Oral anticancer drugs (OADs) allow treating a growing range of cancers. Despite their convenience, their acceptance by healthcare professionals and patients may be affected by medical, economical and organizational factors. The way the healthcare payment system (HPS) reimburses OADs or finances hospital activities may impact patients' access to such drugs. We discuss how the HPS in France and USA may generate disincentives to the use of OADs in certain circumstances.French public and private hospitals are financed by National Health Insurance (NHI) according to the nature and volume of medical services provided annually. Patients receiving intravenous anticancer drugs (IADs) in a hospital setting generate services, while those receiving OADs shift a part of service provision from the hospital to the community. In 2013, two million outpatient IADs sessions were performed, representing a cost of €815 million to the NHI, but positive contribution margin of €86 million to hospitals. Substitution of IADs by OADs mechanically induces a shortfall in hospital income related to hospitalizations. Such economic constraints may partially contribute to making physicians reluctant to prescribe OADs. In the US healthcare system, coverage for OADs is less favorable than coverage for injectable anticancer drugs. In 2006, a Cancer Drug Coverage Parity Act was adopted by several states in order to provide patients with better coverage for OADs. Nonetheless, the complexity of reimbursement systems and multiple reimbursement channels from private insurance represent real economic barriers which may prevent patients with low income being treated with OADs. From an organizational perspective, in both countries the use of OADs generates additional activities related to physician consultations, therapeutic education and healthcare coordination between hospitals and community settings, which are not considered in the funding of hospitals activities so far.Funding of healthcare services is a critical factor influencing in part the choice of cancer treatments and this is expected to become increasingly important as economic constraints grow. Drug reimbursement systems and hospital financing changes, coupled with other accompanying measures, should contribute to improve equal and safe patient access to appropriate anticancer drugs and improve the management and care pathway of cancer patients.
Aim Real-world data on treatment patterns/outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, while scarce, are useful for health technology assessments that govern patient access in many countries. We collected retrospective data on treatment patterns among patients in France, Germany and the UK with Stage IIIB/IIIC melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement, whose primary melanoma and regional lymph node metastases had been completely resected. Methods Patients ≥18 years were diagnosed between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2011. Data were obtained from patients' medical records and a patient survey. Results Forty-nine centres provided data on 558 patients: 53.6% had Stage IIIB disease; 58.2% were of working age (<65 years), 22.5% reported a change in employment status due to melanoma, 8% were on long-term sick leave; and 35.1% were deceased over the study period. Overall median distant metastases-free survival was 23.4 months and median disease-free survival was 13.3 months. Hospitalisation frequency increased during distant metastatic/terminal disease phases. Adjuvant therapy was received by 7.0% (14/199) of patients in France, 2.6% (5/195) in the UK, and 33.5% (55/164) in Germany. Low-dose interferon was used more frequently than other regimens. High-dose interferon was associated with discontinuation in 28.6% and dose delay/reduction in 33.3% of patients. Conclusions Rapid disease progression combined with increased use of healthcare resources in later phases of disease result in a high burden-of-illness for patients and healthcare providers. The use of adjuvant interferon therapy varies considerably in this population in the countries studied, highlighting the need for improved treatments for melanoma.
e17531 Background: Chemotherapy (CT), targeted therapy (TT), and immunotherapy (IT), which are commonly used in the treatment of metastatic melanoma (MM), frequently cause adverse effects (AEs). This study estimated the per-event costs and total cost burden associated with managing the most common and/or severe AEs for these 3 treatment categories from the French health insurance system perspective. Methods: The study involved a literature review to evaluate the incidence and types of AEs associated with the 3 treatment categories. A total of 29 AEs (CT:11; TT:11; and IT:7), all-severity grades (Gr) occurring in >20% or Gr 3/4 occurring in >5%, were selected. Medical resource use related to the management of AEs was assessed by conducting 2 blinded Delphi panel cycles, with 3 clinician interviews covering CT, 4 for TT, and 3 for IT. Published unit costs were used to estimate the costs per AE and then combined with AE incidence (assuming 1 occurrence/patient/cycle), treatment usage, and 1-year prevalence of MM at diagnosis (381 cases) to estimate the treatment burden in France for a single occurrence of each AE. Results: The top 2 cost-intensive AEs within each treatment category are presented in the Table. The top 5 AEs across all 3 treatment categories contributing most to the burden for the whole population (assuming single occurrence) were all Gr 3/4 and included SCC (mean total cost of €46,243), thrombocytopenia (€17,248), colitis (€14,916), neutropenia/leukopenia (€13,267), rash (€12,751), and diarrhea (€11,354). Conclusions: Costs associated with the management of AEs for MM therapies can be substantial. The total burden may be underestimated since it does not account for AE recurrence and excludes patients diagnosed with local disease but progressing to metastatic disease. Treatment category and Gr 3/4 adverse effects Cost of each occurrence, € Mean ± SD Range Chemotherapy Anaphylaxis 2728.01 ± 28.20 2708.07-2747.95 Peripheral neuropathy 1941.16 ± 2673.32 50.84-3831.48 Targeted therapy Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) 1502.26 ± 2544.57 20.67-5301.47 Rash 1070.98 ± 1111.27 365.67-2729.01 Immunotherapy Colitis 3755.42 ± 342.55 3383.71-4058.37 Diarrhea 2699.91 ± 1098.41 2054.38-3968.18
New adjuvant treatments are being developed for patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Due to scarcity of real-world data available for treatment costs and resource utilization, health technology and cost-effectiveness assessments can be limited. We estimated the burden and cost-of-illness associated with completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC in France, Germany and the United Kingdom (UK).Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC between August 2009 and July 2012. Patients (living or deceased) were enrolled at clinical sites by a systematic sampling method. Data were obtained from medical records and patient surveys. Direct, indirect and patient out-of-pocket expenses were estimated by multiplying resource use by country-specific unit costs. National annual costs were estimated based on disease prevalence data available from published sources.39 centers provided data from 831 patients of whom patient surveys were evaluable in 306 patients. Median follow-up was 26 months. The mean total direct costs per patient during follow-up were: €19,057 (France), €14,185 (Germany), and €8377 (UK). The largest cost drivers were associated with therapies received (€12,375 France; €3694 UK), and hospitalization/emergency costs (€7706 Germany). Monthly direct costs per patient were the highest during the distant metastasis/terminal illness phase in France (€15,562) and Germany (€6047) and during the adjuvant treatment period in the UK (€2790). Estimated mean total indirect costs per patient were: €696 (France), €2476 (Germany), and €1414 (UK). Estimates for the annual national direct cost were €478.4 million (France), €574.6 million (Germany) and €325.8 million (UK).To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive study describing the burden of illness for patients with completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. The economic burden was substantial in all three countries. Treatment of NSCLC is associated with large annual national costs, mainly incurred during disease progression.
To evaluate real-world efficacy, safety, and treatment patterns with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) in diabetic macular edema (DME) in France.In this prospective, multicenter, observational, noncomparative, post-reimbursement study, consecutively enrolled patients with DME had a baseline evaluation on day 0. Those treated with DEX on day 0 were to be reevaluated at week 6 and months 6, 12, 18, and 24. DEX retreatment and/or alternative therapies were allowed during follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the maximum best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain from baseline during follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included time to maximum BCVA gain, patients (%) with prespecified BCVA gains from baseline at each visit, maximum central retinal thickness (CRT) reduction from baseline, patients (%) with CRT reduction ≥ 20% from baseline at each visit, patients (%) with DME resolution (per investigator judgement), and adverse events (AEs).Of 112 patients/eyes with DME for 3.5 years (mean) at baseline, 80 (including 86.1% previously treated) received DEX on day 0 and were analyzed for efficacy. Early study termination precluded collection of ≥ 12-month efficacy data. Patients received 1.4 DEX injections over 8.3 months (averages). The maximum BCVA gain from baseline was 3.6 letters, reached after 77.2 days (averages); 24.6% (week 6) and 15.0% (month 6) of patients experienced ≥ 10-letter BCVA gains from baseline. The mean maximum CRT reduction from baseline was -146.4 µm; 61.4% (week 6) and 36.0% (month 6) of patients had CRT reductions ≥ 20% from baseline, and 68.1% reported DME resolution at least once during follow-up. Ocular hypertension (n = 8, 12.1%) was the most frequent treatment-related AE.LOUVRE 3 confirmed that DEX improves BCVA and CRT, even in a patient population that had predominantly received DEX before enrollment in the study, and showed that DME resolution was observed during follow-up. DEX tolerability was consistent with published data, supporting treatment benefits in DME.NCT03003416.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)