Technology Assessment for New Oncology Drugs

被引:24
作者
Jonsson, Bengt [1 ]
机构
[1] Stockholm Sch Econ, Dept Econ, SE-11383 Stockholm, Sweden
关键词
ECONOMIC-EVALUATION; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; PATIENT ACCESS; CANCER; DECISIONS; CARE;
D O I
10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1819
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Health technology assessment (HTA) has become the key health policy instrument for managing the introduction and use of new oncology drugs in Europe. While the methodology of technology assessment, including calculations of cost-effectiveness, is applicable in principle also to oncology, the implementation in practice has its specific problems and consequences. Most of them are linked to the specific need to do the assessment early in the development, with limited data on outcome in clinical practice. Technology assessments ask for estimates of gains in mean survival, whereas trials are powered to study differences in progression-free or overall median survival. The development of targeted therapies and personalized cancer medicine offers opportunities but also increases the complexity of the assessment. Joint assessment of a diagnostic and a new treatment increases the number intervention strategies that must be considered, and thus the need for data. The translation from efficacy in trials to relative effectiveness in clinical practice must also be considered. The close link between pricing of new oncology drugs and their cost-effectiveness makes the use of technology assessment for policy decisions complicated for all stakeholders involved. But without an obvious alternative that is better, the likely future is that HTA will play an increasing role in informing policy decisions aimed at evidence- based cancer care. Clin Cancer Res; 19(1); 6-11. (C) 2013 AACR.
引用
收藏
页码:6 / 11
页数:6
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2011, NICE DSU Technical Support Document 14: Survival Analysis for Economic Evaluations alongside Clinical Trials-Extrapolation with Patient-Level Data Report by the Decision Support Unit
[2]   Early Dialogue Between the Developers of New Technologies and Pricing and Reimbursement Agencies: A Pilot Study [J].
Backhouse, Martin E. ;
Wonder, Michael ;
Hornby, Edward ;
Kilburg, Anne ;
Drummond, Michael ;
Mayer, Friedrich Karl .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (04) :608-615
[3]   Progression-Free Survival: Meaningful or Simply Measurable? [J].
Booth, Christopher M. ;
Eisenhauer, Elizabeth A. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2012, 30 (10) :1030-1033
[4]   Linking payment to health outcomes: A taxonomy and examination of performance-based reimbursement schemes between healthcare payers and manufacturers [J].
Carlson, Josh J. ;
Sullivan, Sean D. ;
Garrison, Louis P. ;
Neumann, Peter J. ;
Veenstra, David L. .
HEALTH POLICY, 2010, 96 (03) :179-190
[5]  
Davies A., 2012, Health Outcome Res Med, V3, pe25, DOI [10.1016/j.ehrm.2012.01.001, DOI 10.1016/J.EHRM.2012.01.001]
[6]  
Devlin N, 2011, HLTH EC RES GROUP U
[7]  
Devlin N., 2011, INCORPORATING MULTIP
[8]   Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions [J].
Drummond, Michael F. ;
Schwartz, J. Sanford ;
Jonsson, Bengt ;
Luce, Bryan R. ;
Neumann, Peter J. ;
Siebert, Uwe ;
Sullivan, Sean D. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2008, 24 (03) :244-258
[9]   Using QALYs in Cancer A Review of the Methodological Limitations [J].
Garau, Martina ;
Shah, Koonal K. ;
Mason, Anne R. ;
Wang, Qing ;
Towse, Adrian ;
Drummond, Michael F. .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2011, 29 (08) :673-685
[10]  
Gaultney JG, 2011, PHARMACOGENOMICS, V12, P411, DOI [10.2217/PGS.10.187, 10.2217/pgs.10.187]