Reply to price and value in cancer care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We appreciate the acknowledgment by Saret and colleagues of the shortcomings of their previous analysis published in Blood1 and, in particular, the different results when we used current drug prices (rather than older drug prices) to measure the cost-effectiveness of drugs used in hematologic malignancies.2 The purpose of our article was to bring attention to the rising cost of cancer drugs and the need to re-assess the value of treatment if drug prices increase. By re-analyzing the results, we found that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the majority of the studies had increased substantially. We would like to discuss a few additional points highlighted in Saret et al's letter. First, several of our previous editorials not only discussed high drug prices but also introduced the concept of treatment value and proposed measures.3, 4 This led the American Society of Cancer Oncology and other entities to adopt the concept and expand the dialogue on treatment value in cancer.5 Second, we are extremely concerned with the use of $100,000 and $150,000/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] as new thresholds. The $50,000 threshold is based on historic convenience and practices and is similar to the values used by the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and other government entities in discussions with drug companies and in new drug approvals. Setting another (and higher) threshold without thorough research would not be a step forward. In fact, a recently published report by a group of well-known health economists found that the willingness-to-pay threshold in the United States should be between $24,000 and $40,000,6 even lower than the $50,000 threshold broadly used. We think that an authoritative conclusion about the threshold could best be made by a task force or committee representing multiple stakeholders. Third, although we agree with Saret et al that there is a need to consider patent expiration in the cost-effectiveness analysis, if we used the same logic, all cost-effectiveness analyses, including the ones analyzed in our study, should include the increases in drug prices anticipated in the future (beyond 2015). The year of patent expiration is easy to assess, but it is difficult to estimate future increases in drug prices. It is worth noting that in the 5 chronic myeloid leukemia studies, the ICER values for the tyrosine kinase inhibitors versus hydroxyurea or interferon ranged from $210,000 to $426,000/QALY in 2014, whereas the majority of the reported ICERs of these studies are more than a decade old and less than $50,000/QALY. Therefore, simply referencing a study-reported ICER from past years’ drug prices would provide a misleading conclusion in light of today's drug prices. Finally, we again emphasize that neither our analysis nor that of Saret et al included any new drugs or studies after 2012. Several recent studies have shown that the ICERs of these more recent drugs/studies exceed the threshold of $50,000/QALY.7-10 Note that drug patent expiration would not have a substantial impact, if any, on the cost-effectiveness of new drugs. Also, an analysis by Howard et al11 showed that, after adjustments for inflation, the cost of cancer drugs for each additional year lived increased from $54,000 in 1995 to $207,000 in 2013. Therefore, the worsening trends of high prices for hematologic cancer drugs are of significant concern to patients and our health care system. No specific funding was disclosed. Jagpreet Chhatwal has received consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and Complete HEOR Solutions outside the submitted work. Hagop Kantarjian is a Scholar in Health Policy at the Baker Institute and is a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Cancer Oncology. Research grants were provided by Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ARIAD, and Pfizer. Jagpreet Chhatwal, PhD Department of Health Services Research The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, Texas Michael S. Mathisen, PhD Epocrates Medical Information AthenaHealth San Francisco, California Departments of Pharmacy and Leukemia The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, Texas Hagop M. Kantarjian, MD Department of Leukemia The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, Texas
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,106 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,040 | 0,055 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».