Determining the Comparative Value of Pharmaceutical Risk-Sharing Policies in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Using Real-World Data
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- Value in Health, 2019, 22 (3), pp. 322 - 331
- Issue Date:
- 2019-03-01
Closed Access
| Filename | Description | Size | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Determining the Comparative Value of Pharmaceutical Risk-Sharing Policies in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Using Real-World Data.pdf | Published Version | 537.06 kB |
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Closed Access
This item is closed access and not available.
© 2019 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research Background: Risk-sharing arrangements (RSAs) can be used to mitigate uncertainty about the value of a drug by sharing the financial risk between payer and pharmaceutical company. We evaluated the projected impact of alternative RSAs for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapies based on real-world data. Methods: Data on treatment patterns of Dutch NSCLC patients from four different hospitals were used to perform “what-if” analyses, evaluating the costs and benefits likely associated with various RSAs. In the scenarios, drug costs or refunds were based on response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) response, survival compared to the pivotal trial, treatment duration, or a fixed cost per patient. Analyses were done for erlotinib, gemcitabine/cisplatin, and pemetrexed/platinum for metastatic NSCLC, and gemcitabine/cisplatin, pemetrexed/cisplatin, and vinorelbine/cisplatin for nonmetastatic NSCLC. Results: Money-back guarantees led to moderate cost reductions to the payer. For conditional treatment continuation schemes, costs and outcomes associated with the different treatments were dispersed. When price was linked to the outcome, the payer's drug costs reduced by 2.5% to 26.7%. Discounted treatment initiation schemes yielded large cost reductions. Utilization caps mainly reduced the costs of erlotinib treatment (by 16%). Given a fixed cost per patient based on projected average use of the drug, risk sharing was unfavorable to the payer because of the lower than projected use. The impact of RSAs on a national scale was dispersed. Conclusions: For erlotinib and pemetrexed/platinum, large cost reductions were observed with risk sharing. RSAs can mitigate uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness or budget impact of drugs, but only when the type of arrangement matches the setting and type of uncertainty.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: