Drug cost avoidance analysis of cancer clinical trials in Spain: a study on cost contributors and their impact.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Analyze the cost contributors and their impact on the drug cost avoidance (DCA) resulting from cancer clinical trials over the period of 2015-2020 in a tertiary-level hospital in Spain (HCUVA).Methods
We performed a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study of a total of 53 clinical trials with 363 patients enrolled. We calculated the DCA from the price of the best standard of care (i.e.: drugs that the institution would otherwise fund). A linear regression model was used to determine cost contributors and estimate their impact.Results
The total DCA was ~ 4.9 million euros (31 clinical trials; 177 enrollees), representing ~ 30% and ~ 0,05% approximately of the annual pharmaceutical expenditures at the HCUVA and for the Spanish Health System, respectively. Cancer type analysis showed that lung cancer had the highest average DCA by trial, indicating that treatments in these trials were the most expensive. Linear regression analysis showed that the number of patients in a trial did not significantly affect that trial's DCA. Instead, cancer type, phase trials, and intention of treatment were significant cost contributors to DCA. Compared to digestive cancer trials, breast and lung trials were significantly more expensive, (p < 0.05 and p < 0.1, respectively). Phase III trials were more expensive than Phase II (p < 0.01) and adjuvant trials were less expensive than palliative (p < 0.05).Conclusion
We studied cost contributors that significantly impacted the estimated DCA from cancer clinical trials. Our work provides the groundwork to explore DCA contributors with potential to enhance public relations material and serve as a negotiating tool for budgeting, thus playing an important role to inform decisions about resource allocation.
SUBMITTER: Sanchez Martinez DA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9316356 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Cost avoidance occurs when, because of provision of a drug therapy [drug cost avoidance (dca)] or a pathology test [pathology cost avoidance (pca)] during trial participation, health care payers need not pay for standard treatments or testing. The aim of our study was to estimate the total dca and pca for Canadian patients enrolled in relevant phase iii trials conducted by the ncic Clinical Trials Group.Phase iii trials that had completed accrual and resulted in dca or pca were identified. The pca was calculated based on the number of patients screened and the test cost. The dca was estimated based on patients randomized, the protocol dosing regimen, drug cost, median dose intensity, and median duration of therapy. Costs are presented in Canadian dollars. No adjustment was made for inflation.From 1999 to 2011, 4 trials (1479 patients) resulted in pca and 17 trials (3195 patients) resulted in dca. The total pca was estimated at $4,194,849, which included testing for KRAS ($141,058), microsatellite instability ($18,600), and 21-gene recurrence score ($4,035,191). The total dca was estimated at $27,952,512, of which targeted therapy constituted 43% (five trials). The combined pca and dca was $32,147,361.Over the study period, trials conducted by the ncic Clinical Trials Group resulted in total cost avoidance (pca and dca) of approximately $7,518 per patient. Although not all trials lead to cost avoidance, such savings should be taken account when the financial impact of conducting clinical research is being considered.
| S-EPMC4780589 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The clinical and economic impact of cervical cancer consistently become a serious burden for all countries, including Indonesia. The implementation of HPV vaccination policy for a big country such as Indonesia requires a strong commitment from several decision-makers. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive description on cost-effectiveness and the budget-impact of HPV vaccination policy in Indonesia. METHOD:A cohort Markov model was used to evaluate the cost and the clinical impact of HPV vaccination for 10 years old girls in Indonesia. The researchers consider two doses of all three available HPV vaccines adjusted with the HPV infection profilewith 95% vaccination coverage to estimate the national cervical cancer incidence and mortality. The Budget impact analysis explores three different scenarios covering (1) Two districts per year expansion, (2) oneprovince per year expansion and (3) achieving the National Immunization Program in 2024. RESULTS:Upon fully vaccinating almost 2.3 million 10-year-old girls, 34,723; 43,414; and 51,522 cervical cancer cases were prevented by Quadrivalent, Bivalent and Nonavalent vaccines, consecutively. Furthermore, the highest (591 cases) and lowest (399 cases) mortality were prevented by Nonavalent and Quadrivalent vaccines, respectively. Most of the vaccines were considerably cost-effective and only the Bivalent vaccine with the GAVI/UNICEF price which will be considered a cost-saving strategy.To provide national coverage of HPV vaccination in Indonesia, the government has to provide an annual budget of about US$49 million and US$22 million using the government contract price and GAVI/UNICEF price, respectively. CONCLUSION:HPV vaccination shows a cost-effective strategy and the budget required to provide this policy is considerably affordable for Indonesia.
| S-EPMC7089525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAlcohol use disorders (AUDs) represent a large public health burden with relatively few efficacious pharmacotherapies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for new AUD therapies can be hampered by ineffective recruitment, leading to increased trial costs. The current analyses examined the effectiveness of recruitment efforts during two consecutive outpatient RCTs of novel AUD pharmacotherapies conducted between 2009 and 2012.MethodsDuring an initial phone screen, participants identified an ad source for learning about the study. Qualified persons were then scheduled for in-person screens. The present analyses examined demographic differences amongst the eight ad sources utilized. Recruitment effectiveness was determined by dividing the number of persons meeting criteria for an in-person screen by the total number of callers from each ad source. Cost-effectiveness was determined by dividing total ad source cost by number of screens, participants randomized, and completers.Results1,813 calls resulted in 1,005 completed phone screens. The most common ad source was TV (34%), followed by print (29%), word-of-mouth (11%), flyer (8%), internet (5%), radio (5%), bus ad (2%), and billboard (1%). Participants reporting bus ads (46%), billboard (44%), or print ads (34%) were significantly more likely than the other sources to meet criteria to be scheduled for in-person screens. The most cost-effective ad source was print ($2,506 per completer), while bus ad was the least cost-effective ($13,376 per completer).ConclusionsRecruitment in AUD RCTs can be successful using diverse advertising methods. The present analyses favored use of print ads as most cost-effective.
| S-EPMC4704795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves new drugs based on sponsor-submitted clinical trials. The publication status of these trials in the medical literature and factors associated with publication have not been evaluated. We sought to determine the proportion of trials submitted to the FDA in support of newly approved drugs that are published in biomedical journals that a typical clinician, consumer, or policy maker living in the US would reasonably search.We conducted a cohort study of trials supporting new drugs approved between 1998 and 2000, as described in FDA medical and statistical review documents and the FDA approved drug label. We determined publication status and time from approval to full publication in the medical literature at 2 and 5 y by searching PubMed and other databases through 01 August 2006. We then evaluated trial characteristics associated with publication. We identified 909 trials supporting 90 approved drugs in the FDA reviews, of which 43% (394/909) were published. Among the subset of trials described in the FDA-approved drug label and classified as "pivotal trials" for our analysis, 76% (257/340) were published. In multivariable logistic regression for all trials 5 y postapproval, likelihood of publication correlated with statistically significant results (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78-5.17); larger sample sizes (OR 1.33 per 2-fold increase in sample size, 95% CI 1.17-1.52); and pivotal status (OR 5.31, 95% CI 3.30-8.55). In multivariable logistic regression for only the pivotal trials 5 y postapproval, likelihood of publication correlated with statistically significant results (OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.24-7.06) and larger sample sizes (OR 1.47 per 2-fold increase in sample size, 95% CI 1.15-1.88). Statistically significant results and larger sample sizes were also predictive of publication at 2 y postapproval and in multivariable Cox proportional models for all trials and the subset of pivotal trials.Over half of all supporting trials for FDA-approved drugs remained unpublished >/= 5 y after approval. Pivotal trials and trials with statistically significant results and larger sample sizes are more likely to be published. Selective reporting of trial results exists for commonly marketed drugs. Our data provide a baseline for evaluating publication bias as the new FDA Amendments Act comes into force mandating basic results reporting of clinical trials.
| S-EPMC2553819 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIn oncology clinical trials, the assumption that a prior cancer diagnosis could interfere with study conduct or outcomes results in frequent exclusion of such patients. We determined the prevalence and characteristics of this practice in lung cancer clinical trials and estimated impact on trial accrual.MethodsWe reviewed lung cancer clinical trials sponsored or endorsed by the Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group for exclusion criteria related to a prior cancer diagnosis. We estimated prevalence of prior primary cancer diagnoses among lung cancer patients using Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data. We assessed the association between trial characteristics and prior cancer exclusion using chi-square analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsFifty-one clinical trials (target enrollment 13072 patients) were included. Forty-one (80%) excluded patients with a prior cancer diagnosis as follows: any prior (14%), within five years (43%), within two or three years (7%), or active cancer (16%). In SEER-Medicare data (n = 210509), 56% of prior cancers were diagnosed within five years before the lung cancer diagnosis. Across trials, the estimated number and proportion of patients excluded because of prior cancer ranged from 0-207 and 0%-18%. Prior cancer was excluded in 94% of trials with survival primary endpoints and 73% of trials with nonsurvival primary endpoints (P = .06).ConclusionsA substantial proportion of patients are reflexively excluded from lung cancer clinical trials because of prior cancer. This inclusion criterion is applied widely across studies, including more than two-thirds of trials with nonsurvival endpoints. More research is needed to understand the basis and ramifications of this exclusion policy.
| S-EPMC4271029 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on virtually all aspects of the healthcare system, including oncology clinical trials. The purpose of this review is to describe the impact of the pandemic on national breast cancer clinical trials.Recent findingsOf the 61 breast cancer-specific cooperative group breast cancer clinical trials open to accrual during the pandemic, 32% of them received supplementary tailored guidance regarding current and foreseeable challenges for clinical sites and investigators due to COVID-19. Many clinical trial sites reported decreases in enrollment and accrual, drastic disruptions to protocol, and challenges related to research infrastructure, staff burden, and assuring social distancing.SummaryThe challenges early in pandemic led to many operational changes in clinical trials, including use of electronic consent for enrollment, telemedicine visits, and mail order pharmacy. The pandemic highlighted aspects of breast cancer clinical trial that could be modernized while maintaining research integrity.
| S-EPMC8112880 | biostudies-literature
Project description:All EU countries have introduced Human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination for adolescent girls and many countries are expanding the strategy to include adolescent boys. There is uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness and epidemiological impact of a gender-neutral HPV vaccination strategy. Here we present the results of an economic model adapted for Spain. Five vaccination strategies were compared from the Spanish healthcare system perspective, combining two vaccines (4-valent and 9-valent) in a gender-neutral or girls-only programme in a dynamic population-based model with a discrete-time Markov approach. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3%. The benefits of immunization were measured with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which are achieved by reducing the incidence of diseases attributable to HPV. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was compared with the willingness-to-pay threshold in Spain. The two most effective strategies were compared: gender-neutral 9-valent vaccination vs. girls-only 9-valent vaccination, resulting in an ICER of € 34,040/QALY, and an important number of prevented cases of invasive cancers and anogenital warts. The sensitivity analysis revealed that gender-neutral 9-valent vaccination would become cost-effective if protection against oropharyngeal and penile cancers was included or if the price per dose decreased from €45 to €28. The gender-neutral 9-valent HPV vaccination in Spain offers more benefits than any other modeled strategy, although in the conservative base case it is not cost-effective. However, certain plausible assumptions would turn it into an efficient strategy, which should be borne in mind by the decision makers together with equity and justice arguments.
| S-EPMC9746431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scientific advances have led to the discovery of novel treatments with high prices. The cost to publicly fund high-cost drugs may threaten the sustainability of drug budgets in different health care systems. In oncology, there are concerns that health-benefit gains are diminishing over time and that the economic evidence to support funding decisions is too limited.To assess the additional costs and benefits gained from oncology drugs over time, we used treatment protocols and efficacy results from U.S. Food and Drug Administration records to calculate cost-effectiveness ratios for drugs approved to treat first- and second-line metastatic or advanced breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer during the years 1994-2013. We assessed reimbursement recommendations reached by health technology assessment agencies in the U.K., Australia, and Canada.Cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for 50 drugs approved by the U.S. regulator. The more recent approvals were often based on surrogate efficacy outcomes and had extremely high costs, often triple the costs of drugs approved in previous years. Over time, the effectiveness gains have increased for some cancer indications; however, for other indications (non-small cell lung and second-line colorectal cancer), the magnitude of gains in effectiveness decreased. Reimbursement recommendations for drugs with the highest cost-effectiveness ratios were the most inconsistent.Evaluation of the clinical benefits that oncology drugs offer as a function of their cost has become highly complex, and for some clinical indications, health benefits are diminishing over time. There is an urgent need for better economic evidence from oncology drug trials and systematic processes to inform funding decisions.High-cost oncology drugs may threaten the ability of health care systems to provide access to promising new drugs for patients. In order to make better drug-funding decisions and enable equitable access to breakthrough treatments, discussions in the oncology community should include economic evidence. This study summarizes the extra benefits and costs of newly approved drugs from pivotal trials during the postgenomic era of drug discovery. The reader will gain an appreciation of the need for economic evidence to make better drug-reimbursement decisions and the dynamics at play in today's oncology drug market.
| S-EPMC4492232 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Two vaccines against rotavirus diseases, Rotarix® and RotaTeq®, are being marketed in Spain; but rotavirus is not presently among the diseases covered by universal vaccination in Spain. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of extending Spain's current targeted rotavirus vaccination strategy including only preterm babies, to a policy of universal vaccination. A de novo cohort-based Markov model was built to evaluate the efficiency of three compared rotavirus vaccination strategies in Spain: targeted, universal, and no vaccination. Using Rotarix® or RotaTeq®, we compared the cost-utility of these strategies from both a societal perspective and Spanish National Health System (SNHS) perspective. The model represents the most important clinical events conceivably linked to rotavirus infection. Efficacy, effectiveness, safety, costs, and utilities were identified by systematic reviews. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) is EUR 23,638/QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Year) for targeted vaccination with Rotarix® compared with no vaccination. The ICUR for the rest of the strategies evaluated are above EUR 30,000/QALY. The sensitivity analysis shows price as the only parameter that could make the universal vaccination strategy efficient. Considering a threshold of EUR 25,000/QALY, only targeted vaccination with Rotarix® would be efficient from societal perspective. Price drops of 36.9% for Rotarix® and 44.6% for RotaTeq® would make universal vaccination efficient.
| S-EPMC11360725 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There are few studies of careful examination of wildlife casualties in Wildlife Rehabilitation Centers. These studies are essential for detecting menaces to wild species and providing objective criteria about cost-benefit of treatments in those centers. The release rate is considered the main outcome indicator, but other parameters such as length of stay at the center and a cost-benefit index expressed as number of released animals per euro and day, could be used as reliable estimators of the rehabilitation costs.A retrospective study based on 54772 admissions recorded from 1995-2013 in the database of the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Torreferrussa (Catalonia, NW Spain) assessed the morbidity, outcomes and cost-benefits of the rehabilitation practices.Three hundred and two species were included: 232 birds (n = 48633), 37 mammals (n = 3293), 20 reptiles (n = 2705) and 13 amphibians (n = 141). The most frequent causes of admission were: 39.8% confiscation of protected species (89.4% passerines), 31.8% orphaned young animals (35.3% swifts, 21.7% diurnal raptors and owls) and 17.4% trauma casualties (46.7% raptors and owls). The highest proportion of releases was found in the captivity confiscation category [87.4% passerines (median time of stay: 12 days)], followed by the orphaned category [78% owls (66 days), 76.5% diurnal birds of prey (43 days), 75.6% hedgehogs (49 days), 52.7% swifts (19 days) and 52% bats (55 days)]. For the trauma group, 46.8% of releases were hedgehogs (44 days) and 25.6% owls (103 days). As regards the cost-benefit index, the trauma casualties and infectious diseases had the worse values with 1.3 and 1.4 released animals/euro/day respectively, and were particularly low in raptors, waders, marine birds and chiroptera. On the contrary, captivity (4.6) and misplacement (4.1) had the best index, particulary in amphibian, reptiles and passerines.Cost-benefit studies including the release rate, the time of stay at the center and the cost-benefit index should be implemented for improving management efficiency of the Wildlife Rehabilitation Centers.
| S-EPMC5515437 | biostudies-other