Dataset Information

Characteristics of Cost-effectiveness Studies for Oncology Drugs Approved in the United States From 2015-2020.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Increasingly, cost-effectiveness analyses are being done to determine the value of rapidly increasing oncology drugs; however, this assumes that these analyses are unbiased.

Objective

To analyze the characteristics of cost-effectiveness studies and to determine characteristics associated with whether an oncology drug is found to be cost-effective.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective cross-sectional study included 254 cost-effectiveness analyses for 116 oncology drugs that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2015 to 2020.

Exposures

Each drug was analyzed for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year, the funding of the study, the authors' conflict of interest, the threshold of willingness-to-pay, from what country's perspective the analysis was done, and whether a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness analysis had been done.

Main outcomes and measures

The main outcome was the odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective.

Results

There were 116 drug approvals with 254 studies and country perspectives. Of the country perspectives, 132 (52%) were from the US. Forty-seven of 78 drugs with cost-effective studies had been shown to improve overall survival, whereas 15 of 38 of drugs without a cost-effectiveness study had been shown to improve overall survival. Having a study funded by a pharmaceutical company was associated with higher odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective than studies without funding (odds ratio, 41.36; 95% CI, 11.86-262.23).

Conclusions and relevance

In this cross-sectional study, pharmaceutical funding was associated with greater odds that an oncology drug would be found to be cost-effective. These findings suggest that simply disclosing potential conflict of interest is inadequate. We encourage cost-effectiveness analyses by independent groups.

SUBMITTER: Haslam A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8603079 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsTo examine the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment of people who inject drugs (PWID), combined with medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and syringe-service programs (SSP), to tackle the increasing HCV epidemic in the United States.DesignHCV transmission and disease progression models with cost-effectiveness analysis using a health-care perspective.SettingRural Perry County, KY (PC) and urban San Francisco, CA (SF), USA. Compared with PC, SF has a greater proportion of PWID with access to MAT or SSP. HCV treatment of PWID is negligible in both settings.ParticipantsPWID data were collected between 1998 and 2015 from Social Networks Among Appalachian People, U Find Out, Urban Health Study and National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System studies.Interventions and comparatorThree intervention scenarios modeled: baseline-existing SSP and MAT coverage with HCV screening and treatment with direct-acting antiviral for ex-injectors only as per standard of care; intervention 1-scale-up of SSP and MAT without changes to treatment; and intervention 2-scale-up as intervention 1 combined with HCV screening and treatment for current PWID.MeasurementsIncremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and uncertainty using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Benefits were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).FindingsFor both settings, intervention 2 is preferred to intervention 1 and the appropriate comparator for intervention 2 is the baseline scenario. Relative to baseline, for PC intervention 2 averts 1852 more HCV infections, increases QALYS by 3095, costs $21.6 million more and has an ICER of $6975/QALY. For SF, intervention 2 averts 36 473 more HCV infections, increases QALYs by 7893, costs $872 million more and has an ICER of $11 044/QALY. The cost-effectiveness of intervention 2 was robust to several sensitivity analysis.ConclusionsHepatitis C screening and treatment for people who inject drugs, combined with medication-assisted treatment and syringe-service programs, is a cost-effective strategy for reducing hepatitis C burden in the United States.

Project description:BackgroundWhile a 2021 federal commission recommended that the United States government levy a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax to improve diabetes prevention and control efforts, evidence is limited regarding the longer-term impacts of SSB taxes on SSB purchases, health outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness. This study estimates the impact and cost-effectiveness of an SSB tax levied in Oakland, California.Methods and findingsAn SSB tax ($0.01/oz) was implemented on July 1, 2017, in Oakland. The main sample of sales data included 11,627 beverage products, 316 stores, and 172,985,767 product-store-month observations. The main analysis, a longitudinal quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach, compared changes in beverage purchases at stores in Oakland versus Richmond, California (a nontaxed comparator in the same market area) before and 30 months after tax implementation (through December 31, 2019). Additional estimates used synthetic control methods with comparator stores in Los Angeles, California. Estimates were inputted into a closed-cohort microsimulation model to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and societal costs (in Oakland) from 6 SSB-associated disease outcomes. In the main analysis, SSB purchases declined by 26.8% (95% CI -39.0 to -14.7, p < 0.001) in Oakland after tax implementation, compared with Richmond. There were no detectable changes in purchases of untaxed beverages or sweet snacks or purchases in border areas surrounding cities. In the synthetic control analysis, declines in SSB purchases were similar to the main analysis (-22.4%, 95% CI -41.7% to -3.0%, p = 0.04). The estimated changes in SSB purchases, when translated into declines in consumption, would be expected to accrue QALYs (94 per 10,000 residents) and significant societal cost savings (>$100,000 per 10,000 residents) over 10 years, with greater gains over a lifetime horizon. Study limitations include a lack of SSB consumption data and use of sales data primarily from chain stores.ConclusionsAn SSB tax levied in Oakland was associated with a substantial decline in volume of SSBs purchased, an association that was sustained more than 2 years after tax implementation. Our study suggests that SSB taxes are effective policy instruments for improving health and generating significant cost savings for society.