We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
An increasing number of anti-cancer medications are indicated for multiple tumors. Existing pharmacoeconomic evaluations routinely examine the cost-effectiveness (CE) and budget impact (BI) of such drugs by indication, as and when each indication is reviewed. The impact of indication-specific conclusions on the holistic value of such medications across all indicated patients is not currently evaluated, yet is important to stakeholders including health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, payers and patients. We introduce a holistic framework that considers the value of multiple indications together at a product level. Application of this approach is illustrated via an example across multiple indications for a novel, targeted anti-cancer therapy (pembrolizumab) in Canada.
Methods:
Previously-HTA-evaluated indication-specific CE and BI models serve as the foundation for this multi-indication model. Comparing to standard of care (SoC) per indication, the model evaluates the potential BI, clinical outcomes and CE of pembrolizumab among the individual indications along with the overall multi-indication patient population from the perspective of a third-party payer. For the contextual model, incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were weighted using indication populations derived from national incidence rates.
Results:
The indication-specific incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) from CE analyses of ipilimumab-treated advanced melanoma, ipilimumab-naïve advanced melanoma, second-line non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), first-line NSCLC and fourth-line classical Hodgkin lymphoma range from USD 52 K to USD 163 K per QALY. Accounting for the relative contributions of the various sizes of indication-specific patient populations results in an overall ICER for pembrolizumab vs. SoC of USD 100 K.
Conclusions:
A holistic model can provide stakeholders with a tool to evaluate the overall value of multi-indication drugs. Results enable an understanding of the outcomes and economic consequences of treatment with pembrolizumab versus SoC by both individual indications and across all indications. Insights from this contextual approach will enable data from less-developed clinical trials to be considered when previously they might have gone unevaluated by decision-makers.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.