Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Oncopharmacoeconomy ii, Prof. Dr. F. Cankat Tulunay

399

Published on

Pharmacoeconomic aspects of cancer drugs and pharmacoeconomic approach.

Pharmacoeconomic aspects of cancer drugs and pharmacoeconomic approach.

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
399
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Prof. Dr.F. Cankat TulunayHonorary President of EACPT
  • 2. TURKISH TYPEPHARMACOECONOMY
  • 3. Pharmacoeconomic analysis Clinical trials • Pharmacoeconomic evaluation is more concerned about what• Clinical trials evaluate happens in “real life”.the efficacy and safetyof therapies • Pharmacoeconomic study• Clinical trial focuses on is more interested inmedical indicators (eg. effectivenessBlood pressure level) • Pharmacoeconomic study• Intensive monitoring is measure differnt outcomesnecessary (resource consumption, productivity, OoL etc)
  • 4.   Can it work? = Efficacy (clinical trials)  Does it work in reality? = Effectiveness (observational studies)  Is it worth doing it, compared to other things we could do with the same money?   = Cost-effectiveness   = Efficiency   =Value for money
  • 5. PROBLEM: where is the threshold?•  HISTORICAL 50,000$ per QALY: = Annual cost of caring for a dialysis patient•  PUBLISHED THRESHOLDS –  Vary between 10,000 and 100,000 $ per QALY•  WHO: GDP per capita (e.g. Belgium = €29000)•  TURKEY: 24.000 $ (2 GDP) (F.C.TULUNAY) 6
  • 6. The criteria for adopting a technology or drug•  Reimbursing at a given price is generally based on 6 criteria a)  Added therapeutical value b)  Safety and tolerance c)  Cost-effectiveness d)  Budget impact e)  Medical and therapeutical need f)  Industrial policy
  • 7. Value based pricing 8
  • 8. Value based pricing?ICER = (total cost A- total cost B) / rQALY (A –B)à rQALY (A –B)* ICER = tot cost A - tot cost Bà rQALY (A –B)* ICER + tot cost B = tot cost Atot cost A = Drug cost A + Adm c A + AEc A ....Drug cost A = (rQALY (A –B)* ICER + tot cost B) - Adm c A - AEc A .... 9
  • 9. Drugs: "  Same mechanisms of action "  Mainly me too molecules (AceIs, ARBs, Calcium CBs, Statins, PPIs, Biphosphonates, Cholinesterase inhibitors, SSRIs, etc) "  Same indication "  Similar safety outcomes "  Different price F. Cankat Tulunay, 2008
  • 10. Advantages: "   Significant amount of saving "   Significant support to generic drugs. "   Industry will know the reimbursement band in advance.. "   They will not try to push regulatory bodies "   Especially small companies will not try to find “me too” molecules F. Cankat Tulunay, 2008
  • 11. •  ACE INHIBITORS: (26) –  Moeksipril HCl –  Benazepril HCl –  Perindopril –  Delapril –  Perindopril erbumin –  Delapril HCl –  Perindopril arginin –  Enalapril –  Ramipril –  Enalapril maleat –  Silazapril –  Fosinopril sodium –  Spirapril –  Imidapril –  Spirapril HCl –  Imidapril HCl –  Temokapril –  Kaptopril –  Temokapril Hcl –  KinaprilHCl –  Trandolapril –  Lisinopril –  Zofenopril Ca. –  Lisinopril dihidrat –  Zofenopril
  • 12. BRAND   INN+DDD   PACK.SIZE   PACK. PRICE   DDD TL   kaptoril   kaptopril25   50   5,9   0,11   kapril   kaptopril25   5,63   0,12   Reimbursement 48   sinopril   lisinopril10   30   6,4   0,21   Band forvasolapril   enalapril10   20   4,62   0,23   enalap   enalapril10   20   4,9   0,24   enapril   enalapril10   20   4,91   0,24   konveril   enalapril10   20   5,67   0,28   Blokace   ramipril5   30   12,62   0,42  sandace   ramipril5   28   11,74   0,42   delix   ramipril5   28   13,87   0,49  kinateva   kinapril20   20   9,04   0,52   rilace   lisinopril10   28   15,38   0,55   Acuital   kinalapril20   20   11,35   0,56   renitec   enalapril10   20   12,86   0,64   zestril   lisinopril10   28   17,86   0,64   forsace   fosinopril20   20   14,67   0,73  inhibace   silazapril2,5   28   21,05   0,75   • Mean= 0.55 + 0.06 TL gopten   trandolapril2   28   23,52   0,84   univasc   moeksipril15   20   17,49   0,87   • Mean+ SD= 0.55+0.29= cibacen   benazepril10   28   25,06   0,9   0.84 TLmonopril   fosinopril20   20   18,33   0,91   coversil   perindopril5   28,93   0,96   • Median= 0.55 TL 30  zoprotec   zofenopril30   28   30,47   1,1         MEAN   0.55 TL   • Geometric mean= 0.46 TL F.C. Tulunay, 2009
  • 13. BRAND   INN+DDD   PACK.SIZE   PACK. PRICE   DDD TL   IMS  2008  YTL   Total: 96.516.867 kaptoril   kaptopril25   50   5,9   0,11   364,573   64.3 mil dolar kapril   kaptopril25   48   5,63   0,12   772,131   sinopril   lisinopril10   30   6,4   0,21   1,724,681  vasolapril   enalapril10   20   4,62   0,23   120.512   enalap   enalapril10   20   4,9   0,24   49,155   enapril   enalapril10   20   4,91   0,24   2,114,173   27.810.000 konveril   enalapril10   20   5,67   0,28   268,246   18.5 mil dolar Blokace   ramipril5   30   12,62   0,42   1,121,249  sandace   ramipril5   28   11,74   0,42   ?   delix   ramipril5   28   13,87   0,49   17,746,026  kinateva   kinapril20   20   9,04   0,52   ?   rilace   lisinopril10   28   15,38   0,55   1,147,843   Acuital   kinalapril20   20   11,35   0,56   2,381,412   renitec   enalapril10   20   12,86   0,64   199,995   zestril   lisinopril10   28   17,86   0,64   0   forsace   fosinopril20   20   14,67   0,73   ?2008  inhibace   silazapril2,5   28   21,05   0,75   7,584,019   gopten   trandolapril2   28   23,52   0,84   5,995,584   univasc   moeksipril15   20   17,49   0,87   8,727   45 MİL. cibacen   benazepril10   28   25,06   0,9   104,720   DOLARmonopril   fosinopril20   20   18,33   0,91   3,461,346   coversil   perindopril5   30   28,93   0,96   36,664,923  zoprotec   zofenopril30   28   30,47   1,1   12,687,519         MEAN   0.55 TL   68,706,833   F.C. Tulunay, 2009
  • 14. İlaç Etken Doz Fiyat tablet no DDD/TL BİPHOSPHANATEVegabon Alendronat 70 mg/hafta 78,36 12 0,93Vegabon Alendronat 70 mg/hafta 27,99 4 1,00Bonacton Ibandronic asid 70 mg 31.94 4 1,14Bonemax Alendronat 70 mg/hafta 31,94 4 1,14Andante Alendronat 70mg/hft 31,94 4 1,14Osalen Alendronat 70mg/hft 31,94 4 1,14Osteomax Alendronat 70mg/hft 31,94 4 1,14Andante Alendronat 10mg/gün 32,86 28 1,17 REIMBURSMENTAndante Alendronat 70mg/hft 99,72 12 1,18 BANDVegabon Alendronat 10 mg/gün 33,07 28 1,18Osalen Alendronat 70 mg/hafta 99,74 12 1,19Fosamax Alendronat 10 mg/gün 39,92 28 1,43Fosamax Alendronat 70mg/hft 39,92 4 1,43Arilex Risendronate 35 mg 126.68 12 1,51Arilex Risendronate 35 mg 45,22 4 1,62Bonviva İbandronik asit 150 mg 154,66 3 1,72Goyart Risendronate 35 mg/hafta 50,43 4 1,80Actonel Risendronate 150mg/ay 173.25 6 1,93Actonel Risedronate 5 mg/gün 55,50 28 1,98Actonel Risendronate 35mg/hafta 56.73 4 2,02AVERAGE 1,39 F.C. Tulunay, 2009
  • 15. Critical Drug Evaluation of New Cancer Drugs The Scottish Experience Prof Ken Paterson Chair – Scottish Medicines Consortium Berlin – 18 February 2010
  • 16. New Anti-Cancer Medicines► Considerable pent-up demand §  Patients §  Clinicians► Much media interest §  “miracle drugs”, “life-saving treatment”► Often political interest §  …especially if threat not to make drug available► Legitimate interest from pharma §  Keen to sell drug and boost share price/profile
  • 17. Does some ‘Hype’ Matter?► May raise false hopes► Often fails to represent the downside of treatment► May distort priority setting in health-care §  Use of ineffective therapy §  Failure to adopt new, effective therapy► Subverts true evidence-based practice► How good are new anti-cancer drugs? §  …and how hard is it to know this?
  • 18. Scottish Medicines Consortium► Rapidhealth technology assessment of all new drugs – established 2002 §  Unique position in world new-drug HTA► Manufacturer makes the case for use – §  Clinical effectiveness §  Cost-effectiveness► Cost-utilityanalysis (cost per QALY) the preferred approach► Analysis of QALYs only (not cost)
  • 19. Why QALYs?► Can(should) capture all the benefits and adverse effects of the medicine in question §  Survival gain (or loss) §  Improvement in quality of life from treatment §  Reduction in quality of life from adverse events §  Impact on quality of life of treatment protocol §  Appropriate modelling very sensitive to change► Allowscomparison across (and within) disease areas
  • 20. Oncology Assessments► Fewer RCTs per drug (median 1 v 2)► Longer follow-up (52 wks v 12 wks)► Acceptance rate - 67% §  About half with some restriction, usually to specialist use► Higher cost per QALY (£15K v £8.5K)
  • 21. Special Cancer Issues - 1► Oftenscanty phase 3 clinical data► Complex regimens with poly-pharmacy make comparators hard to define §  RCTs often use comparators different from current Scottish practice §  May require indirect comparison► Survival benefits often unclear §  Overall v ‘progression-free’ survival §  Extrapolation not clear-cut §  Cross-over after “benefit proven” a problem
  • 22. Special Cancer Issues - 2► Quality of life assessment difficult §  Impact of adverse events a problem §  ? revaluation of QoL near life’s end §  ? special benefit with low expectancy► Increased niching by indication §  …more (ultra-)orphan drugs ► …with expectations of “special case”► Rule of Rescue - a rule??
  • 23. Quality of Life►  Are the impacts of adverse events limited to when they occur?►  With 3 months to live, if you say your QoL is 90%, is that true? §  Are time-trade off/standard gamble useful?►  Is 3 months extra life worth more if you’ve had the diagnosis for 3 months rather than 5 years? §  ? discriminates against certain cancers?
  • 24. Clinical Trial v Real World► Are the patients similar? §  ? older in real world §  ? less good performance status §  ? more co-morbidities► Does the drug perform equally well? §  ? effectiveness < efficacy §  ? toxicity greater in real world► Does this really all matter? §  … only if benefit - risk - cost finely balanced!
  • 25. SMC and Anti-Cancer Medicines► 61 cancer medicines reviewed §  36 for advanced/metastatic cancer §  25 for earlier/adjuvant treatment► Median QALY gain (over current treatment) §  0.38 for advanced cancer §  0.30 for earlier/adjuvant treatment► Mean QALY gain (over current treatment) §  0.52 for both groups
  • 26. What does this Mean?► Median health gain §  6 months with quality of life 70% of normal► Mean health gain §  8-9 months with QoL 70%► Only 6 drugs (10%) offered ≥1 QALY► 22 drugs (36%) offered ≤0.2 QALY §  = ≤3 months at 70% of normal QoL §  Note NICE ‘end-of-life’ decision-making
  • 27. Is There No Good News- 1?► Some of the greatest health-gains are with really innovative drugs – §  Trastuzumab – 2.4 QALYs §  Nilotinib – 2.1 QALYs §  Bortezomib – 1.1 QALYs► Even if these are expensive, they offer good ‘value-for-money’
  • 28. Is There No Good News – 2?► Anti-cancer drugs are much like other drugs §  Musculoskeletal (11) – 0.66 QALY §  Infections (33) – 0.11 QALY §  Endocrine (24) – 0.07 QALY §  Cardiovascular (33) – 0.05 QALY §  CNS and pain (55) – 0.04 QALY► Newdrugs in general are not as valuable as many would like to think!
  • 29. How Good are New Drugs?► 22% offer no health gain (=me too!)Ø 28% offer >0 – 0.1 QALYØ 25% offer >0.1 – 0.5 QALYØ 13% offer >0.5 – 1.0 QALYØ 12% offer >1 QALYMedian health gain (n = 281) = 0.1 QALY!!
  • 30. Caveats and Criticisms►  Health gain is as presented by pharma §  May over-estimate true gain by a factor of 2!! §  SMC did not always accept the QALY given►  QALY may not adequately capture benefits §  Responder v non-responder §  Problems with QoL assessment►  Clinical trial ≠ clinical practice §  ?possible to maximise benefit & minimise S/E ► … targeted therapy the ‘Holy Grail’!
  • 31. Conclusions - 1► Assessing the real benefits of new cancer medicines is not easy► New medicines generally are rarely as valuable as they might like to appear► Health-gain from many new cancer medicines is modest §  …and often over-stated in media etc► Someinnovative new drugs are breaking the mould
  • 32. Conclusions - 2► The introduction of new medicines needs to be managed to maximise risk:benefit► Real world data on new cancer medicines are urgently needed §  … to see whether targeting really works! §  … to get real advances to patients quickly §  … to minimise burden on (or harm to) patients ► … and costs to health-care systems► Realinnovation has nothing to fear from such assessment!
  • 33. WHAT DO WE NEED!•  A system without corruption•  A transperant system•  To prevent waste / wastefulness•  To be rational•  To realize that we all are sailing the same boat•  To trust each other•  Harmonization on all subjects (patient handout forms, education, etc.)
  • 34. WHAT DO WE NEED!•   Pharmacoeconomic analysis of a treatment•   Not to have reimburse “drug is not a drug”•   Appropriate pricing according to the purchasing power•   Medications to be available to everyone (EQUITY)•   Standardized diagnosis-treatment guidelines•   Standardized education at all universities•   Clinical, pharmacological and epidemiological research•   Independent "Govermental Drug Institution” and “independent reimbursment institution”

×