MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The impact of pricing strategy on the cost of oral anti-cancer drugs during dose reductions.

2017· article· en· W2892202751 on OpenAlexaffabout
Judy Truong, Kelvin Chan, Helen Mai, Alexandra Chambers, Mona Sabharwal, Maureen Trudeau, Matthew C. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in HealthHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDrugCancer drugsPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18312 Background: The pricing strategy of oral medications can affect their costs. The strategy of flat pricing per tablet may increase drug costs in the event of dose reductions requiring more tablets, as there is a single price for different tablet strengths, but the impact is largely unknown. With the strategy of linear pricing, the tablet price increases with its strength. We sought to determine the impact of pricing strategy on the cost of oral anti-cancer drugs during dose reductions. Methods: Oral anti-cancer drugs reviewed by the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review were identified between July 2011 to January 2015. The pricing strategy of these drugs was reviewed. We examined the percentage change in cost per mg and cost per 28 days as a result of dose reduction from dose level 0 to -1 and -2 for each drug. Results: Seventeen drugs for use in 20 indications were included in the analysis. There were 3 drugs for hematological malignancies and 14 drugs for solid cancers. Fifty-nine percent (10/17) of these drugs were available in multiple strengths; five of them utilized fixed pricing per tablet strategy and the other 5 utilized linear pricing. The remaining drugs (7/17) were available in a single strength tablet. Dose reductions generally increased the cost per mg for drugs using flat pricing per tablet, with a mean increase of 82% (range: 25%-200%) at dose level -1 and 100% (range: 0%-200%) at dose level -2. Dose reduction had no effect on the cost per mg of drug for drugs using linear pricing apart from lenalidomide, which had increased costs due to minimal price variation between the highest and lowest tablet strengths. In general, dose reduction did not decrease the cost per 28 days of drug for drugs using flat pricing per tablet, but was proportionally reduced in drugs using linear pricing. Conclusions: While there is a general expectation that the cost of drugs should decrease with dose reduction, oral anti-cancer drugs using flat pricing per tablet have increased cost per mg and no decrease in cost per 28 days despite dose reduction. Future economic evaluations should account for the impact of dose reductions for oral drugs using the flat pricing per tablet strategy on cost-effectiveness and budget.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.218
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207