Advancing Health Economics, Services, Policy and Ethics WHERE NEXT FOR ECONOMIC AND COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS EVIDENCE IN AN ERA OF PERSONALIZED/ PRECISION MEDICINE Stuart Peacock Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control University of British Columbia British Columbia Cancer Agency
Where next for economic and comparative effectiveness evidence in an era of personalized/ precision medicine. Stuart Peacock Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control University of British Columbia British Columbia Cancer Agency. Overview. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Advancing Health Economics, Services, Policy and Ethics
WHERE NEXT FOR ECONOMIC AND COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS EVIDENCE IN AN ERA OF PERSONALIZED/ PRECISION MEDICINE
Stuart PeacockCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlUniversity of British ColumbiaBritish Columbia Cancer Agency
• A little bit about the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (ARCC)
• Why is economic evidence important?• Economic evidence – a personalized medicine case
study in colorectal cancer• Some challenges ahead relating to personalized
medicine amongst other things• The importance of preferences as part of evidence
Overview
How can we inform and promote cancer control policies and practices (from prevention to palliative
care and survivorship) that are evidence-based, sustainable and ethical in order to reduce the burden
of cancer for Canadians?
5
ARCC - the big question?
How do you answer the big question?
• In the mid-2000s, the Canadian Cancer Society committed to invest in a national centre dedicated to health economics, services, policy and ethics in cancer control
• Identified a need for an organization that both– brings together these multiple disciplines to address
cancer control questions and– provides national leadership in research, knowledge
translation and capacity building in this area
6
• Interdisciplinary, inter-provincial and inter-professional with a commitment to cross-national collaboration
• ARCC is an unique partnership of 30 investigators, 30 associates and over 40 research staff from across Canada
• Two leadership hubs at the British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA)/University of British Columbia (UBC) and at Cancer Care Ontario (CCO)/University of Toronto (U of T)
7
Centre Approach
• Five thematic program areas:
8
Research
ARCC
Health Technology Assessment
Patients and Families
Societal Values and Public Engagement
Knowledge Translation
Health Systems, Services and Policy
Pan-Canadian Network
“Allocation of funds and facilities are nearly always based on the opinion of consultants but, more and more, requests for additional facilities will have to be based on detailed
arguments with ‘hard evidence’ as to the gain to be expected from the patient’s angle and the cost. Few could
possibly object to this.”
Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and Efficiency: random reflections on health services. Nuffield Provincial
Monthly and median costs of FDA approved cancer drugs (2007 US$)
AldesleukinNelarabine
Denileukin
Alemtuzumab
Cetuximab
Source: Bach, NEJM 2009
Why is economic evidence important?
Safety Cost-Effectiveness
QualityEfficacy
The Fourth Hurdle
Economic evaluation for reimbursement decisions
• Many jurisdictions now require economic evaluation for reimbursement decisions (primarily for drugs)– Accompanied by guidelines for pharmaceutical companies– Pricing decisions maybe linked with reimbursement decisions
• England and Wales: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
• Based on ‘Acceptable’ Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs)
Economic Evaluation in EuropeNorway:Pharmacoeconomic datarequired for reimbursement; official guidelines in operation.
Finland:Pharmacoeconomic evidence mandatory for evaluating newtherapies for reimbursement and may also be requested for existing therapies.
Sweden:Cost-effectiveness data required for reimbursement.
Denmark:Cost-effectiveness data may be requestedfor reimbursement decisions.
Britain:NICE evaluates the cost effectiveness of medicines. Guidelines updated April 2004.
Germany:Guidelines prepared. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in the Health Service established in 2004.
France:Not a formal requirement but increasingly used in reimbursement decisions. Guidelines prepared.
Spain:Health technology assessment at a regional level.
Portugal:Cost-effectiveness data incorporated into reimbursement decisions.
Italy:Cost-effectiveness considered in pricing and reimbursement decisions. Greece: Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies
prepared; cost-effectiveness data may be requested.
Belgium: Formal requirement for economic evaluation.
Netherlands:Pharmacoeconomic evidence explicitly required for reimbursement of new products.
Ireland: Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies prepared; cost-effectiveness data may be requested.
Source: National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, Ireland
Health economic evaluation
Target patient group
Survival Quality of lifeNew Program
Old Program
Impact on health status
Impact on health care costs
Impact on health status
Impact on health care costs
Survival Quality of life
Hospitalisations Drugs, procedures etc.
Hospitalisations Drugs, procedures etc.
Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER)
(Costnew – Costold)
(Effectivenessnew – Effectivenessold)
Incremental resources required by the intervention
Incremental health effects gained by using
the intervention
ICER = C / E
= ICER
Number Incremental cost per additional life-year gained at 1998/1999 prices ($AU)
PBAC decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
22
21
22
23
24
25
5517
8374
8740
17387
18762
18983
19807
22255
26800
38237
39821
42697
43550
43550
56175
57901
63703
71582
75286
85385
88865
98323
229064
231650
256950
Recommend at price
Recommend at price
Recommend at price
Recommend at price
Recommend at price
Recommend at price
Recommend at lower price
Recommend at price
Recommend at price
Recommend at price
Recommend at price
Reject
Reject
Recommend at price
Reject
Recommend at price
Reject
Recommend at price
Recommend at price
Recommend at lower price
Reject
Reject
Recommend at lower price
Reject
Reject
Source: George et al. Pharmacoeconomics 2001
ICER thresholds and the Australian PBACICER thresholds in Australia
Source: Rawlings. Lancet Oncology 2007
Cancer ICER thresholds in England and Wales
E and C 1994-2008 FDA Pivotal Trials
21
22
E and C 1994-2008 FDA Pivotal Trials
A personalized medicine case study: Cetuximab (Erbitux) in advanced
colorectal cancer (CRC)
• Treatment for advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) – improves overall and progression-free survival compared to best supportive care1
• Mechanism of action - monoclonal antibody that targets epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), modulating tumor cell growth2
• Resistance to cetuximab is common (>50% after one treatment) - Caused by mutations in component of EGFR: K-ras protein, which occur in ~40% of patients3
Cetuximab in Advanced Colorectal Cancer
Cetuximab in Advanced Colorectal Cancer
Effectiveness of cetuximab (overall and progression-free survival) is significantly associated with k-ras mutation status (p>0.001) - Patients with wild-type k-ras tumors did benefit (overall survival 9.5 months) - Patients with mutated k-ras tumors did not benefit (overall survival 4.8 months)3
Source: Karapetis et al, NEJM, 2009
Cost-effectiveness– Cetuximab may increase the already significant
cost of managing advanced CRC, especially when provided to all patients
– Drug and administration cost of cetuximab $71,000/patient4
– K-ras testing $450/patient4
Cetuximab in Advanced Colorectal Cancer
Cost-effectiveness cont…– Providing drug to all patients is not cost effective– Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) ~$300,000 per
QALY gained5
– Targeting the therapy to patients with wild-type k-ras improves cost-effectiveness
– ICER ~$180,000/QALY5
– Theoretical cost-savings associated with treating only wild-type k-ras, $740 million (US), accounting for cost of k-ras testing
Cetuximab in Advanced Colorectal Cancer
Some challenges ahead
• Current reimbursement systems for diagnostic tests are cost based rather than value based
• Tests for multiple markers cost thousands of dollars• Technology is changing – cost per single-nucleotide
polymorphism (SNP) analyzed is falling rapidly• True opportunity cost is often unknown – testing may
result in changes to medical utilization• Difficult to estimate a true economic value at any
given time
Identifying the costs of testing strategies
• Genetic tests share the same concerns about sensitivity and specificity as older diagnostics
• But, we have many years of experience modeling screening interventions
• Patient outcomes are likely to be influenced by multiple genes, and each gene can influence multiple outcomes
• Each outcome is modified by interactions with other genes and environmental exposures – including diets, drugs and disease states
Sensitivity, specificity and complexity
• Lack of data on patient and clinician behaviour following the results of diagnostic tests, and associated patient outcomes
• Issue gets more complicated if the test indicates a patient should not get a drug
• Are there alternatives? • If so, how does the analysis factor in the timing and
sequencing of alternatives?
Lack of effectiveness data
• Inconclusive or contradictory results from small (n < 200) RCTs may be insufficient for robust estimates of effectiveness
• More decision analytic modelling required, with careful consideration of parameter and decision uncertainty
• Use of surrogate end-points, e.g. progression free survival, is likely to increase
• Cumulative synthesis of RCTs needed
Lack of effectiveness data cont …
• Uncertainty with the clinical value of new technologies will likely mean that the value of additional research and policy options, such as CED, should be considered
• CED = provisional approval for coverage by payers on condition that additional data on effectiveness are collected through RCTs or patient registries
• Registries and linkable administrative data sets will only become more important
Coverage with evidence development (CED)
• Is personalized medicine more likely to lead to smaller and smaller sub-group analyses rather than ‘individualized’ care?
• Possibly, because the marginal cost of developing new drugs will outweigh the marginal benefits for pharmaceutical companies
• RCTs and economic evaluation will not become redundant – but they will be more complex and costly
• Linkable administrative data will be very important
Personalized vs. stratified medicine
• Personalized medicine promises to provide tailored therapies that take into account individual differences in risk and values
• The balance of risks and benefits for each person will differ because of preference heterogeneity
• Tailoring therapy and determining the optimal strategy will mean listening to patients preferences
• Economic evaluations need to model patient preferences about different treatment options
Preferences and personalized medicine
• PSA screening appears to prolong life expectancy but shortens quality-adjusted life expectancy i.e. it is a preference sensitive decision
• Men who receive decision support are more knowledgeable, have less decisional conflict, and are less inclined to undergo PSA screening
• Sexual and urinary dysfunction after treatment have modest effects on global quality of life
• Men with low literacy do not understand many prostate cancer terms
• Preferences should be part of guideline development (Krahn and Naglie, JAMA 2008)
Preferences count in many circumstances
36
• ... on inflating community expectations
A cautionary tale ...
At the February 1, 2012 data cut-off, median follow-up was 12.5 months for vemurafenib and 9.5 months for dacarbazine. In patients not censored at crossover, median OS was 13.6 months for vemurafenib vs. 10.3 months for dacarbazine (HR 0.76; P<0.01 post-hoc). In those censored at crossover, OS was 13.6 months for vemurafenib and 9.7 months for dacarbazine (HR 0.76; P<0.001 post-hoc). (BRIM3 Trial presentation at ASCO 2012)
Inflating community expectations
40
A d v a n c i n g H e a l t h Ec o n o m i c s , S e r v i c e s , Po l i c y a n d E t h i c s