Differences in Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios for Common Versus Rare Conditions: A Case from Oncology

Kavisha Jayasundara (), Murray Krahn, Muhammad Mamdani, Jeffrey Hoch and Paul Grootendorst
Additional contact information
Kavisha Jayasundara: University of Toronto
Murray Krahn: University of Toronto
Muhammad Mamdani: University of Toronto

PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2017, vol. 1, issue 3, No 3, 167-173

Abstract: Abstract Background Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are used to assess the value for money of new drugs. Many believe that ICERs for drugs that treat rare diseases are much higher than those of common drugs. Our objective was to compare the proportion of ICERs that are cost effective for rare and common cancers. Methods We used the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry to identify cost-effectiveness studies of pharmaceutical interventions for cancers. Studies that assessed FDA-approved ‘orphan drugs’ were categorized as assessing rare cancers. The proportion of common and rare cancer drugs that were cost effective at various ICER thresholds were compared along with study characteristics. Logistic regressions were conducted to assess important predictors of cost effectiveness. Results We identified 303 studies that reported 701 ICERs. Seventy nine percent (n = 240) of studies evaluated drugs for common cancers. At a threshold of US$50,000/QALY, 58% (n = 321) of ICERs for drugs treating common cancers and 64% (n = 94) of ICERs for drugs treating rare cancers were cost effective (p = 0.23). At US$100,000/QALY, 74% (n = 409) of ICERs for common cancers and 78% (n = 115) of ICERs for rare cancers were cost effective (p = 0.35). Results from the logistic regressions demonstrated that rarity was not a statistically significant predictor of cost effectiveness at both thresholds with publication year, study sponsorship, and cancer type as covariates. Conclusions The proportion of ICERs that were cost effective at both thresholds does not appear to be significantly different between the two groups. Rarity is not statistically significantly associated with cost effectiveness, even when adjusted for important covariates.

Keywords: Rare Disease; Health Technology Assessment; Orphan Drug; Rare Cancer; Rare Group (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-017-0022-7 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-017-0022-7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/41669

DOI: 10.1007/s41669-017-0022-7

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics - Open is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics - Open from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().