
Dexamethasone
/ economics
Drug Costs
Drugs, Generic
/ economics
Erlotinib Hydrochloride
/ economics
Humans
Lung Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Lymphoma
/ drug therapy
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Vinorelbine
/ economics
Gemcitabine
Costs
branded drugs
drugs
generic drugs
Journal
Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.)
ISSN: 1718-7729
Titre abrégé: Curr Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9502503
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2019
04 2019
Historique:
entrez:
3
5
2019
pubmed:
3
5
2019
medline:
1
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Economic evaluations are an integral component of many clinical trials. Costs used in those analyses are based on the prices of branded drugs when they first enter the market. The effect of genericization on the cost-effectiveness (ce) or cost-utility (cu) of an intervention is unknown because economic analyses are rarely updated using the costs of generic drugs. We re-examined the ce or cu of regimens previously evaluated in Canadian Cancer Trials Group (cctg) studies that included prospective economic evaluations and where genericization has occurred or is anticipated in Canada. We incorporated the new costs of generic drugs to characterize changes in ce or cu. We also determined acceptable cost levels of generic drugs that would make regimens reimbursable in a publicly funded health care system. The four randomized controlled trials included (representing 1979 patients) were cctg br.10 (early lung cancer, adjuvant vinorelbine-cisplatin vs. observation, Genericization of a costly oncology drug can modify the ce and cu of a regimen significantly. Failure to revisit economic analyses with the costs of generics could be a missed opportunity for funding bodies to optimize value-based allocation of health care resources. At current levels, the costs of generics might not be sufficiently low to sustain publicly funded health care systems.
Sections du résumé
Background
Economic evaluations are an integral component of many clinical trials. Costs used in those analyses are based on the prices of branded drugs when they first enter the market. The effect of genericization on the cost-effectiveness (ce) or cost-utility (cu) of an intervention is unknown because economic analyses are rarely updated using the costs of generic drugs.
Methods
We re-examined the ce or cu of regimens previously evaluated in Canadian Cancer Trials Group (cctg) studies that included prospective economic evaluations and where genericization has occurred or is anticipated in Canada. We incorporated the new costs of generic drugs to characterize changes in ce or cu. We also determined acceptable cost levels of generic drugs that would make regimens reimbursable in a publicly funded health care system.
Results
The four randomized controlled trials included (representing 1979 patients) were cctg br.10 (early lung cancer, adjuvant vinorelbine-cisplatin vs. observation,
Conclusions
Genericization of a costly oncology drug can modify the ce and cu of a regimen significantly. Failure to revisit economic analyses with the costs of generics could be a missed opportunity for funding bodies to optimize value-based allocation of health care resources. At current levels, the costs of generics might not be sufficiently low to sustain publicly funded health care systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31043808
doi: 10.3747/co.26.4395
pii: conc-26-89
pmc: PMC6476465
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Drugs, Generic
0
Cytarabine
04079A1RDZ
Deoxycytidine
0W860991D6
Dexamethasone
7S5I7G3JQL
Erlotinib Hydrochloride
DA87705X9K
Cetuximab
PQX0D8J21J
Cisplatin
Q20Q21Q62J
Vinorelbine
Q6C979R91Y
Gemcitabine
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
89-93Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare that we have none.
Références
Ann Pharmacother. 2011 Jan;45(1):31-8
pubmed: 21205953
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Jan;25(1):16-27
pubmed: 26667886
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 15;357(20):2040-8
pubmed: 18003960
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Nov 1;32(31):3490-6
pubmed: 25267740
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Apr 13;107(7):
pubmed: 25868579
Blood. 2015 Oct 8;126(15):1860-1
pubmed: 26320099
J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 10;26(14):2350-7
pubmed: 18467727
Eur J Cancer. 2006 Nov;42(17):2887-92
pubmed: 16979891
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Jan 20;102(2):82-8
pubmed: 20056956
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jun 23;352(25):2589-97
pubmed: 15972865
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jun 1;25(16):2256-61
pubmed: 17538170
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Sep 2;101(17):1182-92
pubmed: 19666851
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 14;353(2):123-32
pubmed: 16014882
Value Health. 2008 Jul-Aug;11(4):771-83
pubmed: 18179658
Am J Manag Care. 2012 Nov;18(11 Suppl):S249-56
pubmed: 23327456
Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Mar-Apr;28(2):546-56
pubmed: 19276015
Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1118-23
pubmed: 19624617
Curr Oncol. 2016 Feb;23(Suppl 1):S6
pubmed: 26985149
Ann Oncol. 2007 Apr;18 Suppl 3:iii1-iii77
pubmed: 17494969
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Mar 3;102(5):298-306
pubmed: 20160168
Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jun 7;142(11):891-7
pubmed: 15941695
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Jul;30(7):1351-7
pubmed: 21734210