Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-11-2016 | Original Research

Perceptions of Oncologists, Healthcare Policy Makers, Patients and the General Population on the Value of Pharmaceutical Treatments in Oncology

Authors: José A. Sacristán, Luís Lizan, Marta Comellas, Pilar Garrido, Cristina Avendaño, Juan J. Cruz-Hernández, Javier Espinosa, Tatiana Dilla

Published in: Advances in Therapy | Issue 11/2016

Abstract

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore the main factors explaining the relative weight of the different attributes that determine the value of oncologic treatments from the different perspectives of healthcare policy makers (HCPM), oncologists, patients and the general population in Spain.

Methods

Structured interviews were conducted to assess: (1) the importance of the attributes on treatment choice when comparing a new cancer drug with a standard cancer treatment; (2) the importance of survival, quality of life (QoL), costs and innovation in cancer; and (3) the most worrying side effects related to cancer drugs.

Results

A total of 188 individuals participated in the study. For all participants, when choosing treatments, the best rated characteristics were greater efficacy, greater safety, treatment adaptation to patients’ individual requirements and the rapid reincorporation of patients to their daily activities. There were important differences among participants in their opinion about survival, QoL and cost. In general, oncologists, patients, and the general population gave greater value to gains in QoL than healthcare policy makers. Compared to other participants healthcare policy makers gave greater importance to the economic impact related to oncology treatments.

Conclusions

Gains in QoL, survival, safety, cost and innovation are perceived differently by different groups of stakeholders. It is recommended to consider the perspective of different stakeholders in the assessment of a new cancer drugs to obtain more informed decisions when deciding on the most appropriate treatment to use.

Funding

Eli Lilly & Co, Madrid (Spain).

Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–86.CrossRefPubMed

National Cancer Institute, Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. Available at http://publications.iarc.fr/Non-Series-Publications/World-Cancer-Reports/World-Cancer-Report-2014. Accessed Nov 2014.

Patel JD, Krilov L, Adams S, Aghajanian C, Basch E, Brose MS, et al. Clinical cancer advances 2013: annual report on progress against cancer from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(2):129–60. Available at http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/32/2/129.full.pdf+html. Accessed Nov 2014.

Hoverman JR, Cartwright TH, Patt DA. Pathways, outcomes, and costs in colon cancer: retrospective evaluations in two distinct databases. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(3 Suppl):52s–9s.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Siddiqui M, Rajkumar SV. The high cost of cancer drugs and what we can do about it. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87(10):935–43. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538397/pdf/main.pdf. Accessed 4 March 2015.

Sorenson C, Drummond M, Kanavos P. Ensuring value for money in healthcare: the role of health technology assessment in the European Union. European observatory on health systems and polices. Observatory studies series No 11. Copenhagen: WHO; 2008. Available at http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/98291/E91271.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2015.

Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, Tyne C, Blayney DW, Blum D, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(23):2563–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, Kerst JM, Sobrero A, Zielinski C, et al. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol. 2015;26(8):1547–73.CrossRefPubMed

MacLeod TE, Harris AH, Mahal A. Stated and revealed preferences for funding new high-cost cancer drugs: a critical review of the evidence from patients, the public and payers. Patient. 2016;9(3):201–22. doi:10.1007/s40271-015-0139-7.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Marshall B, Cardon P, Poddar A, Fontenot R. Does sample size matter in qualitative research? A review of qualitative interviews in is research. J Comput Inform Syst. 2013;54(1):11–22.

11.

Mao JJ, Chung A, Benton A, Hill S, Ungar L, Leonard CE, Hennessy S, Holmes JH. Online discussion of drug side effects and discontinuation among breast cancer survivors. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(3):256–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

National Cancer Institute. Available at http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/side-effects. Accessed Sept 2014.

13.

Dilla T, Lizan L, Paz S, Garrido P, Avendaño C, Cruz-Hernández JJ, Espinosa J, Sacristán JA. Do new cancer drugs offer good value for money? The perspectives of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population. Patient Prefer Adher. 2015;18(10):1–7.

14.

Kozminski MA, Neumann PJ, Nadler ES, Jankovic A, Ubel PA. How long and how well: oncologists’ attitudes toward the relative value of life-prolonging v. quality of life-enhancing treatments. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(3):380–5.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Greenberg D, Hammerman A, Vinker S, Shani A, Yermiahu Y, et al. Which is more valuable, longer survival or better quality of life? Israeli oncologists’ and family physicians’ attitudes toward the relative value of new cancer and congestive heart failure interventions. Value Health. 2013;16(5):842–7.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Greenberg D, Hammerman A, Vinker S, Shani A, Yermiahu Y, Neumann PJ. Oncologists’ and family physicians’ views on value for money of cancer and congestive heart failure care. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2013;2:44. doi:10.1186/2045-4015-2-44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Schickedanz A. Of value: a discussion of cost, communication, and evidence to improve cancer care. Oncologist. 2010;15(Suppl 1):73–9.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Goldman DP, Jena AB, Lakdawalla DN, Malin JL, Malkin JD, Sun E. The value of specialty oncology drugs. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(1):115–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Zafar SY, Abernethy AP. Financial toxicity, part I: a new name for a growing problem. Oncology (Williston Park). 2013;27(2):80–149.PubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Zafar SY, Peppercorn JM, Schrag D, Taylor DH, Goetzinger AM, Zhong X, Abernethy AP. The financial toxicity of cancer treatment: a pilot study assessing out-of-pocket expenses and the insured cancer patient’s experience. Oncologist. 2013;18(4):381–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Herikson N, Tuzzio L, Loggers ET, Miyoshi J, Buist D. Patient and oncologist discussions about cancer care costs. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(4):961–7.CrossRef

22.

Krammer R, Heinzerling L. Therapy preferences in melanoma treatment—willingness to pay and preference of quality versus length of life of patients, physicians and healthy controls. Plos One. 2014;9(11):e111237.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Perceptions of Oncologists, Healthcare Policy Makers, Patients and the General Population on the Value of Pharmaceutical Treatments in Oncology
Authors: José A. Sacristán
Luís Lizan
Marta Comellas
Pilar Garrido
Cristina Avendaño
Juan J. Cruz-Hernández
Javier Espinosa
Tatiana Dilla
Publication date: 01-11-2016
Publisher: Springer Healthcare
Published in: Advances in Therapy / Issue 11/2016
Print ISSN: 0741-238X
Electronic ISSN: 1865-8652
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0415-5

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Heart Failure Video

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Perceptions of Oncologists, Healthcare Policy Makers, Patients and the General Population on the Value of Pharmaceutical Treatments in Oncology

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Funding

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

Incentivised to exercise

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Funding

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2016

A Retrospective Claims Database Study on Drug Utilization in Japanese Patients with Crohn’s Disease Treated with Adalimumab or Infliximab

Multidisciplinary Consideration of Potential Pathophysiologic Mechanisms of Paradoxical Erythema with Topical Brimonidine Therapy

Cost-Effectiveness of High Dose Hemodialysis in Comparison to Conventional In-Center Hemodialysis in the Netherlands

Evaluating the Relationship Between Metabolic Syndrome and Liver Biopsy-Proven Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis in China: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study Design

Outcomes Following Implantation of Two Second-Generation Trabecular Micro-Bypass Stents in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma on One Medication: 18-Month Follow-Up

Reward-Induced Eating: Therapeutic Approaches to Addressing Food Cravings

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

Incentivised to exercise

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page