Tag: cost-effectiveness

Categories : Cancer Medical IndustryTags :

Redispensing Unused Cancer Pills could Save Millions

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Stephen Foster on Unsplash

Redispensing cancer drugs reduces both medical costs and environmental impact, according to research from Radboudumc pharmacy published in JAMA Oncology. The annual savings could amount to tens of millions.

Cancer drugs as pills are not always used up by patients. The drugs are mostly expensive and environmentally damaging, both in production and (waste) disposal. In her PhD research, Lisa-Marie Smale of Radboudumc investigated whether these unused drugs can be collected and reissued. Does such an approach ultimately lead to lower environmental impact and costs?

Redispense medication

When redispensing medications, the quality must be guaranteed. Therefore, in this study the medications were packaged separately and fitted with a sensor, which registers whether returned medications were kept within the required temperature. Smale: “If packaging, temperature and expiration date are in order, the returned medications can be redispensed. For two years we investigated this procedure in cooperation with the pharmacies of four Dutch hospitals; Radboudumc, UMC Utrecht, Jeroen Bosch hospital and St Antonius hospital. Over a thousand patients who were taking oral cancer medications at home participated in the study during that period.”

Saving tens of millions

The results look promising. The investment in the method, such as packaging with a temperature sensor, amounts up to 37 euros per patient per year. This is offset by savings of 613 euros. Annually, this results in a net saving per patient of 576 euros. Smale: “In the Netherlands, we can save between 20 and 50 million euros annually with this redispensing of medication. Meanwhile, we have further optimised the process, making a net saving of 655 euros per patient possible. In the Netherlands, we have relatively low drug prices. If you look at the US, where the price of new drugs is over 300 percent higher, in principle much more money can be saved there.”

Large-scale consequence

Of all wasted medicine packaging, two-thirds could be reissued. Project leader Charlotte Bekker of Radboudumc says, “Based on the results, the study will be expanded to 14 hospitals. Again, we are looking at cancer pills. Reissue is only allowed in the context of a scientific study because of European rules. We hope that the approach can eventually be used nationwide, as well as for other drugs.”

Sustainability and social impact also benefit

“This approach is cost-effective for expensive drugs,” Smale says, “but ultimately there are other factors you want to consider, such as sustainability or social impact. Think of the environmental impact you can reduce by not destroying drugs but redispensing them; this can also be beneficial for drugs that are in short supply.”

Broad interest

To the researcher’s knowledge, this study the first to examine drug redispensing with guaranteed quality. The topic is attracting strong interest, not only in the medical community but also beyond. Several parties are committed to make further expansion possible. In addition to the participating hospitals, the Dutch Association of Hospital Pharmacists (NVZA) is also closely involved. And it is part of the Green Deal objectives to make healthcare more sustainable. Smale: “We are happy to work with all parties to address and reduce the cost and environmental impact of wasted medicines.”

Source: Radboud University Medical Center

Categories : Ethics and Law Medical IndustryTags :

Systematic Bias in Industry-sponsored Cost-effectiveness Studies

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash

Industry-sponsored studies on a new drug or health technology are more likely to be found ‘cost-effective’ than independent studies, across a range of diseases, according to findings from a study published in The BMJ.

In a linked editorial, experts make a call for better reporting of results, more transparency, open-source cost-effectiveness models, and more independent studies, to reduce decision makers’ reliance on potentially biased cost-effectiveness analyses.

A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) provided the manufacturer is required by some countries to weigh up a product’s costs and effects.

This cost analysis evidence can be used to set the price for a drug or health technology or decide whether insurance policies will cover them. New drugs covered by insurance plans can be much more profitable than those not covered, which could lead to bias in CEAs funded by the drug and technology manufacturing industry.

While previous studies have consistently shown sponsorship bias in CEAs, most studies were limited to specific diseases, and are out of date. To fill in the gaps, Feng Xie and Ting Zhou from McMaster University, Canada, analysed data from all eligible CEAs published between 1976 and March 2021. 

They selected CEAs that reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life years or QALYs – a ‘value for money’ metric of years lived in good health.

The authors used data from the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. In total, 8192 CEAs were included in the study, of which nearly 30% were sponsored by industry. 

The study defined CEA industry sponsorship as an analysis funded by drug, medical device, or biotechnology companies, either wholly or in part. 

The results show that the industry-sponsored CEAs were significantly more likely to conclude that the new medicine or health technology was cost-effective than those not sponsored by industry.

For example, industry-sponsored studies were more likely to report the intervention being studied as cost-effective below the commonly used threshold of $50 000 per QALY gained than non-industry sponsored studies.

Among 5877 CEAs that reported the intervention was more effective but more expensive than the comparator, the ICERs from industry sponsored studies were one third (33%) lower than those from non-industry sponsored studies.

While only having the registry information to work with was a limitation, the authors said their analysis provides a basis for comparison with previous investigations.

As such, they suggested that “sponsorship bias in CEAs is significant, systemic, and present across a range of diseases and study designs.”

In lower and middle-income countries, industry bias can increase drug prices, where fewer resources mean decision-makers often need to rely on published, rather than independent CEAs. 

In a linked editorial, Adam Raymakers at Cancer Control Research, Canada, and Aaron Kesselheim at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, USA, argue that decision-makers “should exercise caution when using published cost-effectiveness analysis in coverage decisions.”

They say finding solutions to tackle bias is more important than ever, and make the case for open-source analysis models, increased transparency, and increased funding for independent analyses, to help minimise reliance on industry-sponsored cost analyses.

Source: The BMJ